Conservative Chronicle for October 12 2016 by Mid-America Publishing Corporation

At Issue this week... October 12, 2016 2016 Election Buchanan (29) Charen (25) Chavez (9) Krauthammer (21) Schlafly (18) ABC’s Agenda Bozell (28) America’s Collapse Massie (26) Borders Barone (30) Chicago Cubs Will (14) Citizens United Saunders (13) Dear Mark Levy (19) Dreams Greenberg (28) Education Sowell (21, 25) FBI Harsanyi (5) Free Market Williams (13) Illegal Votes Malkin (20) Internet McCaughey (24) Jacobs, Jane Greenberg (26) Labor Regulations Jeffrey (23) Leslie’s Trivia Bits Elman (14) Media Bias Bozell (24) Lowry (4) Murchison (22) Presidential Debate Barone (16) Coulter (7) Cushman (6) Elder (10) Fields (17) Limbaugh (15) Napolitano (8) Prager (2,3) Thomas (17) Tyrrell (6) Progressivism Hollis (4) Putin, Vladimir Lambro (31) Shale Greenberg (30) Space Launch de Rugy (22) Taxes Kudlow (12) Trade Buchanan (11) Trump, Donald Lowry (29) Saunders (9) Will (27) Trump’s Economic Plan Moore (1) VP Debate Thomas (10)

Trump’s Economic Plan by Stephen Moore

Trump’s plan not trickle-down economics

illary Clinton keeps bashing the Trump tax plan as “trumped-up trickle-down economics.” This class-warfare card has become the standard and tired response to every Republican tax reform plan for 30 years. No wonder we haven’t cleaned out the stables of the tax code since the Reagan era. Democrats have no interest in doing so. Clinton’s claim is that the plan will blow a hole in the debt (which is rich coming from someone who worked for an administration that nearly doubled the debt in eight years) and that the benefits all go to the rich. She also says it will cost jobs and could even cause a recession.

ing company goes from 50 trucks to 75, that’s 25 more truckers it will need to hire. Clinton needs a tax-cut history lesson. “Supply-side” tax rates were at the heart of the Reagan economic plan in the 1980s. The Reagan expansion, with lower taxes, was twice as powerful as the anemic Obama recovery, with higher taxes and more government spending. The difference in the two recoveries is

I WORKED on devising the Trump tax plan with economists Larry Kudlow, Sam Clovis and others, so I know a little bit about the costs and the benefits. The Democrats subscribe to an amazing ideology that says that letting businesses keep more of their own money will cause the economy to capsize but a $1.5 trillion tax hike on businesses and investors will create jobs. Yes, and injecting Elmer’s glue into your veins is a good way to prevent a heart attack. Let’s start with her claim that the plan will cost $5 trillion. That’s wrong. When taking into account the higher economic growth from the lower tax rates on businesses and workers, the plan’s “cost” is about half that size. The Tax Foundation finds the plan will raise the GDP growth rate by almost one percentage point over a decade, and that means lots of jobs and additional tax revenue for the government. The best way to balance the budget is to put Americans back to work. The $2.5 trillion “cost” of the tax cut can and will easily be made up by cutting government spending. Over the next decade the government is expected to spend almost $50 trillion. Surely, with sound, business-like leadership, we can save five cents on the dollar. Next, she says that tax cuts have never worked to revive the economy. We believe that cutting taxes for 26 million small businesses will be a huge incentive for more hiring and expansion by businesses that are now taxed at as high as 40 percent. The American Enterprise Institute finds that the biggest beneficiary of a business tax cut is the American worker, whose wages will go up from more capital spending. If a truck-

nearly $3 trillion in lost output. Similarly, the John F. Kennedy tax cuts got us five and six percent growth. JFK was right: The best way to raise revenues is to “cut tax rates now.” Even Bill Clinton agreed to a capital gains tax cut, which led to a gusher of new federal revenues.

Stephen

NEXT, CLINTON claims that only rich people such as Trump himself will benefit from this “trumped up” tax plan. She obviously hasn’t read the tax plan. By design, the tax rate reductions for the rich are offset almost dollar for dollar by the loss of $250 billion a year in tax deductions for rich people. So, the overall tax burden of most millionaires and billionaires is not

changed. Almost all of the benefit in dollar terms from the tax plan goes to the middle class (and owners of small businesses). We think they deserve a break after a decade that has wiped out financial savings of the middle class. With Obamacare premiums rising by 10 to 30 percent in many states this year, families need the tax cut desperately. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation calculates that the Trump tax plan causes a rise of after-tax income by about eight percent, or $4,000 for the average middle-class household, while the Clinton plan shrinks incomes. What Clinton isn’t telling you is that she and her liberal friends are against tax cuts because they want to spend the money on “free” everything. This includes the silliest idea of all time: Hundreds of billions for 500 million solar panels. Get ready for a cascade of dozens of new Solyndras. How much money is going to go to Elon Musk from this corporate-welfare giveaway? It could be in the tens of billions of dollars. So, whose policies benefit the rich and the political class? HILLARY CLINTON is offering the American people trickle-down government. When has that ever worked? October 4, 2016

Conservative Chronicle

PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: October 4, 2016

Clinton won on nonsense, Trump won on substance

he overwhelming media consensus regarding the first presidential debate — Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton and Lester Holt — is that Clinton won. If she did win it was because Trump, after a strong opening 30 minutes, allowed himself to get baited into emotional and tendentious self-defense. And because the media have decided to focus on the tendentious, such as the utterly moronic issue of whether, in 1996, Trump called then-Miss Universe Alicia Machado “Miss Piggy,” almost all the debate analyses ignored many of the most important things each candidate said.

ON THOSE grounds, Clinton did not win. On many truly significant subjects, she said things that were actually frightening, and he said things that were actually important. Here are some examples. Clinton explained how she would expand government control over American life: “We also have to make the economy fairer. That starts with raising the national minimum wage and also (guaranteeing), finally, equal pay for women’s work. I also want to see more companies do profit-sharing. If you help create the profits, you should be able to share in them, not just the executives at the top.” It’s astonishing how little attention this proposal of forcing companies to give a specified share of their earnings to employees received in the post-debate coverage. It’s socialism, bordering on communism. What she will have the government provide for free is “affordable child care and debt-free college.” She will have it paid for “by raising taxes on the wealthy. “I think,” she said, “it’s time that the wealthy and corporations paid their fair share to support this country.” According to Clinton, a “fair share” is not constituted by a 50 percent-plus individual income tax rate (including state income taxes and property taxes) and the top one percent of wage earners paying nearly half of all individual income taxes, while earning 20 percent of total income. Nor is it constituted by the 35 percent corporate tax rate, the highest among major Western countries. Trump described his tax proposal: “Under my plan, I’ll be reducing taxes tremendously from 35 percent to 15 percent for companies (and) small and big businesses. That’s going to be a job creator like we haven’t seen since Ronald Reagan. ... Companies will come.

There is no truth to what she said. They will build. They will expand. The bursting of the real estate bubble New companies will start.” Is that not important and substan- that caused the 2008 recession had nothing to do with “slashed taxes.” It tive? Clinton believes that reducing taxes was overwhelmingly caused by her “is not how we grow the economy.” husband, President Bill Clinton, and the Isn’t her economy-crushing view wor- Democrats’ attempt at social engineerthy of more attention than “Miss Pig- ing, by forcing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and even private banks to provide gy?” of dollars in home Trump, on the other hand, knows b i l l i o n s loans to people — what virtually many of whom every economist were minorities knows: Tax cuts — who could not and regulatory resustain their mortductions produce (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate gage payments as jobs. He said to soon as interest Clinton: “You are going to approve one of the biggest tax rates on their adjustable-rate mortgagincreases in history. You are going to es were raised. (Had Trump made this drive business out. ... You are going to point, it would have been a highlight of regulate these businesses out of exis- the evening.) tence. ... New companies cannot form, CLINTON DESCRIBED her giand old companies are going out of business. And you want to increase the gantic-government — and preposterous regulation and make them even worse. — solution to the sluggish economy: I’m going to cut regulations. I’m go- “We can deploy a half a billion more ing to cut taxes big league, and you’re solar panels. We can have enough clean going to raise taxes big league. End of energy to power every home. We can build a new modern electric grid. That’s story.” End of story is correct. Could Trump a lot of jobs; that’s a lot of new ecohave been clearer on how to revive the nomic activity.” Trump’s correct rejoinder was: “She American economy? Could Clinton have been clearer on how she would talks about solar panels. We invested in suppress growth and vastly expand the a solar company ... that was a disaster.” Yet there was another Clinton expansize and power of the government? On the 2008 recession, Clinton was sion of federal power that went unnoted. mendacious and demagogic, saying that She said: “I’m going to have a special it “was in large part because of tax poli- prosecutor. We’re going to enforce the cies that slashed taxes on the wealthy, trade deals we have, and we’re going to failed to invest in the middle class, took hold people accountable.” Clinton and Trump discussed her their eyes off of Wall Street and created emails. a perfect storm.”

Dennis

Prager

Need to make a correction on your mailing label?

Clinton said: “I made my mistake using a private email. ... And if I had to do it over again, I would obviously do it differently. But I’m not going to make any excuses. It was a mistake, and I take responsibility for that.” Trump said: “That was more than a mistake. That was done purposely. When you have your staff taking the Fifth Amendment ... so they’re not prosecuted, when you have the man that set up the illegal server taking the Fifth, I think it’s disgraceful. And believe me, this country thinks it ... is disgraceful also.” Who won that exchange, American media? Clinton on race: “Race remains a significant challenge in our country. Unfortunately, race still determines too much ... it determines how they are treated in the criminal justice system. We’ve just seen those two tragic examples in both Tulsa and Charlotte.” In Charlotte, a black officer killed a black man who wielded a gun after officers — whose police department is headed by a black man — repeatedly yelled, “Drop the gun.” And yet, Clinton charged the police and America with racism. If you want more race baiting, America, vote for Clinton. Why is there so much black-on-black murder? “We’ve got to get guns out of the hands of people who should not have them,” Clinton insightfully observed, as if there were one American who doesn’t want to do so. (continued on the next page)

•USPS: 762-710/•ISSN: 0088-7403 Published by Hampton Publishing Co. (Established 1876)

Division of Mid-America Publishing Corp. The Conservative Chronicle is published weekly for $75.00 (U.S.) per year by Hampton Publishing Co., 9 Second Street N.W., Hampton, IA 50441, and entered at the Post Office at Hampton, Iowa 50441, as periodicals postage under the Acts of Congress. Editorial Offices Conservative Chronicle, P.O. Box 29, Hampton, IA 50441. Ph. 1-800-888-3039. Editorial Coordinators, Kevin and Ruth Katz Circulation & Subscriber Services Conservative Chronicle P.O. Box 29, Hampton, IA 50441-0029. Ph. 1-800-8883039. Circulation Manager, Deb Chaney. Subscription Rates One Year.......................................... $75.00 (Call for outside USA rates for Air Mail) Single Copy........................................ $3.00 POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Conservative Chronicle, P.O. Box 29, Hampton, IA 50441-0029. E-mail address: conserve@iowaconnect.com Visit our web site at: www.conservativechronicle.com

October 12, 2016 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: October 4, 2016

Clinton won on nonsense ... cont. Clinton added, “The gun epidemic is a leading cause of death of young African-American men, more than the next nine causes put together.” A question for her is, which is more responsible for black males committing murder at a higher rate than any other Americans: Too many guns, or too few fathers? But it was not her gun-based and racism-based explanations of black crime that troubled the American media. It was Trump’s responses. First, Trump said: “Secretary Clinton doesn’t want to use a couple of words, and that’s law and order. ... If we don’t have it, we’re not going to have a country.” Second, he correctly noted: “We have a situation where we have our inner cities, African-Americans (and) Hispanics are living in hell because it’s so dangerous. You walk down the street, you get shot. In Chicago, they’ve had thousands of shootings ... Is this a war-torn country? ... We have to stop the violence. We have to bring back law and order. In a place like Chicago ... in fact, almost 4,000 have been killed since Barack Obama became president.” And third, he said: “Right now, our police, in many cases, are afraid to do

anything. We have to protect our inner cities because African-American communities are being decimated by crime.” To all of these powerful truths, Clinton could only respond with demagoguery. She said, “Well, I’ve heard Donald say this at his rallies, and it’s really unfortunate that he paints such a dire, negative picture of black communities in our country.” She added later, “When it comes to policing ... I have said, in my first budget, we would put money into that budget to help us deal with implicit bias by retraining a lot of our police officers.”

