RUTHFULLY YOURS

Hillary Clinton’s campaign thought it was okay to order a comedy club not to make fun of her, which is obviously a totally normal thing to do.

That is, if this if this were China.

In case you haven’t heard, Hollywood’s Laugh Factory posted a three-minute video of comedians telling jokes about Hillary Clinton on its website.

Yes . . . comedians making fun of a public figure. How outrageous! And by outrageous, I mean something that any presidential candidate should not just accept but expect because that’s the way it works.

But apparently, the way the world normally works just doesn’t apply when you’re Hillary Clinton — because her campaign called the club demanding that it take the video down and give them the personal contact information of every single comic who appeared in it.

I mean, what in the hell did the campaign plan to do with that? Call them and tell them they were mean? Threaten to end their careers? What possible reason could her campaign have for wanting that information, and what possible reason could they have for thinking they had any right to ask for it in the first place?

While in Los Angeles last week for fundraising, Hillary Clinton felt like updating her humor protocols by stopping off at the famed Laugh Factory. The roster of comedians that have performed at the renowned Los Angeles venue is no laughing matter: Jerry Seinfeld, Jim Carrey, Dave Chappelle, Jay Leno, Damon Wayans, and George Carlin, to name a few.

But when a former secretary of state enters a comedy club and makes her presence known, she is apt to become as much of a target for the performers as the middle-class club-goers she is hoping to champion.

Result: Hillary isn’t laughing anymore.

As reported by Judicial Watch, Hillary’s campaign is working to have a short video of her visit removed from the Laugh Factory’s website, featuring highlights of the comics that night and the pot shots they took at Hillary. Judicial Watch’s report is based on a statement by club founder Jamie Masada, who claims the campaign has threatened him legally if he doesn’t remove the clips from his website.

“They threatened me,” Masada said. “I have received complains before but never a call like this, threatening to put me out of business if I don’t cut the video.”

Judicial Watch’s report goes on to state:

Masada told Judicial Watch that, as soon as the video got posted on the Laugh Factory website, he received a phone call from a “prominent” person inside Clinton’s campaign. “He said the video was disgusting and asked who put me up to this,” Masada said. The Clinton staffer, who Masada did not want to identify, also demanded to know the names and phone numbers of the comedians that appear in the video. Masada refused and hung up.

Rep. Mia Love (R-Utah), who rode a wave of Tea Party support into the House last year, said the Paris terror attacks were the deciding factor in her presidential endorsement.

Love told Fox News today that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who recently paid a visit to her home state, will get her support.

During that visit, she said, “for the first time in a long time, I felt someone who really loves this country and doesn’t take advantage of, take for granted the benefits that this country has and also willing to put himself and take on responsibilities of being a citizen in this country.”

“I saw him inspire people, but this [terror attack] just solidified things for me,” Love said. “He’s been talking about these threats from the very beginning. He talked about the threat with ISIS. He’s very strong when it comes to foreign policy and national defense, and this is a time when we need a president who is going to make sure we are strong.”

Florence, S.C. — Jeb Bush today refused to support an outright ban on Muslim refugees from Syria entering the United States, arguing that screening protocols must be examined before any decisions are made. He reiterated, however, that Christians should be welcomed without wait.

“At a minimum we ought to be bringing in people like orphans and people that clearly aren’t going to be terrorists. Or Christians — there are no Christian terrorists in the Middle East,” Bush said. “They’re persecuted religious minorities.”

Asked how the government could determine the authenticity of someone’s faith, Bush replied, “Well, [if] you’re a Christian, you can prove you’re a Christian.”

A reporter interrupted, “How?”

Bush paused, gave a slight shrug, and said, “I think you can prove it. If you can’t prove it, then you err on the side of caution.”

Although several presidential primary debates have been held by Republicans and Democrats, little light has been thrown on the issues, particularly in the key area of foreign policy. This shallowness is not particularly the fault of the candidates but of the formats and the moderators who often seem more bent on generating food fights than on illuminating issues. Nevertheless, recent events in Paris have only served to reiterate that 2016 is, above all, a foreign policy election and that the next president had better be ready to assume the role of commander-in-chief “on day one.”

To add some depth to the discussion, PJ Media (via this Mad Voter) submitted four foreign policy questions to a few of the leading Republican candidates. The first response is from Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. Please note that we formulated these questions (and Senator Cruz received them) before the ISIS attack in Paris, although the senator refers to those horrific events in one of his answers. Look for more responses to the questions from leading candidates at the Diary of a Mad Voter in the days to come.

