RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/david-manney/2025/08/21/after-decades-of-scandals-hillary-finally-faces-a-ticket-she-cant-dodge-n4942909

The Long Drive Without a Ticket

Some drivers tempt fate for years, rolling through stop signs, cruising above the speed limit, and coasting through red lights, yet still never see flashing lights in their rearview mirrors. 

That describes Hillary Clinton’s story. 

From the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas to the corridors of Washington, she has been navigating the political arena, driving in the wrong direction on one-way streets, avoiding being pulled over, yet never receiving a ticket.

She’s muddied the waters by generating swirls of “stuff,” sometimes not so thick, other times so thick that a fork could remain vertical in the water.

Suddenly, an ethics complaint in Arkansas over her law license might lead to her finally getting pulled over after decades of FA; she might finally receive a dose, no matter how light, of FO.

1970s-1980s: Early Deals, Early Questions

At the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s career began with promise and power, establishing a reputation as a capable lawyer and a future first lady of the state. Yet the seeds of controversy began sprouting in soil well fertilized by bulls.

Want to make an easy $100,000 from a $1,000? Follow the example of Hillary, who turned that $1,000 into $100,000 with an investment in cattle futures within a year. How? Who knows, economists and traders were stumped, calling it statistically implausible for a rookie to achieve such a feat.

Clinton’s friends in the commodities market were suspected of smoothing the path for success, yet regulators turned a blind eye, while Hillary referred to it as a shrewd investment and moved on.

Meanwhile, both Clintons embarked on the Whitewater Development Corporation, where allegations of cronyism and political manipulation marred a land deal. The project had collapsed by the time investigators began reviewing records in the 1990s.

Hillary’s billing records, “missing” for two years, magically appeared in the White House residence after a subpoena. No charges, license suspensions, legal rebukes, simply another warning instead of receiving a moving violation.

Hillary walked into the 1990s with the same unblemished professional record and license, and critics called it a case of déjà vu. 

The cop, parked behind the billboard, clocked her speed and sat there, finishing his donut.

1990s: Whitewater, Travelgate, and the “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy”

Bill Clinton moved into the White House with Hillary’s controversies following close behind. Whitewater escalated from a state-level issue into a national one, with hearings in Congress followed by extensive media coverage. Hillary’s role at the Rose Law Firm came under further scrutiny, as her professional work overlapped with her land ventures. Despite all the suspicions, nothing could be proved, neither intent nor personal gain.

The court of public opinion bruised her reputation, which remained intact.

Then came Travelgate, the abrupt firing of seven White House Travel Office employees in 1993, which raised alarms about cronyism. Critics determined that Hillary directed the purge to install loyalists. Investigations suggested that her fingerprints were present, but that was where it ended, with her denying wrongdoing, and the matter faded again.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/trumps-smithsonian-restoration/

The Left has been wringing its hands this past week after Trump recently ordered a “comprehensive internal review” of several Smithsonian museums to ensure that the 178-year-old institution, captured by the Left, removes its relentless anti-American propaganda and provides some balance in its exhibitions and materials.

In an Aug. 12 letter from the White House to the Smithsonian’s woke chief, Dr. Lonnie G. Bunch III, the White House stated:

As we prepare to celebrate the 250th anniversary of our Nation’s founding, it is more important than ever that our national museums reflect the unity, progress, and enduring values that define the American story.

The review is to help the administration “support a broader vision of excellence that highlights historically accurate, uplifting, and inclusive portrayals of America’s heritage.”

The letter cited one of Trump’s executive orders from March, “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” which bluntly called out the Left’s “revisionist movement… to undermine the remarkable achievements of the United States by casting its founding principles and historical milestones in a negative light” – especially as manifested at the Smithsonian. That E.O. noted that the museum complex had, “in recent years, come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology” promoting “narratives that portray American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive.”

The ”recent years” under which that influence grew happen to coincide with the tenure of Lonnie G. Bunch III, who took over as the Secretary of the Smithsonian in 2019. Prior to that, he was the founding director of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture, which is nearly exclusively focused on the legacy of slavery, with exhibits such as “In Slavery’s Wake,” “Slavery and Freedom,” and “Make Good the Promise.”

You may remember that it was also in 2019 that the Smithsonian collaborated with the New York Times on its historical revisionist 1619 Project, which falsely asserts that the United States’ founding was grounded not in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all, but in racism and enslavement.

And then there was the 2020 controversy over a racist “whiteness” chart displayed in an online portal at Bunch’s National Museum of African American History and Culture, a chart that identified such traits as hard work and rational thought as being “white.” An accompanying graphic stated, in part,

White dominant culture, or whiteness, refers to the ways white people and their traditions, attitudes, and ways of life have been normalized over time and are now considered standard practices in the United States.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/08/22/the-light-shines-on-another-obama-scandal/

Weren’t we assured that Barack Obama went “into and out of office with not a whiff of scandal”? Yes we were. Former Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen told us so, as did many others. But it wasn’t true. There are many, the most recent a claim that Obama, and then Joe Biden, pressured bank executives to deny services to conservatives. It’s a serious charge that, like the Russia hoax, makes Watergate look like a sandbox squabble.

Here’s what we’ve learned: Acccording to Fox Business, major bank executives said “they were under pressure by the Obama and Biden administrations to deny services to individuals and businesses for political reasons.”

One executive said the “pressures were very, very real. When your regulator gives you a suggestion, it’s not a suggestion, it’s an order. The political stuff is very real, those pressures are real.”

This is known as “political debanking” and is “the involuntary termination of banking services to individuals and organizations based on their political or religious views,” says Todd J. Zywicki, a professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, who further “argues that access to financial services is a prerequisite for exercising constitutional rights.”

Zywicki’s March paper “traces the rise of political debanking from the Obama administration’s Operation Choke Point, which targeted disfavored industries under the guise of ‘reputation risk.’” It was expanded under Biden administration, during which “Melania Trump and Michael Flynn faced account closures for their political stances.”

Other “high-profile cases” included “the cancellation of accounts tied to Donald Trump Jr.’s events and the National Committee for Religious Freedom,” and “illustrate a growing weaponization of the financial system to suppress dissent.” 

Operation Choke Point was a creation of the Obama Justice Department. Its mission was “to ‘choke out’ companies the administration considers a ‘high risk’ or otherwise objectionable, despite the fact that they are legal businesses,” says a House Oversight Committee report. “The goal of the initiative is to deny these merchants access to the banking and payments networks that every business needs to survive.”