RUTHFULLY YOURS

Three years ago in Albemarle County, Virginia, Jesse Matthew Jr. abducted and murdered promising 18-year-old University of Virginia student Hannah Graham. Her skeletal remains were found more than a month later in the woods of southern Albemarle. Her grief-stricken father had this to say of his daughter: “She was bright. She was witty. She was beautiful. And she made people happy.”

In 2009, Mr. Matthew had murdered Morgan Harrington, another young student, and four years before that had attacked and sexually assaulted a woman in Fairfax, Va., leaving DNA beneath her fingernails, which would lead to his conviction after the two murders. But Jesse Matthew had been convicted of misdemeanor criminal trespass in 2010. Had his DNA been recorded at the time, it would have linked him to the 2005 Fairfax attack, and Hannah Graham would be alive today.

The criminal-justice system, legislatures, and, indirectly, all of us have failed these and countless other victims of brutal abductions, rapes, torture, and murder. In Virginia as in most states, no procedure is in place to record DNA following certain serious misdemeanors. Because of the efforts of Sheriff J.E. “Chip” Harding, nine Class 1 misdemeanors have been added to the previous five eligible for DNA collection, but scores of Class 1 offenses are exempt. He proposes to include them.

Last year in the U.S., according to preliminary FBI figures, more than 15,000 people were murdered and 90,000 forcibly raped. Whereas relatively few of those who commit misdemeanors go on to more consequential crimes, most of those who do commit serious crimes have a record of prior misdemeanors. In New York state the average first-time felon has three. Major felons tend to be recidivists. As illustrated by the cases outlined above, many thousands of lives could be protected or saved by solving one crime before a perpetrator has the opportunity to commit others. Police and prosecutors would be freed to work other cases, and, not least, false convictions would decrease and exonerations of the falsely convicted rise.

With the Blue Ridge as the backdrop, the Albemarle County Sheriff’s Office is hardly something out of “My Cousin Vinny” or “In the Heat of the Night.” True, there are the “No Weapons Beyond This Point” signs, the bulletproof glass, the M4 locker, and 70 sworn officers passing in and out like bees in a hive. But they are a highly qualified, integrated, and ethical force, which, with its unusual reserve division, claims interpreters of half a dozen languages, fixed-wing and helicopter pilots, and military, intelligence, medical, and legal professionals.

At the head is Sheriff Harding, one of the International Chiefs of Police “Top Ten Cops” in America, an FBI Academy graduate with more than 40 years on the job. In his office, he analyzes spreadsheets with thousands of data points relevant to the correlation of major felonies with prior misdemeanors. He has been at it for decades, working with the Innocence Project, testifying before Congress and the state Legislature. CONTINUE AT SITE

Christopher Wray, President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Bureau of Investigation, won Senate confirmation Tuesday with the support of most Democrats, putting the former Justice Department official and private lawyer in charge of an agency buffeted by political crosswinds that show few signs of diminishing.

The bipartisan 92-to-5 vote was a shift after Mr. Trump’s abrupt firing in May of the last FBI director, James Comey, amid the FBI investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and any potential connection with the Trump campaign. Mr. Comey’s dismissal alarmed lawmakers in both parties, but Democrats were especially critical.

After a largely amicable hearing last month in which Mr. Wray pledged to be an independent leader and not to carry out any orders he believed unlawful, he won the unanimous support of the 20 senators on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Wray is known as a hard worker who avoids drama, and current and former FBI agents have said they hope he can help the agency stay out of the political spotlight, enabling it to focus on its traditional investigations into everything from terrorist plots to transnational gangs to cyber crimes.

Mr. Comey’s departure was particularly acrimonious. Mr. Trump called him a “showboat” and said he was doing a poor job, while Mr. Comey told Congress he kept notes of his meetings with the president because he didn’t trust Mr. Trump to describe them accurately. Mr. Comey also said Mr. Trump pressured him to drop an investigation into a Trump associate, which the president denied.
Chris Wray, President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the FBI, has a complicated web of professional contacts that link him to Trump’s inner circle and people who have investigated the president. WSJ’s Shelby Holliday reports.

The Russia investigation, in which many FBI agents remain engaged, will largely be off Mr. Wray’s plate, given the appointment of Robert Mueller as a special counsel overseeing the probe.

Still, Mr. Wray is likely to have a brief honeymoon, if any. Last week, Mr. Trump attacked acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, asking on Twitter why Attorney General Jeff Sessions hadn’t replaced Mr. McCabe, whose wife ran for local office with the support of a Hillary Clinton ally.

