RUTHFULLY YOURS

Hillary and Bill Clinton were a proud, progressive power couple who came into big-time state politics on promises of promoting “fairness” and “equality.” It did not matter much that very little in their previous personal lives had matched such elevated rhetoric with concrete action. And so the ironies and tragedies that followed were not altogether unexpected.

The theme that united the subsequent tawdry reports about the Clinton cattle futures scam and Whitewater was an overweening lust for money. The Clintons seemed to feel entitled, in the sense that their education, sophistication, and taste deserved the sort of peace of mind, enjoyment, and security that only comfortable circumstances could provide, and which was taken for granted among the rich progressive environments in which the Clintons increasingly navigated. They had arrived and they “deserved” it.
In 2001, we are supposed to believe, the Clintons left office “dead broke” as the result of their sacrifices as first family. In Hillary’s words, they were scarcely able to afford the various mortgages on their homes with which they had been encumbered (“we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses”).

Given an ever greater need for cash beyond a mere government pension, given that from 2001 onward they had something to sell beyond Bill as a “wise-man” president emeritus (i.e., Hillary’s New York Senate career as a springboard to a second Clinton presidency), and given their innate characters (or perhaps their hamartiai), the next years were predictable. After 2001, the long arc of their moral universe bent toward personal aggrandizement through the Clinton Foundation, pay-for-play State Department favors, and $10,000-20,000-a minute rah-rah speeches to rich people eager to leverage the next episode of Clinton influence peddling.

Such smart, capable, self-assured, and haughty people are the stuff of Greek tragedy, and its warnings about the descent from hubris (overweening arrogance) to atê (unhinged madness) to nemesis (divine retribution and downfall).

At the denouement of most tragedies. the figures who survive the wrath of the gods—and who are not themselves beheaded or slain by their own hands—are sometimes enlightened by their destruction, rediscover some purpose, acquire an appreciation of pathei mathos (wisdom through pain) and find peaceful redemption.

People like the Clintons—or for that matter Euripides’s characters such as Jason (Medea) or King Pentheus (Bacchae)—are oblivious to the ultimate and preordained trajectories of their fates. Hillary Clinton has ended up a two-time failed presidential candidate, stained with money grubbing scandals and chronic deceit, who blew huge leads in 2008 and 2016, despite being the beneficiary of unprecedented cash, campaign consultants, and party endorsements. She has sacrificed her health, her reputation, and her very life to do everything politically right, which was not only ethically wrong but also proved, in good Athenian tragic fashion, politically disastrous. (Tragic figures, remember, do anything and everything they can to pursue an ambitious sense of self—and thereby only ensure that they can never obtain it.)

A gaunt Dorian Gray-like Bill Clinton in his twilight is indeed tragic. He may have the sins of the flesh written all over his face, but he had also convinced himself at one point in his life that his undeniable political cunning, education, and folksy charm could be put to use for noble purposes beyond the tawdry sex, chronic lying, and narcissism that were his brands. But after the scandals, the impeachment, the pardons, the Foundation miasma, the quid pro quo speaking fees, the Lolita Express, the disastrous campaign interventions for Hillary from 2008 to the tarmac scene with Loretta Lynch, the petty rivalries and double-dealing, optics reflect that there is nothing much left of a once dynamic president but an empty shell.

At the denouement of most tragedies. the figures who survive the wrath of the gods—and who are not themselves beheaded or slain by their own hands—are sometimes enlightened by

Here’s the good news.

It’s 2017 and Republicans control the White House, the Senate, the House and more statewide offices than you can shake a big bundle of fake news papers at. And, potentially soon, a Supreme Court that takes its guidelines from the Constitution not Das Kapital and the National Social Justice Party.

Here’s the bad news, Republicans are still Republicans.

Whether it’s Flynn, Bannon, Gorka, Kushner, Clarke, they are all too eager to fall for the latest left-wing scandal. The media throws some chum in the water and watches the bloody fun as Republicans go after Republicans. Scandals are manufactured and strategically aimed to divide and conquer Republicans.

But the real target is the conservative agenda. Bogging down the White House in scandals keeps it from dismantling more of Obama’s regulations and orders. Every milligram of oxygen that foolish conservatives give the left’s narratives is a milligram taken from the lungs of the conservative agenda.

At the National Review, Jim Geraghty, who has loathed Trump since Day 1, seizes on the latest scandal targeting Jared Kushner. In recent days, the National Review has run four pieces on the fake scandal.

That’s an odd preoccupation for a conservative publication that ought to be more concerned with conservative policy priorities than parsing the shibboleths that the left is firing at President Trump.

