RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://spectator.org/inflation-cools-off-media-hardest-hit/

The general consensus among informed political analysts is that the Republicans emerged from last November’s election in control of the White House and Congress due to the border crisis and persistent inflation. The Trump administration curtailed the influx of illegal immigrants with remarkable speed and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for March suggests that inflation is also returning to the modest levels that prevailed throughout President Trump’s first term. The CPI declined by .01 percent last month, a year-over-year rate of 2.4 percent, while core inflation sank to a four-year low.

The cure for inflation required no legislative crackdown on price-gouging. All we really needed was a new president.

Moreover, wholesale prices also decreased in March. According to the Producer Price Index (PPI) report, an important indicator of future inflation pressure, “Prices for final demand goods moved down 0.9 percent in March, the largest decrease since falling 1.4 percent in October 2023.” These PPI statistics, combined with the CPI numbers, clearly portend a brighter future for long suffering consumers and the nation’s economy in general. But the legacy media are loathe to report good news if it reflects well on the new Trump administration. Instead, they search for some black cloud to tarnish every silver lining, and subject the electorate to the kind of fear mongering that pervades the following passage from a story published by the Washington Post:

As consumers and businesses face widespread uncertainty around the Trump administration’s whipsawing trade policies, a widely followed survey from the University of Michigan found that consumers’ expectations for the next year’s inflation jumped to 6.7 percent, the highest reading since 1981. It’s the fourth consecutive month that consumer sentiment has worsened, as people across demographics say they believe unemployment and inflation will get substantially worse.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/04/15/can-trump-fix-his-fubar-tariff-rollout/

So far, President Donald Trump has been piloting his second term like Maverick from “Top Gun.” With one exception. The tariff rollout has been FUBAR, which is troubling since it’s Trump’s signature economic policy issue.

There have been glaring missteps along the way, repeated pauses, confused and conflicting messaging, turf wars. It’s draining public support and causing real economic problems as businesses can’t make plans while all this is in flux.

We aren’t privy to insider gossip to speculate why this is. But we can say that Trump needs to get his tariff act together, and fast.

Consider what has transpired in just the past two weeks:

Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcement turned out to be a disaster. Not just because an island inhabited only by penguins was listed as a trade abuser, but because it quickly became apparent that the math used to set tariff rates made no sense.

While Trump called the tariffs reciprocal, they weren’t. They were instead based on trade imbalances with other nations, which even Trump supporters pointed out is a flawed metric.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/04/the_fbi_knew_all_along.html

You do not have to wade far into the recently declassified Crossfire Hurricane documents to be shocked.  I had only read three pages of the FBI’s December 19, 2016 interview with the DoJ’s Bruce Ohr before learning just how early in the game the FBI brass knew that the Steele dossier was worthless.

In the way of background, on July 31, 2016, the FBI launched its counterintelligence operation into the Trump campaign, codenamed “Crossfire Hurricane.”  FBI agent Peter Strzok was assigned to head it up.

If the goal was to cripple Trump regardless of the evidence, Strzok was the man for the job.  “Damn this feels momentous,” he texted his lover, FBI attorney Lisa Page, upon getting the assignment.  Two weeks later he explained to Page his motives.  “There’s no way [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” he texted her.  “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

Ohr played a curious role in the whole affair.  He served as unofficial DoJ contact with the notorious Christopher Steele, the author of the eponymous Steele dossier.  According to Ohr, the two met for breakfast on the same day the FBI launched Crossfire Hurricane.  Steele wanted to discuss some “serious stuff” involving low-level Trump adviser Carter Page.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/04/14/if-u-s-gets-hit-by-recession-will-voters-blame-trump-or-biden-ii-tipp-poll/

Both online and print media are full of talk about an economic recession, one that’s either already here or ready to hit. How much of the recession angst is driven by the media? Are Americans worried about a recession now, and if so, who will get the blame? The I&I/TIPP Poll sought answers to these questions in its April survey.

