RUTHFULLY YOURS

COLUMBUS, Ohio—At least 11 people were injured Monday at Ohio State University after a student allegedly jumped a curb in a motor vehicle, then slashed pedestrians with a butcher knife before he was shot and killed.

Officials identified the suspect as Abdul Razak Ali Artan, who was listed in the student directory as a logistics-management major at the business school. Officials didn’t provide a motive for the attack and couldn’t confirm his exact age.

Those injured in the attack were taken to Columbus-area hospitals to be treated for stab wounds and motor-vehicle injuries, as well as other injuries still being assessed. At least two victims have come out of surgery, said officials at Ohio State’s Wexner Medical Center, where six of the victims were sent. Most of those injured were students, officials said.

“We all live with the fear that things like this could happen to us,” Ohio State President Michael Drake said at a news conference outside the hospital Monday afternoon. “We live in an unstable world.”

Officials said the suspect intentionally drove a vehicle over a curb to hit a number of pedestrians before jumping out of the car with a knife. A campus police officer arrived within a minute and shot and killed the suspect when he failed to comply with the officer’s commands, the officials said.

“The first responders did a remarkable job,” Ohio Governor John Kasich said at a press conference Monday afternoon. “It shows how much practice, how much training, how much expertise and how much coordination existed with campus police, Columbus police” and other agencies, he said.

The car struck seven or eight pedestrians at approximately 9:52 a.m. ET, according to Ohio State Director of Public Safety Monica Moll, and an officer had engaged with the suspect within a minute. The school’s alert system sent out its first message at 9:55 a.m. ET.

Police have recovered the knife used in the attack and were processing the scene.

This character evidently lacks shame as well as veracity.

A stable human being, having earned national notoriety by admitting that he participated in a conspiracy to deceive the voters on an important public policy issue, would not expect them to believe anything else he had to say on the subject. This would be particularly true if he had also said that the deception was predicated on the stupidity of those voters. Jonathan Gruber committed both offences, of course, but he evidently isn’t “stable” in the way psychiatrists use the term. He not only expects to be taken seriously on the same issue, he’s still trying to deceive the public.

Gruber, in case you have forgotten, is the MIT economics professor who frequently referred to himself as the “father of Obamacare” during the long health reform debate that culminated in the passage of the ironically titled “Affordable Care Act.” He became an unperson two years ago when a video emerged in which he delivered himself of the following words of wisdom concerning the law: “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.… And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”

Now, he’s attempting to make a comeback by defending the “reform” law from repeal. In an opinion piece published yesterday in the NewYork Daily News, Gruber demonstrated that he still thinks we’re a bunch of brain dead morons. He begins by telling the long-suffering readers of that publication that the law has been a success. In support of this preposterous claim, he offers the same talking points we have been getting from the Obama administration. He glibly repeats, for example, the following whopper: “Twenty million Americans have gained insurance coverage.”

This figure was long ago abandoned by all but the most dishonest Obamacare pimps. It first originated in a widely panned report published in the New England Journal of Medicine. When this work of bad fiction first appeared, Reason’s Peter Suderman debunked it in a column titled, “No, 20 Million Haven’t ‘Gained Coverage’ Under Obamacare,” where he pointed out that the report indiscriminately included anyone who bought insurance: “It’s a count of people obtaining coverage, whether or not they had it before, not people who were previously uninsured.”

Another lie Gruber repeats in yesterday’s piece is this long-ago-debunked tale: “Since the ACA’s passage, health-care costs have grown at their slowest rate in measured U.S. history; the innovative cost controls put in place by the law are one important reason why.” He knows perfectly well that this slowdown in health care inflation has nothing to do with Obamacare. As this report from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid shows, the slowdown began seven years before the “Affordable Care Act” passed. Gruber hopes his readers are too dumb to know that.

Gruber also claims that the most hated of Obamacare’s provisions, the individual mandate, can’t be repealed because it is needed to “bring the healthy into the insurance pool.” He doesn’t tell us where he has been hiding out since his fall from grace two years ago. But, unless he has been locked up and denied access to newspapers, the internet, television, twitter, etc., he will have noticed that the individual mandate just isn’t working. He knows that, of course. A more plausible explanation is that Dr. Gruber still thinks his readers are just too “stupid” to know the truth.

He is posing as the only person in the galaxy who doesn’t know that the mandate has failed to “bring the healthy into the insurance pool.” As Modern Healthcare reports, “Only 28% of exchange members in 2014 were in the coveted 18-34 age range, and that percentage stayed level for 2016. It’s below the 40% level many actuaries say is needed.” In other words, the individual mandate that Dr. Gruber and Obamacare’s other architects insisted upon over the objections of the electorate has not prevented the adverse selection problem it was ostensibly meant to forestall.

Given how central concerns over illegal immigration were to Donald Trump’s campaign, it was inevitable that his triumph would spark a strident debate. The rival sides, however, are like ships passing in the night.

