RUTHFULLY YOURS

In the past few weeks, there have been a series of stories by Jewish writers about ‎what happened to them when they seemingly unleashed the fury of right-wing anti-‎Semites online by writing something deemed unfriendly toward or critical of ‎Donald Trump, or in one case, his wife, Melania.

The toxic response from the angry ‎internet/social media mob, now commonly described as part of the alt-right ‎‎(alternative right) movement, has seemed to confirm what writers on the Left have ‎believed for a long time: that while the Left may be critical of Israel, or its settlement ‎policy, or of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, these criticisms reflected nothing ‎more than policy differences. If you want to look for anti-Semites, they are on the Right, not the Left. Now it seems they have come out of their caves, attracted by — as ‎some seem to think — one of their own. ‎

The charge that Trump himself is an anti-Semite is ludicrous. People who know ‎him, his family, his business associates or his company’s employees can ‎quickly disprove that charge. If Trump were an anti-Semite, on the same ‎wavelength as his ugliest backers, by now he would have disinherited his daughter ‎Ivanka, or distanced himself from her, her husband, Jared Kushner, and their ‎children. After all, Ivanka converted to Judaism, a Modern Orthodox version no ‎less, and keeps a kosher home and is Shabbat observant.

But for those who ‎want to label Trump a fascist or Nazi, also false characterizations, sticking anti-‎Semite into the brew is helpful. There are plenty of ways to criticize Trump without ‎sticking a label on him that does not fit.‎

This month’s Commentary magazine has perhaps the most serious article on the new alt-right phenomenon and its anti-Semitic character: “Trump’s Terrifying Online ‎Brigades” by James Kirchik. The article begins with the story of GQ writer Julia Ioffe, whose ‎profile of Melania Trump, a mixed review for sure, was certainly not a great ‎surprise for what one would expect of any mainstream glossy publication’s profile ‎of the wife of the hated presumptive Republican nominee. The mainstream media ‎largely has no use for Republicans in any year, but especially none for ‎Trump. If one expected a puff piece fitting the publication, as one would surely see ‎for a profile of Michelle Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Hillary Clinton, Jane Sanders or Jill ‎Biden, one would have to believe that the “soft” popular magazine press is less ‎orthodox liberal in its orientation and more interested in balance than the major ‎networks, public radio and television, and newspapers. ‎

In any case, the assault on Ioffe was outrageous, ugly, and scary. This was not the ‎only such recent incident. New York Times writer Jonathan Weisman experienced a ‎similar Twitter assault: after retweeting an article by Robert Kagan on emerging ‎fascism in the United States. Kagan’s article and its conclusion are certainly debatable ‎and rejectable, but again the attacks on Weisman were anti-Semitic to the core. Bethany Mandel had a similar recent experience, and ‎there are sure to be more before the current presidential campaign is over. ‎Without question, Trump’s campaign seems to have opened the door to nasty anti-‎Semites to join the “pubic discourse.”‎

Of course, as anyone who witnessed the attack on Trump supporters at the ‎University of Illinois in Chicago or in San Jose, California, this week, it is obvious ‎that horrible conduct and actions by those who do not care for Trump is as ‎egregious, if not more so, given the real physical assaults that occurred, as the ‎threats from Trump supporters appearing online. Much as those on the Left have ‎sought to excuse the violence perpetrated on Trump supporters by Mexican-flag ‎waving, American flag-burning mobs as Trump’s fault for his provocative ‎comments that incite certain minority groups, there have also been arguments that ‎the wave of online anti-Semitic attacks on writers critical of Trump proves that ‎anti-Semitism is only a problem on the Right.‎

Kirchik put it this way:‎ ‎”While it’s certainly true that most of Trump’s ‎supporters are neither racists nor anti-Semites, it ‎appears to be the case that all of the racists and ‎anti-Semites in this country (and many beyond) ‎support Trump.”‎

The conclusion is, to put it simply, ridiculous.

NeverTrump unveils its surprise candidate.

He’s bald. He’s bearded. He’s who?

“There will be an independent candidate — an impressive one, with a strong team and a real chance,” Bill Kristol promised over the holiday weekend. The Weekly Standard editor followed the drumroll with a wha-wha-wha.

David French, past president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), possesses no “real chance” to become president of the United States. One wonders if Kristol built up the suspense as a practical joke on the writer for a rival magazine. Not since Geraldo Rivera opened up that vault in Chicago has high drama led to such a massive, bizarre letdown. It’s like finding out that Webster shot J.R.