The national online poll, taken by 1,452 adults from March 26 to March 28, first asked this:

“A recession is traditionally defined as two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. In 2022, this happened — but many in the media denied it was a recession under President Biden. Was the media justified or not?”

Among those taking the poll, 31% responded “Yes, other factors meant it wasn’t truly a recession,” while 34% selected “No, they covered for Biden despite meeting the definition.” A significant number — 23% — answered “I didn’t follow it closely,” while 10% said the were “Not sure.”

But, as usual, political affiliation (a key determinant in past surveys of how people feel about media bias overall) shows significant differences.

Among Democrats, 43% said the Biden downturn wasn’t a recession, while just 28% of Republicans and 22% of independents agreed. Meanwhile, only 18% of Democrats felt the media “covered” for Biden, versus 51% of Republicans and 35% of independents.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/04/democrats_trade_morality_for_madness.html

New York City has a mayoral election later this year, and the two leading candidates right now are former governor Andrew Cuomo and a state assemblyman named Zohran Mamdani.  The latter has gained traction in the polls by promising to build city-run grocery stores that “will operate without profit motive” in order to combat “the outrageous price of groceries.”  Leave it to the residents of Gotham to pin their hopes on either the guy who turned nursing homes into COVID death traps or a proud communist who is blithely unaware of the Soviet Union’s history with breadlines.  

In response to Mamdani’s plan for government-run grocery stores, John Catsimatidis — the über-successful owner of New York’s Gristedes and D’Agostino food chains — has offered the mayoral candidate one of his supermarkets to test his ideas in practice.  The offer comes with one stipulation: The city must eat all shoplifting costs.  

Mamdani does not appear eager to accept Catsimatidis’s proposal.  After all, New York City is in the middle of a shoplifting crisis today, and mayoral-wannabe Mamdani wants to replace traditional policing with a “Department of Community Safety” that empowers “dedicated outreach workers” to handle “the failures of our social safety net.” 

Something tells me that Mamdani’s vision for New York will turn grocery shopping into even more of a nightmare.  His city-run stores will become magnets for mass theft, and responding community “outreach workers” will be more concerned with criminals’ “preferred pronouns” than stopping armed robberies.  Shelves will be empty.  Food prices will go up.  New York City’s budget problems will get exponentially worse.  It’s all entirely predictable, but plenty of Democrats will vote for this government-engineered catastrophe anyway.

Chalk this up to Democrats’ persistent unwillingness to live within the outer perimeters of reality.  When they see grocery prices rise, they blame “greedy” business owners.  When those business owners explain that out-of-control shoplifting is a major cost responsible for price increases, Democrats insist that insurance covers such losses.  When business owners explain that insurance rates have spiked as a result, Democrats blame “greedy” insurance companies.  For a political party obsessed with diagnosing the “root causes” of every societal problem, the Democrat party sure is incapable of connecting the dots between runaway crime and business closures.

https://amgreatness.com/2025/04/12/trump-trade-and-the-tragedy-of-the-working-class/

Last month marked the 60th anniversary of the first serious attempt on the part of social scientists to analyze and evaluate the collapse of the traditional family in American society. On March 1, 1965, the U.S. Department of Labor released a report written by then-Assistant Secretary (and future Senator) Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D, NY) on the dissolution of black families in America. That report, “The Negro Family:  The Case for National Action,” was both groundbreaking and enormously controversial. Sixty years later, the study remains groundbreaking. However, its conclusions are, sadly, no longer especially controversial, having been corroborated by endless data spanning decades and extending to every race, culture, and creed in the country. At some point, the rescue of the American family will either become a serious and urgent focus of societal action, or it will prove the undoing of the great American experiment.

