RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/04/in_florida_a_new_law_says_disney_is_no_longer_special.html

What Governor Ron DeSantis and the Florida legislature just accomplished vis-à-vis Disney is a very big deal. For decades, when it comes to leftism creeping into every American institution, conservatives have played the game two ways: Either they’ve played defense or they’ve withdrawn from the fray entirely. In this case, though, by withdrawing a unique legislative protection that the state granted Disney in 1967, Florida turned the tables and waged war on the woke.

A couple of days ago, Jesse Kelly made an interesting point on Twitter—for decades, Republicans have made losing their comfort zone:

He’s right and we all know it. There are too many people (I won’t name names but you know who I mean), who found Trump terrifying because he was finally going to make “Conservative Inc.” live up to its promises. So, they joined with the left to destroy Trump.

Currently, no one is destroying Ron DeSantis and the Florida legislature. Instead, they’re doing something unique in the annals of modern conservativism: They’re bringing the fight to the ideological enemy.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/04/durhams-investigation-is-finally-getting-interesting/

Reading the Clinton tea leaves in the Sussmann prosecution

Let’s give the Clintons their due: They’ve always had a sense of humor.

They’d have to. It would be impossible to survive without one given the messes they’ve gotten themselves into, and out of, lo these 30 years. And now, with yet another special counsel hovering, and apparently close to concluding that the Hillary Clinton campaign pulled off one of the great political dirty tricks of all time, it’s like we’re right back in the Nineties, wondering what the definition of is is.

The is of the moment is the attorney–client privilege. It had to happen eventually. The Clintons are Yale-educated lawyers, with Hillary having made her bones as a young Hill staffer in the Democrats’ no-holds-barred Watergate investigation.

As masters of creating and surviving scandal, the Clintons’ MO has always been a rule of lawlessness amid a ubiquity of attorneys. Mafia dons do this too: Make sure to have Family counsel at all the meetings where the nasty stuff gets planned, so when the FBI comes snooping around, you can start blathering about the Sixth Amendment and the sacred right to $1,000/hour confidentiality. Indeed, when the FBI did come calling about her home-brew email-server escapade, Mrs. Clinton even managed to talk the bureau’s complaisant higher-ups into letting her bring her suspected co-conspirators along for her interview by the case agents — after all, they were lawyers!

Of course, it’s hard to fault the FBI too much for such a basic violation of investigative protocols: By the time the former secretary of state was interviewed, the Obama Justice Department had stymied the bureau’s attempts to ask questions of Clinton’s juris-doctor underlings and inspect their computers. The attorney–client privilege was the defense . . . and, with Clinton-friendly law-enforcers running the show, it worked.

There is delicious irony in all this as it pertains to Special Counsel John Durham’s probe.

Durham and his staff are preparing to try heavyweight Democratic lawyer Michael Sussmann in about three weeks. Plainly, their focus is broader than just the one alleged false statement to the FBI on which Sussmann has been indicted. Durham’s charging documents and court submissions strongly intimate that the Hillary campaign is the fons et origo of the Trump/Russia “collusion” farce that dizzied the country and hamstrung a presidency for two years.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/probably-legal-definitely-cynical/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=corner&utm_term=first

As Caroline notes:

Governor Ron DeSantis signed legislation Friday that strips Disney of its 50-year-old “independent special district” status in retaliation for criticizing Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law.

The law dissolves the Reedy Creek Improvement District, an autonomous area created in 1967 to accommodate the massive Disney World complex near Orlando. The independent status grants Disney the privilege of creating its own regulations, building codes, and other municipal services within the zone. The arrangement has also shielded Disney from significant tax burden.

Specifically, the legislation holds that Disney’s independent special district will be deemed to have been dissolved on June 1st of next year, unless the law in question is repealed or, having gone into effect, the district is reestablished by the legislature.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/04/ron-desantis-and-the-fight-club-conservatives/

Using the state as a vehicle to reward friends and punish enemies is something that conservatives once excoriated, for good reason, as Gangster Government.

The most significant line dividing the modern conservative movement is more tactical than ideological.

On one side, there are those on the right who see conservatism as a set of clear and timeless principles that should be consistently adhered to, regardless of whether they lead to preferred short-term outcomes in every circumstance.

Those on the other side of that line may be sympathetic to many of the same principles, but they believe that any principle that gets in the way of achieving their preferred outcomes should be discarded without remorse.