What he lacks in experience he lacks in money and name recognition. David French enjoys a level of popularity above Eddie Spanish but somewhat below Jimmy the Greek. Even among National Review’s stable of writers, French ranks, at least in terms of reader familiarity, as something of a b-lister — not appearing, for instance, in the list of the magazine’s “notable” contributors at Wikipedia.

Was Jay Nordlinger unavailable?

Fifteen years ago, French’s supporters sought to ban his last name as a descriptive of toast, fries, and other edible delights. Now, for not unrelated reasons, they wish to plaster “French” on billboards and bumperstickers. David French might win more votes from the constituency most zealously backing him if he changed his name to David Freedom.

Trump’s reticence in using the U.S. military as a global policeman, not his incivility or penchant to speak before he thinks, primarily prompts hawks to take a hawkish stance on French’s potential candidacy. But students of war surely know a Little Big Horn when they see one. At best, French makes some Republicans who understandably feel skittish about Trump feel good about themselves in the voting booth. At worst, his sliver of votes withheld from the Republican nominee hands Hillary Clinton the presidency.

Voting as catharsis is for narcissists. We elect presidents to protect our future, not our feelings. And running for president without first running for some other office or running something significant similarly strikes as an advertisement of vanity. And everyone knows this race for the White House is only big enough for one raging narcissist who regards the presidency as an entry level governmental position.

A similar conceit clouds the outlook of the beltway conservatives encouraging this delusional presidential run.

Former George W. Bush administration attorney general Alberto Gonzales penned an op-ed in the Washington Post today, giving Donald Trump some cover in his rampage against a Mexican American judge presiding over the lawsuit against Trump University.

It is crucial to understand the real issue in this matter. I am not judging whether Curiel is actually biased against Trump. Only he knows the answer to that question. I am not saying that I would be concerned about him presiding over a case in which I was a litigant. And if I were a litigant who was concerned about the judge’s impartiality, I certainly would not deal with it in a public manner as Trump has, because it demeans the integrity of the judicial office and thus potentially undermines the independence of the judiciary, especially coming from a man who could be president by this time next year. But none of these issues is the test. The test is whether there is an “appearance of impropriety” under the facts as they reasonably appear to a litigant in Trump’s position.

Certainly, Curiel’s Mexican heritage alone would not be enough to raise a question of bias (for all we know, the judge supports Trump’s pledge to better secure our borders and enforce the rule of law). As someone whose own ancestors came to the United States from Mexico, I know ethnicity alone cannot pose a conflict of interest.

But there may be other factors to consider in determining whether Trump’s concerns about getting an impartial trial are reasonable. Curiel is, reportedly, a member of a group called La Raza Lawyers of San Diego. Trump’s aides, meanwhile, have indicated that they believe Curiel is a member of the National Council of La Raza, a vocal advocacy organization that has vigorously condemned Trump and his views on immigration. The two groups are unaffiliated, and Curiel is not a member of NCLR. But Trump may be concerned that the lawyers’ association or its members represent or support the other advocacy organization. Coupled with that question is the fact that in 2014, when he certified the class-action lawsuit against Trump, Curiel appointed the Robbins Geller law firm to represent plaintiffs. Robbins Geller has paid $675,000 in speaking fees since 2009 to Trump’s likely opponent, Hillary Clinton, and to her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Curiel appointed the firm in the case before Trump entered the presidential race, but again, it might not be unreasonable for a defendant in Trump’s position to wonder who Curiel favors in the presidential election.

Gonzales makes the case Trump should be making. It’s not a question of Curiel’s Hispanic heritage. It’s the web of his connections that gives the appearance of bias in favor of Hillary Clinton and against Republicans. CONTINUE AT SITE

Political conflicts of interest galore go uncovered in witch hunt against Trump.

Can we talk a big, fat political conflict of interest? Can we talk the lawyers and the judge involved in the lawsuits against Trump University? Let’s throw in identity politics and, but of course, follow the money.

Well of course there’s a conflict.

What did you expect when you saw the breathless headlines blare about Trump University lawsuits? The impression being assiduously cultivated that Donald Trump, a billionaire ten times over, set up some sort of elaborate con to scam regular folks on real estate.

What’s not being said? What questions are not being asked? How about this? How about asking just who is pursuing these cases against Donald Trump? What if what’s really going on here is… a witch trial? A rigged game designed to produce a desired political end — the smearing of Donald Trump — to enable the political fortunes of Democrats generally, and Hillary Clinton specifically?

Let’s examine the players in this lawsuit.

The players are:

The Judge: U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the California federal judge in the Trump University law suit case.

