RUTHFULLY YOURS

Sexist! Racist! Fascist! Along with the feral Left’s violence outside the GOP presidential candidate’s rallies, those accusations have been the soundtrack of Hillary Clinton’s orchestrated smear campaign. No surprise there, but why are some conservatives joining the chorus?
What is it about Trump that some conservatives find so distressing? You’d expect progressives to be disturbed, of course, even before you get to policies. Trump is a manly, no nonsense, successful businessman. When you do consider policies, the nightmare deepens.

He is unashamedly proud of his country, and has made it clear that when it comes to foreign policy and trade, he intends to put its interests first. He is pro-life, and supports police and the military. He supports Israel, and Israel’s right to defend itself. He does not buy into currently popular (and in some circles mandatory) issues like global warming and multiculturalism.

A horror story for progressives. But why are some conservatives also lining up under the #nevertrump banner? Only a few percent; not enough to influence the outcome of the Republican Convention. But a few percent of conservatives who refuse to vote, or vote for a third party candidate, may be all it takes to get Hillary Clinton over the line and into the White House.

First in the litany of Trump’s faults is this: He’s a fascist! The word fascist comes from Latin fasces, a bundle of rods tied together, sometimes with a protruding axe blade. In Roman times it was symbol of magisterial authority. The meaning is that the state is stronger when all its members think and act in concert. Fascism subsumes the interests of individuals and families to the perceived needs of the state, in the belief that citizens are eventually better off if everyone serves the same purposes and works towards the same objectives.

Explaining in detail why this is wrong and does not work would take a much longer essay than this. The question for now is, “Is this the position that Donald Trump espouses?” Hardly. Trump’s central policy positions are small, low-tax, non-interventionist government, free speech, and individual and family rights. The exact opposite of an authoritarian, all-encompassing central government.

Well, then, he’s a racist! Racism is not intrinsic to fascism, although the two are often conflated. Is Trump a racist? No one has been able to point to specific instances where Trump has abused or disadvantaged anyone on the basis of race. He has been publicly supported by black and Hispanic staff and former staff, by black pastors and business people, by immigrants of a variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds, many of whom who share his concern over illegal immigration. It is assumed in some circles that if you believe illegal immigration is a problem, you must do so on the basis of race, because you are xenophobic. Showing that to be untrue is as easy as going to Youtube and looking for Hispanics for Trump.

Well then, he is an islamophobe! Here, as others have pointed out, it isn’t a phobia if there is genuinely something to fear. Since September 11, 2001, over 28,000 terror attacks have been made on civilians specifically in the name of Allah and Muhammad. In the name of all other religions? About one-tenth of one percent of that figure. ISIS, and before ISIS Al Qaeda, have called on all muslims everywhere to undertake random murders of civilian populations in non-muslim countries. Very few will take up that call. But very few will speak out against those who do, or explain how the Koran’s command to “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” is to be set aside while at the same time maintaining the Quran’s commands apply for all time to all muslims everywhere. There is sufficient reason to be concerned, despite the French Prime Minister’s pronouncement after Nice that we must get used to living with terror, or Waleed Aly’s claim after the Boston bombing that terrorism is not an existential threat, merely “an irritant”. How to deal with Islamic terror is another question, but recognising that it is a problem is a good first step. Taking ordinary people’s fears about it seriously is a good second step.

Two speeches at the opening night of the GOP Convention stood in stark contrast in both their content and their treatment by the lamestream media. The chattering class on the left focused on Melania Trump’s alleged plagiarism of Michelle Obama’s speech in 2008. They have largely ignored Patricia Smith, mother of Benghazi casualty Sean Smith, and her documentation of Hillary’s lies to the parents of the Benghazi dead in front of their son’s caskets.