Statement of the Ownership, Management, Etc., Required by the Acts of Congress as of Aug. 12, 1970

average number of copies each issue during preceding twelve months, 3,520; single issue published nearest filing date, 3,323. 15d. Free or Nominal Rate Distribution (By Mail and Outside the Mail) - (1) Free or Nominal Rate Outside-County Copies Included on PS Form 3541 - Average number of copies each issue during preceding twelve months, 10; single issue nearest filing date, 9. (2) Free or Nominal Rate In-County Copies Included on PS Form 3541 - Average number of copies each issue during preceding twelve months, 0; single issue nearest filing date, 0. (3) Free or Nominal Rate Copies Mailed at Other Classes Through the USPS (e.g. First-Class Mail) - Average number of copies each issue during preceding twelve months, 0; single issue published nearest filing date, 0. (4) Free or Nominal Rate Distribution Outside the Mail (Carriers or other means) - Average number of copies each issue during preceding twelve months, 0; single issue published nearest filing date, 0. 15e. Total Free or Nominal Rate Distribution [sum of 15d (1), (2), (3) and (4)] - average number of copies each issue during preceding twelve months, 10; single issue published nearest filing date, 9. 15f. Total Distribution (Sum of 15c. and 15e.) - average number of copies each issue during preceding twelve months, 3,530; single issue published nearest filing date, 3,332. 15g. Copies Not Distributed - average number of copies each issue during preceding twelve months, 158; single issue published nearest filing date, 168. 15h. Total (Sum of 15f and g) - average number of copies each issue during preceding twelve months, 3,688; single issue published nearest filing date, 3,500. 15i. Percent Paid and/or Requested Circulation (15c divided by 15f times 100) - average number of copies each issue during preceding twelve months 99.72%; single issue published nearest filing date, 99.73%. 16a. Paid Electronic Copies - average number of copies each issue during preceding twelve months, 23; single issue published nearest filing date, 24. 16b. Total Paid Print Copies (Line 15c) + Paid Electronic Copies - average number of copies each issue during preceding twelve months, 3,543; single issue published nearest filing date, 3,347. 16c. Total Print Distribution (Line 15f) + Paid Electronic Copies - average number of copies each issue during preceding twelve months, 3,553; single issue published nearest filing date, 3,356. 16d. Percent Paid (Both Print & Electronic Copies) - average number of copies each issue during preceding twelve months, 99.72%; single issue published nearest filing date, 99.73%. I certify that 50% of all my distributed copies (Electronic & Print) are paid above a nominal price. 17. This Statement of Ownership will be printed in the Oct. 13, 2016 issue of this publication. Signed Ryan Harvey, President/CEO, on Sept. 26, 2016. I certify that all information furnished on this form is true and complete. I understand that anyone who furnishes false or misleading information on this form or who omits material or information requested on the form may be subject to criminal sanctions (including fines and imprisonment) and/or civil sanctions (including civil penalties).

1.- 8. Conservative Chronicle, publication number 762710, filing date of Sept. 28, 2016, frequency of issue, weekly; number of issues published annually, 52; annual subscription price, $75.00. The mailing address of the Known Office of Publication and Headquarters is 9 2nd Street NW, PO Box 29, Hampton, IA 50441, Franklin County. 9. The name and address of the publisher and managing editor is Ryan Harvey, 9 -2nd Street NW, PO Box 29, Hampton, IA 50441. The name and address of the editor is Ruth Katz, 9 2nd Street NW, PO Box 29, Hampton, IA 50441. 10. Owners: Mid-America Publishing Corporation, 9 2nd St. NW, P.O. Box 29, Hampton, IA 50441. Stockholders owning or holding one percent or more of total amount of stock: Jeanette M. Grohe, 1 Lincoln Place Dr., Des Moines, IA 50312; Matthew Grohe, 1 Lincoln Place Dr., Des Moines, IA 50312; and Julie M. Herr, 4422 N. Mozart St., Chicago, IL 60625. 11. The known bondholders, mortgagees or other security holders owning or holding one percent or more of total amount of bonds, mortgages, or other securities: First Bank Hampton, PO Box 59, Hampton, IA 50441; First Security Bank, PO Box 119, Hampton, IA 50441; MidWestOne Bank, 112 N. Main St., Sigourney, IA 52591; Barbara Mussman, 721 Cedar Dr., Clarion, IA 50525; Chrysler Capital, PO Box 660335, Dallas, TX 75266; News Publishing Company, Inc., PO Box 286, Black Earth, WI 53151; Roger & Karen Rector, 1004 Twin Pines, Ida Grove, IA 51445; Leon & Becky Thorne, PO Box 352, Parkersburg, IA 50665. 13.-14. Conservative Chronicle, issue date for circulation data below is Sept. 28, 2016. 15a. Extent and Nature of Circulation. Total Number Copies (net press run) average each issue during preceding twelve months, 3,688; single issue published nearest filing date, 3,500. 15b. Paid Circulation (By Mail and Outside the Mail) (1) Mailed Outside-County Paid Subscriptions Stated On PS Form 3541 (Include paid distribution above nominal rate, advertiser’s proof copies, and exchange copies) - average number of copies each issue during preceding twelve months, 3,506, single issue published nearest filing date, 3,308. 15b. (2) Mailed In-County Paid Subscriptions stated on PS Form 3541 (Include paid distribution above nominal rate, advertiser’s proof copies, and exchange copies) - average number of copies each issue during preceding twelve months, 0; single issue published nearest filing date, 1. 15b. (3) Paid Distribution Outside the Mails Including Sales Through Dealers and Carriers, Street Vendors, Counter Sales, and Other Paid or Requested Distribution Outside USPS average number of copies each issue during preceding twelve months, 2; single issue published nearest filing date, 2. 15b. (4) Paid Distribution by Other Mail Classes of Mail Through the USPS (e.g. First-Class Mail) - average number of copies each issue during preceding twelve months, 12; single issue published nearest filing date, 12. 15c. Total Paid Distribution [sum of 15b (1), (2), (3), and (4)] -

THAT’S WHAT America needs — more federal governance of Americans’ lives and more re-education programs. (And what is “implicit bias?”) Meanwhile, Trump, in his simple way, uttered a truth that I can’t recall any Republican has uttered: “Look, the African-American community has been let down by our politicians. They talk good around election time, like right now, and after the election they said, ‘See you later. I’ll see you in four years.’” On ISIS and Iraq, Trump correctly said: “President Obama and Secretary

Clinton created a vacuum the way they got out of Iraq ... They shouldn’t have been in, but once they got in, the way they got out was a disaster.” This was another major truth ignored in all the commentary on Miss Piggy and “birtherism.” Iraq was finally rendered relatively peaceful, and then Obama announced that America was leaving. On the Iran deal, Trump was also dead-on: “You started the Iran deal, that’s another beauty, where you have a country that was ready to fall ... They were choking on the sanctions. And now they’re going to be actually probably a major power at some point pretty soon, the way they’re going.”

Perhaps my favorite moment of the evening — also completely ignored — was Trump’s quick reaction to Clinton saying that nuclear weapons “is the No. 1 threat we face in the world.” He said: “I agree with her on one thing: The single greatest problem the world has is nuclear armament. ... Not global warming, like you think and your president thinks.” SHE NEVER responded to this devastating point about left-wing hysteria over global warming. But she did have a lot to say about Miss Piggy, birtherism and Trump’s tax returns. And so do her allies: the American media.

Conservative Chronicle

PROGRESSIVISM: September 29, 2016

Draining the poison: It’s making us sick

was at O’Hare Airport a few nights ago, waiting to pick up family members returning from out of town. As the cellphone lot at O’Hare is next to one of the runways, I sat there watching one magnificent flying machine after another stream in across the night sky, and then fly directly over my head as they landed. Incredible.

I THEN paid attention to hundreds of taxi, limos and shuttles lined up to whisk people to wherever they were going. As I drove home that night, I marveled at the network of highways and surface roads upon which trucks and other transport carried consumer goods hither and yon. Everywhere I looked, I could see restaurants, coffee shops, schools, offices, gas stations, mechanics, malls and stores, churches and hospitals — all while I listened to satellite radio, my children watched a DVD, and my husband downloaded information wirelessly onto his smartphone. We are living in the most amazing civilization in the history of humanity. And we do not appreciate it. We should be the happiest people in the world. But we are not. We have become embittered and perennially angry. A couple of years ago, comedian Louis CK was on the Conan O’Brien show, and said, “Everything is amazing, and is nobody is happy.” Just this week, I read an article in Hollywood Reporter about multimillion dollar underground bunkers for the uber-rich. The owner of Ultimate Bunker was quoted as saying, “Everyone I talk to thinks we are doomed, no matter who is elected.” This is a deeply distorted worldview, and what is more distressing is how widespread it is. There was a time when Americans of all backgrounds believed in this country, and in the essential goodness of each other — notwithstanding incidents of crime, or past wrongs, or different religious beliefs, or even different political beliefs. What has changed? How did we get here? An underappreciated cause is the drastic shift on the political left from “liberalism” to “progressivism.” Liberalism stood for individual liberties, the Bill of Rights, a belief in the importance of a small government to ensure freedom, and a corresponding admonition towards personal responsibility. Liberalism is, at its core, a fundamentally optimistic outlook. Traditional liberals (however many are left) and today’s conservatives hold sacrosanct the view that people have the right to be left alone. When left to their own devices, they will do just fine and figure out solutions when problems arise. The thousands of human inventions I observed to and from O’Hare Airport earlier this week are proof of the truth of that.

Therefore, it is not enough to find NOTWITHSTANDING the word “progress” in its root, progressivism is a wrongful conduct; the progressive must mercilessly pessimistic outlook. In this root out impermissible thoughts and atworldview, things are terrible, necessitat- titudes. Since these are hard to pinpoint, ing an endless expansion of government, it becomes guilt by association. Thus do unceasing litigation to resolve constant we see the sweeping accusations that conflict, relentlessly activist judges em- “business is greedy,” “whites are racist,” ployed to create ever-expanding rights “men are rapists,” “Christians are bigots” and redress innumerable offenses, and or “police are killers.” Absolution comes the proliferation of policies enacted “for only by admission of guilt. Object to these characterizations? That’s just our own good.” proof of your guilt Progressive — or worse — your politicians, and privilege. activists in parA movement ticular, must find that professes to endless wrongs to (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate promote diversity be righted in orthus leaves everyder to justify their own existences. Humanity being what it one in one of two camps: The wronged is, it is always possible to find wrongdo- or the wrongdoers. People begin viewing ers. But it is never enough to punish one each other with suspicion, fear, anger and wrongdoer; it is vital to create classes of resentment. This isn’t progress; it’s poison. And it wrongdoers, who inflict harm on countless others. Progressives want policies, has made the body politic very sick, indeed. not punishment.

Laura

Hollis

As I’ve written before, it is always possible to find the good in people and reasons to be positive about our society. Social media, filled though it may be with garbage and mindless drivel, is also a limitless source of stories of people’s kindnesses. By way of example, millions of people shared video from the Miami Marlins’ first game since the death of teammate Jose Fernandez. The entire team wore jerseys with Fernannez’ name and number. Dee Gordon hit his first home run of the season, and gestured in tribute. Gordon’s tears and the conduct of all of Martinez’ teammates in the dugout were inspirational. That is the kind of conduct we should be pointing out to each other. IT IS TOO late in this presidential election to have different candidates. But we, as people, should be demanding that our political leaders see the best in all of us. The health of the nation depends upon it.

MEDIA BIAS: September 29, 2016

The epic media freakout We are in the midst of an epic media freakout. It is a subset of a larger liberal panic over Donald Trump’s strength in the general election. The mood of the center-left is, “America, how dare you?” The outraged incomprehension is seeping into and, increasingly, driving the coverage of the race. The freakout began a few weeks ago when Donald Trump started to close the polling gap with Hillary Clinton, and picked up intensity as the race essentially became a tie. The media is going to be in a perpetual state of high anxiety and dudgeon until Election Day. THE PRESS is playing catch-up. It didn’t take much foresight to realize that giving Trump $2 billion worth of free publicity in his primary battle might help him win his party’s nomination. Still, it was all fun and games as long as the ratings were good and Trump trailed Hillary. “This is not normal,” you’ll hear it said over and over about Trump (often correctly). But did anyone think it was normal when Trump said Ted Cruz was ineligible to run for president? Or questioned Ben Carson’s faith? Nonetheless, according to an analysis by the Shorenstein Center, most coverage of Trump in the first half of 2016 was “positive or neutral in tone.” Not anymore. There have been two seminal events in the freakout. The first was the absurdly over-the-top criticism of Matt Lauer for not being tough

enough on Trump at an NBC nationalsecurity forum. Lauer couldn’t have satisfied his critics short of slapping Trump in the face and demanding, “Have you no sense of decency, sir?” The second was a New York Times “news analysis” on Trump’s disavowal of birtherism that was intended as an exemplary act of journalistic aggression — a rhetorical assault worthy of the poison pen of Maureen Dowd that led the paper with the extremely hostile headline, “Trump Gives Up a Lie, But Refuses to Repent.”

Rich

SOME OF the anti-Trumpism in the press has been expressed in pointless and annoying gestures, such as CNN’s practice of fact-checking Trump’s statements in snarky chyrons. I’ll believe that this reflects the network’s disinterested pursuit of truth as soon as I see a CNN chyron declaring: “Clinton: Tax Cuts Caused the Financial Crisis (They Didn’t).” More significantly, Lester Holt tilted anti-Trump during the debate. Trump got tougher questions than Clinton, who was spared queries on matters such as the Clinton Foundation and Benghazi. And he fact-checked Trump in real time twice, arguably getting his correction of Trump about a complex stop-and-frisk case wrong. Notably, Holt got positive reviews.

Outlets are more and more using the formerly thermonuclear word “lie” in their coverage of Trump, and liberal analysts are hailing the end of he said/she said journalism. Trump is indeed a different kind of animal and has stressed every institution that has encountered him over the past year, from the Republican National Committee to rival campaigns to the press. But the current media freakout is hard to take, and a mistake. One, it is galling, since the media is collectively deciding to give up on an objectivity that it never had. John McCain and Mitt Romney, upstanding, honorable men who weren’t allegedly threats to the republic, were on the receiving end of more negative coverage than Barack Obama. Two, it speaks to a certain contempt for the media’s fellow citizens, who are presumed incapable of rationally evaluating the candidates without its thumb on the scale. Three, if Trump loses, the press will go right back to its pose of objectivity. Whereas the only good thing about the media’s current jag is that it might represent movement toward a more Britishstyle (and traditional American-style) journalism, with outlets forthrightly acknowledging their partisan allegiances. NOTHING IS going to dissuade the press from its current course, though. There is no reasoning with fear and loathing.