The Lawyers: Two law firms: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck LLP.

And let’s not forget another player, this one in New York. That would be:

The New York Attorney General: Eric Schneiderman.

The Play: As detailed here in Law360, this is how the game works:

Law360, Los Angeles (October 28, 2014, 4:00 PM ET) — A California federal judge has granted class certification in a Racketeer influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act suit accusing Donald Trump of scheming to make millions of dollars by falsely claiming attendees of Trump University LLC seminars would learn his real estate secrets.

… In addition to certifying the class, Judge Curiel on Friday appointed Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck LLP as class counsel.

Stop. Stop right there. Let’s parse.

Who is the “California federal judge” who not only granted “class certification” to the lawsuit against Trump — but then assigned the two law firms now involved with the case?

Oh Puleez! I admire David French but he and Kristolantics will do nothing, absolutely nothing to intimidate Trump or his supporters. Like McCarthy whom I respect and admire,I will, reluctantly vote for Trump. Unlike him, I think that Kristol and the holdouts are ridiculous and destructive and have painted themselves into a corner, wasting time and energy on a silly plan and aiding Hillary in her battle against Trump….rsk

“Thank God for David French.

As anyone familiar with David’s character, career, and oeuvre knows, there are about a million reasons to utter that sentence. But I offer thanks today for his public consideration of an independent run for the presidency. It’s a very American thing to do — or at least it would be in pre-Obama America.

Allow me to explain myself before the inevitable fusillade from Donald Trump’s shoot-first-ask-questions-later (if ever) legions — the trolls who may make it even harder for reluctant conservatives to board the Trump Train than does the Donald himself.

I expect to vote for Trump in November. As I’ve previously conceded, this is not exactly a momentous concession: I live in New Jersey, which is going to be carried by the Democratic nominee regardless of whom I vote for or whether I vote at all. As National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru wisely observes, the probability that any of our votes will determine the winner of the 2016 election “cannot meaningfully be distinguished from zero.”

More significantly, however, I intend to do everything in my (admittedly limited) power to help Donald Trump arrive at policies that promote American national security and prosperity. I hope that can be done in a cordial, if wary, alliance. That is, notwithstanding my skepticism, I hope Trump’s conservative supporters are correct that Trump is no longer the by-the-numbers left-leaning Democrat he was for so many years. I hope that he really has made a conversion, that conservatives really can have a mutually advantageous relationship with him.

Yet, I am not banking on the Road to Damascus — especially for a rider who vacillates between wanting nothing to do with Syria and salting the earth beneath it. I am perfectly prepared to provide help of the adversarial “tough love” variety. After all, what we really love and want the best for is the United States. The presidency is an important means toward that end, but it is not the end itself.

It keeps happening. In Chicago, Kansas City, South Bend, Janesville, Albuquerque, Costa Mesa, and countless other cities, gaggles of paid, increasingly violent left-wing agitators are doing their best to shut down the rights of Trump supporters to peacefully assemble. In some cases, they are even physically attacking people. Earlier this year in Chicago (ground zero for left-wing agitation), the protesters actually succeeded in shutting down a rally. All across the nation, people’s constitutional rights of free speech and free assembly are being threatened by unhinged and out-of-control radicals.

Last night in San Jose, yet another violent mob of far-left protesters assailed and assaulted Trump supporters as they were leaving a rally, in the latest example of this ongoing anti-democratic spectacle.

Trump supporters were assaulted and even pelted with eggs when they left a San Jose rally for the presumptive Republican nominee.

The crowd also stole Trump merchandise and set it on fire, and they yelled accusations of racism at Trump’s backers.

One Trump supporter told a news report that he had his Trump sign stolen and was then sucker-punched.

Some members of the media characterized the incidents as “fights.” These weren’t fights; they were violent assaults. In the photograph below, a terrified young guy is running for his life with the mob in close pursuit.

