RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm-plus/democrat-leader-wants-leftists-to-fight-trumps-policies-in-the-streets/

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has called upon people to fight the “extreme MAGA Republican agenda” not just “legislatively” and “in the courts,” but “in the streets.” The Trump White House has demanded that Jeffries apologize, but so far he has not done so, and it is unlikely that he will. It makes sense that he wouldn’t. After all, how can he apologize for echoing a call that numerous leftists have made in recent years?

According to a Friday report in the New York Post, Jeffries and Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke (D-Race Hatred) were criticizing Trump for his handling of the helicopter/plane collision in Washington when a reporter asked Jeffries about New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who has been showing dangerous signs lately of not showing the unremitting hostility to Trump that the left requires.

That was not a question Jeffries wanted to address. He said: “I’ll have more to say about the future of the mayorship of the city of New York at the appropriate time.” Jeffries then changed the subject, and began expatiating on how leftists should be responding to this moment of deep crisis for their socialist internationalist agenda.

Jeffries continued: “Right now, we’re going to keep focused on the need to look out for everyday New Yorkers and everyday Americans who are under assault by an extreme MAGA Republican agenda that is trying to cut taxes for billionaires, donors, and wealthy corporations and then stick New Yorkers and working class Americans across the country with the bill. That’s not acceptable. We are going to fight it legislatively. We are going to fight it in the courts. We’re going to fight it in the streets.”

This was the minority leader of the House of Representatives, someone who is supposed to want to be invested in the safety and wellbeing of Americans, issuing an open call for violence. White House deputy press secretary Kush Desai declared: “While President Trump remains focused on uniting our country and delivering the mandate set by the American people, the House Minority Leader, Hakeem Jeffries, incites violence calling for people to fight ‘in the streets’ against President Trump’s agenda. This unhinged violent rhetoric is dangerous. Leader Jeffries should immediately apologize.”

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/02/10/a-sputnik-moment-majority-fear-losing-ai-lead-to-china-back-more-govt-investment-ii-tipp-poll/

Americans mostly want smaller, more effective government that spends less of their money while still doing essential things that only governments can do. But, in the latest I&I/TIPP Poll, there’s one area where people see a definite role for government: The ongoing U.S.-China battle to dominate the global artificial intelligence (AI) market, estimated to be worth trillions of dollars.

America had a kind of “Sputnik moment” recently, as tech author Charles Hugh Smith put it, after claims were made that China’s “DeepSeek” R1 AI software had leapfrogged other global AI versions and that it did so with an unbelievably parsimonious development cost of only $6 million.

That seemingly innocuous announcement sent stock markets plunging around the world, leading to such headlines as Chinese AI threat triggers $1 trillion market crash, DeepSeek sends a shockwave through markets, and Did China’s DeepSeek Just Pop The AI Stock Bubble?, among many, many others.

Does this bother average Americans? Quite a bit, it seems. In February’s national online I&I/TIPP Poll, taken Jan. 29-31 from a sample of 1,478 adults, survey participants were asked three questions about the booming field of artificial intelligence.

The first question: “How concerned are you about China potentially surpassing the U.S. in artificial intelligence development?”

https://amgreatness.com/2025/02/09/trump-musk-and-the-deep-state-the-battle-over-transparency-begins/

Here we go again. At the beginning of his first term as president, Donald Trump issued an executive order temporarily banning travel from several countries—Yemen, for example, Sudan, Libya, and four others—that had been identified as major exporters of terrorism.  The left went nuts, excoriating Trump for his “racist” “Muslim travel ban.”

It wasn’t a “Muslim travel ban,” but try telling that to Seattle District Court judge James Robart. He sniffed the air, sensed the pleasing hysteria and press coverage, and issued a cursory restraining order against Trump’s executive order. The humorous part of Robart’s order came towards the end.  As I wrote at the time, Robart insisted that the “declaratory and injunctive relief” outlined in his order be applied immediately and on a “nationwide basis” (my emphasis).