October 12, 2016 FBI: September 30, 2016

Why not give Hillary immunity, spare us the drama?

ather than striking immunity one of the five, had already admitted deals with virtually every per- the deal was struck to protect her clients son who had intimate knowl- from potential prosecution arising from edge of Hillary Clinton’s illegal private “classification” on their laptops. Apparserver and emails, the Justice Depart- ently, the DOJ was more convinced of ment would have saved everyone some their innocence than their lawyer was. In the FBI’s summary statement, time by offering Clinton protection inMills alleged that she didn’t know about stead. email server until after FBI Director James Comey, who testi- Clinton’s retary of state’s tenfied in front of two congressional com- the secure was over. Emails mittees this week, since uncovered, still maintains that however, show he was unable to this to be untrue. recommend that (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate Remember also the DOJ charge that, President Clinton with mishandling classified documents because Obama claimed that he first learned of insufficient evidence proving “intent” about Clinton’s illegal server through — although the actions themselves are “news reports.” If that’s true, why did he email Clinton on her private server under irrefutably illegal. a pseudonym? Comey admitted Wednesday that one WELL, HOW exactly did he anticipate gathering this proof, when the DOJ of Clinton’s lawyers — “it might have had proactively shielded the five people been Cheryl Mills” — told Paul Comtasked with setting up the private system betta, Clinton’s IT specialist, to delete and then destroying it? Was he hoping to email files from Clinton’s secret server extract a confession directly from Clin- only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved. And Comey assures us that ton? Why would, for instance, a Clinton none of this is obstruction of justice. Then, at another point, he told the functionary like Cheryl Mills help prosecutors once she’d already secured safe- committee that the DOJ agreed to give guards against any criminal prosecution? immunity because the FBI didn’t feel While testifying in front of the House Ju- like wrangling with lawyers for years. diciary Committee, Comey claimed that “The FBI judgment was we need to get Mills was already “cooperative” and that to that laptop. We need to see what it is,” the Justice Department had assured the he explained. “This investigation’s been going on for a year.” FBI she had done nothing wrong. So I guess Mills was less than coopIf she were accommodating and completely innocent, why would she seek — erative. Yes? And why is Comey, who doesn’t and be given — immunity? A lawyer for Mills and Heather Samuelson, another “give a hoot about politics,” concerned

David

Harsanyi

about timetables, rather than making the best case? If the laptop was important enough to hasten a deal that protected a potential witness from prosecution, why wasn’t it important enough for the FBI to subpoena? If Mills’ lawyer is worried about potential criminality, why take a plea bargain off the table? Is this how it works for everyone? IT WAS RATHER amazing to hear Comey concede that the DOJ’s immunity spree was “unusual.” More unusual, perhaps, was that three of the people with those deals still ended up taking the Fifth, and another didn’t even bother showing up when Congress called him. It’s also unusual that a high-profile case featuring numerous immunity deals resulted in no charges.

To Comey, it was also “very unusual” that the FBI would conduct an interview with the target of an investigation — where wholly innocent Clinton was surrounded by nine lawyers — with two of the immunized witnesses in the case present. That’s something Comey admitted had never happened in his career. Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, who first defended the FBI’s decision not to prosecute Clinton, put the decision in historical context: “Of all of the individuals who would warrant immunity, most would view Mills as the very last on any list. If one assumes that there may have been criminal conduct, it is equivalent to immunizing H.R. Haldeman and John D. Ehrlichman in the investigation of Watergate.” Comey claimed that it was not his purview to decide who people use as their lawyers. That is true. What he failed to mention was that he determined the parameters of the interview. He could have pressured Clinton to leave Mills home, by impelling the target of the investigation to appear rather than allowing it to be voluntary interview. In a deposition about the email scandal, Mills claimed client-attorney privilege, though she was chief of staff, not Clinton’s lawyer, during her tenure at the State Debarment. Comey attempted to distance himself from the immunity deals by pointing out that he had not personally struck them. “It’s a decision made by the Department of Justice, I don’t know at what level inside,” Comey said in the House panel. He continued, saying, “In our investigations, any kind of immunity comes from the prosecutors, not the investigators.” SURELY, THE DOJ doesn’t offer witnesses protection from prosecution in high-profile cases without asking FBI investigators. If they did, then it would suggest a politicized process — something this case reeks of already.

Conservative Chronicle

PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: September 29, 2016

I’m with you contrasts with I’m with her

fter decades of political experience, and running against President Barack Obama in 2008, Hillary Clinton’s performance Monday night was as good as it gets. The first presidential debate between democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump, which was held at Hofstra University, broke the viewing record on Monday evening, with over 84 million people watching the live action. This is three times the number of viewers for the season finale of the Apprentice in 2004.

LESTER HOLT, anchor of NBC Nightly News, served as moderator and semi fact checker. The resulting scrutiny of his performance will lead future moderators to check and double check their questions and performances. The 90-minute no commercial format, with only one adversary on stage, was much different than the debate experience Trump had during the Republican primary, where there were up to 10 contestants on stage. Trump easily cleared the first hurdle of the first debate — he stayed on stage, was articulate and passed the “can I imagine him as president?” test. He stood side by side with someone who has prepared for decades, and came across as a reasonable alternative. Clinton, prepared, poised and polished, might have marginally won the debate from the perspectives of the pundits and the political class; but Trump laid the groundwork for a chasm of difference between the two. The Chasm: A politician who is polished and poised, but represents the status quo, and a business person who represents real change. By referring to her as “Secretary Clinton” Trump reminds us that Clinton is part of the current administration, and that her tenure as Secretary of State included controversies regarding her use of a private email server as well as her leadership and communications regarding Benghazi. Trump’s statements of fact are powerful. “She’s been doing this for 30 years... [Clinton’s a] Typical politician. All talk, no action. Sounds good, doesn’t work. Never going to happen. Our country is suffering because people like Secretary Clinton have made such bad decisions in terms of our jobs and in terms of what’s going on.” The difference is vast and real, and if people are happy today with how the government works, they should vote for Secretary Clinton. Alternatively, as he articulated at the debate, Trump has “a company that’s worth many, many billions of dollars, with some of the greatest assets in the world, and I say that only because that’s the kind of thinking that our country needs.”

HIS STATEMENT to the American tential controversial questions prior to the people that “I’m with you” is the perfect next debate. For instance, the questions contrast to Clinton’s theme of “I’m with about his tax returns. The second opportunity is to ask questions unasked by the her.” Clinton reinforces this split during the moderator of Clinton during the debate her private email server, debate. “Donald just criticized me for regarding the Clinton Foundapreparing for this debate. And, tion and her hanyes, I did. And you Jackie dling of Benghazi. know what else Regarding his I prepared for? taxes, a possible reI prepared to be (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate sponse it to simply president. And I say to voters, just think that’s a good thing,” she said. While it drew applause like you, I follow the tax laws of our nafrom her supporters in the hall, but also tion and pay taxes as they state. I know reinforces the fact that Clinton has been how crazy our current tax system is — it doing this for decades and does not repre- must be simplified and restructured. Evsent the real change that many Americans ery dollar the government spends comes from taxpayers, either collected from you are seeking. For the next debate Trump has two today — or in some point in the future opportunities. The first is to answer po- due to government borrowing. I want to

Gingrich Cushman

make sure that the government spends every on of your dollars is spend wisely and not wastefully. In business, we have contracts, and if the vendor delivers a substandard product or does not deliver on time, then there is often a discount or penalty. There are often incentives to finish a project early. This system allows us to deliver large projects under budget and before deadlines. This same thought process needs to be applied to the federal government, which currently spends millions and millions of your hard earned dollars without any results. YOU DESERVE better, you deserve government that makes sure every dollar it collects, is spent wisely. Communicated properly, the voters’ choice will be clear.

PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: September 29, 2016

Why Donald Trump is winning

n the matter of the debate the other night, tell the truth. Admit it: You were underwhelmed. Somewhere inside of your cranium, you did not get the spectacle you anticipated. I understand. After Hillary Clinton’s coughing spells, her wobbly display at the 9/11 ceremony in New York City (she almost fell face forward on the running board of her van), her admission of having pneumonia and all the rumors that admission gave rise to, you had expected something highly dramatic. Perhaps the cough would return. Perhaps she would pass out under Donald Trump’s relentless barbs and be wheeled out on a gurney. Or perhaps you thought Trump would explode or go into a wild rant. Well, it did not happen. Both debaters pretty much played to form. Both were highly disciplined — one being a billionaire who has made it mostly on his own, and the other having survived public life for at least 45 years with no jail time.

SOME OBSERVERS thought Clinton won. Over at CNN, Anderson Cooper’s panel of experts — it seems there are 30 or 40 onstage at any given time — were exultant for Clinton, though there were the usual two holdouts, the indispensable Jeffrey Lord and Kayleigh McEnany. And CNN’s pollsters came up with similar findings — 62 percent for Clinton and 27 percent for Trump — though the rest of the polls nationwide and in the battleground states found for Trump. Both those onstage and those polled seem to confuse the workings of their hearts with the workings of their brains, and perhaps even the workings

of their gall bladders. Certainly, those observers who rely on their brains noted early on that Trump had things under control. As he has done for weeks, he was talking directly to the American public through the awkward stage prop of Clinton. He would start up the economy from its measly growth rate of barely two percent. He would get Americans working again. He would tear up trade agreements that favor crony capitalists and foreign governments. He would prevent companies from leaving America unscathed. Clinton had been a part of this system for decades. She was a standpatter and defender of the status quo. She had revealed bad judgment.

R. Emmett

CLINTON’S RESPONSE was that Trump had used bad language in public, lacked the proper “temperament” to be president and favored the rich, whom she would hit with higher taxes to pay for her giveaways. That last line about the rich is a bit much given the fact that she is the creature of Wall Street, Hollywood and large donations, whereas Trump relies on mostly modest donations. Oh, yes, and her needling Trump on his temperament. Who was the last presidential candidate to be attacked for his temperament? Does the name Ronald Reagan come to mind? During these early exchanges the other night, Clinton spoke of her experience, her knowledge of the system and her years as a professional politi-

cian. That was not wise when you think of the audience beyond the stage in Hempstead, New York, which thinks the country “is on the wrong track.” The majority of those voters want change, and Trump is increasingly their candidate. Perhaps Clinton did not notice it because Trump talks like an ordinary American rather than a standard-issue politician. She was talking to official Washington, D.C., and he was talking to America. Official Washington claimed that he “missed opportunities.” He could have done more with the topics of the wall, Obamacare, immigration, immigrant criminals, terrorism and Benghazi. He should have done more with the Clinton Foundation, her errant emails and her mishandling of classified documents. He could have cited her lies to Congress and the FBI, and how FBI Director James Comey has contradicted her on her lies. Well, let me say, as a fellow who is himself preparing to debate these very issues on Oct. 18 in London before the Spectator of London’s forum, you cannot overwhelm your audience. You cannot bring your audience to confusion. You can only give them so much to think about. For September, Trump gave his audience quite enough. There are two more debates for him to outline the full case against Clinton. As for Clinton, she has made her case. She has more experience governing than Trump. Another way of putting it is, she is part of the problem. America is, as the pollsters say, on the wrong track. THE OTHER night, Donald Trump appeared to be every inch a president.

October 12, 2016 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: September 28, 2016

No immigration, terrorism, health care for 90 minutes At least we know Trump wasn’t lying ing — of the media, of what this election when he said he didn’t practice for the is really about, and of what Trump needs to do now. debate. The definition of Trump “taking the Based on the behavior of trained, professional journalists, I gather I’m not bait” was getting him to talk about himsupposed to say what I really thought of self, not about issues. This from a media the debate, but to cheer like a pom-pom that claim to be aching for “policy specifics.” girl for my candidate. Hillary — with asBut the truth is, I — along with my sists from the modTrump-supporting erator — “baited” friends — thought Trump on how it was a draw: rich he is, the loan Trump won the from his father, a first half, and Hill(c) 2016, Ann Coulter lawsuit in 1972, ary won the second half. Since most people stopped the birther claims, who he said what to paying attention after the first 30 min- about the Iraq War from 2001 to 2003, and so on. utes, that’s a win for Trump. For the media, their gal was winning Hillary supporters, or “the media,” had reason to be happy: She looked whenever precious minutes of a 90-minhealthy! She probably could have kept ute debate were spent rehashing allegareciting her snarky little talking points tions about Trump. Ha ha! We prevented Trump from talking about issues that for another hour. matter to the American people! That was IN FACT, it was the best I’ve ever scored as a “win.” Nothing illustrates more clearly that seen Hillary. She avoided that honking thing she does, smiled a lot — a little too this election is about the people versus much, actually (maybe ease up on the the elites than the fact that the media run pep pills next time) — and, as the entire from Trump’s issues like Dracula from media has gleefully reported, she man- the sun. Trump wins whenever he talks about aged to “bait” Trump. Note to the Trump campaign: While it issues; he loses whenever he talks about may seem studly that Hillary’s best per- himself. Trump was winning when he talked formance versus Trump’s worst ends in a draw, on Nov. 9, no one wants to say: about the heinous trade deals that have We almost won — and our guy didn’t shipped jobs abroad and immiserated millions of Americans — which Hillprepare! The media’s excitement over Hillary ary supports. He was winning when he successfully “baiting” Trump is reveal- talked about bringing order and safety

