RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-have-they-done/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=hero&utm_content=related&utm_term=second

The only thing reassuring about the Colorado supreme court’s 4–3 decision disqualifying Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s presidential ballots is the horror it inspired. Trump fans, Trump critics, and Trump adversaries alike recoiled. Even if they didn’t look askance at the dubious legal rationale that prevailed in this court, the assault it represents on the civic compact proved too much for even some of Trump’s most indefatigable opponents to defend.

That’s a modest silver lining. It will prove no comfort as the decision’s political reverberations unfold. The sense that unelected functionaries and professional bureaucrats have dedicated themselves to the effort to steal from Republicans their agency by simply ruling Trump out of the political process isn’t exclusive only to the MAGA movement’s true believers. GOP voters across the Republican spectrum increasingly believe that, to one extent or another. They will expound on that concern to anyone willing to listen. Anyone would rebel against such an imperious intervention into affairs as intimate as their vote. Americans, in particular, are disinclined to just sit back and take that sort of peremptory imposition.

Even if this sentiment was just a heuristic that folks who don’t spend their free time reading charging documents used to navigate the criminal allegations against Trump, it’s an understandable (if wrong) cognitive shortcut. When it comes to the Colorado case, however, the allegation is well-founded. The logic to which Minnesota’s supreme court appealed when it rejected a similar effort to bar Trump from the ballot, citing the 14th Amendment’s restrictions on candidates who “engaged in” insurrection, is unassailable.

https://www.thefp.com/p/colorado-court-trump-2024-peter-meijer-democracy?utm_campaign=email-post&r=8t06w&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

For years, we’ve been told that Donald Trump is a worse-than-Hitler threat to democracy and that those who opposed him—leading Democrats, the courts, Noam Chomsky, Michael Avenatti, Rachel Maddow, the hosts of The View, even old Twitter—were just trying to protect it. It’s odd then to now be told that the best way to save democracy is by banning Trump from the ballot.

That’s what happened in Colorado yesterday, when the state’s Supreme Court ruled in a 4–3 decision that former president Donald Trump—currently the most popular presidential candidate—was disqualified from appearing on Colorado ballots for the 2024 presidential election. 

The decision—perhaps the most extra-constitutional act by a high court in my lifetime—is astonishing on every level. 

First, the reasoning:

The Colorado court did it by reinvigorating Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads in part that “no person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States” who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Those words were written in 1866, less than a year after the Civil War ended, a war in which over 300,000 Union soldiers died to keep America united, in order to bar many former Confederate officials from serving in government.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/lincoln-memorial-steps-vandalized-with-free-gaza-graffiti-red-paint/ar-AA1lNZIn

“National Park Service conservators have begun the process of removing the paint this morning, though it may take multiple treatments over several days to remove all of it,” Park Police added. “The steps on the west side of the Reflecting Pool are closed to visitors while the conservation work takes place.” 

It is not immediately clear who was behind the incident.

Dozens of anti-Israel protesters were arrested on Tuesday after staging an illegal rally inside the Capitol Rotunda in Washington, D.C., an act led by activist Linda Sarsour, according to reports. 

Last Monday, a protest calling for a cease-fire led to over 40 arrests at the Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill, Fox5 DC reported. 

The pro-Palestinian protesters were illegally demonstrating inside the Congressional space, according to authorities. 

Just after 10 a.m., a Capitol spokesperson told Fox 5 that the demonstrators arrived, with one man even climbing a statue in the atrium, before being charged with resisting arrest. 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-new-ebonics-movement-and-the-elimination-of-whiteness/

The Back to Ebonics movement has been around for a couple of decades. It gained some traction in the seventies during the era when everything Black was pronounced as beautiful. Emerging from the ugliness of segregation and Jim Crow laws which did see the systemic evisceration of the dignity of Black individuals, the Black is Beautiful slogan was understandable from the standpoint of psychological preservation. Ebonics—the Black Vernacular that is believed to capture the unique and singular way many Blacks speak—was regarded by many as a means of also protecting the dignity of Black self-expression.

Few in academia, or in mainstream society for that matter, took the Ebonics movement very seriously. Everyone knew that if any Black person wanted—at minimum—a job as a hotel receptionist, a customer service agent in a call center, or a clerk in a retail store, he or she would need to speak standard English. The latter was the lingua franca of business and commerce, and that was not about to change. If Blacks aspired to achieve economic parity with their compatriots, then they would have to become bilingual.

