RUTHFULLY YOURS

The fabricated on-air debate claim of Hillary Clinton that Islamic State is showing videos of Republican frontrunner Donald Trump “to recruit more radical jihadists” has gone largely unchallenged in the mainstream media.

In fact it is the Benghazi bungler’s husband, not Trump, who is featured in an Islamic State (a.k.a. ISIS, ISIL, and Daesh) recruiting video in which he is labeled a “fornicator” for his many sexual improprieties.

“No Respite,” a four-minute video published online by Islamic State in November, shows images of Bill Clinton, along with former President George W. Bush, who is called a “liar,” and President Obama. The propaganda piece makes the pitch that the U.S. military is no match for Muslim armies.

But you probably haven’t heard about the appropriation of Bill Clinton’s image for jihadist recruitment efforts.

A number of editorials have appeared in center-right outlets accusing Trump supporters of wanting a dictator.

Well obviously.

Politics is a competition. Everyone wants to win the game based on the rules of the game. And the current rules of the game are not Constitutional. The left wanted a dictator. Obama gave them one. He implemented laws, started wars and took on powers which were not only beyond his authority, but which were opposed by the majority of Americans and elected legislators in Congress.

And he won. He got away with it. And that made his way of doing things the new game.

The media and some Republicans sputter that Trump’s proposals couldn’t be carried out. Well of course they could be. If Trump were to run things the way that Obama has.

There are two responses to this.

The left deems this unacceptable because it has a double standard. There’s always some reason why its rulebreaking is okay, but why the rules must be applied to the right. Mocking the kids of presidential candidates is off limits… unless they’re Republicans. Ruling by Executive Order is tyranny… unless a progressive does it. Starting wars based on lies is wrong unless… etc.

Now that kind of hypocrisy is only to be expected from politicians. The trouble is that the left encompasses the media, much of the legal system, academia and a raft of other key network institutions that make it impossible to have any kind of honest discourse about the rule of law.

That means the game is rigged. There are two sets of rules. So why play by them?

In a New Hampshire town hall meeting, Republican presidential candidate Gov. Chris Christie (N.J.) referred to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton as “Secretary Happy Talk” and suggested she suspend campaigning over her recent ISIS comments.

“We had the woman who wants to succeed [Obama], who said in the debate here in New Hampshire Saturday night that as to ISIS we’re finally exactly where we want to be. Here’s what I suggest to Secretary Clinton: I suggest that she suspend campaigning, get on an airplane, fly to Paris and before Christmas meet with the families of the murdered victims in Paris and tell them we’re exactly where we want to be as to ISIS as they endure, not celebrate, endure Christmas this year without their loved ones. I want her to look them in the eye,” Christie said at a town hall meeting in New London, N.H.

“The fact is she is Secretary Happy Talk. That’s her new name, that’s all I am going to call her from now on is Secretary Happy Talk. The slogan for this administration should be, ‘do you believe me or your lying eyes?’” he added.

Christie also labeled Clinton a “hypocrite” due to her support for military intervention in Libya.

Donald Trump thinks he can win the race for president. So does Ted Cruz. Maybe Marco Rubio thinks that, too. And maybe even Ben Carson, though he doesn’t have much grounds to anymore.

But what about all the other candidates, who are way, way down in the polls? At least Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal could see they weren’t going anywhere and pulled out. But what about the others? It’s no longer early in the political season, where anyone at 3% has a chance. If you’re at 3% nationally in the polls now, there is no chance you are going to be president. So what are they thinking?

George Pataki:

Pataki knows about struggle. He travels with only a few aides and has met with mostly small groups of voters. “Everybody goes, ‘How long, Pataki, can you stay in this?’ We’ve been running on a bare-bones campaign from the beginning,” he said last week.

Pataki is a former three-term governor of New York who has been out of office for ten years. He has spent most of his time practicing law and working at an environmental consulting firm to cash in on imaginary global warming. He is currently at zero percent in the polls. Maybe he’s thinking to raise his profile so he can get a job in the next administration? The only problem is that he hasn’t. He hasn’t even made it to the main debates. By wandering around alone in New Hampshire like a homeless man, he basically degrades himself.

Hillary Clinton this week promised to cure Alzheimer’s disease inside of a decade—even as she bemoans the tragedy of the Hepatitis C cures that are on the market today because she feels the prices are too high. That isn’t the only contradiction—or outright falsehood—dominating the political debate over pharmaceuticals.

Also this week the Health and Human Services Department created a “dashboard” that claims to show what Medicare’s drug-benefit program spent on individual drugs over the last five years. “You’ve probably heard about—or seen on your drug store receipt—evidence of the rising cost of prescription drugs,” the White House’s Jeanne Lambrew and Erin Richardson wrote in a blog post. “The tool allows you to sort these drugs in different ways, so you can rank them by total spending, spending per person, or by cost increases.”

But something about this data dump is off. The dashboard lists “total spending” on Medicare drugs at $121.5 billion last year. The Congressional Budget Office reports that actual spending in 2014 was $65 billion. The dashboard says Medicare spent $2.5 billion on Abilify. Bristol-Myers Squibb booked total U.S. revenues of $1.6 billion for that antipsychotic medicine in 2014, and that figure includes private insurance and Medicaid.

