RUTHFULLY YOURS

‘In the House and the Senate, we own the budget.” It was August 2014, the stretch run before the midterm elections, and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell was making promises to voters about how he and his party would face down Barack Obama’s lawless presidency. Put us in charge, he explained, and a Republican Congress would defend Americans by using the main tool the Framers gave them, the power of the purse:

That means we can pass the spending bill. And I assure you that in the spending bill, we will be pushing back against this bureaucracy by doing what’s called placing riders in the bill. No money can be spent to do this or to do that. We’re going to go after them on health care, on financial services, on the Environmental Protection Agency, across the board. All across the federal government, we’re going to go after it.

But wait, couldn’t that lead to a government shutdown? Weren’t Republicans supposed to be the grown-ups in the room who would “restore regular order” and “make Washington work”? Locked in his own reelection battle, McConnell was having none of it. President Obama “needs to be challenged,” he thundered, “and the best way to do that is through the funding process.” Republicans would place scores of spending restrictions on the president — “that’s something [the president] won’t like,” he told Politico, “but that will be done. I guarantee it.” A GOP-controlled Congress would dare Obama to veto bills in order to preserve spending on his transformational agenda. If a shutdown happened, that would be the White House’s problem.

In other words, McConnell and his fellow Republican leaders talked the brave talk when courting voters who wanted the financing plug pulled on Obama policies that are crushing ordinary Americans — the impeachable non-enforcement of our immigration laws that costs Americans jobs, depresses American wages, and stresses American communities; the unfolding Obamacare debacle that deprives ordinary Americans of the doctors and insurance they had, corralling them into plans with premiums and deductibles so high that the “coverage” is illusory.

Alas, when voters trusted them to follow through, when it came time to walk the walk . . . the GOP went AWOL.

In the blink of an eye after the historic Republican victory — solid control of the Senate with McConnell safely ensconced as leader, a hammerlock on the House — they gave away the store: fully funding Obama’s final years in office, including Obamacare, including the unconstitutional executive decrees that eviscerate immigration law; forfeiting the considerable leverage they had to “challenge” Obama “through the funding process” as McConnell had committed to do.

A source close to the FBI investigation into the use of Hillary Clinton’s private email server says that the IT specialist who worked for Clinton and who has been granted immunity by the Justice Department is revealing key details about how and when Clinton and her aides accessed the server.

The source characterized Bryan Pagliano as a “devastating witness.”

Fox News:

“Bryan Pagliano is a devastating witness and, as the webmaster, knows exactly who had access to [Clinton’s] computer and devices at specific times. His importance to this case cannot be over-emphasized,” the intelligence source said.

The source, who is not authorized to speak on the record due to the sensitivity of the ongoing investigation, said Pagliano has provided information allowing investigators to knit together the emails with other evidence, including images of Clinton on the road as secretary of state.

The cross-referencing of evidence could help investigators pinpoint potential gaps in the email record. “Don’t forget all those photos with her using various devices and it is easy to track the whereabouts of her phone,” the source said. “It is still boils down to a paper case. Did you email at this time from your home or elsewhere using this device? And here is a picture of you and your aides holding the devices.”

Tonight, as I watch protesters in the streets of Chicago squash the free speech rights of those they do not agree with I exist ashamed of my hometown. I have understood for years that Chicago had arrived at being the epicenter of Progressive intolerance, even more so than the grounds of UC Berkeley or Columbia University. But listening to one of the “protesters” being interviewed after the announcement that they had succeeded in effecting the cancellation of a political rally featuring Donald Trump (of whom I am not necessarily a huge supporter), I have come to the conclusion that the brown shirt-jackboots of fascist regimes past have been resurrected; inhabiting the liberal bastions and college classrooms of the Windy City.

One giggling female protester said, “We are protesting inequality, we’re protesting everything.” And a self-anointed community activist (where does one go to get certified as a community activist anyway?), Quo Vadis, said the goal of the protesters – numbering in the high-hundreds, if not thousands – was for, “Donald to take the stage and to completely interrupt him. The plan is to shut Donald Trump all the way down.” In other words, the protesters who consider themselves champions of “equality for all” executed a plan to affect the total censorship of a political figure. By any consideration, these “protesters” annihilated Donald Trump’s First Amendment right to free speech. Correct me if I am wrong, but censorship is antithetical to equality for all. But maybe these protester’s civics instructors haven’t covered the Bill of Rights yet.