Ann

Coulter

to black neighborhoods overrun with crime; Hillary’s with the criminals. He was winning when he talked about rebuilding our inner cities, instead of saying, “Vote for me!” then, “See you in four years!” — as Hillary does. Unlike the media, ordinary people don’t care about Trump’s taxes or net worth or the things he said as an entertainer. Trump will be dead and gone in 30 years. But whether America continues to exist or becomes some dystopian blend of Guatemala and Afghanistan will be determined by this election. IT’S ALMOST impossible not to correct a lie, especially about yourself, which is why Hillary and Lester Holt’s “baiting” strategy was to make outrageous claims about Trump. Hillary, for example, criticized Trump for not releasing his tax returns, saying, “maybe ... he’s paid nothing in federal taxes.” This is exactly what Sen. Harry Reid stated as hard fact about Romney in 2012 — on the Senate floor, so he

couldn’t be sued. After the election was over, Reid was asked about this obvious falsehood. He laughed it off and said, “Romney didn’t win, did he?” This is the game they play. Trump has got to learn to ignore it. The voters have. They don’t care about his taxes. They want jobs, they want a wall and they’d like fewer Muslims showing up, collecting welfare, then killing Americans. Trump doesn’t have to do formal debate practice, standing at a podium, facing off against a shorty in a pantsuit. But he does need Pavlovian training to stop responding to irrelevancies. This isn’t about him! It’s about a movement of the people to take back their government from an arrogant plutocracy. From now until the next debate, every single person who works for Trump should personally insult him several times a day. Good morning, sir — your business is a total fraud. Here are those trade stats you wanted — oh and you lied about opposing the war in Iraq. The Cincinnati airport needs a tail number — why did you “fat-shame” that poor girl? If he starts to respond, they should say, “No one cares, sir. Tell me how you’re going to stop Mexican drugs from pouring across our border.” The proof that voters don’t care about the personal attacks on Trump is that, even after his lazy and self-indulgent debate performance, he won nearly every online poll. Evidently, the American people have sized up the candidates and decided they want Trump. But there’s just one last formality: He needs to pass some minimum threshold, a basic job requirement — like proving he has a driver’s license. Everybody agrees he’s got the job. It’s too late for Hillary to be sucking up to the hiring committee, reminding them, but I took driver’s ed seven times — yes, there were mistakes, but I was grilled for 11 hours about that vehicular homicide. Also, the Russians hacked my GPS. TRUMP SHOWED up at the debate with his driver’s license. That’s all anyone needed to see.

Conservative Chronicle

PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: September 29, 2016

She clobbered him (don’t shoot the messenger)

n this weekly column and in my power of the government to enrich her on-air work at Fox News, I have family’s foundation. I have argued that characterized former Secretary there is strong, credible evidence to of State Hillary Clinton as a crook and demonstrate that she exercised her offias the “Queen of Deception.” I have cial behavior as secretary of state in acargued that there is enough credible cordance with the financial needs of her evidence in the public domain to in- family’s foundation. She refused to see dict, prosecute and convict her of es- some foreign dignitaries until they gave to the foundation. pionage, perjury, misleading Congress, m o n e y She had her close public corruption, personal aide, providing mateHuma Abedin, emrial assistance to ployed by the terrorist organizafoundation while tions and obstruc(c) 2016, Creators Syndicate she was employed tion of justice. I can point to five times when she by the State Department, such that lied under oath. I know of FBI agents folks who dealt with Abedin knew that who believe that their hands were tied she would ask them for money for the by the Obama administration in the foundation as Clinton’s official gatecriminal investigation of her. And I keeper; and they’d need to make those know of American intelligence agents payments in return for favorable treatwho firmly believe that Americans died ment from the secretary of state. She even permitted Russian Presibecause Clinton failed to keep state sedent Vladimir Putin to gain control of crets secure. a Utah uranium mine in return for the SHE SENT emails containing state payment by an intermediary of $145 secrets to a former aide whom she million to her family’s foundation. Some of the behavior Clinton hid knew lacked any security clearance and whose emails were hacked by hostile involved her waging an illegal and diforeign governments, and she left clas- sastrous war in Libya, in which she sified documents in a bedroom in a for- used the American intelligence comeign embassy where personnel without munity rather than the U.S. military so as to keep Congress largely in the dark. clearances had access to them. She refused to use government-se- She conspired with a dozen members cured email devices because she want- of Congress and with President Barack ed to keep her behavior hidden from the Obama to fight the secret war to topple public and from the president. Some of Libyan strongman and American ally that behavior had to do with using the Col. Moammar Gadhafi.

Andrew

Napolitano

She used her lawful authority as secretary of state to authorize exemptions to the U.N. embargo of arms to Libya by American and foreign arms dealers. She permitted the sale of arms to groups in Libya that were masquerading as antiGadhafi militias but — according to the CIA — were actually terrorist organizations. SHE REJECTED the advice of the CIA and thereby provided material aid to terrorist organizations — a felony under U.S. law. The result of her secret war was the destruction of all order and culture in Libya, the institution of mob rule and the assassination of the American ambassador. Yet none of the above was articulated by Donald Trump in his debate with Clinton earlier this week. Trump utterly failed to capitalize on her greatest vulnerabilities — the widespread and largely well-grounded belief that she is untrustworthy and her welldocumented record as a failure as secretary of state. I know one of his debate

coaches very well. I suspect that the coach gave him superb ideas and oneline zingers, none of which he used. I also suspect that the coach’s advice went in one of Trump’s ears and out the other. Presidential debates are not won on points and counterpoints. They are won on general impressions. The general impression from Monday’s highly anticipated debate is that Clinton brilliantly controlled the ball and Trump came utterly unprepared. She succeeded in arresting her fall in the polls and reassuring her Democratic base. He failed to give independents and wavering Republicans a good reason to back him. She clobbered him. But both candidates’ performances deeply disappointed me. I confess to a moral preference for personal liberty in our supposedly free society. Did you hear the word “freedom” or any of its variants or the Constitution mentioned by either debater? I did not. Neither talked about natural rights — personal liberties coming from our humanity and untouchable by the government. Trump argued for letting the police stop you on a whim. Clinton argued for massive increases in wealth transfers. Neither understands the economy. Both want the government to force employers to pay higher wages, to impose higher taxes on the most productive in our society, to impose tariffs on goods we import and to increase our $19.5 trillion national debt. Aren’t those behaviors just what got us into our present precarious economic straits, where all federal tax revenue is now consumed by wealth transfers, the Pentagon and interest on the government debt, with the government being run on borrowed money and borrowed time? Neither mentioned the primacy of the individual over the state, and neither spoke about the guarantees of liberty in the Bill of Rights. Both believe in a government that can right any wrong, regulate any behavior and tax any event. WHO REALLY wants a choice between two proponents of monster government, bigger than it is now? Whatever became of “that government is best which governs least?” Who will protect us from a government that takes more than it gives?

October 12, 2016 2016 ELECTION: September 30, 2016

Law and order: Good issue, bad messengers

These statistics are most troubling in light of newly released FBI data that show that homicides went up in 2015. Violent crime had been going down for two decades, but that trend reversed itself in 2015. Homicide increased by almost 13 percent between 2014 and 2015, with blacks accounting for more than half of victims even though they make up only 13 percent of the total population. HisTRUMP’S CARICATURE is ri- panics were 16.6 percent of victims, diculous — but that doesn’t mean crime roughly the same as their proportion of is irrelevant to minority communities. the population. But even if blacks aren’t likely to be Blacks and, to a far less degree, Hispanhomicide still remains ics are likelier to become crime victims killed — a rare phenomenon than whites. The — they are likelier homicide rate for to live in cities with black victims is high crime levels. nearly eight times St. Louis became greater than the (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate the most dangerrate for whites; ous city in America, about 1 in 40,000 whites become a victim of homicide in according to an analysis of the new FBI the U.S. each year, whereas about 1 in violent crime numbers by the Wall Street 5,000 blacks will be murdered, according Journal, followed by Detroit and Birto an analysis by Nate Silver of FiveThir- mingham, Alabama. Indeed, all 10 of the tyEight. The homicide rate for Hispanics most dangerous cities have large black is about twice that of whites, so about 1 populations, while only one — Oakland, California, the ninth-most dangerous city in 20,000. hanneling Richard M. Nixon from the 1968 presidential campaign, Donald Trump has tried to make “law and order” one of his signature issues. In Monday’s debate, Trump claimed that “African-Americans (and) Hispanics are living in hell because it’s so dangerous. You walk down the street, you get shot.”

Linda

Chavez

DONALD TRUMP: September 29, 2016

— had a percentage of Hispanics larger suggested has been ruled unconstitutional. (The case Holt referred to was a lower than the national average. court ruling not applicable outside the SO WHY aren’t more blacks jumping court’s jurisdiction.) But Trump left it to on the “law and order” bandwagon? Per- Hillary Clinton to raise the issue of comhaps if Trump were not so ham-handed, munity policing, an effective and far less he might be able to make the issue an ap- controversial method than stop and frisk. Community policing involves putting pealing one for minority voters. Trumped talked about “stop and frisk” laws, which more police officers on the street, where debate moderator Lester Holt incorrectly they can get to know the people they are sworn to protect. It means police officers walking a beat or patrolling neighborhoods in their cars so that residents get to know the officers before they need police help. But effective policing requires that a certain level of trust be developed — on both sides of the equation. Sadly, shutting down the federal government. trust between police and minority comIn this matchup, at least Trump would munities seems to be on a precipitous be closer on the issues to L.A. liberals decline. A whole generation of young blacks is learning to fear the police and than Cruz. One last condition: Each member of not to respect them. At the same time, the class would have to vote because he many police officers — black as well as or she would be given the power to de- white — behave as if they fear young cide the actual outcome of the election. black men and, consequently, don’t alThe exercise served as a kind of ways treat them with respect. Meanwhile, Stanford Prison Experiment for liber- many Hispanic immigrants avoid reportals. Stern tried out his experiment on ing crimes for fear of being deported. Minority communities would benfriends and associates before he preefit if effective crime-fighting strategies sented it to his class. Two professors became a focal point of politicians. Unnow say they want to kill themselves. Friend and former Los Angeles Times fortunately, neither Trump nor Clinton is City Editor Bill Boyarsky told Stern well-positioned to make the case. Trump that rather than choose, he would go to is, deservedly, suspect on the issue. He the dean and ask to be released from the may talk about his concern for blacks and course. But “if a da--ed journalist kept Hispanics when it suits him, but his racial pushing me and wouldn’t get off the stereotypes and ugly rhetoric make him phone till I answered,” he would vote a poor messenger. Clinton, on the other for Cruz, a Harvard Law School gradu- hand, worries too much about alienating ate who at least has “been exposed to the Black Lives Matter movement to argue for more cops and fewer criminals the precepts of our democracy.” out on the street. UNLIKE BOYARSKY, most of IF LEFT unaddressed, violent crime Stern’s charges chose Trump (D). You will continue to climb. We’ve had a good went with Trump, Stern told students, couple of decades, but there is no guarandespite all his outrageous statements and lack of qualifications, because of tee that crime will remain low. If we’re the Supreme Court, party loyalty and not careful, we could go back to where dislike of the opposition. “People keep we were in 1968 — and the ones who asking, ‘How can anybody vote for would suffer most would be the great maTrump?’” Stern added. “I say, ‘You just jority of law-abiding black and Hispanic Americans. did.’”

You, too, could vote for Trump

he political press corps has known Bob Stern as the straight-arrow president of Los Angeles’ Center for Governmental Studies who helped Jerry Brown create the Fair Political Practices Commission in 1974. Since the center closed its L.A. offices in 2011, Stern seems to have developed a devious side — or was it there all along? I ask, because in his “The November Election” course at UCLA extension, Stern managed to set up a scenario wherein a substantial majority — he thinks two-thirds of the class of westside liberals, his wife, Joan, says three-quarters — raised their hands when asked if they could vote for Donald Trump in November.

HOW DID Stern do it? Before he set up his scenario, Stern had asked the 125 political junkies in his class to raise their hands if they were going to vote for Trump, Hillary Clinton, Libertarian Gary Johnson or Green Party candidate Jill Stein. While a couple of students said they were undecided, no one raised a hand for Trump, Johnson or Stein. Everyone else supported Clinton — no surprise in West L.A., where it is universally acknowledged that no thinking person would ever vote for The Donald. Stern laid out this hypothetical situation: What if Trump won the Democratic Party nomination? (It’s not a

far-fetched question. Trump was a registered Democrat from 2001 to 2009 and had donated more to Democratic campaign coffers than GOP committees before he flirted with running for president in 2012.) A Democratic Trump would have said all the objectionable things — such as that Mexican immigrants often are criminals, drug dealers and rapists — that Trump, the Republican,

Debra J.

said during the GOP primary. Trump (D) likewise would have refused to release his tax returns. But Trump (D) differed from Trump (R) in one defining way — he embraced the Democratic platform. Trump (D) also promised to make Merrick Garland his first nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court and Barack Obama his second. And, Obama announced he would accept Trump’s nomination. WITH NO TRUMP in the Stern’s hypothetical GOP field, Republicans nominate Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who in 2013 spearheaded a doomed-to-fail tea party stunt to “defund Obamacare” by

Conservative Chronicle

PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: September 29, 2016

About ‘birther’ and tax returns in the first debate

onday night’s debate moderator, NBC’s Lester Holt, asked Donald Trump why he “perpetuated a false claim that the nation’s first black president was not a natural-born citizen.” Hillary Clinton added that Trump “has a long record of engaging in racist behavior, and the birther lie was a very hurtful one.” Trump defended himself by saying: “Sidney Blumenthal works for the campaign and (is a) close — very close — friend of Sec. Clinton. And her campaign manager, Patti Doyle ... during ... her campaign against President Obama, fought very hard. ... And if you look at CNN this past week, Patti Solis Doyle was on Wolf Blitzer saying that this happened. Blumenthal sent McClatchy, (a) highly respected reporter at McClatchy, to Kenya to find out about it. They were pressing it very hard. She failed to get the birth certificate. When I got involved, I didn’t fail. I got him to give the birth certificate. ... “I WAS THE one that got (President Barack Obama) to produce the birth certificate. ... Sec. Clinton also fought it. I mean, you know — now, everybody in mainstream is going to say, ‘Oh, that’s not true.’ Look, it’s true. You just have to take a look at CNN, the last week, the interview with your former campaign manager. And she was involved.” So Trump’s defense is that he and Blumenthal were on an amazing race to see who could get Obama to disclose his birth certificate? No, no, no. Trump should have said that James Asher, former McClatchy Washington Bureau Chief, tweeted — just two weeks ago — that Blumenthal “told me in person ‘Obama (was) born in Kenya,’” and that Blumenthal “spread the Obama birther rumor to me in 2008, asking us to investigate.” He should have also said that journalist John Heilemann, co-author of Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime, is not exactly a rightwinger. Heilemann, in 2015 on MSNBC’s Morning Joe show, said that it was Hillary Clinton’s 2008 election team that started questioning Obama’s birth certificate. Trump should have pushed back on the “racist” tag. When, where and how does questioning Obama’s place of birth become “racist?” Questions were raised about whether then-presidential candidate Sen. John McCain was eligible because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Questions were raised about whether Barry Goldwater was eligible because he was born in Arizona when it was a territory, three years before it became a state. Were such questions “racist?”

