RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/11/the_left_cashes_in_on_the_real_red_wave.html

Indeed, there was a red wave but not the one conservatives had hoped for. It was, however, the continuation of the leftists’, Marxists’, and communists’ eternal obsession to destroy America and obliterate her values—and Ayn Rand predicted it in her 1965 seminal book titled The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution.

Frighteningly prescient, Rand understood the beginnings of the “intellectual disintegration” that is now front and center in most colleges. Fifty-seven years later, the Left is “cashing in” on its quest for ultimate power.

Ground Zero was the “so-called student ‘rebellion’” that started at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1964. Billed as a Free Speech Movement, it was anything but. William Peterson, a professor of sociology at the time, wrote:

The first fact one must know about the Free Speech Movement is that it has little or nothing to do with free speech . . . . If not free speech, what then is the issue? In fact, preposterous as this may seem, the real issue is the seizure of power.

Now living in a woke United States, it is no longer preposterous at all as we realize that “the Free Speech Movement is reminiscent of the Communist fronts of the 1930s” wherein “the key feature [was] that [of] a radical core that uses legitimate issues ambiguously [emphasis mine] in order to manipulate a large mass.”

Thus, we see students from Ivy League schools overwhelm vacillating university administrators who cave to their demands and dis-invite speakers or cancel professors. We watch students whose wanton destruction is met with no resistance whatsoever, thus setting the stage in which “each provocation and subsequent victory [leads] to the next.”

Consider that the riots in 2020 were not met with absolute pushback but instead destroyed entire communities.

As students dismantled university buildings, where were the administrators firmly stating that “there can be no such thing as the right to an unrestricted freedom of speech or of action on someone else’s property”? In fact, “[t]he owners of a state university are the voters and taxpayers of that state.”

https://www.city-journal.org/how-did-ron-desantis-outperform-the-gop

The consensus is that, amid generally disappointing results for conservatives, Florida governor Ron DeSantis won the midterms. He defeated his Democratic opponent, Charlie Crist, by a 19-point margin and turned the state, which was once considered a battleground, deep red. He won everywhere, notching impressive victories with Hispanic and urban voters in formerly Democratic strongholds like Miami-Dade County.

How did DeSantis outperform the rest of the GOP? The answer, I believe, is that he has created a new model for “culture war as public policy,” which combines popular media combat with competent, effective governance.

DeSantis has built his profile by engaging in controversial cultural fights on critical race theory, gender ideology, and other “woke” issues. In his election night victory speech, DeSantis framed himself as a culture-war champion. “We fight the woke in the legislature. We fight the woke in the schools. We fight the woke in the corporations,” he said. “We will never, ever surrender to the woke mob. Florida is where woke goes to die.”

But DeSantis is not merely blustering. He has advanced a substantive agenda to rein in left-wing ideologies in Florida’s institutions, passing significant higher education reforms, new curriculum guidance for K–12 schools, a ban on gender theory in grades K–3, and the Stop W.O.K.E. Act, which restricts critical race theory-style racial scapegoating in large institutions, including corporations. Most notably, DeSantis picked a fight with the Walt Disney Company, which had previously been untouchable in Florida politics—and won.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/11/16/cape-cod-decides-to-boost-its-crime-rate/

Like many places in America today, Massachusetts is not what it used to be. Known in political mythology as the home of the center-Left, tax-cutting Cold Warrior John F. Kennedy, the commonwealth has become increasingly fringe since the days of Camelot. The excesses of Ted Kennedy led to Mike Dukakis, which has led to the bonkers wokeism of Elizabeth Warren and Ayanna Pressley. Those Bay Staters who still cling to pragmatism must feel like orphans by now.

After the recent midterm election, the situation appears even more grim. In Cape Cod’s Barnstable County, voters replaced retiring Sheriff James Cummings with Donna Buckley, who previously worked as general counsel in the sheriff’s office. Despite her time in Cummings’ office, Buckley’s election represents a sea change in how the county protects its citizens, and that’s bad news for residents who value their safety and property.