Fascism, by definition, means:

“…a political movement that employs the principles and methods of Fascism, the philosophy, principles, or methods of a governmental system that forcibly suppresses opposition and criticism, and emphasizing an aggressive Nationalism and often racism.”

Censorship is a tool of Fascism, serving to suppress opposition and criticism. This is exactly what we witnessed in the streets of Chicago tonight: censorship at the hand of the “enlightened” Progressive movement. So it is that it is fair to characterize these “enlightened” people – young and old, male and female, Black, White, Latino and otherwise – as modern day fascists; individuals intolerant of opinions that exist in opposition to their own; individuals that exist delusional to who they have become; “useful idiots” denying others the right to political free speech in defiance of the Bill of Rights.

Who can forget the clueless thugs protesting last May in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, holding up their brand new shiny placards––mmmm, where did those pricey things come from?––and expressing rage at….what?

Not at the lack of esteem they believed white America owed to the black-lives-matter movement.
Not at the shooting a year earlier of Michael Brown (for which police officer Darren Wilson was exonerated by a Grand Jury) or the phony “hands-up/don’t shoot” mantra.
Not at the devastating fact that under Barack Obama the unemployment figures for African-Americans were––and remain––at record sky-high levels. According to Larry Elder at Townhall.com, “By every key economic measurement, blacks are worse off under Obama…in some cases, far worse off.”
Not at the tragic fact that black-on-black crime was––and remains––the single biggest killer in the black community (other than abortion).
Oh no. They were protesting because the anarchic, hate-America moneybags who bribed or rather enticed them to show up and act out didn’t pay them! Reportedly, some of the protesters “who looted, rioted, burned buildings and overturned police cars….were promised up to $5,000 per month to join the protests.”

That’s right, according to Newsmax.com, “Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE), the successor group to the now-bankrupt St. Louis branch of ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), stiffed the protesters.”

So much for the high-minded ideology that drove these unemployed know-nothings into the streets!

OLD BOTTLE, SAME WINE
This is exactly what we just witnessed in Chicago on Friday night, March 11th, as a bunch of protestors––both black and white––were convinced for a pittance or for a pile of dough to act like hyperactive children off their Ritalin in order to disrupt a massive rally, anticipated to be attended by over 25,000, for presidential-frontrunner Donald J. Trump. It was hilarious to see the protestors, when asked by reporters why they were there, robotically announce, “I’d rather not give my reasons.” Translation: I have no clue why I’m here, but I’m making a few bucks, so what the heck!

The venue was perfect, wasn’t it?––the home of the arch community organizer Barack Obama, who before his ignominious, race-baiting, hate-whitey, loathe-the-opposition tenure in the White House, specialized in fomenting the same kind of protests, almost all of them to bring down “the man.” The goal, of course, has always been to extort money from individuals or corporations perceived to be “racist,” to create or reinforce in the protestors the notion that they are perpetual victims, and to convince them to vote for Democrats who promise to address their grievances––but never do. The net result: The cities in America with the highest crime rates share one thing in common––each one has a Democrat mayor!

My only minor quarrel with what Donald Trump said regarding Islamic “hatred” for the West (see the prior post) involves his assertion that it is “hard to tell who’s who” – i.e., to sort out anti-Western from pro-Western Muslims.

Trump is right in the sense that (a) the American tradition frowns on examining people about their religious beliefs (or even on whether beliefs that they regard as “religious” necessarily are), and (b) even if we conducted such examinations, respondents who are hostile to us can always lie about their true sentiments. Nevertheless, sharia (Islamic law) is useful here.

Sharia is antithetical to Western principles and American constitutional law in fundamental ways. (I have addressed this many times, see, e.g., here.) A Muslim who is overtly sharia-adherent and believes sharia should be adopted as the law of the land is highly likely to be hostile to Western culture. A Muslim who is not overtly sharia-adherent and who does not favor its imposition as governing law is very likely to be pro-Western. (See, e.g., my 2011 column on the “Mapping Sharia” study.)

I am not as sheepish as Republicans tend to be about the propriety of examining the sharia adherence of Muslim aliens who want to enter the United States. The vast majority of sharia seeks to control matters we in the West regard as the province of civil and criminal law, not religious belief. Plus, even if sharia were mainly about religious belief, aliens who want to enter our country have no First Amendment right against questioning by our government.