Trump could have said that one of What about Democrats’ skepticism about Obama? According to a 2014 Obama’s BFFs and somebody whose online survey conducted by YouGov support Clinton sought in the primaas part of the 2014 Cooperative Con- ries, the Rev. Al Sharpton, owes nearly gressional Election Study, and pub- $5 million in taxes. Sharpton, Trump lished in a Washington Post blog, a could have reminded us, hosts a show majority of Democrats do not believe for NBC where he supports the taxObama is a Christian. Forty-five per- and-spend policies of the Democratic cent believe so, but 26 percent say Party, while not paying the taxes he increased on the rich. they “don’t know,” 17 percent say he w a n t s Why are the media, is “spiritual,” 10 Trump could have percent believe asked, indifferent? he is Muslim, and Double standard. two percent think Trump could he is an atheist — (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate have argued that as does Obama defender Bill Maher. Are they reli- he’s not required by law to disclose his taxes. But Clinton was required by law gious “birthers?” Are they “racist?” to release all work-related email. She HOLT ALSO asked Trump about didn’t. And the FBI gave her a pass. his tax returns. Clinton suggested he But an IRS audit is essentially a dispute did not pay any taxes. Trump said, with the IRS over a tax issue. And the “That makes me smart,” effectively taxpayer loses any leverage if the deconceding that he pays no taxes. No, tails become public before a resolution is reached, because the IRS will refuse that’s dumb.

Larry

Elder

to compromise for fear that people will think they are caving in. So Trump loses leverage by prematurely going public. Why, he could have asked, would any rational person do that? On the other hand, nothing’s stopping Sec. Clinton from releasing the transcripts of her Wall Street speeches. Trump could have asked Clinton why she’s not disclosed her transcripts from her numerous high-paid Wall Street speeches. He could have asked why, when Obama refused to disclose his grades and test scores, the media lost interest. Double standard. And these are just two issues — birtherism and taxes — where Trump let Clinton get off the hook. He let her put on gloves and a ski mask and wipe out the bank’s vault. THERE ARE two more debates. Trump needs to raise his game or he’s fired.

VP DEBATE: October 4, 2016

Faith and the VP debate

n every election cycle since Jimmy Carter introduced “born again” into the political lexicon, a politician’s faith has been an object of curiosity and contention. At an appearance in Iowa in January, Hillary Clinton responded to a question about her faith, saying she is a Christian and a Methodist and that to her “the most important commandment is to love the Lord with all your might and to love your neighbor as yourself.” She is correct, but the challenge comes in how that commandment and Scripture are applied in the political arena. The same Scripture in which Hillary Clinton says she believes also teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman and that human life begins at conception. Hillary Clinton is pro-choice and favors same-sex marriage and the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funds being used for abortion. THIS BRINGS us to Tuesday’s debate between the two candidates for vice president. Gov. Mike Pence (RIN) is a pro-life evangelical Christian who believes in traditional marriage. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA.) is a Roman Catholic who takes the opposite view. Most evangelicals believe “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness ...” (2 Timothy 3:16). Many Roman Catholics accept the authority of Scripture,

but also place tradition and the teachings of the Pope on par with it. Why does this matter? If candidates for high office claim inspiration, even instruction, from an Authority higher than themselves, they should be asked about it. If they deviate from their faith’s teachings, they should be required to explain. Tim Kaine often refers to his Catholic faith and to what he calls “a turning point in my life,” which came in 1980 while on a “mission trip” to Honduras. Left out of his narrative is the liberation theology taught

Cal

by radical Catholic priests in the region at the time, a theology which closely tracked with Marxists committed to the violent overthrow of Latin American governments. WE HAVE been down this road before with Catholic politicians, including Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and the late Gov. Mario Cuomo, all of whom have taken political positions diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching. About his departure from Catholic instruction and statements from the current and previous popes, especially on social issues, Kaine has said:

“I think it’s going to change. ... Who am I to challenge God for the beautiful diversity of the human family? I think we’re supposed to celebrate it, not challenge it.” That attitude might legitimize a multitude of sins. Writing about church teachings on same-sex marriage, Maureen Ferguson of the Catholic Association says, “If Sen. Kaine wants to go beyond politics to opine on the theology of the Catholic Church, he should at least consult Pope Francis’ most recent exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, in which Francis states, ‘There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.’” The same can be said of consistent Catholic teaching about human life. In another statement from the Catholic Association, Dr. Grazie Pozo Christie writes: “Senator Kaine’s attempt to cloak his political pandering as theological speculation exposes the Clinton campaign’s profoundly antiCatholic ideological agenda. Hillary Clinton has previously stated that prolife people of faith will simply have to change their religious views. ... Now her running mate suggests the Church needs to do the same on the issue of marriage and family ...” THESE ISSUES of faith and public policy should be raised during the one vice presidential debate Tuesday night.

October 12, 2016 TRADE: September 30, 2016

Donald Trump is right on trade predators the Americans, including Boeing, until Is America still a serious nation? Consider. While U.S. elites were they bleed and scream.” And another exdenouncing Donald Trump as unfit to ecutive said, “If Airbus has to give away serve for having compared Miss Uni- planes, we will do it.” When Europe’s taxpayers objected to verse 1996 to “Miss Piggy” of “The Muppets,” the World Trade Organiza- the $26 billion in subsidies Airbus had tion was validating the principal plank gotten by 1990, German aerospace coordinator Erich Riedl was dismissive, “We of his platform. about criticism from America’s allies are cheating and rob- don’t care smallminded pencil-pushbing her blind on trade. ers.” According to This is the voice the WTO, Britof economic naain, France, Spain, tionalism. Where Germany and the is ours? EU pumped $22 (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate After this latest billion in illegal subsidies into Airbus to swindle Boeing WTO ruling validating Boeing’s claims against Airbus, the Financial Times is out of the sale of 375 commercial jets. babbling of the need for “free and fair” SUBSIDIES TO the A320 caused trade, warning against a trade war. But is “trade war” not a fair descriplost sales of 271 Boeing 737s, writes journalist Alan Boyle. Subsidies for tion of what our NATO allies have been planes in the twin-aisle market cost the doing to us by subsidizing the cartel sale of 50 Boeing 767s, 777s and 787s. that helped bring down Lockheed and And subsidies to the A380 cost Boeing McDonnell-Douglas and now seeks to the sale of 54 747s. These represent crip- bring down Boeing? Our companies built the planes that pling losses for Boeing, a crown jewel of U.S. manufacturing and a critical com- saved Europe in World War II and sheltered her in the Cold War. And Europe ponent of our national defense. Earlier, writes Boyle, the WTO ruled has been trying to kill those American that, “without the subsidies, Airbus companies. Yet even as Europeans collude and would not have existed ... and there would be no Airbus aircraft on the mar- cheat to capture America’s markets in passenger jets, Boeing itself, wrote ket.” In The Great Betrayal in 1998, I not- Eamonn Fingleton in 2014, has been ed that in its first 25 years the socialist “consciously cooperating in its own decartel called Airbus Industrie “sold 770 mise.” By Boeing’s own figures, writes Finplanes to 102 airlines but did not make a gleton, in the building of its 787 Dreampenny of profit.” Richard Evans of British Aerospace liner, the world’s most advanced comexplained: “Airbus is going to attack mercial jet, the “Japanese account for a

Pat

Buchanan

stunning 35 percent of the 787’s overall manufacture, and that may be an underestimate.” “Much of the rest of the plane is also made abroad ... in Italy, Germany, South Korea, France and the United Kingdom.” THE DREAMLINER “flies on Mitsubishi wings. These are no ordinary wings: They constitute the first extensive use of carbon fiber in the wings of a full-size passenger plane. In the view of many experts, by outsourcing the wings Boeing has crossed a red line.” Mitsubishi, recall, built the Zero, the premier fighter plane in the Pacific in the early years of World War II. In a related matter, the U.S. merchandise trade deficit in July and August ap-

proached $60 billion each month, heading for a trade deficit in goods in 2016 of another $700 billion. For an advanced economy like the United States, such deficits are milestones of national decline. We have been running them now for 40 years. But in the era of U.S. economic supremacy from 1870 to 1970, we always ran an annual trade surplus, selling far more abroad than Americans bought from abroad. In the U.S. trade picture, even in the darkest of times, the brightest of categories has been commercial aircraft. But to watch how we allow NATO allies we defend and protect getting away with decades of colluding and cheating, and then to watch Boeing transfer technology and outsource critical manufacturing to rivals like Japan, one must conclude that not only is the industrial decline of the United States inevitable, but America’s elites do not care. As for our corporate chieftains, they seem accepting of what is coming when they are gone, so long as the salary increases, stock prices and options, severance packages,and profits remain high. By increasingly relying upon foreign nations for our national needs, and by outsourcing production, we are outsourcing America’s future. After Munich in 1938, Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax visited Italy to wean Mussolini away from Hitler. The Italian dictator observed his guests closely and remarked to his foreign minister: “These men are not made of the same stuff as the Francis Drakes and the other magnificent adventurers who created the empire. These, after all, are the tired sons of a long line of rich men, and they will lose their empire.” IF THE PRESENT regime is not replaced, something like that will be said of this generation of Americans.

Conservative Chronicle

TAXES: October 1, 2016

Hillary’s Red Army march of tax-hike destruction

ou’ve got to hand it to Team out that the Financial Crisis Inquiry Hillary Clinton. Its message Commission report blamed banks, regdiscipline is awesome — at ulators, government agencies and credleast in terms of taxes. It reminds me of it raters for the recession. I would add to this list of culprits a the orderly march of the Chinese Red boom-and-bust Federal Reserve poliArmy on the way to battle. Here’s the latest message: The cy, where interest rates were held too George W. Bush tax cuts were respon- low for too long. And let’s add federal ing mandates that sible for the financial meltdown and re- h o u s virtually eliminatcession of 2008ed income and job 09. That’s a new qualifications for low for Hillaryloans, as well as nomics. highly overleverIn this week’s (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate aged bank mortdebate, Clinton said: “Trickle-down it did not work. gage loans and derivatives. But not the Bush tax cuts. It got us into the mess we were in in Back to Hillary’s Red Army. In re2008 and 2009. Slashing taxes on the cent debates with pro-Clinton econwealthy hasn’t worked.” omists, several of whom are good OK. SO IN 2003, President Bush friends, I heard the same accusations got a modest reduction in the top in- — Bush and his so-called tax cuts for come tax rate and bigger reductions in the rich are to blame. I challenged one of these Clinton the tax rates on capital gains and dividends. And this caused the financial supporters to find me an example where crisis? How it did is virtually unknow- across-the-board tax increases generated economic growth. Have we ever able. My pal, American Enterprise Insti- taxed our way into prosperity? Never. tute scholar Jim Pethokoukis, who’s This particular Clinton defender acno Trump supporter, put it like this: knowledged that across-the-board tax “Wouldn’t the George W. Bush tax cuts hikes would put a stop to prosperity. — most of which President Obama ex- But he argued that that’s not her plan. Let me pull out my list of Clinton tended — have stimulated demand and/ or improved supply-side incentives to tax hikes: A $350 billion income tax increase in the form of a 28-percent work, save and invest?” Pethokoukis cited an AEI study on cap on itemized deductions (without inequality that found “strong evidence lowering personal tax rates); a morelinking credit booms to banking crises, than $400 billion “fairness” tax hike in but no evidence that rising income con- the form of a four percent “surcharge” centration was a significant determi- on high-end earners; and the “Buffet nant of credit booms.” He also pointed rule,” which would establish a 30-per-

Larry

Kudlow

cent minimum tax on earners with adjusted gross incomes over $1 million. Clinton also proposes increasing the estate tax rate to a range of 45 to 65 percent and reducing the exemption to $3.5 million. Remember, estate taxes are already hit once by the income tax, and again by the capital-gains tax. Here, Clinton would end the stepped-up capital gains tax basis and instead value the gain all the way back to the initial transaction. One of my favorite economists, Scott Grannis, calls this legalized theft. CLINTON WOULD also raise the capital gains tax to over 40 percent, unless gains are held for more than six years; cap various business deduc-

tions (without lowering the corporate rate); and install some sort of exit tax for corporate earnings overseas (which are overseas to avoid the high corporate rates she will not reduce). Then, there’s her proposed tax on stock trading, her attraction to a payroll tax hike, her openness to a carbon tax, and her endorsement of a steep soda tax and a 25 percent national gun tax. If this list does not constitute acrossthe-board tax hikes, I don’t know what would. Now, contrast this with Trump’s plan to reduce tax rates for individuals and large and small businesses (while abolishing the death tax). His new 15 percent corporate tax-rate plan would unleash overseas-profits repatriation and a huge surge in corporate investment. By itself, the business tax reform could grow the economy by four percent. But Trump has to be more persuasive. He could highlight how middleincome wage earners benefit most from lower business taxes. He could emphasize his tax cut on small mom-and-pop businesses. He could explain that lower individual tax rates boost what President Ronald Reagan called “take-home pay” — more money in your pocket. He could stress how lower business taxes lead to a large increase in incentives that boost investment, productivity, risk-taking, new business formation and worker wages. The biggest issue in this campaign is the economy/wages/jobs. Trump must hammer home how his plan to boost all three contrasts drastically with Hillary’s Red Army march of tax-hike destruction. He has a prosperity plan. She has a recession plan. AMERICANS WILL always vote for prosperity. But the case has to be made.

