RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/cairlifornia/

Last Wednesday in Sacramento, a pro-Hamas mob crashed the state capitol and refused to leave, forcing legislators to adjourn the proceedings. Democrats had branded similar intrusions as an “insurrection,” but Gov. Gavin Newsom issued no statement. Four days later, the lead item on his press site was the link to a CNN story praising California’s gun laws. On the other hand, Gov. Newsom did take the trouble to meet with officials from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

According to a January 4 press release, CAIR, “organized a meeting between Governor Gavin Newsom and Muslim leaders from across the state before the holiday break to discuss the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.” Attendees included representatives from the Northern California Islamic Council, Palestinian American Medical Association, West Valley Muslim Association, Muslim Students Association West, and Shura Council of Southern California. The Muslim groups requested that Newsom support “a permanent ceasefire and a continued commitment to ensure freedom of speech, particularly in universities, as students engage in rallies.”

A statement from CAIR’s California CEO Hussam Ayloush said: “We were pleased by the Governor’s commitment to ensure his Muslim, Palestinian, and Arab constituents are heard as the violent siege on Gaza continues and that CAIR-CA had the platform to request the administration be proactive in ensuring the dignity of Palestinians. In his tenure, Governor Newsom has paved the path as a champion for civil rights, and we urge him to continue to use his voice as the leader of Californians who overwhelmingly demand a ceasefire.”

As Chuck Ross noted at the Free Beacon, Gov. Newsom’s meeting with CAIR came just weeks after the group’s leader, Nihad Awad, said he was “happy to see” the October 7 attack, a comment that “even prompted condemnation from the Biden White House.”

https://victorhanson.com/the-dei-ruse-is-imploding-part-one/

Diversity

Has there ever been a sane nation in the world that preferred “diversity” to “unity”?

The former Yugoslavia was certainly “diverse,” and it finally stressed its diversity to the point of unending death and destruction. Ditto Rwanda and Iraq.

So what exactly was the advantage of ditching the melting pot for the tribalist salad bowl? What was the historical argument for making race essential rather than incidental to who we are—other than institutionalizing racial bias and prejudice to further the careers of mostly middle-class and upper-middle-class “marginalized people”?

And what sort of diversity did DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) promote? 

Religious?

Not at all, at least in the case of Christianity. Declaring oneself overtly Catholic or Protestant would certainly be unorthodox and “diverse” on campus, but not encouraged and more likely a cause for social or career ostracism.

Ideology? Was diversity designed to ensure a matter of all sorts of political views?

Again, no.

Most polls of faculty, especially on the supposed “elite” campuses—whether calibrated by party identification, donations to political causes and candidates, or by ideology—consistently show somewhere between 90–95 percent of academics identify as Democrats or parties to their left, or as “progressive,” or even further still to the left.

Did diversity imply or include class in its definition? Not at all.

Most academics are from the upper-middle or professional or aristocratic classes. Claudine Gay, for example, is from a rich Haitian immigrant family (family cement magnates)—a world away from East Palestine, Ohio.

https://victorhanson.com/the-dei-ruse-is-imploding-part-two/

Equity

Equity was rebranded as a word to redefine equality as a mandated equalness of result rather than an equality of opportunity.

This “spread the wealth” ideology is by design contrary to the Constitution’s devotion to liberty and freedom.

DEI’s “equity,” then, is the neo-socialist effort to use government power, reinforced by popular culture, to suppress the perceived wealthy, the more fortunate, and the better off, and then to redistribute their money, influence, and power—summed up as “privilege”—to those arbitrarily labeled less well-off and less fortunate.

And there is always the age-old Marxist qualifier that the revolutionaries who determine who is oppressed and who is oppressive are themselves never subject to the consequences of their own ideology. It is the John Kerry logic that only by flying in a carbon-spewing private jet can he hit all the climate conferences and reduce carbon spewing.

So our cultural Marxists demand teachers’ unions and hate vouchers and charter schools—as their kids go to prep schools. They defund the police—but usually have access to private security. They demand all-electric vehicles—while they fly on Citations and Gulfstreams. They are versions of the old revolutionaries that were all born rich or at least upper-middle-class—our era’s Trotskys, Lenins, Marxes, Ho Chi Minhs, Mao Zedongs, Castros, and Che Guevaras. The most dangerous Marxists always arise from the bored and guilty privileged and well-off.

DEI’s idea of “equity” shares the Marxist boilerplate of just two classes at war with each other.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-houthis-are-emboldened-by-bidens-weakness/

It’s starting to feel like an exercise in futility to continue to hector and cajole the commander in chief of the armed forces into doing his job. Joe Biden seems perfectly happy to absorb the consequences associated with the Iran-backed campaign of terrorism engulfing the Middle East. When the Pentagon does respond to attacks on U.S. service personnel and American interests — that is, when the Defense Department isn’t in “full cover-their-a** mode” — it does so in a calibrated way that conveys America’s desire to avoid escalation more than its interest in restoring deterrence. That message has been received loud and clear, and the Iran-sponsored Houthi rebels are making the most of their free hand.

“This is the largest attack on commercial shipping,” one unnamed national-security official told CNBC reporters yesterday. The observation followed reports that the terroristic outfit launched a large missile and drone attack on merchant vessels in defiance of the multinational naval operation, Prosperity Guardian, which is tasked with providing security for commercial traffic in the region. U.S. and British naval forces reportedly shot down “18 drones, two anti-ship cruise missiles and one anti-ship ballistic missile,” but the Houthis did not limit its targeting to commercial vessels.

British secretary of state for defense Grant “Shapps said that Royal Navy ship HMS Diamond, which repelled the attacks along with U.S. warships, may have been specifically targeted,” Reuters reported, “adding there was also ‘a generalized attack on all shipping.’” Shapps made note of the untenable nature of the status quo emerging amid months of unmolested Houthi attacks on military and commercial vessels in the Gulf of Aden. “This cannot continue and cannot be allowed to continue,” he said simply.

But the White House is unmoved. Neither the president nor his subordinates appear concerned that their facile warnings about the “consequences” the Houthis will bear for these provocations are being ignored. They don’t seem to care that this Iran-backed terror campaign has already had deleterious effects on the global maritime trade regime and the international supply chain. They are willing to look beyond direct attacks on U.S. warships and those of their allies — targeting of which the Houthis boast, despite the Pentagon’s claims that the group doesn’t really mean it — even if that increases the threat born by U.S. service personnel in hot spots all over the globe.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/hunter-biden-piles-contempt-upon-contempt/

The president’s troubled son, Hunter Biden, has treated the congressional inquiry into his conduct and the Justice Department’s curious response to it with disdain from Day One.

Late last year, the House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena seeking testimony from the younger Biden, compelling him to answer the committee’s questions behind closed doors. His attorneys disregarded this courtesy, treating it as an opportunity to enter into public negotiations with the committee over the terms to which their client might graciously submit to Congress’s demand.

Hunter Biden wanted to testify in public and before the cameras — a request the Republican-led committee denied. Rather than observe Congress’s authority, Hunter Biden made a theatrical show of appearing in Washington on the day he was supposed to comply with the subpoena, but only to issue a fiery condemnation of House Republicans.

“I’m here to testify at a public hearing today to answer any of the committee’s legitimate questions,” the president’s son exclaimed. “What are they afraid of? I’m here. I’m ready.” But the subject of a congressional inquiry doesn’t get to make the rules — Congress does. So, in response to Hunter’s display of contempt, Congress elected to formalize that status. “Hunter Biden today defied lawful subpoenas, and we will now initiate contempt of Congress proceedings,” House Republicans declared in mid December.