RUTHFULLY YOURS

If Hillary Clinton wins the White House, her party’s platform makes no bones about what is in store for those who dare to dispute the “settled science” of assorted computer modellers, grant-grabbers, propagandists and professional alarmists: a visit by the authorities
On news just in, the drafting committee for the party platform of the Democratic Party in the US has unanimously adopted a provision for the Justice Department to investigate businesses that question the threat of dangerous global warming. This comes on top of recent efforts by various climate alarmist academics, politicians, NGOs and a consortium of state attorneys general to pursue criminal charges of fraud and/or racketeering against those who dispute the threat of climate change.

Such prosecution is predicated on a conviction that the threat of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is a self-evident truth backed by irrefutable scientific evidence and affirmed by a virtually unanimous majority of expert opinion. Such a belief then leads to the conclusion that any expression of doubt can only be evidence of some mental disorder or a deliberate attempt to defraud the public.

However, and despite the absolute certainty and trembling righteousness being displayed on this issue, the best available evidence simply does not support such conviction and the threat remains only an unproven hypothetical. It is still based primarily on projections from un-validated computer modelling which have increasingly departed from the real world record of climate itself.

Of a hundred different climate models constructed by various researchers all but one projected temperatures increasingly higher than the actual record has in fact shown. The sole exception is an obscure Russian model which has been effectively ignored by the alarmists.

Beyond the failed modelling there are four aspects of the alleged climate peril, all of which are said to be increasing to dangerous levels at unprecedented rates:

Global temperatures
Sea levels
Ocean acidification
Extreme weather events

Contrary to all the hype, careful examination of the actual evidence indicates that all of these things remain well within the natural range of variability over the past millennium.

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.”

After the Orlando massacre, when an armed Muslim killed 49 people in a homosexual nightclub, al-Qaeda published a guide urging more such “lone wolf” attacks, but with one caveat: to exclusively target white Americans.

According to the jihadi group’s online publication, “Inspire guide: Orlando operation,” killing homosexuals is “the most binding duty.” Nonetheless, would be jihadis are advised to “avoid targeting places and crowds where minorities are generally found in America,” and rather to target “areas where the Anglo-Saxon community is generally concentrated.”

Several talking heads and pundits responded by warning that al-Qaeda is shifting gear, somehow trying to portray itself as a “social justice warrior.” In fact, al-Qaeda has long presented itself to the West in this manner, and these latest guidelines are hardly new. Rather, they help explain the real differences between al-Qaeda and ISIS, and the stage of jihad they see themselves in.

Although The Al Qaeda Reader documents al-Qaeda’s dual approach—preach unrelenting jihad to Muslims, whine about grievances to Westerners—a nearly decade-old communique from al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri is sufficient. In it, he spoke to the many “under-privileged” of the world:

That’s why I want blacks in America, people of color, American Indians, Hispanics, and all the weak and oppressed in North and South America, in Africa and Asia, and all over the world, to know that when we wage jihad in Allah’s path, we aren’t waging jihad to lift oppression from Muslims only; we are waging jihad to lift oppression from all mankind, because Allah has ordered us never to accept oppression, whatever it may be…This is why I want every oppressed one on the face of the earth to know that our victory over America and the Crusading West — with Allah’s permission — is a victory for them, because they shall be freed from the most powerful tyrannical force in the history of mankind.

American blacks, however, were Zawahiri’s primary targets. Zawahiri praised and quoted from the convert to Islam, Malcolm X: “Anytime you beg another man to set you free, you will never be free. Freedom is something you have to do for yourself. The price of freedom is death.”

The al-Qaeda leader appealed to another potentially sympathetic segment: environmentalists: “[The U.S.] went out and ruined for the entire world, the atmosphere and climate with the gases emitted by its factories,” said the terror leader. Years, earlier Osama bin Laden himself complained about the U.S.’ failure to sign the Kyoto protocols: “You [the U.S.] have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history.”

What does this ostensibly disparate group of people—“third worlders,” environmentalists, and disaffected American blacks—have in common? They all harbor anti-Western sentiments that can be exploited by the jihadis. Hence why al-Qaeda is again reaffirming that, while killing homosexuals is “the most binding duty,” it’s still best to continue targeting non-minorities in America, i.e., traditional whites, they who are so easy to demonize.