RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://tomklingenstein.com/the-rise-of-the-civil-rights-constitution/

Editor’s Note: We cannot forget that the group quota regime is just that: not merely an ideology but a proper regime, a civilizational and constitutional rival to the American regime. It has its own legal and organizing principles, which directly challenge those of our own Constitution. These operating principles of the group quota regime have long been taking hold in our society and in our governing institutions.

Jesse Merriam, a legal and political philosopher, recently joined Tom Klingenstein to discuss that quiet revolution: its roots, its current state, and the possibility for reform. This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

TK: Welcome Jesse Merriam. Jesse is an associate professor of government at Patrick Henry College and a research fellow at the Claremont Institute’s Center for the American Way of Life. Jesse holds a J.D. from George Washington University Law School and a Ph.D. in judicial politics and legal philosophy from Johns Hopkins University.

JM: It’s good to be with you.

TK: Jesse, you are a man of controversy. Among your controversial opinions are: 

The legal conservative movement has been much less successful than most conservatives believe.
Diversity and anti-discrimination are the twin pillars of today’s Constitution which makes it fair to say that today America operates under the Civil Rights Constitution. 
We should revive, to a degree, freedom of association, which you believe to be a right necessary for self-governance. 
The Federalist Society, despite notable successes, has not provided what the legal conservative movement needs to be successful.
Originalism has not, as intended, advanced a distinctly conservative agenda.
The recent Supreme Court affirmative action decisions are not likely to reduce affirmative action by very much. 
Harvard and Affirmative Action

TK: Let’s take the last claim first. My impression is that most analysts think that the recent UNC and Harvard affirmative action decisions will have a much greater impact than you do. Why are you so skeptical?

JM: My skepticism boils down to three reasons. One reason has to do with the unique status of affirmative action. We can understand this uniqueness in terms of both law and policy. Affirmative action law is unique in the sense that, since the civil rights revolution, affirmative action is the only type of governmental discrimination based on race that the Supreme Court has permitted. Affirmative action is also unique in American policy in that it is the only public program in all of American history—to my knowledge at least—that has expanded in breadth and strengthened in force in the face of growing resistance from the American people, state legislatures, and federal courts. 

https://amgreatness.com/2024/04/16/the-fundamental-unraveling-of-america/

By now, it must be overwhelmingly apparent to every American citizen that what candidate Barack Obama promised on the campaign trail back in 2008 has come to pass. Obama touted a “fundamental transformation of America” if elected president and, once elected, he proceeded to accomplish that one huge goal.

It can certainly be argued that the country experienced a slow boiling of the frog during the eight years of Obama’s presidency and that, during that period, the pot neither got to boil too long nor did the frog feel the heat intensely enough to hop out. Hillary Clinton was anointed by the Democrats to follow Obama to continue the unraveling of America’s constitutional republic, replacing it with their own interpretation of a “democracy.”

But somehow, out of nowhere, a wrecking ball named Donald J. Trump collided with the original fundamental-transformation plan. However, that, as we all experienced, was only a temporary setback. Once the 2020 election was successfully rigged and stolen and a hand-puppet-Biden government was installed, Obama and his global handlers continued stirring and reheating the pot to the required boiling point.

As it turned out, this time around, turning up the heat also necessitated putting a lid on the pot because there was a real chance that the frog might finally catch on and attempt to jump out.

So, where are we now?

The pot continues to frantically boil, with the frog finally awakening to its fate—but trapped inside the pot. And the only one capable of removing the lid is that same old why-won’t-he-just-go-away-already Trump. Even with the onslaught of tactics straight out of the Jussie Smollett playbook (i.e., if you can’t find a crime, make one up), resulting in New York- and DC-style “fair” trials and verdicts, Trump continues to generate his own heat, resulting in the heads of Democrats boiling—and sometimes even exploding.

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/04/16/joe-bidens-wars/

It’s long been known around Washington, as former Defense Secretary Robert Gates once said, that Joe Biden “has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four” – now five – “decades.”

So the conflicts raging around the world and forecasts of World War III should have been expected.

But, hey, at least we didn’t elect in 2020 the guy who sent impetuous tweets that upset elites and snowflakes.

As president, Biden has projected American weakness in a Carter-esque fashion, starting with his chaotic and deadly withdrawal from Afghanistan, which a State Department report said suffered from “constantly changing policy guidance,” and a top general described as a “strategic failure.”

He’s been no Ronald Reagan. He’s not even been a Donald Trump. So it’s no coincidence that Russia invaded Ukraine a little more than two years after Biden took office. And we all knew it was coming, because three months after Biden stumbled into the Oval Office, Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, as Sen. Tom Cotton noted just before the invasion, “sent tens of thousands of soldiers, tanks, and munitions to the Ukrainian border.”

In response, Biden proposed a presidential summit in Geneva, which, says Cotton, elevated “Russia in the eyes of the world” and “allowed the image-obsessed Putin to strut on the international stage and pretend that Russia was once again an equal to the United States.” Apparently, the hotline between Washington and Moscow was soon thereafter cut. Putin recently said he hadn’t spoken to Biden in two years, according to Richard Grenell, acting director of national intelligence for the Trump administration.

https://amgreatness.com/2024/04/14/the-battle-begins-trumps-trial-tests-american-justice/

Monday, April 15, 2024, is not only Tax Day in the United States.  It is also the day that this country will take another fateful step towards banana republic-like tyranny.  For it is the day that New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg—or, to give him his full title, “Soros-funded District Attorney Alvin Bragg”—will begin his 34-count felony trial against Donald Trump.

Exactly what is the presumptive Republican nominee for president charged with by the Biden Department of Justice?  Paying Stormy Daniels—or to give her the invariable epithet, “porn star Stormy Daniels” (think “swift-footed Achilles,” “gray-eyed Athena”)—to keep quiet about an alleged sexual encounter in 2006 (which Trump has consistently denied).

But is paying someone to sign a non-disclosure agreement a crime?  No.  Then what’s going on here?  As always seems to be the case when the subject is the Byzantine world of Donald Trump’s legal woes, it’s complicated.  One of the best brief summaries I have seen was in an editorial in The Wall Street Journal this weekend. “The facts,” the Journal writers explain, “are these”:

Ms. Daniels has said that in 2006 she and Mr. Trump had one, er, intimate encounter. A decade later, as the 2016 election neared, Mr. Trump’s fixer Michael Cohen paid Ms. Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet. A nondisclosure agreement isn’t illegal. Mr. Bragg’s complaint is about the paperwork. Mr. Cohen was reimbursed through 2017 via a monthly retainer “disguised as a payment for legal services,” the DA said. He padded his indictment by separately charging each invoice, check and ledger entry to get 34 counts.

Falsifying business records in New York can be a misdemeanor, but the statute of limitations on that has expired. Mr. Bragg therefore must charge felonies, which under New York law means showing that Mr. Trump cooked the books with “intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”