Mr. Trump nominated Mr. Wray, 50, after a long search process that included nontraditional figures such as Joseph Lieberman, a former Independent and Democratic senator from Connecticut.CONTINUE AT SITE

President Trump likes to govern by Twitter threat, which often backfires, to put it mildly. But he’s onto something with his recent suggestion that Members of Congress should have to live under the health-care law they imposed on Americans.

Over the weekend Mr. Trump tweeted that “If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon!” He later added: “If ObamaCare is hurting people, & it is, why shouldn’t it hurt the insurance companies & why should Congress not be paying what public pays?”

Mr. Trump is alluding to a dispensation from ObamaCare for Members of Congress and their staff, and the back story is a tutorial in Washington self-dealing. A 2009 amendment from Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) forced congressional employees to obtain coverage from the Affordable Care Act exchanges. The Senate Finance Committee adopted it unanimously.

That meant Members and their staff would no longer enjoy coverage from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which subsidizes up to 75% of the cost of a plan. The text of the Affordable Care Act says that staffers may “only” be offered plans created by the law or on the exchanges.

The law did not specify what would happen to the employer contributions, though Democrats claim this was merely a copy-editing mistake. A meltdown ensued as Members feared that staffers would be exposed to thousands of dollars more in annual health-care costs, replete with predictions that junior aides would clean out their desks en masse.

Mr. Obama intervened in 2013 and the Office of Personnel Management issued a rule that would allow employer contributions to exchange plans, not that OPM had such legal authority. One hilarious detail is that OPM certified the House and Senate as “small businesses” with fewer than 50 full-time employees, and no doubt the world would be better if that were true. This invention allowed Members to purchase plans on the District of Columbia exchange for small businesses, where employers can make contributions to premiums. This is a farce and maybe a fraud.

In last week’s Senate health-care debate, Wisconsin Republican Ron Johnson circulated an idea to block subsidies for Members, who earn at least $174,000 a year and would not receive generous taxpayer underwriting on the exchanges. The Johnson amendment would restore staff to the federal benefits program. Alas, the amendment commands almost no support. Not even Democrats want to sign up for their own policy.

But Mr. Trump could direct OPM to scrap the rule for Members, which is reversible because Mr. Obama reworked his own law through regulation that can be undone by a successor. Mr. Obama also refused to pursue a legislative fix for the problem lest Republicans demand something in return.

Revoking the rule would have the political benefit of forcing Members to live under the regime that Democrats rammed into law and Republicans have failed to fix. If Members are pained by higher premiums and fewer insurance choices, perhaps they will be inspired to fix the law for the millions who have had to endure it.

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Obama, the humanitarian huckster-in-chief, weakened the United States for eight years presenting his crippling transgender policies as altruistic when in fact they were designed for destruction. His legacy, the Leftist Democratic Party with its “resistance” movement, is the party of the Humanitarian Hoax attempting to destroy American democracy and replace it with socialism.

On July 26, 2017 President Trump announced a policy to ban transgender individuals from military service. The “T” in LGBT stands for transgender.

LGBTQ rights are an anthem for the leftist resistance movement. They publicly rail against Republicans as homophobes, racists, sexists, and misogynists. Their rants are emotionally charged “feel-good” slogans designed to unify their base. Sloganism is a manipulative marketing strategy designed by the advertising industry to hype the products they are trying to sell. The Leftist Democrat Party slogans are hyping transgender inclusion to sell transitioning inclusion in the military – there is a pivotal difference.

Of course transgender individuals are as patriotic as any American. Of course transgender individuals can shoot as straight as any American. Of course transgender soldiers can be as effective as any American soldier. Inclusion of transgender individuals in the military is not a matter of IF transgender individuals should be admitted it is a matter of WHEN they should be admitted.

The time for gender assignment and gender choices is BEFORE entering the military. An individual’s path to maleness or femaleness is a personal private matter and not the military’s concern. Any individual applying for military service must have matching gender, genitalia, and gender identification BEFORE entering the military. Any ambivalence, counseling, transitioning, surgeries, or any ancillary services must be completed before admittance. Let’s examine why.

Inclusion and cohesion are not the same thing.

The mission of the military is unequivocally national defense – the protection of America and the American people. The military is one of the only appropriate collectives in a democracy. The military is a unique culture with unique rules where collective units, not individuals, are prioritized and where the mission supersedes the needs of the individuals who serve. The effectiveness of the military depends on group cohesion and the ability of the group to function effectively as a single unified lethal force under extreme pressure. Anything that threatens group cohesion is contraindicated in the military.