Melania may have paraphrased too close to the edge, but borrowing clichés about hard work and family does not plagiarism make and, even so, plagiarism is not perjury, as serial liar Hillary Clinton arguably committed in testimony under oath before Congress, Neither did she show Hillary’s callous disregard for the families of the Benghazi dead that Patricia Smith focused on in her riveting convention speech:

“I know a few things could’ve been done to prevent it. But nobody’s admitting to anything. Right now, my understanding is Hillary didn’t do a damn thing. And I wonder what she did as Secretary of State, because she disavows everything. She disavows the fact that she even got any call for security… If this is her Department, she certainly doesn’t know how to run the Department. And she lied the whole time. She lied to me and called me a liar on TV,” Smith continues.

“She told me it was the fault of the video… And later when I mentioned that, she said she never said anything like that to me. How can a woman be this way!

“She said ‘One of us is a liar, and it wasn’t me,’” Smith recalls Hillary saying on air later.

“I am not a liar! I know what Hillary told me! In fact… I’ve spoken to quite a few different people – Hillary and Obama, Panetta, Susan Rice, and several others… every one of them told me it was the fault of the video, including Obama – and he denies it!

“Please, tell the world. Tell the world what she’s really like.”

Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani became the latest to try to break through the media indifference to the fact that Hillary Clinton muffed her 3 AM phone call during the Benghazi terrorist attack and then lied about it later, including repeating the lie about an inflammatory video causing the attack:

Her dereliction of duty and failure to keep her people safe played a major role as you heard tonight in the horrific Islamic terrorist murders on September 11 and 12, 2012 in Benghazi which claimed the lives of four brave Americans: Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and CIA agents Tyrone S. Woods, and Glen Doherty. May they rest in peace.

And Clinton, and the Obama administration, for political reasons, lied about the purpose of the attacks including Hillary Clinton lying directly to the families of the people who were killed — right to their face!

Hillary Clinton’s answer to Congress about the death of these four brave Americans because of her gross failures as Secretary of State was, “What difference at this point does it make?”

In an opinion piece in Newsweek, Ali Albassam recounts the terrible ordeal of suspicious looks and unfriendly behavior she encounters on a daily basis just because of her Muslim faith.

In my eyes, I was as American as anyone else my age. I celebrated the Fourth of July with my family, played high school sports and shared many of the same interests as my peers.

But after 9/11, I was frequently bullied in school and harassed in public, especially when I was with a relative who wore a headscarf. These changes made me paranoid, and I struggled with an identity crisis. Seemingly overnight, I went from being a regular American to public enemy number one — by virtue of my faith.

Unfortunately, the political and social climate for American Muslims has only worsened over time. Anti-Muslim discrimination is now mainstream and heavily ingrained within U.S. culture. We see it on TV news and in Hollywood movies that continuously depict Muslims as terrorists.

Well, maybe if her Muslim brethren would stop butchering, maiming, plowing down, beheading, and blowing up non-Muslims just because they are non-Muslims — all done in the name of her faith (Allahu Akbar) – Ms. Albassam might not have to suffer the horrors of mean looks. But no. Ms. Albassam does not point the finger at her own tribe as the root cause of her terrible suffering but at the U.S. non-Muslim citizenry for blaming all Muslims for the actions of a tiny minority.

Certainly it would be stupid to blame all postal workers for a postal worker that goes postal. Ditto for blaming all mothers for leaving their kids to suffocate in their car while they shop. But is it a logical fallacy (hasty generalization smear tactics) to maintain that all members of the KKK share the blame for the actions of a few; or all members of the American Nazi Party for the actions of a few? Of course not: they share an ideology that motivates such actions. Now, following the example of our president, it can be maintained that such heinous acts committed in the name of Allah are not the real Islam. But so what? It is how the brutal madmen and their Mullahs interpret Islam that counts, it is Islamic culture and culture cells all over the world that produce such sadistic zombies and no one else. With headlines like this coming in from all over the world on a daily basis

U.S.-Backed ‘Moderate’ Rebels Behead a Child Near Aleppo

Muslim in France stabs woman and girls for immodest dress

what exactly is the rational reaction? A little suspicion and animosity that Ms. Albassam might just be sympathetic to her brothers in faith? Until Muslims point the finger at their own and place the blame where it belongs, suspicion is warranted. As Thomas Sowell has pointed out, innocent until proven guilty works in the courtroom but not daily life:

“Senator Cruz was offered a place on the podium despite his failure to honor his pledge. He spoke glowingly of freedom and the right to choose. But he fell short of endorsing Trump. He will likely pay a price in his future endeavors. Trump invited him to speak without an endorsement, but he was not gracious in return. His pride will certainly be remembered should Trump fail to win the presidency. He was positioning himself for 2020. Will the Trump supporters in the audience forget this slight? Could he not recognize the difference between Trump and Clinton he so eloquently elucidated in his speech?”