This isn’t to say that important ideological disagreements on economic, social, and national-security policy (or the relative importance of each) do not still divide conservatives into various factions. And no doubt, the overarching tactical disagreements end up leading to substantive policy differences — for instance, when it comes to the debate about regulating Big Tech.

That said, if we look at the battles on the right that in recent years have ended friendships, severed institutional relationships, and pitted long-time conservative allies passionately against each other, they all, at their core, come down to the same disagreements over the proper approach to politics.

Conservatives who embraced Donald Trump — or at least made their peace with him — ultimately viewed him as a disruptive force who was willing to mercilessly take on liberals and their media allies, and fight battles that other Republicans fled.

While many people have tried to define this faction of conservatives as MAGA or Trumpist, the reality is that the movement has broadened beyond Trump. It has been described as populist, or as the New Right. But given the emphasis on pugilism, I like to describe them as Fight Club Conservatives. This strikes me as especially apt given all the talk about the crisis of masculinity that is common in these circles.

Ever since Donald Trump left office, Florida governor Ron DeSantis has been carving out a place for himself in a fractured Republican Party as somebody who can be acceptable to a broad cross-section of conservatives. He has largely united Trump’s willingness to take on the Left with more intelligence, discipline, focus, and follow-through.

But if there was any uncertainty before about where DeSantis truly stood, this week’s targeting of Disney in Florida should leave no doubt that he wants to side with the Fight Club Conservatives.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/struggling-to-pay-bills-more-americans-turn-to-credit-cards-and-loans/ar-AAWrWqM

Inflation in the U.S. is more than three times higher than it was last year, straining Americans’ finances.

Without stimulus checks and a lapse in monthly Child Tax Credit payments, Americans in dire financial circumstances are swiping credit cards more frequently compared to a year ago. But they continue to hold back from dipping into savings and retirement accounts relative to last year.

Some 13% of U.S. households found it very difficult to pay for their usual expenses from March 30 to April 10, according to data from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey. Within that cohort, 44% of respondents said they’re using credit cards or loans to meet needs, while 34% said they’re using money from savings or retirement accounts.

Last year when inflation was rising at a 2.6% annual rate, some 9% of households surveyed then found it very difficult to pay for usual expenses, according to data from a prior Household Pulse Survey. That survey also found that 34% of households used credit cards or loans to meet spending needs and 31% dipped into savings.

//www.nationalreview.com/2022/04/thomas-and-gorsuch-probe-american-citizenship-race-and-the-territories/

Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch ask us to revisit old mistakes in understanding the rights of American citizenship.

The Supreme Court decided an easy case this morning — a case so easy that only Justice Sonia Sotomayor could get it wrong. Nevertheless, it still had Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch in the mood to raise long-standing questions about race and American citizenship.

The question in United States v. Vaello Madero was whether Congress is permitted to exclude residents of Puerto Rico from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program and other federal benefits programs — just as it exempts Puerto Ricans from most federal taxes. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s majority opinion easily concluded, in a brisk six-page 8–1 decision joined by every justice but Sotomayor, that long-standing law allowed Congress to treat Puerto Rico and other territories differently:

The Territory Clause of the Constitution states that Congress may “make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory . . . belonging to the United States.” Art. IV, §3, cl. 2. The text of the Clause affords Congress broad authority to legislate with respect to the U. S. Territories. Exercising that authority, Congress sometimes legislates differently with respect to the Territories, including Puerto Rico, than it does with respect to the States.

The territory clause was likewise the basis for the Court’s decision in 2020 in Financial Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Inv., LLC, which held that the appointments clause does not require Senate approval for territorial officials exercising the sorts of local powers that, in a state, would be exercised by the state. In today’s case, Kavanaugh observed that, if Congress were constitutionally mandated to provide federal benefits in Puerto Rico, there would be political pressure to apply federal taxes there as well — “with serious implications for the Puerto Rican people and the Puerto Rican economy. The Constitution does not require that extreme outcome.”

The Dissenter

Sotomayor, a daughter of Puerto Rican immigrants to New York and a longtime board member of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, wrote separately in Financial Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. v. Aurelius on Puerto Rico–specific grounds. In today’s decision, paying no attention to the constitutional text or the history of territorial regulation, Sotomayor argued that “there is no rational basis for Congress to treat needy citizens living anywhere in the United States so differently from others” because the program “establishes a direct relationship between the recipient and the Federal Government. . . . Under the current system, the jurisdiction in which an SSI recipient resides has no bearing at all on the purposes or requirements of the SSI program.