RUTHFULLY YOURS

Ben Carson is the Left’s nightmare. He is smart, articulate, accomplished, humble and respectful. Growing up in a broken home and in deep poverty in inner-city Detroit, he broke the constraints of race and environment to become a world-renowned surgeon. He is religious. Politically, he is conservative. But the reason the Left detests him is because he is African-American. In their condescension toward Dr. Carson, the Left shows their racist side. The man does not adhere to the narrative the Left sells – that an African-American can only be successful with the aid and sponsorship of the state.

As Carson’s poll numbers have grown, so have the attempts to belittle his character. Supercilious soundbites by TV commentators on CNN and CNBC, and off-the-cuff statements from his competitors, especially the voluble Donald Trump who uses pugnacity when knowledge is called for, have attempted to marginalize this exceptional man. The media has denigrated his character and questioned his judgment. A patronizing Richard Cohen compared his candidacy to that of Pat Paulsen, the comedian who ran for President in 1968. On Sunday, November 7th The New York Times ran an article by Michael Barbaro titled “Candidates Stick to Script, if Not the Truth.” The article devoted five times as much space to Republicans as to Democrats. And, of the space devoted to Democrats, only 15% was devoted to Hillary Clinton, with most of the rest spent on her errant husband. Presumably this is why Mr. Cohen found the article “useful.” It did no damage to his team.

During Saturday’s debate, all three Democratic presidential candidates refused to say that the U.S. was at war with “radical Islam.” They all bobbed and weaved as they tried to follow the PC line and avoid admitting that obvious fact.

“I don’t think we’re at war with Islam, I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims, I think we’re at war with jihadists,” Hillary Clinton said. “You can talk about Islamists who clearly are also jihadists.” She went on to urge outreach to Muslim countries — ironically, many of which recognize that perverted strains of Islam are indeed at war with them and modernity itself.

Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley were equally unwilling to say the words “radical Islam,” and Sanders went so far as to claim that climate change was the greatest threat to U.S. security.

The charade led GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee to tweet out a message for the trio: “You’re all grown up now. You can do it. Three words. Ten syllables. Say it with me: ‘Radical Islamic terrorism.’”

After the debate, the Clinton camp stood its ground. Communications director Jennifer Palmieri told Yahoo News, “I think she was really clear that we don’t need to go to war. We don’t need to go to war with Islam. We’re going to war with extremists.” But CBS News debate moderator John Dickerson had made it clear he was not referring to all Muslims in his question, just “radical Islam.”

At the Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton was asked about her outrageous comment from 2014 that Americans must empathize with the perspective of Islamic terrorists. Her answer was rambling and incoherent.

John Dickerson: The reason I ask is that you gave a speech at Georgetown University in which you said that it was important to show– quote– respect even for one’s enemy. Trying to understand and in so far as psychologically possible empathize with their perspective and point of view. Can you explain what that means in the context of this kind of barbarism?

Hillary Clinton: I think with this kind of barbarism and nihilism– it’s very hard to understand other than the lust for power, the rejection of (UNINTEL), the total disregard for human life– freedom or any other value that we know and– respect.

Gibberish, but here’s what Dickerson was asking about.

In a Georgetown talk in 2014, Hillary Clinton used the example of negotiations with the Islamic Moro Liberation Front, a vicious Islamic terrorist group allied with Al Qaeda that practices beheading, as an example of empathizing with the enemy.

Well, we did learn two things from the CBS Democratic debate Saturday night:

1. Bernie Sanders thinks climate change causes terrorism.

How this piece of magic works, he didn’t get to explain, so we can only imagine. Maybe it ‘s a hot desert wind making normal people go to extremes, as in the famous opening of Raymond Chandler’s “Red Wind”:

There was a desert wind blowing that night. It was one of those hot dry Santa Ana’s that come down through the mountain passes and curl your hair and make your nerves jump and your skin itch. On nights like that every booze party ends in a fight. Meek little wives feel the edge of the carving knife and study their husbands’ necks. Anything can happen. You can even get a full glass of beer at a cocktail lounge.

That global warming — it will get you every time. ISIS-shmicis. Forget Islam having anything to do with it. Bernie doesn’t even want to pronounce the word. But neither, it seems, do any Democrats. I have a suggestion for them. When talking about World War II, don’t, under any circumstances, refer to our enemies as Nazis. It’s terribly un-PC. Call them National Socialists… oh, wait.

2. Hillary Clinton wants to raise the 10,000 Syrian refugees Obama intends to admit to 65,000. BUT…and this is important… none are to be allowed within fifty miles of Chappaqua.

The current intramural battle over immigration policy among GOP 2016 hopefuls, a most welcome and most necessary controversy, is a useful example of why the Senate is such a tough place from which to run for president. Few senators make it — only John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama in the last 60 years — and only after short Capitol Hill stints that yield thin voting records.

The reason is clear: To be a good legislator and to move public opinion on important issues, a senator sometimes must make proposals that, taken out of context, can distort the senator’s overarching position, creating the illusion that he favors what he clearly opposes, and vice versa.

No one should know this better than Senator Marco Rubio. Yet Rubio, a major culprit when it comes to foolish immigration policy, is now straining to defend his walk on the wild side by misrepresenting the record of his rival, Senator Ted Cruz. It’s an ironic turnabout for Rubio, who recently drew plaudits for slamming another rival, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, over his misleading critique of Rubio’s Senate record.

Donald Trump called Ben Carson “pathological” several times yesterday — even comparing the pathology to child molesters — and asked “how stupid are the people of Iowa” to be favoring the neurosurgeon in polls.