Lately, the Back to Ebonics movement has morphed into a devoutly nasty and pernicious new form. It has transmogrified into a hegemonic call to replace standard English as the norm. It regards requiring Black students to use standard English as anti-Black linguistic racism. Blacks required to speak standard English are believed to experience violence, persecution, dehumanization, and marginalization. The leader of this movement, a Black professor at the University of Michigan by the name of April Baker-Bell, has sponsored a document to abolish what she calls “White Mainstream English.” She believes that Black students who are forced to write their papers in mainstream English are victims of Anti-Black Racism.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/12/19/progressivism-forces-americans-to-forget-their-history/

The difficulties of the presidents of major American universities—Harvard, MIT, and UPenn—to denounce anti-Semitism is both appalling and a symptom of the larger ideological upheaval in the United States between traditional liberalism and progressivism. The consequence of the increasing strength of progressivism is the loss of the country’s ability to meet the challenges that it once possessed. The most important of these waning abilities is how to confront and defeat with great power enemies. Thus, the progressive movement is regressive by its very nature.

Like a dementia patient in gradual decline, the U.S. is regressing, gradually becoming enfeebled and infantilized, losing its knowledge, memory, coherence, and the ability, desire, and willingness to meet challenges. This is due in part to the ageing of the Baby Boomers (1946-1964) and Generation X (1965-1980) who possessed the direct experience of fight against the Soviet Union and its allies in the Cold War. People matter, as does their historical experiences and knowledge. As those fade, the nuts and bolts of American civil society and identity are lost.

But a more significant cause is the rise of progressivism and its deliberate consequence—the decline of political liberalism in the U.S. The advance of progressivism evinced in the shameful testimony of the university presidents entails the diminishment, rejection, or replacement of U.S. history, political ideology and culture, and the regressive transformation of political ideology, culture, and institutions. The U.S. population and leadership either willingly forget or are forced to forget. As a result, Americans are becoming disorientated and detached from America’s liberal foundations and institutions. They do so voluntarily if they are progressives.  If they do so with considerable resignation, they are political liberals, and people compelled to go with the progressive flow.

The forced memory loss is part of the “Great Forgetting” of the knowledge, behavior, culture, skills, practices, and abilities that led to victory in America’s wars, allowed the country to overcome economic difficulties to become the world’s greatest economic engine, the world’s leader in science and technology, possess peerless universities and professional schools, and a standard of living unmatched. American society provided untold benefits to its citizens and to the Free World. The “Great Forgetting” is intentional, not an accident or an artefact of history. Progressivism is destroying America’s memory so that they may advance their revolutionary agenda, while disarming Americans who know or would come to know their country’s history and who would be able to thwart them.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/confederate-statue-in-arlington-cemetery-to-stay-for-now-federal-judge-rules/

A federal judge intervened on Monday to stop the removal of an Arlington National Cemetery monument commemorating national reunification after the Civil War.

U.S. district judge Rossie Alston issued a temporary restraining order shortly after work began Monday morning to remove the Civil War landmark, which the Defense Department ordered to be removed by January 1.

Alston’s ruling was delivered in response to a lawsuit that sought the restraining order. A preservation group called Defend Arlington, which is tied to Save Southern Heritage Florida, filed the suit Sunday in Alexandria, Va. The judge will hear opinions from both parties on Wednesday before deciding whether to extend the restraining order.

The plaintiffs alleged the U.S. Army, which runs the cemetery, is violating regulations by seeking a quick removal that will possibly “desecrate, damage, and likely destroy” the monument “as a grave marker and impede the Memorial’s eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places,” according to the lawsuit. An attorney for the plaintiffs reportedly said they have evidence that the hasty deconstruction project would disturb grave sites.

Over the weekend, Arlington National Cemetery said it will ensure the protection of “the surrounding landscape, graves, and headstones,” while announcing tentative plans to remove the Confederate memorial by December 22. The cemetery intends to comply with a congressional mandate that was issued after an independent commission recommended its removal last year, as part of a larger effort to rename military bases and assets that commemorate the Confederacy.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/12/why-a-formal-impeachment-inquiry-is-now-necessary/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=hero&utm_content=related&utm_term=second

To make the serious allegations against the Bidens penetrate the public consciousness, Republicans must stage their own show.