October 12, 2016 CITIZENS UNITED: October 2, 2016

Free the documentary: Support Citizens United

illary Clinton has promised that in her first 30 days as president she will propose a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which she characterized as a “disaster for our democracy.” Because Clinton has a better-than-even chance of being elected president, who am I to argue? The California Legislature is ahead of Clinton. It has placed on the November ballot an advisory measure, Proposition 59, which instructs state officials to use “all their constitutional authority” to overturn the ruling.

IT’S FUNNY how Democrats talk as if Republicans are rolling in dough, while Dems are stuck passing the hat. The opposite often is true, especially this year. As of Aug. 31, the Washington Post reported, pro-Clinton campaigns had raised almost twice as much

money ($795 million) as pro-Trump land for spending buckets on advertisconcerns ($403 million). Bloomberg ing designed to bury him. Quoth The looked at super PAC money on Sept. Donald: “$200 million is spent, and 21 and reported that pro-Clinton super I’m either winning or tied, and I’ve PACs raised $153 million and spent spent practically nothing.” $121 million, while pro-Trump super THAT’S THE dirty little secret PACs raised $16 million and spent $12 campaign spendmillion. That’s the Dems outspending a b o u t ing — it cannot the GOP 10-1. compensate for Where’s the outa bad candidate. rage? According to the Bloomberg Center for Rerecently report(c) 2016, Creators Syndicate sponsive Polied that Clinton tics, Trump won campaigns are out-raising money from billionaires the GOP primary after spending half on a margin of 20-1 against Trump. If the amount that bankrolled the candiClinton wants to do something about dacy of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. the corrupting effect of big money in Florida Sen. Marco Rubio was a good politics, all she has to do is talk to the candidate who outspent Trump, but he could not win his home state. Like it or mirror. It’s a good thing money doesn’t buy not — I’m on the “not” side — Trump popularity. At Monday night’s presi- won the GOP primary because his mesdential debate, Trump ribbed Hillary- sage popped with GOP voters.

Debra J.

Saunders

FREE MARKET: October 5, 2016

Discrimination and segregation

was invited, along with several other American professors, to deliver lectures at South Africa’s University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg in 1979. Pieter Willem Botha was the prime minister, and apartheid, though becoming a bit relaxed, was the law of the land. Under apartheid, intermarriage between blacks, coloureds and Indians on the one hand and whites was prohibited. There was the Group Areas Act, which determined where different races could live. In addition to many other racially discriminatory laws, there were job reservation laws that determined who could hold what jobs by race. My lecture sought to produce the argument that in free market settings, one is apt to observe less racial discrimination because it is costly to both the discriminated and the discriminator. SO MY LECTURE began with this question: Why doesn’t South Africa have a law against elephants flying? Elephants having no radar and understanding of flight procedures would pose a severe air traffic control problem. The answer to my question is quite simple. There is no need for a law banning elephants from flying because elephants cannot fly. Think about South Africa’s Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act of 1949, which banned marriages between people of different races. What about its job reservation laws, which required that only whites be employed in certain occupations, such as blasting, running elevators, driving engines, supervis-

ing boilers and other machinery, supervising people’s shifts, and overseeing mines? A question naturally arises: If white people would not intermarry or if white mine owners would not hire blacks to run mine elevators and other machinery, why in the world would a law banning them from doing so be necessary? The answer is that whenever there is a law on the books, one’s immediate suspicion should be that the law is there because not everyone would behave according to the law’s specifications. In other words, some people would intermarry and some mine owners would hire blacks in those reserved jobs.

Walter

FROM THE 1880s into the 1960s, the majority of American states enforced some form of segregation through what were known as Jim Crow laws. Here’s a tiny sampling of those laws: “It shall be unlawful for a negro and white person to play together or in company with each other at any game of pool or billiards.” “All marriages between a white person and a negro, or between a white person and a person of negro descent to the fourth generation inclusive, are hereby forever prohibited.” “No colored barber shall serve as a barber to white women or girls.” “Separate free schools shall be established for the education

It’s laughable that Clinton is proposing a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United because whoever her Supreme Court picks are, they are bound to oppose Citizens United as Clinton has promised to have a litmus test for her Big Bench picks. There would be no need for a constitutional amendment. The left gets all teary-eyed about the absolute authority in the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare. That ruling is sacrosanct. Citizens United, however, is easy prey — so easy that state lawmakers are invited to venture into deciding federal law. “It’s become a code word for everything you dislike about politics,” Bradley Smith, former Federal Election Commission chair and now chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, told me. The public has come to think that a reversal of Citizens United will end the supersize role of money, especially corporate money, in politics. They forget that the 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy denied the government’s authority to censor a political documentary. The conservative group Citizens United had produced an unflattering 90-minute film called, Hillary: The Movie. The FEC prohibited the film’s airing on pay-perview stations to comply with the 2002 McCain-Feingold ban on “electioneering communications” funded by corporations or labor within 30 days of a presidential primary. If the Big Bench were to overturn Citizens United, Smith added, the court likely will make it “impossible to air a documentary movie close to the election” — whether the filmmaker is Citizens United or Michael Moore — but would not cleanse politics of corporate funds. Jeffrey Toobin reported as much in the New Yorker. “’People use Citizens United as shorthand for all the problems of money in politics, but in fact the decision itself had little to do with money in politics, and reversing it would do little or nothing to remove money in politics,’” Pamela Karlan, a professor at Stanford Law School who also worked in the Obama Justice Department told him.

of children of African descent; and it shall be unlawful for any colored child to attend any white school, or any white child to attend a colored school.” Just as in the case of South Africa, why in the world would a law be required to prevent interracial billiard playing, interracial marriage, a black barber’s fixing the hair of white women or a white student’s attending a black school? Again, the answer is apparent: Not everyone would behave according to the law’s specifications. Some white women would patronize black barbers. Some white men would play billiards with blacks. The bottom line is that racists cannot trust free markets to racially discriminate. Free markets, with their dispersion of power, have little respect for race. Racial solidarity could not prevent white South African businessmen from contravening laws that banned them from hiring blacks in jobs “reserved” for whites. In the U.S., Jim Crow laws were frequently ignored. In South Africa, the U.S. and elsewhere, the private BECAUSE OF all the misinformadesire for profits and other personal gain challenged racial loyalty. Racists tion, expect Californians to approve need the force of government to have Prop. 59. But the measure likely would fail if its effects were characterized success. more accurately. Smith’s suggestion: NOWADAYS, THERE is not much “We should make (Prop. 59) an up-orrespectability for using racism for rig- down vote on whether the government ging the economic game. The more ought to be able to censor political respectable forms that produce similar documentaries.” Voter, beware. A truly results are market-interfering measures apolitical ban wouldn’t apply to consuch as the Davis-Bacon Act, minimum servatives only. wage laws and occupational and business licensing regulations.

Conservative Chronicle

CHICAGO CUBS: October 2, 2016

Why all the love for the Cubs’ consistent failure? ter whom the ballpark is named, even encouraged calling it Cubs Park rather than Wrigley Field because people like going to a park. This, he said, would SOME CUB FANS seem to relish appeal to “people not interested in theories about how curses or karma baseball.” Good grief. Wrigley’s bleachers have destined the Cubs for failure. Acbecame the best tually, for many singles bar on the years the team’s North Side, and the management, ballpark became a having inherited health resort for a dandy ballpark (c) 2016, Washington Post Writers Group visiting teams. but having no Then, in 2009, the clue how to build a good team, decided to market Wrig- Ricketts family, which did not make ley Field’s charms: The grass would be enough money to buy the Cubs by beso green, the ivy so lush, the beer so ing indifferent to excellence, turned cold and the sunshine (there were no the team over to son Tom, who met his night games until 1988) so warm that wife in Wrigley’s bleachers but who is no one would care what the scoreboard agreeably unsentimental about the cult THE MESMERIZING arithmetic said. Phil Wrigley, son of William, af- of futility. of the moment is that the Cubs last won the World Series in 1908, when Teddy LESLIE’S TRIVIA BITS: October 3, 2016 Roosevelt was president. Today the nation that is selecting its 45th president is as distant from 1908 as that year was from the second presidency, that of John Adams. In the sport of the long season, aflanning to name your next tors on a route that took it to Russia, ter playing 162 games in 183 days, a child for your favorite color, France, England and Canada before its team is what its record says it is, and your favorite place, your first safe return to Wawel Castle in Krakow. the Cubs have baseball’s best record. car? Parents in some countries, includRedditch, England, calls itself the This year’s team is vastly more talent- ing Argentina, China, Denmark, Ger- world’s needle-making capital, with a ed than the team that made the Cubs’ many, Iceland and Japan, don’t have heritage of manufacturing needles for last appearance in the World Series, in that option. They must choose a baby sewing that dates back at least to the 1945, when many of the major league’s name deemed acceptable by their gov- 1600s. Needle making was a treacherbest players were still wearing mili- ernment. Some countries specify ac- ous occupation for workers, who could tary uniforms. (The Tigers had enough ceptable spelling as well. For the most become fatally ill from of them to defeat the Cubs in seven part, such regulations exist to protect games.) From 1946 through 2014, just children from being saddled with a before today’s team materialized, the name that could embarrass them or Cubs were 714 games — almost four cause offense to others. and a half 162-game seasons — under (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate .500 (5,095 wins, 5,809 losses). YOU COULD work your entire caEthicists say losing builds character. reer before earning a Nobel Prize, or Cub fans, who are mostly scar tissue, you could find a less labor-intensive breathing in the fine metal dust prosay they already have quite enough way to acquire one. The 1962 medals duced by the sharpening process. Nevcharacter, thank you. Dime-store an- awarded to Francis Crick and James ertheless, by the 19th century, thouthropologists brood about how a Series Watson for their work on DNA and the sands of people in and around Redditch win might puncture the mystique of one given to economist Simon Kuznets were employed making needles, most the “lovable losers.” But what is lov- in 1971 are among the 20 or so that by the firm of Henry Milward & Sons, able about consistent failure? For that, have been sold to buyers at auction. which also did a brisk business in fish Americans have government. American physicist Ernest O. Law- hooks. Some Cub fans, luxuriating in los- rence’s medal for his invention of the ing, have taken a perverse pride in cyclotron was stolen in 2007 and later WONDER WOMAN was the cretheir team’s colorful failures, such as recovered, but the medal awarded to ation of William Moulton Marston, third baseman Don Hoak striking out Indian poet Rabindranath Tagore was who also devised the polygraph, aka six times in a 17-inning game. Or sec- stolen in 2004 and its whereabouts re- the lie detector. (No wonder her arseond baseman Glenn Beckert stranding main a mystery. nal includes the Lasso of Truth!) She 12 runners in a nine-inning game. Or Szczerbiec, “the jagged sword,” is turns 75 this year and the U.S. Postal Lou “The Mad Russian” Novikoff try- the oldest object in the crown jewels of Service is issuing four new commemoing to steal third base — with the bases Poland. It probably was made around rative stamps in her honor. It’s the secloaded. (He explained that he got “a 1250 for a duke known as Boleslaw ond time she’s been featured on U.S. good jump on the pitcher.”) Or short- the Pious. He passed it down to his postage stamps. The first was in 2006. stop Lennie Merullo making four er- daughter Jadwiga. She married the Each year, more than 600 million rors in one inning. (He had a son born future king of Poland, Wladyslaw the (possibly more than one billion) birds that day who was nicknamed Boots.) Elbow-High (obviously not a tall man), in North America die by flying into Or pitcher Dickie Noles being traded who used Szczerbiec at his coronation glass windows. Reflections off closed for himself. (Sent to the Tigers for a ceremony. Over the centuries, it has windows in daytime, and interior and player to be named later, he promptly been stolen, recovered, claimed by for- exterior lighting at night, can make surrendered a bases-loaded triple, so eign powers and sold to private collec- clear glass windows undetectable to “Lots o’ folks confuse bad management with destiny.” — Kin Hubbard The good news, a commodity in short supply, is that Americans are about to get a respite from the inundating Niagara of candidates’ blather. The bad news is that the respite will be a tsunami of Cubs Gush, which will slosh from sea to shining sea. So, brace yourself for a surfeit of dubious sociology and worse metaphysics. There is something about baseball, and especially about the Chicago National League Ball Club, that triggers — consider this column a trigger warning — incontinent rhapsodizing and nonsensical theorizing by otherwise sensible citizens.

the Tigers designated him the player named later and shipped him back to Chicago.)

