RUTHFULLY YOURS

The Plot Against America Donald Trump alights on the Compleat Conspiracy. Anti-Semites are thrilled. Bret Stephens (huh?????)

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-plot-against-america-1476745874

They meet in secret. Men of immense wealth; a woman of limitless ambition. Their passports are American but their loyalties are not. Through their control of international banks and the media they manipulate public opinion and finance political deceit. Their aim is nothing less than the annihilation of America’s political independence, and they will stop at nothing—including rigging a presidential election—to achieve it.

Call it for what it is: “A conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous venture in the history of man.”

Astute readers will note the quotation of a speech delivered in the U.S. Senate in June 1951 by the then-junior senator from Wisconsin. We’re in historically familiar territory. Joe McCarthy inveighed against Communists in control of the State Department. For Charles Lindbergh it was “war agitators,” notably those of “the Jewish race.”

And now we have Donald Trump versus what Laura Ingraham calls “the globalist cabal”—the latest enemy from without, within. In a speech Thursday in West Palm Beach the GOP presidential nominee painted a picture of a “global power structure” centered around Hillary Clinton that aims to “plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty” while stepping on the necks of American workers with open borders and ruinous trade deals.

“There is nothing the political establishment will not do,” Mr. Trump thundered. “No lie they won’t tell, to hold their prestige and power at your expense, and that’s what’s been happening.”
More Global View

In claiming earlier this year that the current U.S. health-care system “was HillaryCare before it was called ObamaCare,” Hillary Clinton was telling the truth—but not the whole truth. In 1993, while first lady, Mrs. Clinton led a task force to deliver universal health care to the voters who elected her husband. She failed. After many revisions, the final bill stalled in the Senate for lack of Democratic votes.

HillaryCare was a comprehensive plan for the government to take over the health-care system, with program details and cost-control measures precisely defined. Having learned from that defeat, the Obama administration left as many details as possible to be written during implementation after ObamaCare became law. With few details to defend and the clear falsehood that “if you like your health-care plan you can keep it,” President Obama pushed through his “signature” legislation.

While Bill Clinton recently denounced the Affordable Care Act’s effect on the health-care market as “the craziest thing in the world,” ObamaCare was never anything more than a politically achievable steppingstone. As with HillaryCare, a single payer, national health-care system has always been the goal.

Hillary Clinton’s Health Security Act of 1993 would have broken the nation’s health-care system into regional Healthcare Purchasing Cooperatives, which would have collectively set treatment guidelines and implemented cost-control measures. In the abstract, HillaryCare was just as popular as ObamaCare would be 16 years later, with some 20 Republican senators initially supporting an alternative plan that would have largely implemented HillaryCare.

That’s when Sen. John McCain, the late Sen. Paul Coverdell and I took our fight against the bill to regional media markets. When we attacked HillaryCare as inefficient, people yawned. When we showed that the program was unaffordable, people checked their watches. But when we focused on the extraordinary loss of freedom that HillaryCare entailed, where the federal government decided the doctor you could see and the services that could be provided, our rear-guard action became a crusade.

The stone that slew the HillaryCare Goliath was freedom. Even the Democrat-appointed head of the Congressional Budget Office was forced to conclude that under HillaryCare health-insurance premiums were federal revenues and all health-cooperative expenditures were federal outlays.

Early in November 2015, when the 2016 election was still an over-populated free-for-all, I had lunch with a friend who is a member of an endangered species: the conservative, “Scoop Jackson” Democrats. They are very thin on the ground these days, and are vanishingly rare in public life. But once upon a time these patriotic, unashamedly pro-American Democrats provided a life-giving current of realism and sanity to their party. They were strong on defense, pro-labor but also pro-prosperity, and they tended to regard their Republican counterparts not as enemies but as colleagues with whom they had differences of opinion or strategy.

As I say, such Democrats are all but extinct today, especially in the corridors of power. My well-connected friend is almost as aghast as I am at the Democrats’ lurch to the hard, identity-politics Left. He could not muster any enthusiasm for my candidate — Ted Cruz — but he was not flattering about the two Democratic contenders, either. Bernie Sanders he regarded as insane and Hillary Clinton — whom he knows well — he regarded with that visceral distaste that only close personal acquaintance can impart.

At the time, Ted Cruz seemed to be doing well — my how appearances can be deceiving! — and already there were troubling stories about Hillary Clinton’s health. I said that I doubted she would be up to the rigors of the campaign, but he replied: she won’t need to campaign. She will win the primary and then the election by acclamation.