Trump emissaries assert that the president-elect will step up border enforcement and prioritize the deportation of criminal aliens – i.e., those who’ve committed serious and/or repetitious state and federal crimes, not just immigration-law violations. Trump detractors, including Democratic mayors of major cities, respond with indignant vows to protect “undocumented” members of their communities who are living peaceful, essentially law-abiding lives.

If you’re thinking the Democratic response is not, well, responsive, you’re onto the game. The immigrants they make a grand show of protecting are exactly the people not being targeted by the Trump camp’s deportation plans. If Democrats oppose Trump on his own terms, they risk being revealed as champions of criminals preying on Americans. So the Left is going demagogue – turning a “right versus wrong” issue into “us versus them.”

To be fair, they have not been alone in this. Throughout the campaign, especially during the GOP primaries, Trump beat his chest about mass deportations and the sea-to-sea wall for which Mexico would supposedly pay. As we’ve observed, much of this was absurd, as was Trump’s suggestion of a touchback amnesty approach: The government would expend untold billions to send millions of illegal aliens back home … only to invite most of them back in with legal status.

As the campaign unfolded and victory seemed increasingly plausible, Trump’s rhetoric grew tamer. As president-elect, it appears he has ended up in a more realistic place.

There is a reason the competing rhetoric – mass deportations versus sanctuary cities – has been so extreme. It’s been so long since our government has enforced the immigration laws, we have forgotten what rational enforcement looks like. In the interim, after two decades of prosecuting terrorism in the federal courts, we’ve lost the distinction between law-enforcement issues and national-security challenges.

Immigration is a law-enforcement issue. Yes, it has some national-security implications, just as other crimes that contribute to terrorist plots do. In the main, though, it is an ordinary crime problem. Our goal is never to extirpate crime problems – not in the way that government agents must prevent and exhibit zero tolerance for terrorism, a national security challenge. Crime problems are managed, not eradicated.

It is not possible to prosecute every immigration offense, just as we have no expectation that the police will arrest every drug dealer or petty thief. No one would want to live in the kind of authoritarian state we would become if we took such an approach to crime. Plus, we do not have the resources it would take even if we were open to it.Like any other crime problem, illegal immigration should be addressed in a manner commensurate with its seriousness. The objective should be to prosecute and/or deport as many of the worst offenders as possible, given the available resources – meaning the amount of investigators, prosecutor-time, court-time, detention space, and deportation administration it is reasonable to devote to immigration enforcement in light of other crime problems that also demand attention. The goal is a degree of enforcement sufficient to remove significant offenders and discourage potential offenders. CONTINUE AT SITE

President, London Center for Policy Research

The recent American election raised a host of hypotheses about how to make America great again, to quote President Elect Trump. What it suggests is what made America great in the first place. Clearly America is based on a Constitution and Bill of Rights that give and constrain simultaneously in a symphony of Judeo Christian beliefs. The free market opened avenues of wealth and opportunity. Most significantly, the nation was blessed with great leaders from Washington to Reagan.

Unfortunately, much of the past is gone and unlikely to be reclaimed. The ruling class is fraught with corruption – the Clinton Foundation a classic example. Leaders like Biden and the Kennedys cheated on tests without remorse. Churches have embraced the Playboy life. Law is relative and administrative rulings rigid. How do you discover a new ruling class when the precedents of the past put the succeeding generations on the pathway to power?

Moreover, how does one govern a nation when half the population is regarded as deplorable and irredeemable and half is comprised of crybabies? Clearly the nation needs leaders of the kind we were blessed to have in the past. There is, of course, the danger of romanticizing a past that didn’t exist. Andrew Jackson might have committed homicide before being elected president. General Omar Bradley called his colleague Douglas Mac Arthur “primitive” for his comments during the Korean War. Richard Nixon was described by his detractors as a “psychopath.” Since George Washington, none of our presidents were universally admired.

Yet there were leaders who transcended the limits of office. George Marshall was more than a Secretary of State and a Secretary of Defense, he was a symbol of American strength and generosity. Wallace Stevens, the poet, worked as an executive for an insurance company, but wrote brilliant poetry in a cocoon of quiet dignity which served as a model of civic conduct. Harry Truman was a flawed personality in many ways including, but not restricted to, his association with the Prendergast machine in Kansas City. He was a conventional New Deal Democrat who hardly stood out as a legislative leader in the Senate. However, when he inherited the presidency, he was obliged to make some of the toughest decisions in the twentieth century. He made them with firmness and confidence. When he retired from office, his wife met him outside the White House, and without fanfare or secret service personnel, they drove off to the family home in Independence Missouri. Not everyone loved Truman, but he was a man who rose above his station.

From my friend Andy Bostom…..

New York Timesman Arthur Krock provided the following unusually candid assessment of FDR/Obama statist rule, circa April, 1938 (“Congress Discovers Its Own Backbone,” Arthur Krock, April 10, 1938 The New York Times).