George

Will

Leslie’s Trivia Bits

Leslie

Elman

SO, ALL YOU purveyors of Cubs Gush, listen up. Referring to Wrigley Field as a “baseball cathedral” should be a flogging offense. It is just a nice little place on the North Side where men (calling major leaguers “boys of summer” should be punishable by keelhauling) work hard at a demanding and dangerous craft. And Cub fans, loyal through thin and thin, you must remember this: Your team at least won the Cold War. For years, it held spring training on Catalina Island near Los Angeles. So, when a Des Moines radio sportscaster named “Dutch” Reagan went to report on them he stopped in Hollywood for a screen test, and the Soviet Union was doomed. So there.

birds in flight. Only habitat loss and cats are responsible for more bird deaths per year. TRIVIA 1. Which Taylor had a lead role in the “Twilight Saga” films? A) Taylor Hawkins B) Taylor Lautner C) Taylor Schilling D) Taylor Swi 2. The vast majority of Nobel Prizes in physiology or medicine have been awarded for research in which field? A) Genetics B) Nutrition C) Parasitology D) Virology 3. According to legend, who gave King Arthur his sword, Excalibur? A) God B) The Lady of the Lake C) Merlin D) Morgan Le Fay 4. Mercerizing cotton thread helps it do what? A) Absorb dye B) Fit through the eye of a needle C) Resist breakage D) Stretch 5. Which is the knot most cowboys use to tie a lasso? A) Carrick bend B) Clove hitch C) Honda knot D) Yosemite bowline 6. Jazz great Charlie Parker is best known for playing which musical instrument? A) Drums B) Piano C) Saxophone D) Trumpet (continued on page 19)

October 12, 2016 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: September 30, 2016

Unorthodox thoughts about the unorthodox debate

realize my biases probably keep me from assessing debates as objectively as some, but I still must dissent a bit from the conventional wisdom on Monday’s TrumpClinton contest. First, as anyone who has consistently read my column knows, I was an ardent supporter of Ted Cruz’s and was often critical of Donald Trump, particularly about his debate performances. But Trump won the Republican nomination, and like many others, I have had to regroup and shift my allegiances. I AM NOW going to vote for Trump — irrespective of my sincere criticisms of him during the primaries — without hesitation, mainly because of the horror I envision with a Hillary Clinton presidency. I relate to the concerns about Trump, but I don’t get the apparent blindness of some to the egregiousness of Clinton. It’s as if their loathing of Trump not only obscures their clarity about Clinton but also, in a bizarre way, inclines them to root for her. I could be wrong; my theory is just speculation based on observation and not so objective as, say, “climate change” science. I actually went into the debate strongly rooting for Trump, which was a surreal impulse for me and one I’d certainly not experienced before. This does not mean, fellow Cruz supporters and others, that I’ve changed my standards or sold out. It’s just that I believe

a Hillary Clinton presidency would be Admittedly, the debate didn’t conindescribably horrendous for America. tinue this way, and Clinton remained I vividly recall many analysts on superficially composed and smooth both sides of this question saying that enough. Trump did miss opportunities, all Trump had to do to win was to look as everyone has said, and he was on the stable, sane and in control and not com- defensive too much as the debate conmit any major gaffes — because when tinued. it comes to Trump and policy, they inOn the other hand, Trump’s defensisted, there are low expectations. siveness may have been triggered by So as the debate began, I sensed that moderator Lester Holt’s one-sidTrump seemed comfortable and, for ed, accusatory questions, him, on his game mostly about perand was doing sonal matters, such just enough parryas the birther issue ing to make Clinand Trump’s tax (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate ton uncomfortreturns. The probable and slightly lem is that Trump off her game. can’t ever seem to resist taking the bait I don’t agree with Trump on certain and is compelled to defend himself issues — especially trade — so I am against personal criticism, to the point not favorably disposed toward his argu- of distraction on the substantive issues ments about NAFTA or China, among and to his overall detriment. If he could other things. That aside, Clinton had no overcome that fatal temptation before answer and was uncomfortable. I also the next debate, it could make a signifithought Trump scored against her in cant difference. making the case that taxes and regulaUsing a conventional debate yardtions are smothering the economy, jobs stick, Trump didn’t do that great. But and businesses, though he should have so what? The experts told us he didn’t been more relentless. Clinton had no need to. He didn’t do that poorly, either. explanation for that, either, except the He actually did much better than I extired argument that George W. Bush pected. He managed to challenge Clincaused it eight years ago — because he ton on many points — both offensively happened to be in office when the finan- and defensively — without losing his cial meltdown, mainly caused by do- cool or being disrespectful. It could gooder liberal housing policies, almost be that his advisers had convinced wrecked the economy, and none of it is him that calmness in demeanor would Obama’s fault, simply because nothing be more important. But next time, he is ever his fault. Can you believe these should seize on Clinton’s countless people? weaknesses.

David

Limbaugh

SO THOUGH I don’t disagree that Trump could have been less defensive and more offensive in going after Clinton on her vulnerabilities, he did pretty much what the analysts said he needed to do — i.e., satisfy low expectations — but they refused to use that standard after the debate. More troubling, though, is that they gave Clinton too much of a pass. They seemed mesmerized by her preparation and smoothness, especially in contrast with Trump’s. But why is this newsworthy? Did they not see the phony smile plastered on Clinton’s face to match her phony demeanor? Did they miss her dripping condescension? Did they fail to catch wrongheaded and tired policy arguments — even if they were smoothly delivered? How about her incessant lying? What difference does it make if Clinton speaks glibly when her unctuous words are so objectionable? Does it not bother the analysts that Clinton engaged in disgraceful race baiting, gender shaming and class warfare all night or that she didn’t offer any solutions to the perpetual economic malaise we’re in because of policies she endorses? Does it not bother them that Holt didn’t press her on her many weaknesses and scandals, such as Benghazi and emails — not to mention the economy and debt? Yes, we expect unfairness from liberal moderators, but that doesn’t mean we should quit pointing it out — especially as we analyze respective debate performances. So let’s acknowledge that Trump should have capitalized on Clinton’s liabilities and been less defensive. But you all never expected him to, so how about holding yourselves to your own standard of assessment? Moreover, focusing on Trump’s failure to perform at a level you weren’t demanding of him in the first place clouds your vision about the bogusness of Clinton’s case, her smarminess and her lack of authenticity. Conventionally scored, Trump may have lost handily, but in the end, I doubt the electorate views these debates — especially during this unorthodox presidential year — the same way as do college debate judges, who don’t care a whit about likability, smugness, disingenuousness or the advocacy of failed policies, as long as positions are competently delivered. I am aware of the post-debate polls supposedly showing Clinton trounced him, but I remain unconvinced. I MAY WELL be too biased against Clinton to adequately evaluate the debate, but I am not the only one whose predispositions interfere with objective analysis.

October 12, 2016

What the debate tells about how they would govern

the world’s highest corporate tax would stifle growth to some greater or lesser extent. Her policies are based on pathetically weak economic theories: That the 2001-03 tax cuts caused the 2007 financial collapse; that “clean energy” will power every home cheaply and reliably; and that “trickle down” never works. This looks like stuff concocted to attract Bernie Sanders voters. And little of it is likely to be enacted if, as just about every expert predicts, Republicans mainHILLARY CLINTON started off tain their majority in the House. A President Clinton could do more with a laundry list of incremental economic programs — none of which would damage on other fronts. She wants federal promote economic growth. Some have “retraining” of local police and attributes already been legislated (equal pay for racial disparities in law enforcement to temic racism” rather women, 1963), others are tilted to the “ s y s than to well-known upscale (debt-free racial disparities college). A posin criminal behavsible exception: ior. Encouraging The Trans-Pacific grievances against Partnership trade (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate police has already agreement, which she has renounced but which she might, produced riots and increases in murder as Donald Trump predicted, manage to and violent crime. Central cities were ripped apart for decades after the 1960s. find acceptable once elected. What about the “investments” she Clinton might set the process in motion called for? Infrastructure spending em- again. On foreign policy Clinton endorses ploys a few high-skill workers and may, some day, provide facilities. Other “in- the Iran deal as a “lid” on its nuclear vestments” usually turn out to be sub- weapons program, rather than the roadsidies for Democratic-supporting public way it is, and promises victory over ISIS employee unions. Revive the economy in a year or so. Let’s hope. But her main by building solar panels? The govern- case here, one with some foundation, is ment tried that with Solyndra and lost the ignorance and possible recklessness of her opponent. $535 million. From Donald Trump’s debate perOf course, Clinton’s sharply higher individual tax rates and maintenance of formance emerge clues that she may ou’ve heard and read by now lots of spin and speculation about who won and where the polls are going to move after Monday’s presidential debate. We’ll know the answers to these questions soon. The more important question for the long run is how each of these candidates would govern. The debate provides no certain answers to that question, but it does offer some useful clues.

Michael

Barone

be right. He returned repeatedly to his promises to tear up trade agreements and impose tariffs — would Congress vote them? — on imports. He continued to suggest he wouldn’t defend allies if they don’t spend more on defense. That’s something every administration seeks, but it’s Sisyphus’ work, doomed to frustration — because American leaders, at least till now, recognized that America benefits hugely from having free people and free markets around the world. SEVERAL TIMES in the debate, when his business success or personal behavior was challenged, Trump was distracted into self-harming monologues.

On the Iraq War, instead of discussing a dozen-year-old Sean Hannity interview, he could have simply said he opposed it before Clinton did. On the birther issue, a brief apology would do. Instead he chewed up time when he could have noted that Clinton would shut down almost all fracking — the one thing that has increased energy supplies and cut emissions and prices in the Obama years. And he might keep up with the news. A recent government report showed increased illegal southern-border crossings. Last week, former Mexican Foreign Secretary Jorge Castaneda noted that a President Trump actually could make Mexicans pay for a wall there. On Monday morning the FBI announced that murders rose 11 percent in 2015. These things support Trump’s arguments. He failed to mention them. Numerous commentators pointed out that Clinton seemed better prepared than Trump and spoke more coherently — something that appeals to us in the chattering classes. But both candidates’ performances suggest underperformance as president. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and (some would add) Barack Obama came to office with intellectually serious and achievable platforms. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump would. Clinton, as the email scandal reveals, cocoons herself in a very tight circle of sycophants. She prepares doggedly, but the homework she turns in is plodding and intellectually shoddy. Trump, as his campaign reveals, has shrewd insights but also vast areas of ignorance and seems too lazy to be anything but his improvisatory self. CLINTON SEEMS too contrived to be a good president, and Trump seems too undisciplined. It’s your choice Nov. 8. September 30, 2016

This Week’s Conservative Focus

Presidential Debate

No camouflage for character in the first debate

off memorized facts and figures to show give away a lot of other people’s money herself as the class grind. Everyone and take credit for it. But the debaters this week were not knew she was on her way to an elite college in leafy New England, to begin a really teenagers, despite more flashes climb that would lead to Washington, as of adolescent awkwardness than mofoolish as such a dream might have been ments of polished maturity. They were in those benighted days, when women presidential candidates, speaking to diences drawn from aspired to the Mrs. degree — no gradu- eager auevery corner of the ate school needed. country. One was Against her colorful and enterwas the teenager taining, the other drawing attention grim and deterwith a smart-aleck (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate mined — both wit, shunning grin living up to their and intellectual insight. He would get all the laughs by teenage promise. One offers ideas with reducing the grind to the butt of jokes. belligerent, half-baked flair, the other He was on his way to a business degree well-researched snark. and the big bucks. No one would have THE SPLIT-SCREEN close-ups THERE WAS the perky girl, the guessed that one of them would grow up brightest in the class, who would never to make a lot of money and give some of showed them both as unkind and unwin a popularity contest but could rattle it away, and the other would grow up to generous. Neither grew more likable o much anticipation, so little satisfaction. So much hype, so little substance. The first debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump was advertised as a championship fight between two eager brawlers. Both were expected to find the other’s weak spot, hammer away, punch, counterpunch and finally knock the other out. But this was no Rumble in the Jungle — when Muhammad Ali beat George Foreman with a dazzling knockout. It wasn’t even a Thrilla in Manila, where The Greatest won by a TKO over Joe Frazier. But there were a lot of disappointed political fans, who thought they were going to a fight and got a debate between two high school seniors.

Suzanne

Fields

Advice for the second debate

onald Trump scored a gentleman’s “C” in his first debate with Hillary Clinton. She was programmed, like one of those androids from the film Westworld, spewing out well-rehearsed sound bites, smiling (sometimes condescendingly), and even tossing in a few wiggles. It was all designed to make her look warm and wonderful. As the saying goes, if you can fake sincerity, you can fake anything.