“Er, ah,” I said, or words to that effect. I didn’t believe a word of it. Now I am not so sure.

A year ago, I thought that a growing, cross-party impatience with the self-serving Washington establishment would usher in a candidate of change. I favored Ted Cruz, but I understood those making the case for Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, and even, on the other side, those making the case for Bernie Sanders. Yes, he was insane and his policies were (in my view) preposterous, but he was the understandable mouthpiece for a certain species of populist revulsion. Why, just to take one issue, should the presidency of the United States be a prize that rotated among the Bushes and the Clintons?

I will come right out and say it: I could give a damn what Donald Trump says in private. What this signals to me is that the false piety on display by so many Republicans and conservatives is nothing more than a symptom of the wussification of America and the American male and the selling out of our liberty. Yes, what he said is crude and immature; in fact, I can’t even get my mind around the actual particulars of what he was saying. But again, I don’t care. This country stands on the precipice between tyranny and liberty and I am to be a self-appointed judge of a man’s private conversations and the thoughts in his head? Who among us is so arrogant?

The quislings are all running for the hills. After all, the GOP cannot be led by such a rogue, a womanizer, a brute! But let’s pull back. As conservatives, we love to think of America being founded, and for 240 years, run by nothing but pious Christian pilgrims. But, this is just fantasy. We have had very pious men in our history, but also very many rogues, drunks, gamblers, womanizers, etc., lead our country, fight our wars, and create our industries. We may not want to admit it, but the very same traits required to take risks, to lead men, to create and build, often coalesce with some of the traits that we find so morally repugnant.

George Patton, Ulysses S. Grant, Sam Houston, Andrew Jackson and so many others were hardly saints. Sam Houston’s bio reads like a rap sheet of drunkenness, criminal assault, cuckolding, and misery. And then…. he went on to found the Republic of Texas. George Patton wouldn’t last five minutes in today’s Army of political correctness. He almost didn’t last past Sicily and the slapping of a soldier, not to mention his many “insults.” But how many American lives and the lives in the German camps did he save by steamrolling into Germany months ahead of schedule?

We are not electing a pope — we need a leader. Conservatives fall into the trap of thinking that with a pious perfect Christian who is a moral saint, we are guaranteed the traits necessary to lead our country in a time of crises. I am sorry — they are not one and the same. Sometimes you get a deadbeat drunken failure like Ulysses S. Grant to take you to victory at Vicksburg. So, save the piety, conservatives, the man who leads us in battle or who leads our country through crisis is not the man you confess to on Sundays or the man who marries your daughter.

“By the way, if anyone takes seriously the series of uncorroborated, unreported at the time, alleged unwanted groping on the part of Trump they will believe any old rope confected by the Clinton campaign in cahoots with the NYT. This Salem-like witch trial is already falling apart. Be clear. There is no rat-hole that the left and Hillary will not scamper down to gain power and the prizes it brings. They don’t have pesky standards to hold them back. And they don’t care what happens to all those ‘deplorables’; or to inner-city blacks or Latinos for that matter. They care about votes. ”

Can America and the world tolerate a lecherous leader, or would it be better served by a congenital liar, corruptocrat and hypocrite? If the polls are right, the latter option seems the more likely — along with higher taxes, more regulation and a stacked Supreme Court

The Senate convenes. Dominus Trumpus has the floor. “The barbarians are at the very gates of Rome,” he thunders. “We must send the legions forthwith.”

“You lecherous scoundrel,” comes the orchestrated response. “You didst do some noble ladies badly by your salty talk and, so they claim, by putting your paws on their p-part; only but two or three decades ago. [Here this Recorder has omitted spelling out an offensive word. Those flummoxed might refer to the praenomen of Miss Galore brought to fame by the noble scribe Flemingus in his famous work Aurum Digitum.]

Trumpus protests his innocence in vain. Never were the legions sent and Rome didst fall. And the headline of this sorry tale: “Risqué behaviour trumps national saviour.”

The opinion polls are moving decidedly against Mr Trump. It looks as though Mrs Clinton will prevail. Exactly what the US and the world will get is matter of conjecture. But a few things seem easy enough to guess.

Taxes will rise on those earning more than $250,000 a year in order to pay for government programs. This will be bad for the economy. Taxing the rich is an alluring prospect but it takes away private savings which, on the whole, are used for productive purposes. The poor will suffer most.

Environmental regulations will be ramped up. This will increase the cost of energy and impede economic development and growth. The miners and the poor will suffer most.