I’m also not as pessimistic as many commentators about the potential effectiveness of such examinations. To those who say the respondents will lie, I say (a) government interrogators are trained to detect lying; (b) the government is often able to prove lying beyond a reasonable doubt even when the government bears the burden of proof and the person accused of lying is presumed innocent; and (c) we are dealing here with the opposite situation: The burden is on the alien to prove he merits entry into our country, there is no presumption of innocence, and the government does not need a reason to keep a suspected threat out, much less bear a burden of proving that its suspicions are valid. If the government suspects a Muslim alien is lying or is otherwise a threat, the alien should be denied entry, period.

In an interview by CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Donald Trump was asked whether he thought “Islam is at war with the West.” He replied, “I think Islam hates us,” adding that there is such a “tremendous” and “unbelievable” amount of “hatred” that we must “get to the bottom of” it. But when Cooper pushed him, it became clear that Trump was far less interested in getting to the bottom of it than shielding the country from its consequences.

Cooper pressed Trump about whether this “hatred” was inherent “in Islam itself?” Trump answered, “You’re going to have to figure that out.” He went on to opine that the cause was less important than what we do to protect ourselves: “We have to be very vigilant, we have to be very careful, and we can’t allow people coming into this country who have this hatred of the United States and of people who are not Muslim.”

Cooper, however, continued homing in on the root cause of the hatred: “Is there a war between the West and radical Islam, or is there a war between the West and Islam itself?”

Trump responded, “It’s radical, but it’s very hard to define, it’s very hard to separate because you don’t know who’s who.”

Before I address Trump’s remarks on Islam (in this post and a second one that follows), let’s clear away the underbrush. I am a Cruz supporter. I also do not have a view about whether Trump’s comments reflect what he really thinks or what he thinks people want to hear. On the matter of Trump’s candor, I lean more toward Kevin than Camille Paglia, but for present purposes it is beside the point. My objective here is twofold: (1) to assess what Trump said; and (2) to urge other candidates not to condemn it just because Trump, who often says condemnable things, is the one who said it. Already, the usual suspects are attacking Trump as a bigot and demanding that other candidates do likewise. That would be a mistake. One needn’t be a Trump supporter to see that there is a lot more right than wrong in his remarks.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch suggested Wednesday that the Justice Department would not be obligated to pursue charges against Hillary Clinton for her email infractions even if the FBI recommends criminal charges.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) brought up the topic during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday:

“If the FBI were to make a referral to the Department of Justice to pursue a case by way of indictment and to convene a grand jury for that purpose, the Department of Justice is not required by law to do so, are they — are you?” Cornyn asked.

Lynch didn’t answer directly, but seemed to indicate the department has some wiggle room, and can consult with officials before deciding what to do.

“It would not be an operation of law, it would be an operation of procedures,” Lynch said in reply. She added that the decision to pursue a criminal case would be “done in conjunction with the agents” involved in the investigation. “It’s not something that we would want to cut them out of the process.”

Lynch declined to answer Cornyn’s questions about the decision to grant immunity to Bryan Pagliano, the former Clinton aide who set up the private “homebrew” server at her home in Chappaqua, NY. Asked Cornyn:

If in fact this was immunity granted by a court, that had to be done under the auspices and with the approval of the Department of Justice, which you head.

Bernie Sanders keeps refusing to hit Hillary Clinton over her email. Or so it seems. But maybe the Vermont senator’s relentless assault on Mrs. Clinton’s corporate ties is about her email after all. Maybe Mr. Sanders is betting that Hillary has a bigger problem than classified information.

The question hanging over the Clinton campaign is whether she will be indicted for mishandling state secrets. Under the heroic grilling of Jorge Ramos at the Univision Democratic debate Wednesday, Mrs. Clinton was again forced to roll out a trail of misdirection, to insist (with astonishing brazenness) that an indictment is “not going to happen.”

Classified information matters, and Mrs. Clinton stands accused of sloppy handling. Yet the former secretary of state didn’t set up a home-brew server with the express purpose of exposing national secrets—that was incidental. Mrs. Clinton went to elaborate lengths to build a secret, private system for some other reason. She says it was for “convenience.” Others speculate she did it out of the Clintons’ longtime paranoia over paper trails.
Mr. Sanders is likely hitting closer to the truth. Lost in the classified kerfuffle is the other, lately ignored but still potent, scandal: the Clinton Foundation, and the unethical mixing of Mrs. Clinton’s public work and her personal fundraising/speech-giving/favor-doing. The more evidence that comes out, the more it looks as if that server was set up to provide an off-the-grid means for those two worlds to interact. CONTINUE AT SITE