RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm-plus/californias-perfect-dictatorship/

Mario Vargas Llosa, who passed away in April at the age of 89, won the Nobel Prize for literature in 2010. Ten years earlier, the Peruvian novelist (The Time of the Hero, Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter, The War of the End of the World ) gained global attention for speaking the truth to power. In a 1990 conference organized by Octavio Paz, Vargas Llosa proclaimed that “la dictadura perfecta” was not communism, the USSR or Fidel Castro. The “perfect dictatorship” was Mexico.

As the Peruvian understood, a dictatorship is not a nation where there are no elections. A dictatorship is a country where one party never loses, and the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) dominated Mexico since the 1920s. In a practice known as el dedazo, PRI presidents picked their successors, following up their choice with fake elections. In the US state of California, Democrats have established a perfect dictatorship of their own.

Democrats have been in power in Sacramento since 2011 and now hold all major elected offices: Governor (Gavin Newsom), Lt. Gov (Eleni Kounalakis), Secretary of State (Shirley Weber), Attorney General (Rob Bonta), State Treasurer (Fiona Ma) State Controller (Malia Cohen), Insurance Commissioner (Ricardo Lara), and Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond. Like all state Democrats, these officials enjoy the support of an imported electorate.

For years, Pew Research pegged the number of illegals in the United States at 11 million. A recent study by scholars at MIT and Yale – conducted before the massive influx under Biden – estimated more than 22 million. So the 11 million figure likely underestimates the number in California alone. In 2019, when state attorney Xavier Becerra announced a lawsuit against the Trump administration, he displayed a sign citing “over ten million immigrants” in California – “immigrants” being code for false-documented persons illegally present in the USA. With illegals, California’s approach has been two steps forward, no steps back.

Under California’s “motor voter” scheme, the DMV automatically registers illegals to vote when they get their driver’s license.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/07/03/who-is-proud-to-be-an-american/

The headlines this week have blared about how pride in America has plunged under President Donald Trump. But the Gallup Poll driving all these stories paints a very different picture from the headlines.

What the data actually show is that, not only did pride among Democrats plunge this year, it has been falling for them over the past 23 years – even when the sainted Barack Obama was in the White House.  

In Obama’s first year in office, 78% of Democrats said they were “extremely or very proud” to be an American. But by his last year in office, that share had dropped to 68%.

Not surprisingly, given their hatred of Donald Trump, Democrats’ pride then plunged during Trump’s first term. But even under Joe Biden, only 62% of Democrats could bring themselves to say they were proud to be an American.The Democrats’ growing disdain for their country aligns perfectly with their increasing radicalization – a trend we have been noting here at I&I for years (see, for example, “Don’t Be Surprised By Democrats’ Radical Turn – Fanaticism Is In Their DNA“) and before that at Investor’s Business Daily.

And the fact that only 36% of them say they are proud to be an American today says less about Donald Trump than it does about just how pusillanimous their pride in this country has become.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm-plus/scotus-curbs-abuse-of-power-by-activist-district-court-judges/

On June 27th, the Supreme Court struck a significant blow against the tyranny of progressive federal district court judges who have used nationwide universal injunctions to tread on the authority of the Executive Branch. Multiple activist district court judges in mostly liberal jurisdictions have taken it upon themselves to bar the government from implementing President Trump’s executive orders anywhere in the nation. These judges have not limited the relief they granted only to the persons or entities who were parties to the original lawsuit. The universal injunctions were designed to provide relief to nonparties as well.

As a result, President Trump’s executive orders have been blocked nationwide on policy matters ranging from downsizing the Executive Branch and cutting federal spending to deportation and barring transgender males from competing in female sports.

Writing the opinion for a 6-3 majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett explained that such nationwide universal injunctions issued by individual district court judges “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.” The Court ruled that “The Government’s applications to partially stay the preliminary injunctions are granted, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”

The underlying dispute that prompted this case involved the extent to which President Trump’s executive order prohibiting birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants’ babies born on U.S. soil violates the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. However, The Supreme Court did not reach a decision on the merits of this constitutional issue, which remains to be resolved at another time. The majority in this case focused on the threshold issue of whether individual district court judges have the extraordinarily broad authority to grant plaintiffs’ requests for unrestricted nationwide universal injunctions against implementation and enforcement of executive orders. Justice Barrett’s majority opinion concluded that these judges do not have the authority to grant “such a sweeping remedy.”

https://victorhanson.com/the-decline-and-fall-of-our-so-called-degreed-experts/

The first six months of the Trump administration have not been kind to the experts and the degree-holding classes.

Almost daily during the tariff hysterias of March, we were told by university economists and most of the PhDs employed in investment and finance that the U.S. was headed toward a downward, if not recessionary, spiral.