The phrase “follow the money” is supposed to help explain human behavior, especially in politics. So why has Donald Trump embraced Russian President Vladimir Putin? Why has he denied the evidence of Putin’s killing of Russian journalists and dissidents? A savvy businessman, Trump is certainly not dumb. There must be something else to it.

Reports dating back to 1987, during the time of the old Soviet Union, reveal that Trump has been seeking business in Russia and attempting to build a “Russian Trump Tower” in Moscow and perhaps other Russian cities.

At this particular time in history, with Putin’s cronies under financial sanctions because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Putin’s praise for Trump may signal another attempt to get the capitalists and their money back into Russia. Such a ploy depends on Trump and others rehabilitating Putin by claiming that he is fighting terrorism in Syria, not bolstering a long-time Soviet/Russian client state. Thanks to the effectiveness of the Russia Today (RT) channel, which saturates the U.S. media market, especially cable television, Putin is indeed looking like a statesman on the world stage.

Trump’s relationship with Russia goes far back. In 1987, before the collapse of the Soviet Union, he was meeting with Soviet officials and negotiating the building of “luxury hotels” in Moscow and Leningrad. A story [1] at the time said Trump had met Soviet Ambassador Yuri Dubinin, who mentioned how much his daughter had admired the “opulent” Trump Tower in New York City. This led to an invitation to Trump to visit the USSR. The story said Dubinin wrote a letter to Trump, who hosted a meeting with Soviet officials in New York.

‘She was favored to win — and she got schlonged. She lost, I mean she lost,” Donald Trump said, describing Hillary Clinton’s 2008 White House bid at a Grand Rapids campaign event Monday night.

This is our presidential race in 2015: “linguistic investigations” into whether the term “schlonged” is accurate Yiddish, consternation over whether it’s unacceptably sexist or vulgar, and the Clinton campaign’s insistence that the remark requires a response from “everyone who understands the humiliation this degrading language inflicts on all women.”

Trump is the race’s shock-jock, a master at gleefully overstepping boundaries we didn’t even know were there, and there’s little reason to think that the “schlonged” comment will hurt his standing in the polls. Nor will we see immediate fallout from Trump’s lengthy assurance on Monday night that he wasn’t going to discuss the “disgusting” bathroom break Clinton took during last Saturday’s Democratic debate. While he’s bobbled the lead in Iowa, Trump is still ahead nationally and in the other early states; so far, the cycle of controversy, outrage, and denunciation hasn’t hurt him.

But does this sort of talk help Trump at all? If it brings him closer to the Republican nomination, what does it say about Republicans? And is there any way it won’t repel a significant number of voters who might otherwise consider supporting the Republican standard-bearer in November 2016?

The proposition that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a committed liar hardly need be litigated in the fact-check columns. It is as plain as her surname. It is practically syllogistic: All Clintons are liars, Herself is a Clinton, ergo . . .

The specific lie here is Herself’s claim that Donald Trump’s boobish pronouncements are used in ISIS recruiting videos. This isn’t true. Even Trump, a habitual liar who wouldn’t know the truth if it were printed in gigantic gilt letters across a second-rate hotel tower in Las Vegas, knows that this isn’t true. So: Habitual liar lies habitually about habitual liar, who demands apology. Not the most edifying spectacle in American public life, but what the hell do you expect from an encounter between these two great hemorrhoids on the body politic?

Here’s the thing, though: You can’t tell lies. Even about a lying cretin like Donald Trump.

Never mind the question of personal character: Judging a Clinton–Trump conflict on character grounds is like judging the Iran–Iraq war on human-rights grounds — one wants both sides to lose. Never mind what this says about Herself’s fitness for the presidency: We all know that she is morally, ethically, and intellectually unfit for the job. She’s unfit to manage a Walmart in Muleshoe, Texas. She’s unfit to have a route delivering the Buck County Courier Times. From cattle futures to bimbo eruptions to Internet auteurs inspiring terror attacks in Benghazi, anybody who is paying any attention understands that Herself’s relationship with the truth is a lot like her relationship with the Big Creep: all politics, a marriage of convenience.

The 2016 presidential race will be defined by the relationship between two titans of American politics: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. For the first time in more than two decades—since President Reagan campaigned with then-Vice President George H.W. Bush—an incumbent two-term president will be an active player in the campaign and possibly even an active presence at events.

Right now, President Obama is free to be the designated partisan attack dog for Mrs. Clinton, allowing her to remain above the nastiness likely to arise in a race with a sharply divided electorate. Bill Clinton has played that role for her in past races. This time Mr. Obama’s presence allows Mr. Clinton, with his high poll numbers, to lead a chorus of nostalgia-stirring reminders of good feelings about the last time a Clinton was in the White House.

The Obama team is already backing her. John Podesta, Mr. Obama’s former adviser, runs her campaign. President Obama’s 2008 campaign manager, David Plouffe, once a Hillary Clinton critic, is now supporting her, writing Oct. 24 on Medium.com that, “She’s the right person to protect President Obama’s legacy.”