In a CNN interview, Trump first said he likes Carson and gets along with him well. “I’m not bringing up anything that’s not in his book,” he said.

“And you know, when he says he went after his mother and wanted to hit her in the head with a hammer, that bothers me. I mean, that’s pretty bad. When he says he’s pathological and he says that in the book, I don’t say that. And again, I’m not saying anything. I’m not saying anything other than pathological is a very serious disease and he said he’s pathological,” Trump continued. “Somebody said he has a pathological disease. Other people said he said in the book and I haven’t seen it. I know it’s in the book — that he has got a pathological temper or temperament. That’s a big problem because you don’t cure that. That’s like, you know, I could say, they’ve say you don’t cure — as an example, a child molester, you don’t cure these people.”

“You don’t cure a child molester. There’s no cure for it. Pathological, there’s no cure for that. Now, I didn’t say it. He said it in his book. So when I hear somebody’s pathological, when somebody says, I went after my mother with — and he’s saying it about himself with a hammer and hit her in the head, I say, whoa. I never did. You never did. I don’t know anybody that ever did personally. But that’s a big statement. When he says he hit a friend of his in the face with a lock — with a padlock right in the face, I say, whoa, that’s pretty bad. And when he said he stabbed somebody with a knife but it hit a belt buckle, I know a lot about knives and belt buckles.”

Hillary Clinton has promised to continue the Obama Administration’s carbon cleanse of the U.S. economy, which is proving to be politically toxic in coal country. So this week she rolled out a plan for government to rescue the coal miners who the government has put out of work.

Coal production nationwide has declined by about 15% since 2008. A Duke University study in April estimated that 50,000 coal jobs were lost between 2008 and 2012, with Appalachia, Utah and Colorado among the biggest victims. Unemployment in eastern Kentucky exceeds 8% and is in the double digits in southern West Virginia.

Shale fracking for natural gas has contributed to the carnage, but the Environmental Protection Agency has assisted by promulgating rules on mercury emissions and ash disposal. The Administration’s new Clean Power Plan will finish off the industry, which still accounts for about a third of U.S. electric generation and two-thirds in Ohio and Iowa.

Several coal companies are slouching toward bankruptcy, which could cause retirees and laid-off workers to lose health coverage. In May Patriot Coal filed for Chapter 11 for the second time in three years. Thousands of workers fear they’ll be forced into Medicaid or the ObamaCare exchanges.

Donald Trump, who leapt to the front of the Republican presidential field with his tough immigration stance, promises to deport every illegal immigrant residing in the country in less than two years, with the help of a “deportation force” — and, naturally, critics are warning of jackbooted thugs and midnight raids. There is no need for either. Much of our problem can be resolved through more modest — and less inflammatory — measures.

Estimates from the Center for Migration Studies and the Pew Research Center show that, of the 11 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States, approximately 2.5 million arrived after Barack Obama’s inauguration. Yet the overall number of illegal immigrants in the country has remained fairly static, meaning that illegal immigrants have been coming and going in about equal numbers. Why? Because, contrary to much political rhetoric, many illegal immigrants are not here to stay, and so are very sensitive to incentives: When the prospect of profitable work outweighs the risk of falling afoul of law enforcement, they come; when it doesn’t, they leave.

Being attacked by Donald Trump is one of journalism’s more exhilarating experiences. We got the treatment on Thursday when he took to various TV shows and Twitter with his usual soft sell and demanded corrections, apologies and resignations after our editorial reference to his trade policy. We haven’t had this much fun since Eliot Spitzer left office.

Mr. Trump isn’t upset that we called him potentially the Republican Party’s “most protectionist nominee since Hoover.” Perhaps he took that as a compliment. He’s mad because he says we said that he didn’t know that China isn’t part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

But we didn’t say that. We wrote that judging from his debate remarks Tuesday “it wasn’t obvious that he has any idea what’s in” TPP. It still isn’t. Here’s the debate transcript after Mr. Trump was asked by moderator Gerard Baker about the candidate’s opposition to TPP and why he would “reverse more than 50 years of U.S. trade policy”?

Mr. Trump: “The TPP is a horrible deal. It is a deal that is going to lead to nothing but trouble. It’s a deal that was designed for China to come in, as they always do, through the back door and totally take advantage of everyone. It’s 5,600 pages long, so complex that nobody’s read it. It’s like ObamaCare; nobody ever read it. They passed it; nobody read it. And look at the mess we have right now. And it will be repealed.

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama’s biggest campaign donors are mostly sitting on the sidelines of the 2016 Democratic presidential primary so far, not opening their wallets in support of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

Almost four-fifths of the people who gave the 2012 maximum $5,000 to the president’s re-election committee hadn’t donated to a presidential candidate by Oct. 1, a Wall Street Journal analysis of federal campaign finance records found.

In interviews ahead of this Saturday’s Democratic debate in Iowa, donors said Mrs. Clinton, the party’s front-runner, hadn’t motivated them to give the way Mr. Obama and previous Democratic candidates had. Still others said they are put off by the larger role of super PACs and that their donations to candidates, which are limited in this election cycle to $5,400 for the eventual nominee, just don’t matter much anymore.
“I’m just not ready for Hillary yet,” said Robert Finnell, a Rome, Ga., lawyer who gave the maximum allowed contribution to Mr. Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns and gave significant sums to 2008 hopeful John Edwards and 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry. “It’s not that I don’t think she’s competent—she is competent, she’s just hard to like.”

The donors’ reluctance could be a troubling trend for Mrs. Clinton. They are some of the easiest prospective contributors to identify, given that their names are on Mr. Obama’s campaign disclosure reports, and that they’ve already made a habit of cutting checks to politicians.