But the National Review occupies a peculiar space between the Never Trumpers who have found cushy jobs on MSNBC and at the New York Times and mainstream conservative support for President Trump. It isn’t ready to leave the movement, but instead it insists on echoing media criticisms in a softer tone.

The Review takes the tone that it’s just asking questions. Those questions just happen to be the same ones that the media keeps on asking. If the mainstream media reads like an angry partisan blog, then the National Review sounds the way that the media used to when it was just biased instead of fake.

It just so happens that the Review is full of innumerable stories and posts about every media scandal. And its preferred pose is innocence. Like the rest of the media, it’s just asking questions.

What’s the big deal?

“What I don’t get is any reflexive defense of . . . Jared Kushner. Trump earned your vote, and presumably, some amount of trust. What did Kushner ever do for you?” Geraghty protests.

Presumably. In Geraghty’s world, winning the votes of conservatives, shouldn’t necessarily earn trust.

Removing four New Orleans statues commemorating Confederate leaders was only the beginning of the campaign to rewrite American history. In the much larger City of Houston, Antifa activists are demanding the removal of a statue of that city’s namesake. KPRC TV reports:

The Sam Houston statue has been at Hermann Park since 1925, but a group that calls itself Texas Antifa has started a campaign to take down this and any other landmark that bears the name Sam Houston.

The statue has been a site to see for nearly a century and for some people, it’s a site they want to see for years to come.

“Honestly, I think they should keep it up. Yeah,” Nicole Nelson said.

But Texas Antifa group members want the Sam Houston statue gone.

On Thursday, the group posted on its Facebook page saying, “Texans agree the disgusting idols of America’s dark days of slavery must be removed to bring internal peace to our country.”

The group also suggested Mayor Sylvester Turner should back the removal of the statue, because of his ethnicity and political affiliation.

Mayor Turner is black, and apparently that is supposed to dictate his every thought and action. Too bad that the Antifa people deny him the moral right to reach his own decisions.

As the article points out, while Sam Houston did own 12 slaves, he was hardly an explicit supporter of slavery:

When Sam Houston was a senator in the 1800s, he repeatedly voted against the spread of slavery to new territories of the United States. He was also ousted as governor of Texas for refusing to align himself with the Confederacy.

Of course, if the statue is removed, then the city itself must be renamed by the same logic. Marcuse, Texas? Obama, Texas?

My gut instinct tells me that Texans will not put up with this nonsense.

President Trump was understandably criticized last year when he tweeted out an accusation that he would have won the popular vote were it not for “three to five million illegal votes” being cast (a specific claim for which he provided no evidence). But contrast the blowtorch of skepticism he received with the virtual silence that came last week when Hillary Clinton made a similar charge, claiming that voter suppression cost her the race.

Both presidential candidates in 2016 want to make excuses for their own poor campaign choices. That’s why we need the bipartisan commission that Trump appointed this month to look at allegations about both voter fraud and voter suppression. Today, the Public Interest Legal Foundation released documented proof that in just 138 of Virginia’s counties and cities, voting officials quietly removed 5,556 voters from the rolls for being non-citizens in recent years and that a third of them had cast ballots. Virginia’s sloppy procedures are duplicated in many other states, making a national investigation imperative.

Hillary has clearly bought into a victimization model of her loss. She told New York magazine:

I would have won had I not been subjected to the unprecedented attacks by Comey and the Russians, aided and abetted by the suppression of the vote, particularly in Wisconsin. . . . Whoever comes next, this is not going to end. Republicans learned that if you suppress votes you win.

What Hillary is talking about is a liberal theme spread by The Nation magazine and Priorities USA, a Clinton super PAC, that laws requiring voter ID and “other suppression rules” prevented many people from voting. Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota, who came within a hair of becoming the new head of the Democratic National Committee, got out in front on the issue shortly after the election. Just this month, he tweeted that “Wisconsin’s Voter-ID Law Suppressed 200,000 votes in 2016 (Trump Won by 22,748) — via @AriBerman @thenation.”

But honest liberals haven’t let their brethren get away with such reasoning. Slate — in a story headlined “Did a Voter ID Law Really Cost Clinton a Victory in Wisconsin?” — quoted several election experts who poured “a big bucket of cold water” on the idea. The reliably liberal fact-checker Snopes ruled the claim “unproven,” noting that even if some people lacked the ID required to vote and didn’t bother to fill out provisional ballots, it didn’t mean they wanted to vote.