Borders will be far more open, including to Muslim refugees. This will depress wages, increase social welfare spending, create more terrorism and crime, further splinter social cohesion and sow the seeds of European-style Islamism in America. The poor and Jews will suffer most.

The Supreme Court will be stacked with activists. Christian institutions and churches, the non-politically-correct outspoken, gun owners, unborn babies and flag-displaying patriots will suffer most.

Michelle Obama laid into Donald Trump for his lewd locker room remarks about women as follows: “I can’t stop thinking about this. It has shaken me to my core in a way I could not have predicted” — whereupon the White House warned Trump to not retaliate against the First Lady.

“And the White House on Thursday advised that Trump continue to steer clear of the president’s wife, suggesting that an unprecedented attack on the first lady is a surefire way for the GOP nominee’s standing to plummet further.”

Well, Eric Schultz (and presumably Barack Obama), here is what you can do with your warning. Donald Trump’s statements, which were probably empty boasts in contrast to Bill Clinton’s well-known behavior, were indeed lewd and unacceptable. While two wrongs do not make a right, Michelle and Barack Obama have openly promoted rap artists who glorify misogyny, sexual objectification of women, and even date rape. That’s right; I am indeed calling out our country’s sorry excuse for a First Lady for her and her husband’s deplorable legitimization of the most despicable misogynistic language on earth.

In April 2016, the Obamas invited numerous rap artists to the White House to discuss Barack Obama’s “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative while recognizing them for their “artistic” contributions to minority communities. The rappers whom the Obamas promoted with these invitations include:

Rick Ross’s, “U.O.N.E.O.” glorifies date rape with the lyrics, “Put molly all in her champagne/ She ain’t even know it / I took her home and I enjoyed that/ She ain’t even know it.” While Ross denies that this was his intended meaning, “molly” is slang for Ecstasy, a well-known date rape drug, and the context of “molly” in his lyrics shows clearly that a man put it into a woman’s drink without her knowledge or consent so he could have sex with her. Ross’ “Same Hoes” is meanwhile not about agricultural implements as shown by its lyrics, which consist primarily of the F word, a variant of the N word, and “hoes.”
Common, whose “Go!” includes, “And a ooh baby she liked it raw and like rain when she came it poured” along with a variant of the N word and even more sexually explicit lyrics.
Jay Z, who proclaims, “I’ve got 99 problems and a b***h ain’t one.”
Michelle Obama called out Trump’s remarks with the words, “What message are our little girls hearing about who they should look like, how they should act?” Nicki Minaj, another rapper whom she and her husband brought to the White House, answers that question in “Hey Mama,” “Make sure mama crawls on her knees keep him pleased rub him down be a lady and a freak” and also “Yes I do the cooking/ Yes I do the cleaning/ Yes I keep the nana real sweet for your eating/ Yes you be the (boss) yes I be respecting.” It doesn’t take a feminist to dismiss these words as belonging in a fundamentalist “Islamic” country, assuming that they ever belonged anywhere at all.

The Watergate “smoking gun” was that Nixon suggested the CIA tell the FBI to back off the investigation because of national security reasons. The CIA was never instructed to do so and the FBI did its investigation. Here the Obama State Department “pressured” the FBI to alter documents so Hillary’s story would be believable, and State offered some goodies like slots in overseas embassies. The Obama State Department actually did what Nixon only dreamed and talked about.

On October 15, 2016, Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard reported:

“A senior State Department official repeatedly pressed the FBI to change the classification of emails stored on Hillary Clinton’s private server, according to FBI interview summaries set to be released in the coming days. Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary of state for management, discussed providing additional overseas slots for the FBI in exchange for revisions to classifications of the sensitive emails.”

In plain English, the Obama State Department asked the FBI to phony up the emails marked confidential so the emails were consistent with Hillary’s story. In return the FBI would get some juicy overseas slots. This shows what the Obama State Department thinks of the FBI: the Comey FBI can be bought with a couple of overseas slots.

There is no way that Patrick Kennedy, or anyone at State, would have made the move to the FBI to fix Hillary’s emails unless the move was approved by higher-ups. In these political conspiracies there are “buffers” between guys like Patrick Kennedy and the higher ups. The Obama State Department is run by John Kerry, who does what Obama tells him to do.

This begs for an investigation by an independent prosecutor, and the Senate and House Judiciary Committees should immediately subpoena Kennedy, Kerry, Comey, and the agents involved.

Comey should have revealed this in his July 5 news conference when he listed Hillary’s lies and extreme negligence but gave her a pass.