This is what passes for political engagement in 2016 America:
Protesters against Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump chase a man leaving a Trump campaign rally on Thursday, June 2, 2016, in San Jose, Calif. A group of protesters attacked Trump supporters who were leaving the presidential candidate’s rally in San Jose on Thursday night. A dozen or more people were punched, at least one person was pelted with an egg and Trump hats grabbed from supporters were set on fire on the ground. (AP Photo/Noah Berger) Protesters against Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump chase a man leaving a Trump campaign rally on Thursday, June 2, 2016, in San Jose, Calif. A group of protesters attacked Trump supporters who were leaving the presidential candidate’s rally in San Jose on Thursday night. A dozen or more people were punched, at least one person was pelted with an egg and Trump hats grabbed from supporters were set on fire on the ground. (AP Photo/Noah

The Republican establishment dismissed Donald Trump as a joke, then reacted to initial victories with confident predictions his salad days would wilt and fade. What didn’t resonate in Washington’s hermetically sealed echo chamber was disgust, not with the tycoon but with the elites.
The sentiment is familiar: ‘I hope the Republican Party nominates Donald Trump because it will be a bloodbath for them’, or words to that effect, is a social-media staple among non-Republicans. The seductive notion is that Trump is so unpalatable he will lose November’s presidential election in a landslide to Hillary Clinton. Therefore, or so the logic goes, Republicans would do better with someone less divisive. As a prevailing meme it serves not only as a reminder of the folly in taking advice from political enemies, but also of the punditocracy’s abysmal record of what are, quite frankly, delusional prognostications.

When the primaries season began, the conventional wisdom was ‘Republicans will never nominate Trump’. When the tycoon began to gain traction, it was ‘Trump will crash and burn’ and ‘he’s a temporary fad’. As he continued to gather delegates, wishful thinking coloured the prophecies, as in ‘they’ll wise up and pick Jeb Bush’. Each and every reading of the auguries proved untrue, a reminder that few things can equal the inertial mass of a political elite confronting a contrary reality. Whatever else Trump has achieved, he has certainly eroded the credibility of numerous political commentators.

The pundits’ mistake was to apply the rules of 2012 four years too late. When Trump denounced illegal aliens and the crimes many commit, the media establishment painted him as a racist and, tellingly, neglected to mention that his pledge to build a wall along the Rio Grande was prompted by, to cite but one example, the Mexican thug who had been deported five times before slipping over the border yet again to kill a young woman in San Francisco. Those who voted for Trump knew better. They grasped that there is already a border “wall” of sorts — armed patrols, cyclone wire, movement detectors – it’s just that it doesn’t work very well. In 2012, the racist tag worked just fine as a handy smear. Today, though, non-pundit Americans have watched the invasion of Europe, seen the erosion of borders and national sovereignty, made note of crimes committed by those with no legal right to be on US soil. In the world they inhabit, the world the elites refuse to acknowledge, what Trump says makes perfect sense.

Likewise, Trump’s pronouncements on Islamic immigration. After every latest Islamist massacre the elites grab the nearest photogenic imam, summon the media and proclaim Islam as the Religion of Peace™. Voters, however, recall 9/11 and, more recently, the San Bernadino massacre by a Muslim husband and wife who killed the very same workmates who organised a baby shower for them. Once again, Trump emerges as the candidate who best grasps reality.

Likewise, previous orthodoxies also have been called into question. Obama campaigned in 2008 on the implicit pledge that he would restore the world’s love for America by renouncing what he evidently regarded as its arrogant and imperialist hubris. The result? A shrunken global presence, a shameful deal with Iran’s religious fascists and a vacuum where once Pax Americana prevailed. These factors, compounded and manifested in the rise of the Tea Party, contributed to an overall feeling of disconnect between Main Street and its Washington betters.

With Trump as nominee, social conservatives might think that by not voting for him they are keeping their hands clean. These people fail to recognize that under a Clinton regime there will be no refuge from a systematic agenda that seeks to destroy the very notion of “nature” and of any restraint on federal power.

Trump is an old-fashioned Whig—and I am not referring to his hair.

In an excellent article at Public Discourse, Matthew Franck compared Donald Trump to Stephen Douglas, “the showboat orator, the bulldog debater, the racial demagogue, the slippery character seeking to wriggle free of Lincoln’s grasp, and finally the exhausted boozer losing his voice.” But the historical analogy could be read in a very different way.

As Allen Guelzo points out, “the greatest danger to democracy” in the 1840s “was not an insurrection of discontented laborers but the maneuverings of a pig-eyed aristocracy to strike up a dark alliance with the working classes, whispering that economic mobility was a chimera and that what the workers needed was subsidy and protection from mobility.” Clearly, the Democratic Party has been the demagogue party since its inception. The nineteenth-century Democrats offered slavery—not only racial slavery in the South, but also the slavery of cradle-to-grave socialism, as Orestes Brownson made clear in his essay “On the Laboring Classes.” The fact that we can imagine Trump as a new threat of demagoguery demonstrates quite brilliantly Alasdair MacIntyre’s old point: “The barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time. And it is our lack of consciousness of this that constitutes part of our predicament.”