The month began with celebrations on the birth of our nation and ended with the death of little Charlie Gard. July 4, 1776 began a revolution that led to a Republic of a free and independent people. Charlie Gard became a metaphor for an intrusive state where life and death decisions are made by courts, not parents. The question was never would Charlie survive, but where and when would he die? While it was the English court system that determined how and when his death would come, we in the U.S. are moving inexorably in the same, leftward direction. This is a debate that will not, and should not, go away.

The last day of the month marked the centennial of the start of the 100-day battle at Passchendaele (the Third Battle of Ypres), which became a grim symbol of war’s folly. A half million soldiers became casualties over those weeks on Flanders Field. When the battle was over, the front lines had barely budged. “I died in hell – (They called it Passchendaele),” wrote Siegfried Sassoon, in his poem “Memorial Tablet.”[1]

Like every month, much happened during July. Chancellor Angela Merkel hosted the G20 in Hamburg, a gathering that brings together world leaders, hopefully to ease tensions. After thirty-seven months of ISIS control, the city of Mosul was re-taken by Iraqi forces. In the meantime, ISIS terrorists established a new beachhead in the Philippines by laying siege to Marawi, a city of 200,000. North Korea launched two more ICBMs, showing the U.S. may not be safe, should Kim Jong Un decide to attach a nuclear warhead to an ICBM. Is he testing the Trump Administration, or is he testing the West? Mr. Trump replaced his chief of staff, Reince Priebus with John Kelly, a necessary step given persistent leaks and a lack of discipline in the White House. Mr. Priebus had been Chair of the Republican National Committee, while Mr. Kelly had been Secretary for Homeland Security and before that a four-star Marine Corps General. The attempt to repeal and replace ObamaCare failed, demonstrating that an entitlement, once granted, is almost impossible to take away – at least until Washington runs out of “other people’s money.”

Republicans failed to pass health reform; their efforts resembled an uncoordinated, undisciplined Newfoundland puppy chasing his tail in an open field. But Republicans should not lose sight of what has been accomplished. In his first 100 days, Mr. Trump signed 13 Congressional Review Acts, nullifying unnecessary regulations and preventing agencies from reissuing them. He signed 30 Executive Orders, reducing powers of the Executive. Congress enacted 28 new laws.

The biggest news from my perspective – and one whose effects are nebulous, but may be long lasting – is the continuing attempt to destroy the Trump Presidency. Debate is integral to democracy, but when disagreements descend into venality chaos ensues, and nihilism results. We have even seen public calls for Mr. Trump’s assassination. While there is no question that Mr. Trump can be his own worst enemy, the forces aligned against him are as ruthless as they are relentless. Mr. Trump’s habit of spontaneous tweeting does not serve him, though his desire to speak directly to the American people is understandable. It has become difficult to separate real news from fake news. Will Attorney General Sessions and Secretary of State Tillerson resign, or is that simply a wish on the part of those who would disrupt the Presidency? What, for example, was the role of Fusion GPS, a Washington-based opposition research firm, in the Russian allegations? Who hired Glenn Simpson, its founder, to put together a “hit-job” on Mr. Trump? Why did Democrats in Congress retreat from demanding Donald Trump and Paul Manafort testify in a public forum, when they learned Mr. Simpson would be required to do so as well?

For the left, “Music hath no charms to soothe the savage breast”…apologies to William Congreve (1697) RSK
Most Americans are at least somewhat aware of what is happening at American (and European) universities with regard to conservative speakers. Universities either never invite, disinvite, or allow the violent (or threatened violent) prevention of conservative speakers. No non-left-wing idea should be permitted on campus.

But we may have hit a new low.

Let me explain.

For years, I have been conducting symphony orchestras in southern California. I have conducted the Brentwood, the Glendale, and the West L.A. Symphony Orchestras, the Pasadena Lyric Opera, and the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra at the Hollywood Bowl. I have studied classical music since high school, when I first began playing piano and studying orchestral scores.

I conduct orchestras because I love making music; but I also do so because I want to help raise funds for local orchestras (I have never been paid to conduct) and because I want to expose as many people to classical music as possible.

After I conduct a symphony, I then conduct select parts of the piece in order to show the audience what various sections of the orchestra are doing. After that, I walk around the orchestra with a microphone, interviewing some of the musicians. Everyone seems to love it.