Cummings spent nearly 50 years in law enforcement and completed four terms as county sheriff. He stood out in Massachusetts as one of only a few sheriffs in the state who participated in the 287(g) program, in which local law enforcement cooperates with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to transfer custody of criminal illegal aliens to the federal agency for arrest and deportation proceedings.

The program seemed to work well in Barnstable County, as crime rates have been below the national average. Despite Massachusetts’ status as a sanctuary state, the county’s assembly of delegates even rejected a resolution in 2018 to oppose Cummings’ participation in the program.

Perhaps because of its effectiveness, 287(g) has been in the crosshairs of the anti-borders Left for several years. The result has been a string of sheriff candidates across the country who have campaigned on a promise to rescind cooperation with ICE. Buckley was one of them.

What can residents of Barnstable County expect now that they have voted for such a dramatic shift in law enforcement posture? The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) earlier this year investigated a similar change in Georgia’s Gwinnett County. Newly elected Sheriff Keybo Taylor ended the county’s participation in the 287(g) program his first day in office in 2020.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/11/16/let-the-blame-games-begin/

Who or what was responsible for the Republican nationwide collapse in the midterms? After all, pundits, politicos, and pollsters all predicted a “red tsunami.” 

Moreover, the average loss of any president in his first midterm is 25 House seats. And when his approval sinks to or below 43 percent—in the fashion of Joe Biden—the loss, on average, expands to over 40 seats. 

Barack Obama in 2010 lost 63 seats. Is Biden, therefore, more charismatic or more energetic than Obama? Was his agenda more successful and popular? 

Given such high Republican expectations, the blame game for the loss is as strident and confusing as was the election itself. 

Here are some of the most common targets of criticism. 

Donald Trump is being blamed on various counts. Before the midterms, he strangely attacked Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. And he loudly hinted that he would run again. 

Those histrionics supposedly took attention away from Republican candidates. Trump turned off some DeSantis fans from Trump-endorsed candidates, and energized Trump-hating left-wingers to go out and vote to stop the momentum for a second Trump presidency. 

Yet the idea that Trump was erratic or reckless was not really new and surprised no one on either side of the political divide. 

Two, Trump promoted many losing candidates, often on the narrow basis of whether they had accepted his charges of a rigged 2020 election. His critics countered that while his MAGA candidates won primaries in states like Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and Pennsylvania, they had little chance of going on to win general elections. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mark-milley-and-the-coming-civil-military-crisis-joint-chiefs-ukraine-negotiation-russia-politics-president-11668634194?mod=opinion_lead_pos9

Gen. Mark Milley apparently thinks Ukraine should negotiate with its Russian aggressors and the U.S. should shift its policy toward Kyiv. That’s the upshot of a New York Times piece, published last week, about remarks the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff made at the Economic Club of New York. Such views aren’t merely strategically irrational. They also demonstrate the risks of elevating general officers to positions of political prominence. As partisanship continues to plague American politics, we need a new chairman to repair the military’s fractious relationship with civilian authorities.

The airing of Gen. Milley’s comments isn’t surprising. Since the war began, there have been leaks about intra-White House disputes, particularly over whether to provide Ukraine with long-range weapons. Though Gen. Milley may not have shared all those sentiments, it also shouldn’t be surprising that he is fearful of—and vocal about—escalated conflict with Russia.

Gen. Milley, who became chairman of the Joint Chiefs in October 2019, has a track record of political activity. In September 2021, he admitted that he sought to assure his Chinese counterparts in late 2020 that there was no possibility of a Sino-American war. He took the same approach to Iran in 2020, apparently resisting then-President Trump’s desire to strike the regime in the final months of his term. Never mind that such wartime decisions are the sole constitutional authority of the commander in chief, not senior military officials.