The liberal website Vox went further and pointed out that 1) Clinton lost in key states that didn’t have new voter-ID laws and 2) her margin of defeat was too big to be explained by any suppression. Even the New York Times filed a report from Wisconsin that found that black voters were far less excited about Hillary as a candidate than they had been about Obama.

The funniest episode in the protective yet revealing new Hillary Clinton profile arrives when we learn that this sad, unemployed, 69-year-old lady is so desperate to keep her self-image alive that she still employs flunkies and retainers to treat her as though she actually were the president, or the secretary of state, or a president in waiting, or at very least the leader of the opposition. Her longtime loyalists are so happy to bustle around her in the service of maintaining the illusion that, after she takes an hour away from it all to exercise, her communications director, Nick Merrill, breathlessly updates her on everything that’s happened in the political world in the last threescore ticks of the minute hand. Her profiler, Rebecca Traister of New York magazine, obviously a great admirer but one who declines to throw herself overboard from reality for the sake of giving Hillary more company bobbing about in the sea of fancy, writes that Clinton “listens to the barrage of updates, nodding like a person whose job requires her to be up-to-date on what’s happening, even though it does not.”

Ouch. Hillary Rodham Clinton isn’t merely in a state of denial. She has become Bruce Willis in The Sixth Sense. Politically speaking, she is dead, but she doesn’t know it. Her staffers are so many Haley Joel Osments — too kind (and too attached to their salaries) to tell her that her career is over. She doesn’t need briefings. She doesn’t need to do interviews. She doesn’t need to write the book she is writing (after so many indigestible volumes, why bother with one more?). She doesn’t need to stake out a politically nuanced position on James Comey’s firing or scramble to get out in front of the Resistance parade. She lost two exceedingly winnable presidential campaigns in Hindenburgian fashion. There is no demand for her to run again and there is nothing left for her except to receive whatever ceremonial honors and sinecures may come her way. She has been handed her political retirement papers by the American people. She’s done.

Clinton tells Traister, vaguely, “Take me out of the equation as a candidate. You know, I’m not running for anything,” and indeed she isn’t, right now, since this isn’t an election year. Yet nothing Clinton does these days makes sense unless you keep in mind that she actually thinks she could run again. Take her Wellesley address on Friday: utterly bonkers for a commencement speech. Newly minted graduates expect to hear something useful or at least funny or informative or, failing all else, sentimental. Clinton did a bit of this, then started lobbing word-mortars far over their heads at Donald Trump, making the kinds of Nixon comparisons that every Democrat, and lots of non-Democrats, have been making for months.

Why bother pursuing such a trite theme? Because Clinton was eager to show the Washington political hacks that she is still a tough operator, a leader of the anti-Trump movement, a player. She was, in other words, campaigning. To all appearances, the game is long over. Yet she is still on the field, because the game isn’t over to her. Hey, there’s another election in three and a half years, folks. And need we remind you who won the popular vote?

Clinton was eager to show the Washington political hacks that she is still a tough operator, a leader of the anti-Trump movement, a player.

For the first time in 21 years a law making it illegal to cut young girls’ genitalia will be challenged, claiming freedom of religion as a defense, the Detroit Free Press reports.

Three people have been charged with cutting the genitals of two 7-year-old girls from Minnesota in February. The defendants, Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, his wife Farida Attar and Dr. Jumana Nagarwala are members of the Indian-Muslim sect Dawoodi Bohra, located in Farmington Hills, Michigan, outside of Detroit.

One of the defense lawyers for the case, Mary Chartier, told the Detroit Free Press that besides freedom of religion, the defense will also argue that technically the doctors didn’t cut any genitalia, it was just a “scraping.”

“We know there is female genital mutilation. No one is saying it doesn’t exist. But what we’re saying is this procedure does not qualify as FGM. And even if it did, it would be exempt because it would violate their First Amendment rights. They believe that if they do not engage in this then they are not actively practicing their religion,” Chartier said.

But according to court records, the young girls said the procedures were very painful and were told to keep it a secret.

“She knew that this was illegal but did it anyway. As a medical doctor, she is aware that female genital mutilation has no medical purpose,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Sara Woodward told the Detroit Free Press about the doctor who performed the procedure.

FGM became illegal in 1997 under the Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act, according to Catholic News Agency.

Writers love words. Journalists love words. We spend our professional lives typing them out, shifting them around, cutting and pasting and refining. The reason we do so is that we feel we have something to say, and we keep trying to find a clearer, stronger, and more precise way of expressing exactly what we want to express.

This was one reason journalists loved Obama. Like a very small number of political leaders throughout human history, from Marcus Aurelius to Abraham Lincoln to Winston Churchill, he was, or seemed to be, a man of words. Certainly he wanted to be seen that way.