Since the prospect was first raised, I have been of the view that the Republican Party would be better off moving too slowly than too fast in its inquiry into the Biden family’s peculiar business dealings. James Comer and Chuck Grassley have done sober and sedulous work over the past couple of years, and I have worried that, if they were to run out over their skis, they would fatally undermine their own efforts. As National Review’s editors correctly observed this week, impeachment is ultimately a political question, not a legal question, and it is thus subject to the slings and arrows of demagoguery and the vicissitudes of public opinion. Hitherto, my advice to the GOP has been to keep up the good work and wait for the right moment. An inquiry was already ongoing. What need could there be to formalize it?

I have changed my mind. Naturally, I still consider it imperative for the Republicans to remain diligent and shrewd and for all involved to stick assiduously to the facts. But, having watched the brazen manner in which both the White House and the press have continued to stonewall, I have come to the conclusion that a more ceremonial investigation is, in fact, necessary. In theory, the media ought to be keenly interested in informing the country of where things stand. In practice, its leading lights have effectively been working for the president. If the GOP is to have any chance of conveying what it has found thus far — and, despite the foot-stamping and gaslighting, what it has found thus far is extremely interesting — it will be obliged to do so under its own steam. We are a long, long way away from Woodward and Bernstein. To break through, the Republicans will need to stage their own show.

Thus far, the White House’s response has been to deny everything in the hope that the questions will go away. And, thus far, that has worked. Why? Certainly, it is not because President Biden’s denials have been proven reliable. Far from it! Asked recently whether he had done anything wrong, Biden was categorical: “I did not,” he replied. “It’s just a bunch of lies.” Perhaps so. But one cannot help but notice that this is exactly how President Biden has spoken about all of the other allegations, too. “I have never talked with my son or my brother, or anyone else in the distant family about their business interests, period,” Biden said in 2019. Actually, he had. “My son has not made money, in terms of thing about, what are you talking about — China,” Biden insisted in 2020. The records show that his son’s firm made $11 million there. “That’s not true,” Biden said this year, when asked whether “Hunter Biden’s business associates sent over $1 million to three of your family members.” As it happened, it was. Now, President Biden is claiming that he was not financially involved with his son’s business — or, as CNN is putting it, that that he was not “improperly” involved with his son’s business. This may turn out to be true — we’ll see. Given how the rest of his denials have panned out, however, it ought at least to be treated with skepticism.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/12/18/we-are-well-beyond-hypocrisy/

The abject narcissism of the insular Left is startling. They apparently believe the American public is amnesiac enough to forget what leftists once did, now that they’re doing the utter opposite. And they assume we are to discount their hypocrisy and self-absorption simply because they self-identify as erudite and moral and assume their opponents are irredeemable and deplorable.

Impeachment

The Left is saturating the airwaves with outrage over the current House Republicans’ impeachment inquiry. They allege that formally investigating Joe Biden’s role in the family grifting operation is somehow a poor constitutional precedent, if not out-of-bounds entirely.

So we hear further arguments that it will be unwise to impeach a first-term president when he loses his House majority, that there is no reason to “waste” congressional time and effort when Biden will be automatically acquitted in the Democratically controlled Senate, and that the impeachment is cynically timed to synchronize with president’s reelection efforts.

All of these are the precise arguments many of us cited when Donald Trump was impeached in December 2019 (as his reelection campaign began, and immediately after being cleared of the 22-month, $40-million-special-counsel Russian-collusion hoax).

The Democrats tried to remove an elected president over a phone call without a special counsel’s report. So Trump was impeached only after the 2018 election led to a Democratic House majority, which went from eating up nearly two years of his administration in the Russian-collusion hoax straight into the impeachment farce. There was no concern about the cost to the nation of putting an elected government into a continual state of siege.

There is one difference, though, between the Trump impeachment and the Biden impeachment inquiry. Donald Trump was impeached because he accurately accused the members of the Ukrainian government of paying Hunter Biden, with his zero fossil fuel expertise, an astronomical sum to serve on the Burisma board—as the costly quid that earned the lucrative quo from his dad Vice President Joe Biden.

No one now denies that Joe Biden got prosecutor Viktor Shokin fired by threatening to cancel legislatively-approved U.S. aid. Shokin knew about the skullduggery through which the Biden family eventually received $6.5 million from Ukraine—and so Biden ensured his firing, and publicly bragged about it in performance-art fashion.

In sum, Trump had a perfect right as commander in chief to delay (he did not cancel) aid to Ukraine, to ensure that its government was not still paying off the Bidens for their lobbying efforts on its behalf.