After intermission, the permanent, and professional, conductor conducts his orchestra in another symphony.

About half a year ago, the conductor of the Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra, Guido Lammell, who is also a longtime member of the violin section of the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra, asked me whether I would be interested in conducting his orchestra. I said yes even before he added the punchline – at the Walt Disney Concert Hall.

For those not up to date on concert halls, the Walt Disney Concert Hall, which opened less than 15 years ago, is one of the preeminent concert halls of the world. Being invited to conduct a superb orchestra at that hall is one of the great honors of my life.

About a month ago, however, a few members of the orchestra, supported by some Santa Monica city officials, decided to lead a campaign to have me disinvited.

As I said, this is a new low for the illiberal Left: It is not enough to prevent conservatives from speaking; it is now necessary to prevent conservatives from appearing even when not speaking. Conservatives should not be even be allowed to make music.

To its great credit, the board of directors of the Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra, composed of individuals of all political outlooks, has completely stood by their conductor and his invitation to me.

But the attempt to cancel me continues. It is being organized by three members of the orchestra, each of whom has refused to play that night. Readers will not be surprised to learn that two of the three organizers are college professors. Michael Chwe is a professor of political science at UCLA, and Andrew Apter is a professor of history and director of the African Studies Center at UCLA.

In an open letter to the symphony’s members, the three wrote: “A concert with Dennis Prager would normalize hatred and bigotry. . . . ”

Occasionally insanity, real or feigned, has its political advantages —largely because of its ancillary traits of unpredictability and an aura of immunity from appeals to reason, sobriety, and moderation.

Rogues often try to appear as crazy as mad hatters — sometimes defined by issuing threats, throwing temper tantrums, saying outrageous things, dressing weirdly, or acting peculiarly.

In nuclear poker, the House of Kim in North Korea has welded its supposed hereditary madness to nuclear weapons — to achieve both deterrence and periodic shakedowns of massive foreign aid.

Turkish president Recep Erdogan is also a touchy nut. He usually wins an unearned wide berth and political concessions from the West by his offensive habits of saying anything to anyone at any time — in between episodic threats to the West to yank NATO troops out of Turkey, to send along even more Middle Eastern young males from war-torn states into the heart of Europe, or to demagogue Muslim tensions with Israel.

Even democratic leaders occasionally adopt the mask of madness for diplomatic and political advantage.

John F. Kennedy, during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, openly sought advice from the caricatured Strangelovian (but actually authentic hero) General Curtis LeMay. To his advisers and adversaries, the brinksman Kennedy could pose as receiving wisdom from LeMay — who less than two decades earlier had burned down Tokyo — to ponder a chilling solution.

Recall Kennedy’s prior disastrous summit in Vienna, in 1961, with a bullying Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev: “I’ve got a terrible problem if he [Khrushchev] thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts.” From that encounter, Kennedy learned that rhetorical gymnastics and judicious predictability earned him only scorn — the brawler from the Stalingrad era assessed him as timid and weak. The Soviet leader, in his own bouts of public buffoonery, was not averse to pounding his fist (or even banging his shoe) on his U.N. delegate’s desk in protest.

During the late 1960s and early 1970s, National Security Adviser and later Secretary of State Henry Kissinger sometimes allegedly played the good-cop “voice of reason” to President Richard Nixon’s bad-cop and purportedly “mad bomber” persona. At various times, Kissinger sought to convince the North Vietnamese, Arab dictators, and the Soviet Union to deal diplomatically with a sober American Dr. Jekyll such as himself rather than with an unpredictable Commander in Chief Nixon (sometimes playing the role of Mr. Hyde).

Somebody as sober and judicious as Ronald Reagan on occasion seemed to follow the beat of a different drummer, thereby reminding foreign leaders that he was no cool, collected — and utterly predictable — Jimmy Carter.

Reagan’s hot-mic comic but dangerous nuttery — “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever — we begin bombing in five minutes” — purportedly caused an entire Soviet army to go on alert. And perhaps it reminded the Soviets of the radical new American approach to the Cold War.

And what did Reagan actually mean in a nuclear age of mutually assured destruction when he announced, “Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win; they lose”?

The answer, apparently, was for the Soviets to figure out.

In contrast, again, as in the case of Jimmy Carter who sermonized constantly on what he would never do, Barack “no drama” Obama seemed to think his predictability and mellifluousness would win empathy and respect (rather than confirmation of frailty) from world leaders — the vast majority of whom came to power through thuggery rather than free elections. The result was a green light for exploitation, not reciprocity for magnanimity, from Russia, China, the entire Middle East, Iran, and radical Islam.