Indeed, everything about the way he gave speeches — the posture, the gestures, the tone — made him seem very much like someone who wished to be thought of as a philosopher king, right out of Plato via Central Casting. He loved playing the role of president as professor, loved the mellifluous sound of his own voice, loved standing in regal fashion at a lectern and proffering what he expected to be received by his audiences as pearls of wisdom.

And whether it was wisdom or not, journalists loved it. Because — oh, the words, those glorious words! The sentences, the passages, the transitions! At one point during the 2008 campaign, somebody in some newspaper or magazine actually diagrammed a sentence by Obama, not from one of his magnificently polished speeches but from some impromptu response to a question at a press conference.

The point, of course, was to show what a wonderfully complex and coherent thinker he was, and how skilled he was at expressing his thoughts in unscripted, elegant, and grammatically correct statements. Obama’s sentence was contrasted with an off-the-cuff statement by George W. Bush, which, needless to say, was much more simply put together — indeed, barely coherent, and certainly far from literate.

The conclusion was obvious: Obama was a man for whom the wording and construction and delivery of a speech, or even an answer to a reporter’s query, was a matter of supreme importance. The man always came off as thoughtful, sophisticated, supremely articulate.

Throughout his 2008 campaign and then throughout his presidency, journalists’ respect for him as a highly serious man of highly serious words remained unshaken. Whatever his policies, and whatever the success or failure thereof, one fact about him could not be challenged: he was a man who took very seriously the act of putting ideas into words, and of polishing those words (or ensuring that his speechwriters polished them) to a golden, perfect sheen. And for this reason – in many cases, perhaps, more than any other – journalists revered him.
Trump vs. Obama: A Study in Contrasts

Then came Trump.

When it comes to all of these matters, Trump was Obama’s exact opposite. He never pretended to be a philosopher king – far from it. On the contrary, he made a flagrant point of the fact that he enjoys speaking off the cuff, in simple, punchy, repetitious, and often vulgar language. And to the shock and dismay of America’s journalists, millions of voters didn’t care. Indeed, a lot of them liked it. For many of us who write for a living, who labor over language, and who regard words with an almost religious awe, it can be unpleasant to be reminded that most people don’t care about such things. CONTINUE AT SITE

The year was 1993. Bill Clinton had recently been elected president. A gallon of gas cost $1.16, and the Chicago Bulls won the first of three consecutive National Basketball Association championships. Over in Lansing, Mich., a teaching assistant’s dreams were about to come true as well.

This public employee, Steve Cook, was making a relatively low hourly wage at Lansing Public School District. But he had an opportunity to enter the private economy, where his new employer would pay him a lot more. Even better, he would be allowed to continue accruing taxpayer-funded pension benefits.

Why? This was no ordinary private employer. Mr. Cook was going to work for the Michigan Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union. His new employer worked out a deal with the school district that made Mr. Cook an “educator on loan,” a scheme that allows public employees to be paid by a government entity while being “loaned out” to another organization. Under the arrangement, the district technically pays Mr. Cook’s salary and the union reimburses the district. This allows him to accrue a much higher pension, by basing it on a far higher salary and many more years of service.

Richard Halik, the district’s superintendent at the time, agreed to the request. “You want a positive relationship with the MEA,” Mr. Halik said in a 2016 interview, explaining why he agreed to the deal that he expected to last only one year. “You pick the hill you die on. . . . We were going to be cooperative.”

Nearly 25 years later the scheme is still going. And this is not unique. Michigan’s largest teachers union has these types of agreements with its past three presidents, most of their current executives and even some low-level union employees. Dozens of people working full time for the private union are technically getting paid by a public school district.

It’s not hard to see why union employees go for such a setup. The lucky ones get to boost their taxpayer-funded pensions by pretending that they are still public employees. Since they are technically being paid by school districts—even though they work exclusively for a private union—union officials accrue benefits and stay eligible for Michigan’s school-employee pension system. That system is $29 billion underfunded, thanks in part to arrangements like this.

Mr. Cook became president of the MEA in 2011. He is set to retire later this year. His current salary is more than $200,000. While his pay was determined by the union, his paychecks still came from the Lansing school district. Had Mr. Cook stayed on as a teacher’s assistant in 1993, his annual pension benefit in retirement would be around $10,000, according to estimates by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy (which uncovered the scheme). Instead, Mr. Cook is in line to receive an annual pension of at least $105,000 for the rest of his life, at taxpayer expense.

