RUTHFULLY YOURS

The ultimate Kinsley-esque gaffe — as spotted by the Weasel Zippers in a screenshot of Hillary’s announcement that her campaign is stating that she’s “fought children And families all her career.” It’s both “Hillary Comedy Gold,” as the Zippers write, and one of her rare moments of truthfulness. Margaret Sanger couldn’t have said it better herself.

And as the London Daily Mail notes in their headline, “‘Everyday Americans need a champion’: Wealthy Hillary Clinton finally enters formal race to be president with video telling middle class voters ‘the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top’ of the economy.”

Stacked just like the young women Bill enjoys as part of his own unique brand of “intimate campaigning,” and stacked just like the heels on a fine pair of Gucci calf leather pumps, Byron York writes at the Washington Examiner:

America rejoice! A multi-millionairess serial liar married to a multi-millionaire serial adulterer has just announced for the presidency of our country to save the middle class from impoverishment! (Or was it “income inequality”?) (Or was it “Chelsea Clinton in a Gucci dress, Mateo New York bracelet, Cartier bracelet, Garland Collection ring, Halleh ring,” as appears in this month’s [1] Elle [1]?)

Better tell Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin and Trotsky, not to mention Gil Scott-Heron. His song [2] got it wrong. The Revolution is going to be televised (until we’re blue in the face) and it will start in tony Chappaqua on a posh gated estate with pool and tennis court, guarded by the Secret Service with its own (exceptionally) private email system, infinite closed-circuit video surveillance and who knows what else?

Is everyone throwing up yet? Not even Maureen Dowd is buying [3]. Oh, well, American “liberalism” has been screwing the lower classes for the last fifty years. Why stop now?

That is not as stupid a question as it first sounds. Ostensibly we know her four ready answers.

I. Who Else?

One, there is no other credible Democrat who could run for presidency. The senior party leadership — Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Dianne Feinstein — is shrill and buffoonish. They all have either tried before and failed, or are ossified has-beens — or both. There are no up-and-coming governors with distinguished records of executive success. There are no young charismatic Democratic senators — other than the well-preserved, 65-year-old Harvard populist Elizabeth Warren — out to make a name, who can speak well and mirror image a Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, or Mario Rubio. Congressional-district gerrymandering that encourages ethnic chauvinism and hard-left polarization has almost ensured that there will not be another minority star, like Barack Obama, who can win crossover votes and statewide office as a springboard to the White House.

II. Her Turn

Two, Hillary Clinton, like a Walter Mondale, Bob Dole or John McCain, believes that it is finally her turn. In her case she lost in 2008 and loyally served the man who defeated and often humiliated her (“you’re likable enough, Hillary” Obama condescendingly remarked [1] during a debate of Democratic presidential candidates in January of 2008).

She feels that she was robbed of a sure nomination by the upstart Obama, who cut in front of the line with his inane “hope and change” banalities and subtle race carding, as if racial chauvinism must always trump gender pandering. She blew a huge lead in the primaries, licked her wounds, and now it is time for the party to unite loyally behind her the way she did with Obama.

Remember when Senator Barack Obama assailed President George W. Bush for exceeding his presidential powers? In the twilight days of his own Presidency, Mr. Obama is speaking and acting as if he can determine U.S. foreign policy all by his lonesome.

That afflatus was on display Saturday at the Summit of Americas in Panama City, where the President took umbrage that anyone would disagree with his unilateral forays on Cuba, Iran and climate change. He was especially annoyed at Senator John McCain for daring to point out that Secretary of State John Kerry’s interpretation of his “framework” nuclear accord differs substantially with that of Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.
“That’s not how we’re supposed to run foreign policy, regardless of who’s President or Secretary of State. We can have arguments, and there are legitimate arguments to be had. I understand why people might be mistrustful of Iran. I understand why people might oppose the deal—although the reason is not because this is a bad deal per se, but they just don’t trust any deal with Iran, and may prefer to take a military approach to it,” Mr. Obama said.

Taking one-third of U.S. coal-fired power plants off the grid by 2020 simply isn’t workable. Here’s why.

Americans don’t give much thought to whether their electricity will be there when they need it. You flip a switch, the lights go on. Your phone charges up. The medical equipment in the emergency room does its job. Yet electric reliability, long a bedrock of this country’s prosperity and high standard of living, does not come as easily as its steady presence might suggest.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, a proposed regulation limiting carbon emissions from existing coal-fired plants, threatens to jeopardize the reliability that Americans and businesses have come to depend upon. The EPA proposal calls for states to cut emissions by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030. It also imposes aggressive interim targets starting in 2020 that will test states’ ability to meet these standards without disrupting service. For example, 39 states must achieve more than 50% of their final target by 2020.

Democrats are falling in line because they feel they have no choice.

Hillary Rodham Clinton did the formality of announcing her latest bid for the White House on Sunday, revealing nothing no one didn’t already know and facing no plausible competitors for the Democratic nomination. The question is whether this political machine candidacy will appeal to voters.