It is, of course, entirely fitting and proper, wholly in keeping with our form of government, that the President [FDR] should regularly discuss with the leaders of the Legislature the affairs of the nation. But the remarkable thing about these meetings is that they were virtually forced upon Mr. Roosevelt. He did not want them. He prefers the system he followed from March, 1933, until last January [1938]. Under its workings, the President decided what he wanted to do administratively, and did it, letting the leaders of Congress read about it in the newspapers. He also decided what he wanted to do legislatively, had a bill prepared to carry out the ideas, and sent it ready-made to Congress to be signed on the dotted line.

Often his leaders introduced the measure without reading it. The late Senator [Joseph Taylor] Robinson “introduced” a copy of the morning paper during the bank crisis of 1933 because the bill it was supposed to be was not fully drafted. Always the rank and file of Congress knew nothing of a bill’s contents until they read them in the newspapers. Sometimes they did not trouble to do that, voting “aye” on faith.

Clearly, now lame duck POTUS Obama repeated FDR’s machinations in forcing passage of the disastrous, liberty-crushing, Orwellian-dubbed “Affordable Care Act.” Good riddance—one fervently wishes—to yet another failed iteration of totalitarian “good governance.” Andrew Bostom

President-elect Donald Trump and his attorney-general designate Jeff Sessions come to office seeking to restore public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of federal law enforcement. After eight years of Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, Americans have lost confidence in the Department of Justice. Recognizing this, Trump declared on November 21 that he had ordered his transition team to prepare executive orders to sign “on Day One to restore our laws and bring back our jobs.”

The most urgent matter that Attorney General Sessions will face is that of deciding the fate of FBI director James Comey. Comey was appointed in 2013 for a statutory term of ten years. In principle, however, he can be removed by the president at any time. President Bill Clinton removed FBI director William Sessions about halfway through his term on charges that Sessions had misused official resources. Although President Clinton discharged Sessions for cause, the statute creating the FBI director does not limit the grounds for termination, and we believe that the president’s constitutional authority of removal would allow him to fire Comey for any reason. Rather than firing the FBI director, however, it is more likely that the president would first request his resignation. We think that Director Comey should leave office for the good of the FBI and the nation.

Last July, on the basis of the information available at the time, we defended Comey’s decision to suspend the investigation of Hillary Clinton. Contrary to his apparent judgment that there was no probable case that crimes were committed, we argued that the country would be better served if the voters, rather than the criminal process, determined Clinton’s fitness to be president. But after Comey’s announcement, disturbing facts emerged that raised doubts about the integrity of his investigation into Clinton. Thereafter came Comey’s sudden changes of heart shortly before the election, first in re-opening, and then in closing, that investigation. Since the election, Clinton has squarely blamed Comey for her defeat.

In these circumstances, we think that Comey is too compromised to remain as FBI director. He may well have acted honestly, impartially, and conscientiously at every phase of the investigation. We do not question his integrity; his true motivations, whatever they may have been, will undoubtedly come to light in time. And he may have found himself in the position of chief prosecutor rather than chief investigator through no fault of his own, but because Bill Clinton’s meeting on the tarmac with Attorney General Loretta Lynch meant that she had to be disqualified from making the final judgment on whetheror not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.

Nonetheless, Comey’s three interventions in the election were, perhaps, key factors in the outcome. His initial choice to prematurely close the investigation — as well as reports that his aides have attempted to shut down inquiries into the Clinton Foundation — squarely thrust the FBI into partisan politics. His decisions have cost him the confidence of the half of the voters who supported Clinton. Many Trump voters have also come to mistrust him.

Remember when Democrats and the left scored Donald Trump for worrying that the election might be “rigged”? Well, now that he’s won, the same crowd is demanding recounts in three battleground states on grounds that the Russians rigged the results.

On Saturday what’s left of the Clinton campaign said it will join the recount effort demanded by Green Party candidate Jill Stein in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The conspiracy theory for which they have no evidence is that Russian hackers rigged voting machines to manipulate the results. The Obama Administration has said it detected no such hacking and that the elections were “free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective.”

But reality doesn’t matter in the fake-news world of the far left any more than it does on the far right. The recount may be a progressive gambit to raise money from the gullible, or perhaps to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election. The ultimate Hail Mary would be to raise enough smoke about irregularities that individual electors would deny Mr. Trump the 270 votes he needs in the Electoral College.

Mr. Trump leads in 30 states with 306 electoral votes, and he would have to lose all three contested states to lose the election. He leads by some 71,000 votes in Pennsylvania, a little more than 20,000 in Wisconsin, and by nearly 11,000 in Michigan. If you think U.S. politics is polarized now, try handing the White House to Hillary Clinton now.

The silver lining may be to teach a lesson in electoral federalism. It’s all but impossible for hackers to rig U.S. elections because they are run locally and voting machines aren’t connected to a national internet network, as Hans von Spakovsky and John Fund explained on these pages in September. Progressives, not conservatives, want to nationalize election laws. So go ahead and do the recounts and then accept that Mr. Trump won fair and square.