RUTHFULLY YOURS

What’s the best case for Donald Trump?

The question comes in the week Republicans here will formally nominate him for president, and the answer is not complicated. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence gave it as his reason for signing on as Mr. Trump’s VP: The alternative is President Hillary Clinton.

This is the reality of choice in a two-party democracy. Still, many have a hard time accepting it. So even as Mr. Trump handily dispatched 16 more-experienced rivals, his shortcomings and unfitness for office have become a staple of conservative fare.

Yes, Mr. Trump elevates insult over argument. Yes, he is vague and contradictory about the details of his own proposals. And yes, he often speaks aloud before thinking things through. It’s all fair game.

Even so, in this election Mr. Trump is not running against himself. Though you might not know it from much of the commentary and coverage, he is running against Mrs. Clinton.

On so many issues—free trade, the claim that Mexico will pay for a border wall, his suspiciously recent embrace of the pro-life cause—Mr. Trump gives reasons for pause. But he still isn’t Mrs. Clinton. That’s crucial, because much of the argument for keeping Mr. Trump out of the Oval Office at all costs requires glossing over the damage a second Clinton presidency would do.

Start with the economy. There is zero reason to believe a Clinton administration would be any improvement over the past eight years, from taxes and spending and regulation to ObamaCare. If elected, moreover, Mrs. Clinton would be working with a Democratic Party that has been pulled sharply left by Bernie Sanders.

Mrs. Clinton’s flip-flop on the Trans-Pacific Partnership is illuminating. As President Obama’s secretary of state, she waxed enthusiastic. But when it came time to take her stand as a presidential candidate, she folded. Mr. Trump has made his own protectionist noises, but if this same trade agreement had been negotiated by a Trump White House, who doubts that he would be telling us what a great deal it was for American workers?

Or what about social issues? Mrs. Clinton has loudly repudiated the moderating language her husband ran on in 1992, notably on abortion. In sharp contrast, she is the candidate who touts the Planned Parenthood view of human life, who sees nothing wrong with forcing nuns to provide employees with contraceptives, and who supports the Obama administration’s bid to compel K-through-12 public schools to open girls’ bathrooms to males who identify as female.

In short, Mrs. Clinton is the culture war on steroids. CONTINUE AT SITE

Bret Stephens endorsed Hillary Clinton, a corrupt and mendacious candidate who has no better angels…so really…rsk

Hillary: The Conservative Hope The right can survive liberal presidents. Trump will kill its best ideas for a generation.http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-the-conservative-hope-1462833870

The Republican Party came to presidential life under the leadership of a man who concluded his first inaugural address as follows:

“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

This week, the same party will nominate as its presidential candidate a man who on Saturday introduced his running mate as follows:

“The turnaround and the strength of Indiana has been incredible, and I learned that when I campaigned there. And I learned that when I won that state in a landslide. And I learned that when Gov. Pence, under tremendous pressure from establishment people, endorsed somebody else, but it was more of an endorsement for me, if you remember. He talked about Trump, then he talked about Ted—who’s a good guy, by the way, who’s going to be speaking at the convention, Ted Cruz, good guy—but he talked about Trump, Ted, then he went back to Trump. I said, ‘who did he endorse?’ ”

I cite these two passages to discuss two subjects that once were dear to conservative hearts: national decline and personal character. Many conservatives believe the subjects are one and the same.

Once again police officers have been ambushed — this time the venue is Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Seven officers were shot, three of them fatally.

It must be presumed that this attack was premeditated.

Where are the fines for the leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement who have organized riots, and stoked violence against police?

This comes on the heels of the shooting of police officers in Dallas, Texas, in which 11 police officers were shot; five died.

It is too early to know for sure, but this attack bears all the markings of a lethal cop-targeted ambush inspired by anti-police rhetoric and sentiment.

Over the course of the last several months, Black Lives Matter demonstrators have marched in cities around the United States calling for the killing of police officers. Traditionally, in describing our First Amendment, it is said that freedom of speech does not include yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Yet nothing was done in those cities where those demonstrators called for the killing of police officers.

Words have impact and, in fact, inciting to riot is a violation of law.

Here are the elements of this felony under federal law:

Title 18 U.S. Code § 2101 — Riots begins with the following:

“Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent —

to incite a riot; or
to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or
to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or
to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph— [1]

Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”