The FBI has been compromised by Hillary and Obama. Its once sterling reputation is shattered. Comey should have recommended indictment of Hillary along with those who made the offer to phony up the documents. If we had a Justice Department, there would be a grand jury right now issuing subpoenas to the FBI agents and Patrick Kennedy and John Kerry, and all other buffers between Kennedy and Hillary and Obama.

“On our issues trump is perfect,” declares the grassroots organization Jewschoosetrump.org, calling on fellow Jews across the country to remember, a word resonant with religious and historical meaning for Jews.

It can’t be true–the American Jewish community has “forgotten,” or more accurately no longer chooses to remember, the existential threat to Israel, America, and Western civilization posed by Iran and the Iran Deal. (snip) Our children and grandchildren [will] ask us what were we thinking or were we even thinking when we ignored and denied the dangers facing us.

(snip) Are American Jewish leaders once again going to deny reality, hope for the best, engage in altruistic surrender and denial, and feel good and superior for caring first about others rather than the future of our children? This is pitiful and incredibly dangerous. Maybe a psychologist could figure out why our history has crippled our instinct for survival, but shame on us anyway.

(snip) It is an easy choice. We don’t even need to scrutinize destroyed emails and hidden speeches. Hillary is for the Iran Deal–she is proud of it and expresses support for Obama’s handling of Iran. Trump trashes the Iran Deal and vows to end it. This is reason enough for us as American Jews to choose Trump.

Although Jews are a “rare” minority in America, only 2% of Americans, they are concentrated in the swing state of Florida, as well as Ohio and Pennsylvania. Because of the importance of Florida, Jews could determine the Electoral College tally if the election is as close as expected.

Do we have a chance? The answer is a qualified yes. Jews voted Republican from Abraham Lincoln until FDR. Ronald Reagan broke through the FDR Jewish mindset and garnered almost 40% of the Jewish vote. In recent times, as few as 14% of Jews identified as Republican. That was before Barack Obama’s anti-Israel and anti-American passions led to policies that have destabilized the Middle East and promoted Iran as a hegemonic and soon to be nuclear power. As a result of the Democratic disaster in the Middle East, Romney won 30% of the Jewish vote. Things have gotten much, much worse since then, with Europe overrun by violent anti-western Muslims, and ISIS creating a terror threat in America.

The entire country is less Democratic thanks to Barack Obama, despite what voters are willing to admit to pollsters when asked simply if they approve of the President. Jews have fled the Democratic Party in even greater numbers, according to Gallup:

At a time when the “news” media betray their own hyped up values of objectivity and fairness, I am beginning to hear a growing voice of moral outrage in America – and it’s actually expressed in clear words, day after day, by the Republican nominee for president of the United States. That would be Donald Trump.

That last sentence is bound to set any lost and lonely lefty loony screaming with hysterical laughter, but hyenas are what they are. From the hyena’s point of view, Republicans are just another meat. The GOP establishment is shivering in the foxholes, and its members are losing voters as fast as Trump gains them. If Trump tells his supporters to vote against down-ballot Republicans, the establishment will reverse course. They count on our stupidity and our goodwill, but we are no longer stupid.

The Clintons and Obamas have made normal Americans despair, but the voters care. They care a lot. Americans who care haven’t had a voice in U.S. politics for a long time, but if normal people had given up on the stench from D.C., the Rasmussen polls would not be showing a neck-and-neck race. Enough Americans care to make this a game-changing election.

We have been deeply disappointed often by the One Party Machine. But we care enough to keep listening for that voice in the desert.

Rush Limbaugh keeps pointing out that the chief goal of the left is demoralizing Americans. He is right. If they can keep you home on election night, they win. They know how to kill off our best leaders. Saul Alinsky said it in his little book, the one Hillary wrote her B.A. thesis about, way back when.

(Hillary’s B.A. thesis is now only a click away, and it’s “must” reading for Americans. That thesis gives us the key to Hillary’s life. She was cult-indoctrinated at Wellesley College at an age when young people are notoriously vulnerable. She might have become a Scientologist, but she became a hard leftist instead. Hillary’s generation of ambitious feminists are now in jobs of power and influence, and most of them go along with the immiseration of women and children in the reactionary world of jihad. Hillary chose her lifelong path at Wellesley, and she has a one-track mind.)

Yes, Donald Trump is a flawed human being, as the hyena pack keeps yodeling in the night. But as far as I know, he is not a serial abuser like Bill Clinton, nor is he a feminist enabler of randy male misbehavior like Hillary.