RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/bidens-inner-trudeau-on-guns-he-seems-to-be-operating-under-the-wrong-constitution/ar-AAXXT89

In our increasingly hateful and divisive politics, there are times when our nation seems incapable of coming together for a common purpose. Tragedies — moments of shared national grieving and mutual support — once were the exception. Yet one of the most chilling aspects of the aftermath of the school massacre in Uvalde, Texas, was how the moment of unity was quickly lost to political posturing.

Politicians have long admitted that a crisis is an opportunity not to be missed — the greater the tragedy, the greater the opportunity. After the mass shooting at a Buffalo supermarket, New York’s Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) called for censorship to “silence the voices of hatred and racism.” After the Uvalde massacre, some Democrats renewed calls for everything from court packing to ending the Senate filibuster.

The most immediate response, however, was a call for gun bans. Vice President Kamala Harris got out front of the White House by demanding a ban on AR-15s, the most popular weapon in America. Then President Joe Biden created a stir by suggesting he might seek to ban 9mm weapons.

Such calls are not limited to the United States. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that his government is introducing legislation to “implement a national freeze on handgun ownership.” He said Canadians would no longer be able “to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns anywhere in Canada,” adding that “there is no reason anyone in Canada should need guns in their everyday lives.”

The difference between the push in the two countries is the existence of the Second Amendment in the United States — a constitutionally mandated “reason” why Americans are allowed to have guns; they don’t have to prove it to the government.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/05/31/concha_pro-clinton_dc_jury_acquitting_sussmann_another_black_eye_for_the_justice_system.html

JOE CONCHA: Well, Donald Trump got 5.4% of the vote in Washington D.C. in 2020. Right? The fact that this jury was going to be sympathetic and friendly to Hillary Clinton’s campaign lawyer, is not surprising, especially when that jury had Clinton donors on it.

I’m telling you, our faith in institutions just took another big hit as a result of this. This is a whole bowl of wrong.

Very frustrating to see, you have a man who peddled a lie to the FBI — a lie that he was going there as a concerned citizen. Then he turns around and bills the Clinton campaign for that visit to his friend James Baker. What else do you need?

This jury was pre-dispositioned to have a not-guilty verdict. Another black eye for the justice system.

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/3507723-its-biden-v-inflation-and-bidens-losing/

President Biden wants Americans to know: Curbing inflation is his top, top, top priority.

He recently penned an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal with this headline: “My Plan for Fighting Inflation.” The plan didn’t contain much new in the anti-inflation category, but it did contain a red alert, which may have been the point.

The piece prepared the public for an economic slowdown, the likely result of the Federal Reserve’s commitment to reining in its reckless monetary policy. Biden warns that in coming months “growth will look different” and forecasts that job gains will drop from recent monthly totals of 500,000 or so and head lower, to maybe about 150,000.

This will not be “cause for concern,” Biden writes, “it will be a sign that we are successfully moving into the next phase of recovery…”

The last thing Americans were told not to worry about was inflation, so that advisory gives us pause. It was last July – when the Consumer Price Index came in at 0.9 percent, significantly higher than the prior month’s 0.6 percent price increase – that Biden gave an address celebrating the bang-up job he had done in his first six months in office.

He assured us: “Some folks have raised worries that this could be a sign of persistent inflation. But that’s not our view. Our experts believe and the data shows that most of the price increases we’ve seen are — were expected and expected to be temporary.”

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2022/05/they-wont-glow-or-seek-to-know/

“The Left’s complexity fetish infects all social and political realms. To test this, mention nuclear power to one of your bolshie friends and brace for a blizzard of convoluted objections that can claim no more than a nodding acquaintance with logic or fact. After that aural ordeal, eyes glazed and verging on narcolepsy, you won’t dare ask when it became official than men can have babies.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/05/to_no_ones_surprise_a_dc_jury_acquitted_michael_sussmann.html

Most savvy court watchers were completely unsurprised yesterday when a jury in the District of Columbia acquitted Michael Sussmann, a Perkins Coie attorney, who was charged with lying to the FBI on Hillary’s behalf in support of the Russia hoax. After all, juries routinely rule against Republicans and for Democrats in the D.C. district, the judge couldn’t have made his partisanship more clear, and the jury had a good helping of hardcore Hillary supporters. In other words, the fix was in the moment the case was filed. What was more newsworthy than a predictable verdict was the way the case showed just how corrupt the FBI and the district court are.

The news about the verdict is simple:

A Washington, D.C., jury acquitted former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann of lying to the FBI on Tuesday in the first legal test of special counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy theory.

Sussmann was charged with lying to the FBI during a September 2016 meeting with former FBI general counsel James Baker. Sussmann pleaded not guilty to the charges, arguing that he never lied to the FBI, and even if he did, the lie did not impact the FBI’s operations at all. Sussmann decided last week against testifying in his own defense.

The evidence was clear, though, that Sussmann told the FBI’s general counsel he wasn’t representing anyone when he was, in fact, representing Hillary.