Democrats from the party that think the Electoral College is undemocratic but that unelected super delegates representing party bosses are just fine forget how former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz tipped the scales for Hillary Clinton over a surging Bernie Sanders. She interfered in the 2016 election in ways that Vladimir Putin couldn’t even dream of and arguably changed at least the Democratic Party results and campaign timeline.

In all the discussions of the Russians or their operatives hacking into the DNC and exposing the emails documenting DNC corruption and collusion with a single candidate, Hillary Clinton, the content of those emails are shoved aside. The emails documenting subversion of our democracy by Democrats, revealed by Wikileaks, were written by Democrats, not Vladimir Putin:

Schultz said she would step down after the convention. She has been forced to step aside after a leak of internal DNC emails showed officials actively favoring Hillary Clinton during the presidential primary and plotting against Clinton’s rival, Bernie Sanders…

The Sanders campaign has long claimed that the party establishment had its “finger on the scales” during the bitter and surprisingly long primary, but the embarrassing new revelations proved to be the final straw for a figure who had been a lightning rod for tension within the party.

The Russians may or may not have been involved, but in this context perhaps they should be considered whistleblowers and not hackers. It’s like someone breaking into a house only to find a murder scene. They can be accused of burglary but not the murder. Still the Russians were an easy diversion:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has accused Russia of meddling in the 2016 presidential election, saying its hackers stole Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails and released them to foment disunity in the party and aid Donald Trump.

Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, said on Sunday that “experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and are] releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump”….

Emails released by Wikileaks on Friday showed members of the DNC trading ideas for how to undercut the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders, who proved a resilient adversary to Clinton in the Democratic primary. In one email, a staffer suggested the DNC spread a negative article about Sanders’ supporters; in another, the DNC’s chief financial officer suggested that questions about Sanders’ faith could undermine his candidacy.

So what the Democrats accused the Russians of doing, Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s DNC was actively doing. And considering what we have found out about the Pakistanis, not the Russians, that were brought in to run their IT operation, it makes sense as to why the DNC refused to turn over their servers to FBI forensic investigators, something which may now change. What else where they trying to hide:

Not yet a week after the most extravagant Republican Party botch since the Bill Clinton impeachment, Beltway fingers are still pointing. And why not? The failure to make good on seven years’ worth of ObamaCare repeal promises has many fathers.

Take your pick. Sen. John McCain’s pique. The squishiness of those such as Sen. Rob Portman who voted for repeal when it didn’t matter, and then voted nay when it did. Behind-the-scenes undermining by governors such as Ohio’s John Kasich. A GOP bereft of party discipline.

There is truth to all these. Even so, perhaps the most obvious reason goes almost unmentioned: The Republican bills were unpopular.
This does not mean they were bad bills, notwithstanding the many compromises lawmakers included. It does mean that their merits went mostly unsold to the public. This allowed Democrats and their allies to paint the bills as but the latest Republican attempt to rob from the poor ($800 billion in Medicaid cuts) to give to the rich ($600 billion in tax cuts).

Even more astounding is that as this narrative took hold the president of the United States neglected the greatest bully pulpit of all: the Oval Office.

Notwithstanding his flaws, Donald Trump has proved himself able to connect with voters, especially those who voted for Barack Obama, in a way other Republicans have not. But the Trump White House has yet to recognize the unique punch a formal, televised address from behind the desk of the Oval Office still carries, even in the age of Twitter .

Ronald Reagan’s use of the Oval to push his tax cuts through in 1981 is a textbook example. Yes, the Gipper schmoozed those on the opposite side of the aisle. He had to, given that Democrats controlled the House. But as likeable as he was, folks on both sides of the political aisle were skeptical about his proposed tax cuts.

In a July 27 Oval Office address, Reagan made his pitch. In simple language, he gently mocked the Democratic leadership claims that their bill “gives a greater break to the workers than ours.” He said the whole controversy came down to whose money it was—the people who earned it or the government that wanted to spend it. And his call for Americans to “contact your senators and congressmen” to urge them to vote for his tax cuts touched off what Speaker Tip O’Neill described as a “telephone blitz like this nation has never seen.”

Though it’s now popular to reminisce about the warm cuddly Reagan who put partisanship aside, that’s not the way it was seen at the time. The day after his speech, the New York Times reported Reagan had “engaged in a series of partisan attacks on his opponents on Capitol Hill.”