Mrs. Clinton is running less as an individual than as the figurehead of an apparatus of money and organization designed to keep power for the Democratic Party and American liberals. You might even call it a vast left-wing conspiracy, to modify the former First Lady’s famous coinage. She rose atop this machine not because of her personal qualities or her ideas but because she’s all the Democrats think they have.

What does Mrs. Clinton stand for? The main rationale for her candidacy seems to be that she would be the first woman President, and she’ll campaign on themes like mandated family leave and universal pre-K and child care. She was reluctant to emphasize her X chromosomes in the 2008 primaries, but now gender gets the showcase in the identity politics that defines modern Democrats.

Mrs. Clinton also ran in 2008 as inevitable—recall her kickoff motto of “I’m in it to win it”—and the irony this time is that this inevitability is probably true even as she pretends it isn’t.

Mrs. Clinton lost that race because her campaign was a snake pit of egos and competing power centers that allowed an untested freshman Illinois Senator to steal the nomination. She won’t make those mistakes again—and former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley is not a phenom in the President Obama mold. He also has the liability of his birth as a straight white male.

Just 15 days before the 9/11 attacks, a well-connected Saudi family suddenly abandoned their luxury home in Sarasota, Fla., leaving behind jewelry, clothes, opulent furniture, a driveway full of cars — including a brand new Chrysler PT Cruiser — and even a refrigerator full of food.

About the only thing not left behind was a forwarding address. The occupants simply vanished without notifying their neighbors, realtor or even mail carrier.

The 3,300-square-foot home on Escondito Circle belonged to Esam Ghazzawi, a Saudi adviser to the nephew of then-King Fahd. But at the time, it was occupied by his daughter and son-in-law, who beat a hasty retreat back to Saudi Arabia just two weeks before the attacks after nearly a six-year stay here.

Neighbors took note of the troubling coincidence and called the FBI, which opened an investigation that led to the startling discovery that at least one “family member” trained at the same flight school as some of the 9/11 hijackers in nearby Venice, Fla.

Hillary Rodham Clinton entered the presidential race Sunday to a stunning cold shoulder from Mayor de Blasio and few signs of genuine enthusiasm from other top New York Democrats, who want to see her espouse a far more liberal agenda.

The lack of enthusiasm for Clinton — made clear to the nation Sunday by de Blasio’s refusal to endorse on “Meet the Press” — ranges from far-leftist “progressives” allied with de Blasio, who prefer a Wall-Street-bashing populist like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, to Jewish voters worried by President Obama’s Mideast policies, to union activists taking their lead from AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, who want Clinton to face a primary challenge to force her into stronger stands on issues vital to organized labor.

And the lack of passion for Clinton was also seen on the local level Saturday at the Ready For Hillary gathering in Manhattan, where a mere 200 people and virtually no “A-list” Democratic officials attended a final fund-raiser before Clinton’s announcement.

Opponents of campus affirmative action typically rest their case on the immorality of using racial or ethnic categories (more delicately called “diversity”) versus treating people as individuals. That objection is certainly valid but when it comes to hiring of faculty, the damage far exceeds just violating a principle. Racial preferences deeply corrupt and will inevitably undermine academic excellence in ways that campus outsiders seldom grasp.

To appreciate this damage, consider Brown University’s recent National Diversity Summit in which the school announced plans to double its “underrepresented” minority (i.e., black) faculty by 2025 — from the current 9% to 18% (women don’t count here since the proportion of female faculty is already more than 50% but the plan nevertheless calls for a substantial increase in women in science departments). Strategies included creating post-doctoral fellowships for black scholars to be mentored by Brown faculty and attracting young blacks to the Brown campus with conferences. More forceful measures will entail asking departments to develop a “diversity action plan” whose annual goals would be monitored and requiring faculty search committees to ensure a diverse pool of minority candidates. In numbers, 410 black professors will have to be recruited.

A year after it left Ukraine for Russia, the region is suffering. What ever happened to Crimea? In the year since the peninsula voted to leave Ukraine and become the Russian Federation’s newest holding, Western attention has shifted away from it toward eastern Ukraine, where pro-Moscow separatists continue to wage an insurgency against Kyiv. But the case of Crimea is worth a second look, because in the past year, conditions there have deteriorated significantly.

As such, the region’s fate offers a telling glimpse into the harsh reality behind Russian rule. Crimea’s drift is unexpected, insofar as the Kremlin promised to reward the region handsomely for its pro-Russian trajectory. Indeed, the Russian government has worked hard to integrate Crimea into the rest of the country. It has launched an action plan to develop the peninsula and improve living conditions via investments in everything from water supply to power lines to new roads. But these plans have become a casualty of the wider Ukraine crisis. Russian aggression has prompted several rounds of Western sanctions to date. Cumulatively, these measures — coupled with the low price of world oil — have had a pronounced impact on the country’s economy. As a result, there simply isn’t enough money to go around, leading Moscow to reallocate funds from its own infrastructural needs just to keep Crimea afloat. In other words, to sustain its Crimea project, Russia is now depriving the rest of the country. Telltale signs of this constriction are everywhere. Moscow has frozen the pension savings of Russian citizens this year.