The school district says it didn’t intend for this to happen. But three words in Mr. Cook’s “educator on loan” contract prohibit the district from terminating the arrangement. The contract, according to language contained in it, “shall be renewed.” Since there is no end date specified, the union claims the arrangement renews in perpetuity—and it has.

Union officials in Michigan and throughout the country benefit from these and other schemes. “Release time” arrangements enable public employees such as teachers to work full time for their unions, while still receiving their full school salaries and benefits. In Michigan, at least 70 school districts spend millions offering this benefit to union officials.

Last year, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld one such arrangement after the Goldwater Institute challenged it under the state’s constitutional “gift clause” provision. In California everyone from janitors to schoolteachers to college professors takes union release time, paid for by taxpayers, and the California Legislature actually expanded the practice in 2013.

The Office of Personnel Management tracks release time for federal employees. Its most recent report in 2014 showed that union employees logged 3.4 million hours of release time, at a cost of more than $162 million. In the Veterans Affairs Department alone, employees took more than a million hours of leave time.

Using taxpayer money to pay for union activities and private pensions should outrage anyone interested in efficient and effective public services. Taxpayers are on the hook twice—once to pay for the released worker and again to pay for a replacement employee. There’s no legitimate reason why governments should provide these types of extra benefits to unions and their officials. States and the federal government should end these schemes. CONTINUE AT SITE

White House aides are leaking that President Trump is considering a staff shakeup to stop them from leaking, and the casualty on Monday was communications director Mike Dubke. Mr. Trump certainly needs to fix his White House mess, but staff changes won’t matter unless the President accepts that he is the root of the dysfunction.

Mr. Dubke’s departure was rumored for weeks, though he’d been on the job for only three months. He wasn’t the problem, and his replacement won’t be the solution. It’s impossible to run a communications operation, or a policy shop, if the top man prefers chaotic, make-it-up-as-you-go management.

Take two recent examples. In late April Mr. Trump decided after consulting with a couple of advisers that he wanted to unilaterally withdraw from Nafta. No staff preparation. No warning to Mexico or Canada.

As word spread that the announcement was imminent, other aides and business leaders swung into action to prevent it, including pleas to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to call the President. Mr. Trump stood down, but the result was wasted political energy and economic uncertainty.

Then there was the fire drill over Mr. Trump’s tax plan. The White House National Economic Council had been working to develop a plan to send to Congress, but suddenly the President announced publicly that he wanted it rolled out in days. The result was a one-pager that moved in the right policy direction but was easily attacked for its lack of details. Mr. Trump may have wanted to galvanize his team, but the drill wasted time and did little to build a Republican consensus in Congress.

This is apparently how Mr. Trump likes to govern, and he has built a White House tower of Babel in that image. Reince Priebus, his chief of staff, has too little power and must read constantly that his job is in jeopardy. Steve Bannon is supposed to be the keeper of the populist flame, but his coterie of allies leak relentlessly against economics aide Gary Cohn and national security adviser H.R. McMaster.

John F. Kennedy would have turned 100 on Monday, and his life’s work on foreign policy provides compelling insights into how we might approach our own challenges in an increasingly unstable world.

From his election to the House in 1946, through his Senate tenure in the 1950s, to his 1,000-ish days as president, JFK sought to know more about the world, recognized the special U.S. role in it, focused attention on the challenges that a free and democratic America faced from authoritarian adversaries, pursued a coherent set of policies to confront them and, most importantly, learned from his mistakes.

Kennedy, who was born on May 29, 1917, read voraciously about history from his childhood, traveled widely across Europe and Asia, worked in America’s embassy in London while his father was the U.S. ambassador in the late 1930s, and penned diaries with his thoughts about different systems of government that he observed up close and what they meant for America’s prospects around the world.

He never doubted that freedom was far better than its authoritarian alternatives, whether it be the fascism of the 1930s or the Soviet-led communism that represented America’s biggest global challenge in the post-war years.

With Washington and Moscow battling for the allegiance of nonaligned Third World nations, Kennedy proudly promoted freedom over communism – never more than when he told a massive crowd in the besieged city of West Berlin in 1963, “There are many people in the world who really don’t understand, or say they don’t, what is the great issue between the free world and the communist world. Let them come to Berlin.”

Speaking near the Berlin Wall, which the Soviets built in 1961 to stop the flow of East Germans fleeing to the West, he declared, “Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us.”

More than most, JFK recognized that “freedom is not free.” From at least his college days, as reflected in his Harvard senior thesis that he turned into the best-selling book “Why England Slept,” he believed that the United States faced the test of whether its democratic system was tough enough to prevail over authoritarian systems that could largely ignore public opinion and organize all of their resources for warfare.