Most economists lectured that trade deficits did not really matter. Or they insisted that the cures to reduce them were worse than the $1.1 trillion deficit itself.

They reminded us that free, rather than fair, trade alone ensured prosperity.

So, the result of Trump’s foolhardy tariff talk would be an impending recession. America would soon suffer rising joblessness, inflation—or rather a return to stagflation—and likely little, if any, increase in tariff revenue as trade volume declined.

Instead, recent data show increases in tariff revenue. Personal real income and savings were up. Job creation exceeded prognoses. There was no surge in inflation. The supposedly “crashed” stock market reached historic highs.

Common-sense Americans might not have been surprised. The prior stock market frenzy was predicated on what was, in theory, supposed to have happened rather than what was likely to occur. After all, if tariffs were so toxic and surpluses irrelevant, why did our affluent European and Asian trading rivals insist on both surpluses and protective tariffs?

Most Americans recalled that the mere threat of tariffs and Trump’s jawboning had led to several trillion dollars in promised foreign investment and at least some plans to relocate manufacturing and assembly back to the United States. Would that change in direction not lead to business optimism and eventually more jobs? Would countries purposely running up huge surpluses through asymmetrical trade practices not have far more to lose in negotiations than those suffering gargantuan deficits?

Were Trump’s art-of-the-deal threats of prohibitive tariffs not mere starting points in negotiations that would eventually lead to likely agreements more favorable to the U.S. than in the past and moderate rather than punitive tariffs?

Would not the value of the huge American consumer market mean that our trade partners, who were racking up substantial surpluses, would agree they could afford modest tariffs and trim their substantial profit margins rather than suicidally price themselves out of a lucrative market entirely?

https://www.frontpagemag.com/can-the-left-ever-stop-its-craziness/

California Senator Alex Padilla recently crashed a press conference by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. He deliberately wore no identification. He gave no advance warning that he would disrupt her briefing.

Instead, Padilla barged forward to the podium, shouting about the deportation of illegal aliens.

Immediately, Padilla got his media moment wish — once Secret Service agents, who had no idea who Padilla was, forcibly removed him.

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., recently attempted a pseudo-filibuster, speaking nonstop for 25 hours straight — not to delay legislation, but to fixate on President Donald Trump.

South Carolina Democratic state Representative Julie von Haefen just posted on social media an image of a bloody guillotine. It bore the title “In these difficult times, some cuts may be necessary” and was juxtaposed with an image of a hanging, beheaded Trump, who, a year ago, was the target of two failed assassination attempts.

The more Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Governor Gavin Newsom scream at Trump for nationalizing the California Guard to stop L.A.’s nightly violent anti-ICE protests, the more the two appear on the side of those who riot, destroy property, and attack police.

Yet who really wants to side with illegal aliens who spit on and burn American flags while waving Mexican flags?

Recently, some Democrats and leftists have romanticized Kilmar Abrego Garcia — an illegal alien, accused domestic abuser, gang member, and alleged human trafficker.

They also canonized illegal alien Mahmoud Khalil. But that pro-Hamas “student” helped organize and defend sometimes violent and antisemitic demonstrations at Columbia University.

For some on the Left, the assassin of a UnitedHealthcare CEO, the rich kid Luigi Mangione, has become a folk hero.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/06/30/trump-clings-to-solid-ratings-for-leadership-despite-dems-ongoing-negative-views-ii-tipp-poll/

President Donald Trump’s eventful presidency continues to leave most Democrats and independents unimpressed, but he gets top grades from Republicans, the latest I&I/TIPP Poll shows. Can he build on recent policy successes to improve his standing with non-GOP voters, or will Trump’s strong personality, offhand remarks, and bold leadership style alienate them?

Each month, I&I/TIPP asks voters to gauge presidential favorability, leadership, and performance. In the just-finished national online poll of 1,421 adults taken from June 25-27, Trump’s grades from voters remain little changed.

Asked to gauge his leadership, 44% of voters gave the second-term president “favorable” ratings, while 45% gave him “unfavorable” ratings. The poll has a margin of error of +/-2.7 percentage points.

But major voting blocs, based on party affiliation, region, and gender, remain sharply split over how they view Trump’s leadership.

Democrats, for instance, give Trump a 77% unfavorable rating, with just 16% calling his tenure so far favorable. Independents are only marginally less harsh: 55% unfavorable, 30% favorable.

Republicans remain happy, if not ecstatic, with Trump’s leadership, giving him 80% favorable to only 12% unfavorable.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/06/26/zohran-mamdanis-progressive-intifada-will-be-a-disaster-for-new-york/

Whoever is elected New York City mayor in November, Zohran Mamdani’s impressive win this week in the Democratic mayoral primary marks a breaking point in the party, the city and US society as a whole.