Seattle has spoken, Comrades! Judge Robarts finds (where? how?) that his court has jurisdiction over … well, over just about everything: the president and the head of the Department of Homeland Security, for starters, but also “the United States of America (collectively).”

So all across the fruited plain, “Federal Defendants and all their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and persons acting in concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED and RESTRAINED” from enforcing the President’s executive order.

This may be the best place to pause and point out that Donald Trump, acting as the president of the United States, was perfectly within his rights to issue an executive order to suspend travel from particular countries.

And so it is now with Trump’s deputies in the Department of Government Efficiency.  Tasked with the daunting task of unscrambling the byzantine Rube Goldberg device that is the 21st-century administrative state for furthering corruption, illegal payments, and partisan influence at home and abroad, DOGE commander Elon Musk and his laptop-and-algorithm-toting lieutenants have been patiently uncovering the pyramid of waste, fraud, and abuse that is the foundation of the United States government in its twenty-first-century incarnation.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/02/07/why_trumps_anti-dei_order_is_both_radical_and_rooted_in_civil_rights_law_1089775.html

Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, convened a panel of civil rights leaders last month to assail President Donald Trump’s executive order on “ending illegal discrimination and restoring merit-based opportunity.” The so-called anti-DEI order, Morial claimed, was an effort to “reverse the gains of the last seventy years.” 

Marc Morial: His National Urban League has adopted the very types of discriminatory racial practices that were once condemned by early civil rights leaders seeking a truly colorblind society — notably Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in his March on Washington (top photo). 
AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

“Diversity, equity and inclusion are aligned with American values,” declared Morial. To any critics claiming that DEI represents “some sort of preference program” that “divides Americans,” Morial scoffed. “We say, absolutely not.” Morial then argued that the organizations gathered there would crusade to protect DEI and “the notion that everyone has an equal opportunity.” 

This response of the civil rights establishment was more than simply a vow of resistance to the Trump order; it reflected opposition to a long-cresting sea change in racial politics in America.

In 1963, the Urban League was one of the groups that participated in Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s March on Washington, where King envisioned a nation for his children not “judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” During this period, non-white Americans faced legal and cultural barriers to full participation in civic life, from school segregation to rampant discrimination in employment and housing opportunities.

Much has changed over the years. The Trump executive order was issued to counter a new form of discrimination as the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. Many organizations, in an attempt to address anger about historical injustices, have fostered bias against groups perceived as privileged – particularly white and Asian men – and have developed explicit policies designed to advantage those perceived as disadvantaged. 

The Supreme Court found that a bid to achieve diversity-related goals, Harvard had illegally engaged in racial discrimination. The Trump order builds on that.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/5133353-elon-musk-reduces-government/amp/

It appears that Elon Musk has incited the good townsfolk of Washington, D.C.

Across the internet, politicians and pundits are in a monstrous mood. The same people who spent the last year declaring the imminent death of democracy if Donald Trump were elected are now insisting that the real threat is the monster he has unleashed upon the federal bureaucracy.

For Washingtonians, Musk is the bogeyman they have long described to their children around campfires at night: An outsider who comes to town and lays waste to government waste, firing thousands and slashing budgets. Part Frankenstein, part Bigfoot, that creature never had a name, but would be beholden to no one and uninterested in the status quo.

The monster now has a name, and it is Elon Musk.

Democratic politicians are now claiming that reducing government is equivalent to destroying government. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) yelled dramatically to an outdoor crowd this week that Musk’s government efficiency efforts are “taking away everything we have.”

For decades, both Democratic and Republican presidents have run on reducing government and making it more efficient. But everyone knew that such campaign pledges would be quickly discarded after each election.

What is so terrifying this time is that Musk means it. We know that because he has done it before.

When Musk bought Twitter with the promise of dismantling its censorship system and culture, he started by firing virtually everyone. Critics immediately declared that he was a fool and did not understand how to run a social media company. Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich said that Musk’s firings meant the death of Twitter and triumphantly declared, “You break it, you own it.”