The third night of the Republican National Convention provided observers with that moment of true ethics and honor. Governor Kasich has not attended the convention and will not endorse Donald Trump. He claims to be a man of conviction, but what conviction? Or is he a sore loser? What about Governor Jeb Bush, who will not attend? Is he still upset because he was called a loser or low energy? Did he think the $100 million raised by his campaign should ensure his victory?

Could they be willing to elect Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump? Would they saddle us with Supreme Court judges and federal judges appointed by Hillary Clinton? Their ethics are less conservative and constitutional than personal. Their pride will certainly help Clinton in this election.

Senator Graham did not attend. At one point he planned to honor his pledge, but then he recanted. One can understand Senator McCain’s and President Bush’s failure to participate; but why would Governor Mitt Romney take Trump’s money in 2012 but refuse to vote for him in 2016? Why would he work so hard to hurt Trump’s candidacy and help Hillary? Could his pride be involved? After all, his loss in 2012 was decried by Trump.

President Obama visited Elkhart, Indiana, on June 1 to tout the state’s economic recovery, taking credit for its success and claiming that it represents the 2016 election’s basic policy choice. He’s right, but the economic lessons speak better of GOP Governor and vice presidential nominee Mike Pence and his predecessor Mitch Daniels than they do Mr. Obama’s policies.

Mr. Obama touted his auto bailout, which he said rescued the city’s recreational vehicle industry that in 2009 was responsible in some way for about 70% of Elkhart’s employment. The cyclical RV industry has recovered along with the economy, but then so has the rest of the state. The most interesting statistic is that only about 60% of Elkhart’s jobs are still tied to RV sales as the economy has diversified.

All states have seen declines in the jobless rate, and Indiana’s has fallen to 5% in May from 8.4% in 2013 when Mr. Pence became Governor. The Indiana difference is that the rate has fallen even as the labor force has increased by nearly 187,000. Many states have seen their jobless rates fall in part because so many people have left the labor force, driving down the national labor participation rate to lows not seen since the 1970s. The Illinois workforce has grown by only about 71,000 in the same period, though it is roughly twice as large. Indiana is adding jobs fast enough that people are rejoining the workforce.

The Indiana turnaround began under Mr. Daniels, who took office in 2004 after 16 years of Democratic governors. His command to state employees was “we are here to raise the disposable income of Hoosiers.”

Mr. Daniels inherited a budget mess but eight years later Indiana was a rare state with a triple-A credit rating. He toyed briefly with raising the top personal income-tax rate, which we criticized at the time and was stopped by the legislature. He proceeded to cut the state corporate tax rate to 6.5% from 8.5%. He also took a big political risk by contracting with a private company to operate the Indiana toll road for $3.8 billion. CONTINUE AT SITE

President Obama has stretched beyond his legal power to end run Congress, and the bad habit is catching on. In April Virginia Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe issued an executive order giving voting rights to the state’s 206,000 convicted felons, with no consent from the state legislature.

Whether felons can vote in federal elections is determined at the state level, and Virginia has prevented the practice. The Virginia Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday challenging Mr. McAullife’s action brought by Virginia House Speaker William Howell and Senate Majority Leader Thomas Norment (both Republicans), along with four Virginia voters. While Virginia’s constitution allows the Governor to grant clemency to felons, they say Mr. McAuliffe’s action exceeds his authority and violates the separation of powers.

We’re not against letting some felons who have done their time regain voting rights. But those decisions should be determined by legislatures or popular referenda like any other voting statute. The Virginia constitution says “[n]o person who has been convicted of a felony shall be qualified to vote unless his civil rights have been restored by the Governor or other appropriate authority.”