New York, where my family settled 120 years ago, is special. It is America’s capital of intellect, art and, most importantly, capitalism. New York’s financial elite have largely tolerated the ‘progressive’ excesses of the Democrats in recent years, but the prospect of a self-described ‘socialist’ running the city may be a bridge too far. We can expect them to renounce the Democrats altogether or join the mass migration south.

Yet while the financial elites might be reeling from the result, Mamdani’s win was no working-class uprising or revolt of the lower orders. His main rival, former New York state governor Andrew Cuomo, did best in heavily black and ethnic white enclaves, many of them quasi-suburban, as well as some elite precincts in Manhattan. Mamdani won most convincingly in the far-from-impoverished hipster belts of Brooklyn, Queens, the Upper East Side and Lower Manhattan. These precincts now dominate a Democratic Party once driven by white ethnics and working-class African Americans.

The key element here is the younger, mostly white, economically marginalised new proletariat – sometimes called the ‘precariat’. They are most lured by Mamdani’s propositions like frozen rents, free buses and childcare – all funded by higher taxes on the wealthy. Their angst reflects the realities of today’s New York, which works for the wealthy elites but suffers very high levels of inequality. Job growth has been weak and concentrated in low-wage sectors like hospitality and tourism. While incomes for most have stagnated, housing costs have not – rising to record levels this year.

The New York these young people have inherited is no longer the epicentre of economic opportunity. It flourishes largely as a hub for trustafarians, top-tier professionals, globe-trotting elites and cultural creators. While New York’s overall population has declined, the number of ultra-wealthy residents has continued to grow. There’s nothing like the job prospects that earlier generations of New Yorkers had – neither in manufacturing nor in business or financial services.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/06/27/blue-state-socialism-you-wanted-it-now-you-get-it-good-and-hard/

Faced with the failure of their policies, far-left and outright socialist Democrats in blue-state America are doubling down. Whether it’s New York, California or midwestern leftist havens Minnesota and Illinois, the socialist model will bring only more failure and misery to its citizens. And, because they voted for it, they’ll get what they deserve.

We’re not gloating here. The Democratic Party was once a serious political group that based its popularity on appealing to centrist blue-collar working class Americans and moderate urban liberals. The extreme left was largely, though not entirely, marginalized.

Today, that’s sadly no longer true. Take California.

Los Angeles is run by Mayor Karen Bass, an unabashed follower of deceased Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, while California governor and presidential-wannabe Gavin Newsom and the California state legislature are both far left.

They’ve distinguished themselves by their inept response to last winter’s wildfires and this summer’s riots, which required federal intervention in the form of National Guard troops.

Under its leftist leadership, California is losing hundreds of thousands of its most productive citizens, not to mention hundreds of its most innovative firms. All are fed up with the state’s insane DEI culture, heavy regulations, and super-high taxes.

But the real topic du jour is in New York City, The Democratic mayoral primary just delivered a radical democratic socialist, the global-intifada supporting Zohran Mamdani as the desired candidate. It wasn’t as if New Yorkers didn’t have a choice: Mamdani handily defeated the seasoned, centrist alternative, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, in what Politico called a “stunning primary.”

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/06/25/at-least-5-reasons-why-trump-should-reject-a-nobel-peace-prize/

For a brief window this week, President Donald Trump was out of the running for a Nobel Peace Prize, after a Ukrainian lawmaker withdrew his nomination on Monday for not ending the war there, and before Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., nominated him on Tuesday for the ceasefire between Israel and Iran.

You can imagine the guffaws and hair-pulling from the Trump-is-Hitler crowd at the thought that anyone would see him as a suitable candidate for this prize. But as much as we’d love to watch their heads explode as he walked up to accept the award, we think Trump should take himself out of the running.

Sure, he probably did more for world peace when he bombed Iran’s nuclear sites than any president since Ronald Reagan did when he left Michael Gorbachev high and dry at Reykjavík and sparked the end of the Soviet Union.

But why in the world would Trump want to join the ranks of other Nobel Peace Prize winners?

This is an award that was given to Yasser Arafat, a man once described as the “Father of Modern Terrorism” and who, two years after taking home the prize money, declared that: “We plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion … We Palestinians will take over everything.”

It was given to Jimmy Carter, now the second-worst president in U.S. history after Joe Biden, whose weakness led to the Iranian revolution, a year-long hostage crisis, and Soviet Union advances around the world.

And does Trump really want to share an honor bestowed on Al Gore, whose only real claim to fame is getting fabulously rich by spreading lies and misinformation about “global warming”?

He’d also be joining the likes of Rigoberta Menchú, whose autobiography was later attacked as fraudulent and who the Center for the Study of Popular Culture described as a “Marxist terrorist now exposed as an intellectual hoax.”