Democrats hope to press the "affordability" issue in this year's midterm election season, but there'…
CFIF on X CFIF on YouTube
Inflation: Comparing Trump and Biden...

Democrats hope to press the "affordability" issue in this year's midterm election season, but there's one potentially glaring problem for them, as illustrated by our friends at Unleash Prosperity...

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="668"] Biden Versus Trump on Inflation[/caption]

 …[more]

August 17, 2026 • 04:40 PM
Home Jester's Courtroom Swear It Isn’t So
Swear It Isn’t So Print
Thursday, January 08 2009

Hamilton County (Ohio) Judge Robert Ruehlman is fed up with swearing in his courtroom and he is doing something about it. 

On consecutive days, Judge Ruehlman sentenced two individuals to six months in jail for swearing in his courtroom.  Not the swearing in of a party or witness, but rather cuss words from an individual.

First, it was an accused gang member.  Unhappy with having to wait in jail for several more weeks until his trial, accused gang member Jamel Sechrest muttered “That’s (bleeping) bull (bleep).”  “You don’t say bull (bleep) in the courtroom,” Ruehlman told Sechrest before citing him for contempt and sentencing him to six months in jail.

The following day, attorney Michael Brautigam was before the court as his own attorney when he called his opposing counsel “a (bleeping) liar.”  After admitting to the judge what he said under his breath, Brautigam was cited for contempt and sent to jail for six months.  “I had to give him six months because I gave the other guy six months,” Ruehlman said.

“Judge Ruehlman absolutely did the right thing by attempting to maintain order, civility and decorum in his courtroom.  Attorney Brautigam has been discourteous and disrespectful to judges, lawyers and litigants in our community on more than one occasion,” said opposing counsel Peter Koenig.

—Source:  Cincinnati Enquirer

Notable Quote   
 
"The Supreme Court on Monday handed an initial win to the Trump administration in its effort to implement an executive order aimed at limiting who can receive mail-in ballots ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.At issue are provisions that seek to create a federal list of eligible voters and order the U.S. Postal Service to deliver ballots only to eligible voters.The justices, divided 6-3, granted…[more]
 
 
— Lawrence Hurley, NBC News
 
Liberty Poll   

Given proper zoning and appropriate regulation, do you support or oppose the construction and operation of a data center near you?