PJM: An October 21 letter from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei to its president Hassan Rouhani details nine new Iranian demands for fundamental changes to the supposedly agreed-upon Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) already unpopular with the American public. Alterations would include the immediate permanent lifting of all sanctions with no possibility of “snapback“ and abandonment of any investigation into Iran’s past nuclear activities by the IAEA, making it impossible to understand what they have done previously, rendering present inspections moot. Further, the JCPOA called for a whole series of reductions of Iran’s nuclear stockpiles by December 15 (centrifuges, enriched uranium, etc.), none of which appears to have even started. Does Obama’s vaunted Iran Deal actually exist and, if not, what should Congress do now and how would your administration deal with Iran on your election?

SENATOR CRUZ: It is increasingly clear President Obama’s nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is illegal and non-binding on future presidents. It does, however, exist. And its existence, given Tehran’s track record of clandestinely pursuing nuclear weapons, cheating on United Nations Security Council Resolutions (most recently #1929 when they tested a ballistic missile last month) and 36-year track record of implacable and violent hostility to America and our allies, especially Israel, is the single greatest national security threat faced by the United States.

A newly revealed e-mail sent by top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin in January 2013 shows that the then-outgoing secretary of state was “often confused” and had to have her schedule explained to her by staff.

Released to conservative watchdog Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act request, the January 26, 2013 e-mail shows Abedin instructing Monica Hanley, another State Department aide, to remind Clinton of important calls scheduled with world leaders.

“She knows singh [sic] is at 8?” Abedin asks Hanley, referring to a scheduled 8 AM phone call with Indian’s then-prime minister, Manmohan Singh.

“She was in bed for a nap by the time I heard she had an 8am call,” Hanley replied. “Will go over with her.”

“Very imp[ortant] to do that,” Abedin replied. “She’s often confused.”

Iowa congressman Steve King, who has relished his potential to play kingmaker in this Republican presidential race, announced Monday morning that he’s endorsing Ted Cruz, providing a boost to the Texas senator’s organization ahead of Iowa’s first-in-the-nation nominating contest February 1.

In an interview shortly after his announcement, King spoke with me about the timing of his decision, the events surrounding it, and how he thinks President Cruz would deal with the illegal immigrants already living in the U.S. — Tim Alberta

Tim Alberta: Your admiration for Senator Cruz has long been apparent, and it always seemed likely that if you endorsed a candidate, it would be him. When did the decision become clear to you?

Steve King: I’ve said to people it had to be a conviction. So, the pieces began to fall into place. I started to see some of the positions that were emerging from other candidates, and I’m watching it, asking, “Who is completely consistent?” And it was Cruz all along. But I still had not come to a conviction on this, until there were two things that came together almost simultaneously: I’m watching the epic migration going on in Europe [King traveled to Europe and the Middle East last week, visiting refugee camps and discussing the migration crisis with government officials.], and then when I came home, I’m driving and hearing about the attacks in Paris. And a day or two earlier, Marco Rubio’s team was attacking Ted Cruz and alleging taht he’s for amnesty. This world is pretty topsy-turvy if Marco Rubio is equating his immigration position to Ted Cruz’s. All of that came together with a clarity. So, Friday, I knew.

I left the Republican party a long time ago for a number of reasons, one of which is that I didn’t want to be part of any organization that had Arlen Specter as a member. The man this magazine famously named “America’s worst senator” eventually bailed and hooked up with Team Jackass, but I didn’t see any real reason to come back. Still, for all the angst regarding the presidential primary and the endless largely phony us-and-them theater of base vs. establishment, I cannot remember a time since the Alex P. Keaton years when the Republican party has seemed to me so attractive.

As you may have heard, earlier this month I was a guest of the William F. Buckley Jr. program at Yale, which was the focus of some truly boneheaded protests. That was silly, and I felt a little embarrassed for the Yale kids. But at the dinner afterward, I felt a little envious of my Republican friends, especially those in Nebraska, when Senator Ben Sasse gave his talk. A very smart young man at my table — a young man not given to political crushes — said that he’d never heard a politician give a speech like that, and he was right: Senator Sasse is in possession of a living mind open to original thought, and he has spent part of his first year in the Senate thinking seriously about what the Senate really is, what it does, and what it should do. That sounds like the sort of thing that everybody in Washington ought to be doing, and maybe it is, but there isn’t to my knowledge anybody in elected office doing it with the intelligence and rigor that Senator Sasse applies to his job. My young friend seemed ready to quit his job and go to work for Senator Sasse; I didn’t blame him.