RUTHFULLY YOURS

WASHINGTON — Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton should “never” have a security clearance again nor should she receive classified intelligence briefings.

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) wrote a letter to the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper requesting that he deny Clinton classified intelligence briefings given her history with using a private email sever to transmit classified information. Clapper denied the request.

“I do not intend to withhold briefings from any officially nominated, eligible candidate,” Clapper wrote back to Ryan.

PJM asked Flynn, who was among Republican nominee Donald Trump’s top choices for vice president and will be speaking at the Republican National Convention, if he thought Clinton should be able to receive classified intelligence briefings.

“I mean, no, look, she was so careless with our national security secrets, c’mon. I mean, no, so I do not think so,” Flynn responded during an interview after a Heritage Foundation event focused on Fields of the Fight, the new book he co-authored with Michael Ledeen.

“She should never have a security clearance again. I would not approve that. If it were me, I would not have given that permission,” he added.

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.

Lone wolf terrorism is the biggest trend in Islamic terrorism. Unlike classic Islamic terrorism, it requires no cells stretching across countries the way that 9/11 did. The perpetrators don’t even need to enter the country under false pretenses the way that the World Trade Center bombers did.

In many cases, they are already citizens. Some were even born in their target country.

Classic counterterrorism is directed at organizations. It’s inadequate for stopping individual Muslim terrorists like Omar Mateen who was able to murder 49 people at a nightclub in Orlando or closely related duos like the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston or the husband and wife team who carried out the San Bernardino terrorist attack which took the lives of 14 people.

Even the standard technique of planting informants into mosques, deeply opposed by the Islamic lobby in the United States, fails when individuals decide to act alone or only trust their wives or brothers to be in on the plot with them. If an individual Islamic terrorist fails to let his plans slip, either online or to an FBI informant, stopping him can be extremely difficult if not entirely impossible without a stroke of luck.

And Islamic terrorists only need to be lucky once. We have to be lucky every time.

Every absurd Islamic terror plot broken up by law enforcement, the type of thing dismissed by the media and ridiculed by commentators, launching rockets at planes, underwear bombs and blowing up trains, contained the seed of a horrific terrorist attack just like Orlando, Boston or Nice.

When you turn on the evening news and see a running death toll, it’s because one of those absurd and ridiculous terror plots actually succeeded. And it’s happening more and more often.

CLEVELAND — In what is becoming a depressingly regular occurrence in the Obama era, police officers were murdered by a black militant in a shootout in Baton Rouge on Sunday, apparently in revenge for the recent police-involved death of black career criminal Alton Sterling outside a Baton Rouge food store.

At time of writing, three police officers had succumbed to the injuries they suffered in Louisiana’s capital city. Another three were wounded.

Of course, murdering police officers has long been encouraged by activists with the Marxist, anti-American, revolutionary Black Lives Matter cult, with the support of the activist Left and financing from speculator George Soros. A year ago Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who openly advocates the mass murder of whites, called for “10,000 fearless men” to “rise up and kill those who kill us.” Like many radicals, Farrakhan mischaracterizes Black Lives Matter as a rising civil rights movement.

President Barack Hussein Obama, who a decade ago promoted inter-racial warfare in Kenya, has long tried to provoke civil unrest here in the U.S. with his hateful anti-cop rhetoric and his relentless demonization of opponents. His goal is fundamental transformation of the United States. A Red diaper baby who identifies violence-espousing communist Frantz Fanon as an intellectual influence, he has also steadfastly refused to condemn Black Lives Matter. In fact Obama has lavished attention on the movement’s leaders and invited them to the White House over and over again.

The Baton Rouge attack came 10 days after a black militant murdered five Dallas area police officers, the deadliest attack on U.S. law enforcement since Sept. 11, 2001.

A few days later Obama flew to Dallas and attended a memorial service at which he lectured the dead officers’ relatives about how racist and brutal police officers are. The very next day Obama hosted leaders of Black Lives Matter, whose members urge the murder of cops, at the White House.

Remember when the Main Stream Media (MSM) used to just focus on police shootings of black men who were unarmed? It seems like that was just a couple of years ago. Now, even when the police shoot black men who are armed with handguns, the cops are still portrayed as cold blooded murders that, according to former congressional black caucus member Angela Rye, “shoot black people for sport.”

MSM reported that Rev. Curtis Gatewood, field director for the NAACP’s North Carolina branch, wrote on his Facebook page that Micah X. Johnson, the Dallas shooter who murdered five police officers and attempted to murder seven others, was “defenseless” and “lynched.”

As an undisputed expert in police procedures, Gatewood wrote, “Yes, I’m coming to the defense of the defenseless. That includes [Micah] X. Johnson who has been accused of shooting about 12 police officers.” The reverend refuses to believe that Johnson committed the offense. He continued, “Even if [Micah] was carrying a gun or [rifle], that in of itself does not prove he murdered the police officers.” Of course it doesn’t because Gatewood, like all the other race baiters would be out of a job if they didn’t keep playing the race card.

No matter what the outcome of the investigations of the two latest police shootings of black men in Louisiana and Minnesota turns out to be, the MSM has discounted the fact both men were armed with pistols. Doesn’t that matter the slightest bit? Doesn’t that dispel the notion that these two men were “shot for sport?” Not in the minds of the media and other Black Lives Matter supporters. Another expert in police tactics, presumptive Democrat nominee for president, Hillary Clinton said, “We need national guidelines about the use of force, particularly lethal force.”

Racism, prejudice, bigotry, discrimination, along with sexism, chauvinism and xenophobia remain part of the American scene 52 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed and 153 years after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. In a nation of 320 million, it should come as no surprise that a small minority harbor such feelings. Nevertheless, we have come a long way since the days of Jim Crow laws that effectively mandated segregation for almost 100 years following the Civil War, and from groups like the Ku Klux Clan that murdered and terrorized African-Americans and their communities.

In the 1950s things began to change. In 1954, the last black U.S. army unit was deactivated. That same year the Supreme Court decided, in Brown versus Board of Education, that the concept of “separate but equal” schools was unconstitutional. The following year Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. Two years later the Southern Christian Leadership Conference was established in Atlanta, Georgia. That gave birth to the Civil Rights movement and the many bloody marches that ensued. Success finally came in 1964 with the signing of the Civil Rights Act. However, cultural habits are hard to change and, as a society, we will never be fully rid of latent biases. My grandmother, who was born in 1875, once said to me, in the late 1950s, that racial prejudices would likely persist until we were all of one color.

And, in fact, we are becoming (gradually) a mixed-race society. According to a Pew Survey last year, 7% of Americans view themselves as multiracial. I suspect the real number is much higher. In my own family, a two-greats grandfather fathered an African-American child around 1830. That child’s descendants, who are cousins of mine, have multiplied and added to the melting pot. I suspect most African-Americans are of mixed heritage, something on which we should all reflect. Most of us are related, perhaps distantly, but related. Real assimilation demands mutual respect, irrespective of one’s race, color or sex, and an understanding that civil society can only function when its laws are obeyed.