In 2010 then Governor Tim Kaine concluded after examination that the state constitution barred him from acting unilaterally to restore voting rights en masse. In a letter to the ACLU of Virginia, Mr. Kaine’s counselor Mark Rubin wrote that “[a] blanket order restoring the voting rights of everyone would be a rewrite of the law rather than a contemplated use of the executive clemency powers. And, the notion that the Constitution of the Commonwealth could be rewritten via executive order is troubling.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Like the millions who tuned in this week on the first night of the Republican convention in Cleveland to see Melania Trump’s speech, I was dazzled by her beauty, struck by her sincerity, impressed by her fluency in a language not of her native tongue, touched by her obvious love for her husband and family and country, and impressed by her quiet confidence and sense of self.

In a lengthy interview I had seen a few weeks earlier of Melania with Fox News’ Greta van Susteren, it was clear that the former super model—who is formally educated, multilingual, world-traveled, and the embodiment of sophistication—was unpretentious, of a serene temperament, plain-spoken, strong in her convictions and values, and also funny and nice. And also not interested in the spotlight, but more in raising her 10-year-old son Barron with good values and morals.

So it was shocking when I woke up Tuesday morning to read and hear of the gigantic brouhaha about Melania’s alleged “plagiarism.”

Right away, I smelled a rat.

For one thing, it is almost impossible to find anything the leftist media say that is even marginally credible. Most of the lackeys, who pose as journalists, sound more like they’re on the payroll of the Hillary for President campaign or the Democratic National Committee than in the service of the American public.

Remember, these are the people who spent a full year vilifying, insulting, and lying about Donald Trump, fully confident that their viewers and readers would listen to their wisdom, only to be soundly repudiated by the American voting public.

No matter what they said, the voters, figuratively at least, spit in their faces. But in the “culture” of journalism, such repudiation never breeds self-reflection; it only breeds vengeance, and the desire to find something, anything, to take down their nemesis.

Second, it was impossible for me to picture Melania consulting a search engine and looking up the speeches of former First Ladies, finding the words of Michelle Obama, and saying to herself: “Aha…I think I’ll lift a few lines here!”

However, it was eminently plausible for me to picture a professional speechwriter that Melania admitted to Matt Lauer helped her “a little bit” being lazy and unprofessional enough to do just that, to look up former speeches and stick random sentences into the quite brilliant and original piece Melania had written herself—without her knowledge that the excerpts had been lifted!

John Hinderaker of Powerline.com, a site founded by Dartmouth College alumni and, mysteriously to me, not a fan of Mr. Trump, weighed in with an article that damned the craven media. Entitled “Plagiarism? Please,” the writer called Melania’s speech outstanding, and said that so-called lifted sentiments “are so commonplace that they probably could be drawn from any of a hundred speeches. But, is this supposed to be some kind of scandal? One could probably think of a less important issue, but it would take a while. And I wouldn’t think that either Barack Obama or Joe Biden would want to start a conversation about plagiarism.”

Citing an article in the NY Times headlined “Melania Trump’s Speech Bears Striking Similarities to Michelle Obama’s in 2008,” Hinderaker disagrees, writing that, “Michelle Obama’s best-remembered public pronouncement is her statement that `[f]or the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.’ Why? Because her husband was nominated for president. The heart of Melania Trump’s speech, on the other hand, was not the lines that she may have borrowed from Michelle Obama, but rather this tribute to America, delivered by an immigrant:

`After living and working in Milan and Paris, I arrived in New York City twenty years ago, and I saw both the joys and the hardships of daily life. On July 28th, 2006, I was very proud to become a citizen of the United States—the greatest privilege on planet Earth. I cannot, or will not, take the freedoms this country offers for granted.”

The Journal of the American Medical Assn. recently published a very unusual article: a scientific study authored by a sitting president of the United States. That’s never happened before.

In a sense, it’s cool that President Obama cares enough about science to want to publish a paper in one of the world’s leading medical journals. But JAMA has set a bad precedent. The article, on healthcare reform in the United States, is problematic not only in its content but in the threat it poses to the integrity of scientific publishing.