Among other things, Moynihan noted in his report the existence and the pervasiveness of black poverty and the correlation between that poverty and the breakdown of the black nuclear family. In an attempt to explain why black economic advancement lagged behind both political advancement and the economic fortunes of other ethnic groups, Moynihan examined reams of data and endless studies on black family life. And what he found—a paradox which came to be known as “Moynihan’s Scissors”—was” that welfare and male unemployment in the black community no longer appeared to be nearly perfectly correlated, as they were in the past and in other populations.

As it turned out, male unemployment was diverging from welfare outlays because the family was breaking down. In other words, welfare made it possible for women—black women, in this case—to survive and raise their children without the children’s father present in the home. In turn, the absence of the father from the home became necessary for the collection of welfare. A vicious circle had been created, and it was exacerbating black poverty tremendously.

https://amgreatness.com/2025/04/11/paying-a-heavy-cost-for-going-after-a-tax-cheat-named-hunter-biden/

This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.

Joe Ziegler is not a beaten man – not for his antagonists’ lack of trying. Across his seven-year pursuit of Hunter Biden’s unpaid taxes, Ziegler, a special agent in the Internal Revenue Service’s criminal investigative division, and his colleague Gary Shapley were shunned, threatened, and lied to. Ziegler was doxed. Shapley was told to accept a demotion or resign. Convinced the IRS and Department of Justice were stonewalling their efforts to bring charges against a sitting president’s son, the agents went public as whistleblowers in 2023.

The result, during the hyper-polarized years spanning the Trump-to-Biden-to-Trump administrations, was predictable: The two men were accused of partisanship, lambasted by Democratic members of Congress and the press, and had their reputations impugned by high-powered lawyers paid for by those sympathetic to the Bidens.

The fortunes of these political victims have now turned. In mid-March, incoming Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced Ziegler and Shapley would start work as senior advisers, helping to guide tax reform.

Which is all the agents had ever wanted and tried to do. “At the end of the day, this is truly about doing the right thing and standing up for what is right,” Ziegler would testify before the House Ways & Means Committee in December 2023. “I will say this again and again, this is much bigger than the Hunter Biden investigation. This was not a personal attack on Hunter Biden, but a call for change.”

While the reprisals they say they endured for their acts of conscience appear to have ended, Ziegler and Shapely do not want their experience to be memory-holed – especially because other whistleblowers who spoke out during the Biden administration have received less attention for their tribulations. Speaking with RealClearInvestigations recently, the two men gave their first in-depth interviews on the years-long case that upended their lives and careers.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/elon-musk-tesla-takedown-protests-activists

Last month, a wave of more than 200 protests targeting Tesla properties erupted across the United States. The media portrayed this movement, officially branded the “Tesla Takedown,” as a spontaneous grassroots backlash against CEO Elon Musk’s role in dismantling waste and fraud in the U.S. federal bureaucracy. Each of these demonstrations appears to have been sparsely attended, but both the number of protest sites and the timeline of events suggest a coordinated effort.

On February 21, Rolling Stone published an article by activist-filmmaker Alex Winter describing the genesis of the Tesla Takedown protest campaign. Within two weeks of its publication, multiple Tesla properties were attacked with incendiary devices, and three men were arrested for separate attempts to firebomb Tesla locations in Salem, Oregon; Loveland, Colorado; and Charleston, South Carolina.

If the mainstream press accounts—as well as Winter’s own description—are to be believed, the fire-bombings and protests were unrelated. When mentioning the protests at all in the context of the violence, some outlets described them only as “dozens of peaceful protests at Tesla dealerships and factories.” Stories did not touch on how, more often than not, violent and nonviolent tactics reinforce one another and work toward the same ends.

A closer look suggests that Tesla is the latest target of an activist and organizing ecosystem that the Left has built over decades. That infrastructure manufactures, amplifies, and strategically uses protests and “direct actions” to force concessions or policy change. These direct actions range from nonviolent (sit-ins or flash mobs) to violent (arson, harassment, or even assassination), all meant to focus attention through the drama of real-world confrontation. The goal is to bypass the normal channels of democratic decision-making, obtaining desired ends through minoritarian pressure campaigns.