RUTHFULLY YOURS

If you want to irritate promoters of the Clean Power Plan, just state the obvious: It’s going to increase electricity prices, and that will be bad for the poor and the middle class.

Last Monday, I made that very point during an interview on KPCC radio in Los Angeles, (“Air Talk with Larry Mantle”). My counterpart was David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a group that has pushed hard for the Clean Power Plan. After I pointed out that electricity prices in Europe had soared due to renewable-energy mandates, Doniger replied with something to the effect that I should not be using “scare stories” that are a “decade old.”

Doniger’s reply was hardly surprising. The claque that’s pushing the Clean Power Plan — the White House, the wind lobby, the solar lobby, NRDC, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Sierra Club — don’t want to admit that it will probably increase costs for the poor and the middle class. On Monday, the White House even published an article on its website that declared, “The most cynical claim is that EPA’s plan will harm minority and low-income communities.”

We’ve been here before.

Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said a while ago that an Iran deal would be the health-care bill of President Barack Obama’s second term, and he was right.

Like Obamacare, the Iran deal represents an ideological fixation of the president’s; it is unpopular; and it will get through Congress — or to be more exact, avoid disapproval by Congress — by sheer partisan force.

When Obama mounted a defense of the deal in a speech at American University, it was aimed less at public persuasion — never a strength of his during the Obamacare debate — than base mobilization as he seeks to hold the Democrats he will need to sustain a veto of a resolution of disapproval.

How else to explain a speech that chastised opponents for their “strident” rhetoric at the same time it contended that Iranian hard-liners “are making common cause with the Republican caucus,” a juvenile little jab worthy of a Daily Kos diarist?

For years, we’ve heard Obama say that all options are on the table in forcing the Iranians to “end their nuclear program.” But he believed in having all options on the table about as much as he opposed gay marriage. Saying that he didn’t rule out military options was all about buying time until he could turn around and say, in effect, that a bad deal is better than all military options.

When a bank gets robbed, is it now the Justice Department’s practice to let the suspect hold on to the money while the FBI does its investigation?

According to the Washington Examiner, the Justice Department has still not seized the Clinton server and at least one thumb-drive copy of its contents even though government officials have conceded that national-defense secrets are stored on them. Former secretary of state Clinton apparently still has the server, while the thumb drive is reportedly in the possession of her private lawyer, David Kendall.

Remarkably, although these private parties are being permitted to maintain custody of classified information, the State Department has denied the intelligence community’s inspector general access to Mrs. Clinton’s e-mails — at least, the 30,000 or so she finally deigned to surrender.

This was the most entertaining debate I’ve seen, but there was no additional light shed on the candidates’ views on immigration.

The issue came up early, but both the questions and the answers were predictable. Everybody’s against illegal immigration. Everybody wants better border enforcement. Everybody’s against sanctuary cities and pretty young women being killed by illegal-alien felons protected by commies in San Francisco.

Trump claimed that “if it weren’t for me, you wouldn’t even be talking about illegal immigration.” This is Trumpishly exaggerated, of course, but if you de-Trumpize the comment, he’s right – without his grabbing the issue (and then being vindicated by Kate Steinle’s death shortly afterwards), the public anxiety about the issue would not be on the front burner. But when pressed on his ridiculous assertion that the Mexican government is intentionally sending criminals north (like Castro did during the Mariel boatlift, seems to be the idea), all he could offer by way of evidence is that some guys he met at the border told him so.

Of the 10 Republicans in Thursday’s debate, none was harder to explain than Donald Trump. It’s not that he isn’t a serious candidate. It’s that he was on the wrong stage, with the wrong people, at the wrong time.

Republicans have been working for the past decade to reconstruct a movement that collapsed in the mid-2000s as a result of laziness and loss of principle. It has been a wrenching process, full of tea-party uprisings and bitter primaries, uninspired presidential candidacies and blown elections, policy setbacks and government shutdowns. Still, the number of triumphs has been growing. The Republicans’ hold over governorships and takeover of the Senate, their new faces and new ideas, and their brimming presidential field all are signs that the Republican electorate has grown more thoughtful about the political process—and more demanding of smart, principled conservatives.

There was never any mistaking the aura of confident superiority from the host of ‘The Daily Show.’

It comes as no surprise that the end of Jon Stewart’s reign at Comedy Central should occasion a flow of testimonials fit for a revered leader. All that’s missing are the floral tributes in the streets. Long before word of Mr. Stewart’s departure was in the air, the reverential status he enjoyed as combination show host, news commentator and disseminator of all the latest in received wisdom was clear to all. Some of this week’s testaments, recorded in a New York Times piece Wednesday, sum the tone up nicely.

When President Obama on Monday announced new “Clean Power Plan” regulations to help mitigate climate change, more than a few religious leaders were quick to offer their blessing. Some 170 evangelicals—pastors, religion professors, nonprofit directors and others—sent an open letter to the president “to offer our support and encouragement for your efforts to overcome the climate challenge.”

The Evangelical Environmental Network, as the group calls itself, would “prefer that Congress act to reduce carbon pollution through a market-based approach, such as a revenue-neutral carbon tax swap that cuts other taxes,” but is nonetheless “grateful” for the president’s executive action.

The FBI is finally looking into Hillary Clinton’s handling of email as Secretary of State, but her campaign says not to worry because it’s not a “criminal referral” and she followed “appropriate practices.” The relevant question is why isn’t it a criminal probe?

Congress asked Charles McCullough III, Inspector General for the intelligence community, to evaluate whether classified information was transmitted or received by State Department employees over personal email systems. His office sampled 40 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails, determined that four contained classified intelligence, and passed that finding to Justice for review. This was merely a first step, and now we know the FBI is investigating the security of Mrs. Clinton’s private server.

The cartel faces the prospect of surging US output whenever oil prices rise

If the oil futures market is correct, Saudi Arabia will start running into trouble within two years. It will be in existential crisis by the end of the decade.

The contract price of US crude oil for delivery in December 2020 is currently $62.05, implying a drastic change in the economic landscape for the Middle East and the petro-rentier states.

Sen. Charles Schumer ended weeks of indecision Thursday night by announcing he would not support President Obama’s landmark nuclear deal with Iran.

The high-ranking Democrat released a statement saying that after “considerable soul-searching” he determined that there are “serious weaknesses” in the accord signed by Iran and six world powers in mid-July.

“I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy,” Schumer said.

“It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power.”