Let’s set aside the debate on whether the specific numbers in the article are factual. (Of course, there is certainly room to question Obama’s data. The president writes that “[t]rends in healthcare costs … have been promising,” even though healthcare spending per capita continues to increase.)

Far more troubling is the president’s tone, which is often self-congratulatory. “I am proud of the policy changes in the [Affordable Care Act],” he writes, “and the progress that has been made toward a more affordable, high-quality, and accessible healthcare system.”

It would be difficult, if not impossible, to find another paper in any scientific journal in which a politician was allowed to subjectively analyze his own policy and declare it a success. This is a textbook definition of conflict of interest.

Moreover, despite the scholarly nature of this academic journal, the president seems incapable of resisting political rhetoric. He glazes over contentious details of the ACA with poorly substantiated claims. For instance, he writes, “For most Americans … Marketplaces are working.” Are they? A majority of Americans want ACA repealed, while others would prefer a universal healthcare system.

Worse, when it comes to those who disagree with his ideas, Obama responds with petty jabs. After denouncing “hyperpartisanship,” he then goes on to criticize Republicans for “excessive oversight” and “relentless litigation” that “undermined ACA implementation efforts.”

One-sided commentary is perfectly fine for the campaign trail, but it has no place in a scientific journal, or in the scientific record alongside the discoveries of DNA and black holes. On the contrary, a good scientific paper devotes space to seriously considering the objections of other scientists. Failure to do so would often be grounds for rejection. Rather than ignoring or belittling opposing ideas, it is the author’s job to convince his readers that his data and ideas are superior.

Students at the Colorado School of Mines selected “the Mine Shaft” as the nickname for its new athletic center — only for the administration to veto it over concern that it’s “rape culture.”

According to e-mail correspondence obtained by Heat Street, the administration decided to override the students’ overwhelming vote for the nickname because a student wrote an e-mail last August complaining that the name was “rape culture” and “phallic.”

Or, as that student spelled it, “phalic:”

“The idea behind the name, at least from the students [sic] perspective, was that the students could tell the opposing team they had been ‘shafted,’” the student, whose name had been redacted, wrote, continuing:

“The most common definition of the word means to get jipped out of a deal, which doesn’t make since [sic] for us to be telling another team. But the other and most disturbing definition is to be raped. Bottom line, I think the name supports rape culture. If Mines is truly trying to diversify the campus maybe they should not have the student section have such a phalic [sic] name.”

Um. Just a couple of things about that.

One: It’s interesting that this student used the word “jipped” — a term considered by many in social-justice circles to be “racially charged” — in an e-mail demanding political correctness perfection.

Two: This whole controversy is alarmingly stupid.

“Time and again, President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and their allies prefer to turn away and ignore the ugly consequences when their policies go wrong. They hope that if they act like it’s not a big deal, the public will follow their lead. Donald Trump and his team have made a cavalcade of bad decisions this campaign season, but turning the spotlight on the ordinary Americans suffering those consequences was one of their best.”

Yes, Donald Trump is a flawed messenger for the case against Hillary Clinton, but that doesn’t make the message any less true or compelling. The decision by a lot of big-name Republican lawmakers to skip the Cleveland convention was a blessing in disguise, because it cleared the stage for ordinary Americans who suffered the cruel, random, and deadly consequences of the Obama administration’s policies.

The speeches from the non-politicians on Monday night weren’t always professionally polished or slick. During these presentations, the high-level media risers to the right of the stage seethed with exasperated sighs, gasps of disbelief, and eye-rolling groans. But the speakers told Americans stories they needed to hear — and while Monday’s effort to force a vote on the rule shows Republican delegates aren’t fully unified on the qualities of Donald Trump, the roaring arena showed they are united in fury at the thought of Hillary Clinton continuing the misrule from the Oval Office.

Some Americans might ask, “Why rehash the Fast and Furious scandal?” — and most other Americans won’t even remember the details of the wrongdoing. But Fast and Furious was an early, important example of the Obama administration’s culture of unaccountability.