TRUMP DID best when he didn’t focus on himself and this is the pattern he should follow in the next two debates. As a seasoned debater, who has taken on professors and liberal thinkers on campuses from Harvard, Dartmouth and Yale in the east, to the University of California, Davis in the west, I think I can say without too much hubris that I know how to destroy a bad argument. Let’s start with the race issue. Hillary Clinton slammed Trump for comments she regards as racist. If she tries that again, Trump should extend the road he began to walk down Monday night. He was right to say that his opponent and her party have had decades to repair the racial divide (which President Obama suggested he would do), but that chasm has only widened over the last eight years. Real racism, Trump should say, is refusing to allow minority children in failing public schools to escape them in favor of better ones simply because many teachers’ unions oppose school choice and contribute significantly to the Democratic Party. Trump should take on the issue of poverty and propose a public-private

partnership with churches and religious institutions that would be assigned an individual in need of help. These churches then would do all that was necessary to help that person escape poverty, including offering financial advice, access to education or even baby-sitting services so that this person could go to school. Retiring baby boomers could find new purpose in life by helping someone become independent of government programs, which have cost a lot, but have done little to reduce the number of poor.

Cal

TRUMP SHOULD ask Hillary Clinton why she thinks government is the answer to so many of the nation’s problems when in reality it has too often caused or contributed to this country’s ills. She wants to grow government even more, spending additional billions in borrowed money, mortgaging the futures of generations to come. Remember when Democrats decried debt? That was when a Republican occupied the White House. Again, during Monday’s debate, Trump started to make the case for success in business and in life, but he made it more about himself than others. Americans are inspired by stories of people who have overcome obstacles and Trump should not only tell their stories, he should start featuring them in his political ads and on stage with him — as he has done with vet-

erans. Inspiration has always been the fuel that ignites economic and personal growth. One subject we didn’t hear discussed in the first debate was the Constitution. Hillary Clinton said she believes in a “living Constitution,” meaning it is open to interpretation by liberal judges to fit the times. What does Trump believe about our founding document? On nuclear weapons, Trump needs to embrace Ronald Reagan’s view (and that of President Obama) that they need to be reduced, especially in rogue regimes. Talk of using such weapons is irresponsible, though our adversaries must believe we would use them if attacked. The prospect of mutually assured destruction during the Cold War ensured nuclear weapons would not be used. Extremist regimes, like Iran, do not appear to fear a nuclear apocalypse. Lastly, how about appealing to personal accountability and responsibility in the second debate? Let’s hear about entitlement reform, entitlements being the main driver of debt. As I have argued, government should be a last resort, not a first resource — a safety net, not a hammock. MORE THAN missing emails and Hillary Clinton’s character (which is already fixed in the minds of most people) voters want to hear about subjects that will affect their lives. It’s about us, more than them. If Trump can close that deal, he is likely to score a “B” in the next debate. If he scores higher, he just might win in November. September 29, 2016

as the debate descended deeper into the night, the camera’s headshots searching for clue and insight, as if reaction was more important than action. But neither Trump’s sniffles, which could be blamed on coming down with a cold (he said it was a defective microphone) nor Clinton’s strained gaze, which she gave as if she had to prove she was brighteyed and cough-free, detracted from the colliding fact and fib on the screen. He didn’t look at his watch, as George H. W. Bush did during a debate with Bill Clinton. But the Donald looked as if he were wishing it were over. It might have been better for him if it had been. He landed early punches about trade and the economy, which were largely unanswered. He was playing nice, no doubt having been coached to go against type. She was the nasty one, especially at the end, when she repeated his infamous put-downs of women he called by name. He was having none of that this time. He was magnanimous in the moment, turning the other cheek and resisting the bully’s temptation to retaliate with a cruel but telling comment. This was not a fight for a counterpuncher. The Donald will never be the debater that Clinton invariably shows herself to be. She speaks in polished sentences that always sound practiced; he speaks in disjointed sentences with lots of dashes and exclamation points. But presidential debates are not debates at all but rather talking points writ large. This can sometimes frame the larger issues, where he does better. The first 30 minutes on Monday night were about the subjects he knows best: Trade and jobs. SHE CATALOGUED policy particulars, and he trumped with the big themes, the biggest of all being his rejection of the status quo. He wants to shake things up, and she’s out to keep things pretty much as they are, in a year when “it’s the status quo, stupid.” Trump’s best retort on a night without a memorable line was his rebuke of her promise to create jobs and prosperity: “She’s been doing this for 30 years. And why hasn’t she made the agreements better?” She’s the insider who’s comfortable in the status quo; he’s the outsider eager to get in. And his followers see him as the outsider who can change how Washington works. Her reputation as a woman loose with the truth inspires no confidence. Neither does his bluster and rough talk. The debate did not change those perceptions. In ancient history, the suspicion of public figures was fear that eloquence would hide attempts to manipulate, that fluent speech would camouflage character. There was nothing to fear this week. September 30, 2016

Conservative Chronicle

2016 ELECTION: October 4, 2016

Courts hang in the balance of the election

eventy percent of the federal judiciary has now been appointed by liberal Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Four or eight more years of a liberal president such as Hillary Clinton would establish Leftist dominance of the third branch of government for the foreseeable future. That is not something any working American, Republican or Democrat, should want. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently divided evenly at 4 to 4 between Democratic and Republican nominees, and the split is really 5 to 3 in favor of liberals on important social issues about which Justice Kennedy sides with the Left. The vacancy of Justice Antonin Scalia, the conservative appointed by Ronald Reagan, hangs in the balance with this upcoming presidential election. IN ADDITION to filling Justice Scalia’s vacancy, the next president could fill several additional Supreme Court seats during his term. Every conservative decision that was rendered by a 5-4 or even 6-3 vote could be overruled, such as the 5-4 D.C. v. Heller decision that recognized an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. Donald Trump promised Phyllis Schlafly that he would nominate justices like the late Justice Scalia to the U.S. Supreme Court, which she repeated when she endorsed him on March 11th. Last month Trump made a special trip to give a eulogy at Phyllis’s funeral, so there is

no reason to doubt his promise to her about appointing Scalia-like Justices to the Court. A victory by Trump would prevent the Supreme Court from ordering taxpayerfunded abortion, which was averted by a mere 5-4 vote in the decision of Harris v. McRae (1980). The stopping of the Equal Rights Amendment by Phyllis Schlafly prevented liberals from obtaining a constitutional right to taxpayerfunded abortion, but if Hillary Clinton wins then she would appoint a fifth vote to overturn the Hyde Amendment and begin requiring federal funding of abortions nationwide. Many lower court vacancies are also up for grabs, though they are given less attention by the media. There are two vacancies on each of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third, Fifth and Seventh Circuits, and vacancies on the Fourth and Eighth Circuits too. Despite how the federal judiciary depends so heavily on the outcome of this presidential election, there was not a single question about this important issue in the first presidential debate. Moreover, as Donald Trump pointed out, Hillary did not even mention the concept of “law and order” in her response to a debate question to her about violence. THE GOOD news is that the public may not be fooled by the denial by the mainstream media of the immense impact this election will have on the courts. The turnout by the public to hear Donald Trump at his events has been

nearly 30 times the turnout to listen to Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric. Since the national political conventions were held in July, an estimated 337,995 have attended rallies by Donald Trump. Fewer than 5% of that total — a meager 13,970 — have been at rallies held by Hillary Clinton during the same period, and on Saturday Trump filled an auditorium in Pennsylvania that is called the largest indoor sports complex in the country. Obama won Pennsylvania by more than five percentage points in 2012, and by more than ten points in 2008. Before Trump came along with his emphasis on making America great again, and end-

ing disastrous trade deals, Democrats considered Pennsylvania to be a safe 20 Electoral College votes in their favor. But Pennsylvania is very much in play, and polls show nearly a tie between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump there. As Trump remarked to his overflow crowd in Pennsylvania, if he wins there then he will be in great shape to win nationwide. Pennsylvania has suffered from the Obama Administration’s actions against coal and other traditional energy sources, policies that Hillary Clinton would surely continue. Trump, on the other hand, has indicated his support for all forms of energy, including coal. One of Justice Scalia’s last official acts before he unexpectedly passed away was to provide the fifth vote for a 5-4 decision to block burdensome new environmental regulations by the Obama Administration that are opposed by 29 States. But if Hillary Clinton fills Justice Scalia’s vacancy, then the Court would shift to uphold onerous environmental energy regulations despite opposition by the vast majority of States. The hard-fought Hobby Lobby decision, which established by a 5-4 vote a right to religious liberty by family-owned businesses, would also be lost if Hillary Clinton wins. She would surely replace Justice Scalia with a new justice who opposes the Hobby Lobby outcome. DONALD TRUMP has promised to appoint judges who will respect the Constitution. With the judiciary hanging in the balance this election, that is compelling reason enough to vote for Trump. John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) whose 27th book, The Conservative Case for Trump, was published posthumously on September 6.

October 12, 2016 DEAR MARK: September 30, 2016

Hillary endorsements, voter fraud, soda taxes DEAR MARK: I have been through a lot of elections in my lifetime (I voted for Nixon in ‘68) but this one takes the cake. Now traditionally conservative leaning newspapers are endorsing Hillary over Trump. I can understand if newspapers don’t like Trump but to go completely to the opposite end of the spectrum defies logic? Why are they endorsing Hillary if they are supposed to be conservative? — Loss for Words Dear Loss: Sadly several major newspapers including the Dallas Morning News, the Cincinnati Enquirer and the Arizona Republic have gone against their traditional conservative presidential choices and endorsed Hillary Clinton in this election. Having previously served on an editorial board, I’ve learned that the word conservative is a relative term in the context of the media. I’ve known editors that thought just because they weren’t a communist they could somehow claim the conservative mantle.Well maybe if they were at Berkley or MSNBC. In the Arizona Republic’s endorsement the editorial read “Since the Arizona Republic began publication in 1890 we have never endorsed a Democrat. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideas and Republican principles.” The editorial also referred to Donald Trump as “beneath our national dignity.” As you said, I also can understand how some people may not agree with the style and substance of Trump but to act as if Hillary is somehow closer to the principles of conservatism is laughable. Once again Hillary might appear conservative if she were at Berkley or MSNBC.

The Dallas Morning News endorsement included the following: “Clinton has remained dogged by questions about her honesty, her willingness to shade the truth. Her use of a private email server while secretary of state is a clear example of poor judgment. She should take additional steps to divorce allegations of influence peddling from the Clinton Foundation. And she must be more forthright with the public by holding news conferences, as opposed to relying on a shield of carefully scripted appearances and speeches.”

Mark

With that line alone the Dallas Morning News just discredited its own endorsement. If the editors at these rags were as conservative as they claim they could have easily written editorials expressing their displeasure with both major party candidates or perhaps endorsed one of the independents in the race. But sadly it’s fashionable in the media world to bash Trump at all costs. After all. even editors at the more conservative newspapers want to attend cocktail parties with their liberal brethren. DEAR MARK: I just read about the dead people registering to vote in Virginia. Please explain to me how voter I.D. is not warranted. — The Walking Dead Dear Walking: Liberal opponents of voter ID laws play fast with the language to claim that this technically does not constitute voter

fraud because there’s no voting taking place. Hence their claims that voter fraud doesn’t exist. There are examples of registration fraud taking place all across the country which is why we need voter ID laws to catch the perps at the polls before they can vote for Hillary.

DEAR MARK: The fruits and nuts in California are at it again. San Francisco is proposing a soda tax of one cent per ounce on soda pops. The cost of living here in California is high enough without adding more ridiculous taxes. Don’t you agree? — Not California Dreamin’ Dear California: Ronald Reagan, perhaps the most distinguished Californian in history, famously said when referring to how government operates, “If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. And if it stops moving subsidize it.” It’s ironic that liberal Californians want the government out of the bedroom and a woman’s private parts but they’re more than happy to have the government tell them what to eat, drink, drive, build, say and what kind of bag they can use to carry their groceries. It’s also ironic that San Francisco demonizes processed sugar but promotes its sex clubs, homelessness, and its sanctuary city status. So let me get this straight; in San Francisco you can be a heroin addict and receive free needles but if you’re a healthy individual you’ll be taxed to the heavens for having a root beer with lunch. I’m sorry Mr. Reagan. E-mail your questions to marklevy92@ aol.com. Follow Mark on Twitter @MarkPLevy

CONTACT INFORMATION Individual Contact Information Fields - suzannefields2000@gmail.com Greenberg - pgreenberg@arkansasonline.com Krauthammer - letters@charleskrauthammer.com Levy - marklevy92@aol.com Lowry - comments.lowry@nationalreview.com Malkin - malkinblog@gmail.com Massie - mychalmassie@gmail.com Napolitano - freedomwatch@foxbusiness.com Saunders - dsaunders@sfchronicle.com Thomas - tmseditors@tribune.com Will - georgewill@washpost.com Contact through Creators Syndicate Michael Barone, Austin Bay, Brent Bozell, Pat Buchanan, Mona Charen, Linda Chavez, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, Larry Elder, Leslie Elman, Joseph Farah, David Harsanyi, Laura Hollis, Terry Jeffrey, Larry Kudlow, David Limbaugh, Dick Morris, William Murchison, Dennis Prager, Ben Shapiro, Thomas Sowell Contact - info@creators.com Contact through Universal Press Ann Coulter or Donald Lambro Contact by mail : c/o Universal Press Syndicate 1130 Walnut Street Kansas City, MO 64106 Answers from page 14

TRIVIA ANSWERS T rivia B I T S

ANSWERS 1) Taylor Lautner starred as Jacob in the “Twilight Saga” film series. 2) The Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine has been awarded most often in the field of genetics. 3) The Lady of the Lake, sometimes called Nimue, gave King Arthur his sword, Excalibur. 4) Mercerizing thread increases its ability to absorb dye. 5) A honda knot is used to tie a lasso. 6) Charlie Parker was one of the all-time great jazz saxophone players.

Need to make a correction on your mailing label? Contact us at 800-888-3039 or conserve@iowaconnect.com

Conservative Chronicle

ILLEGAL VOTES: October 5, 2016

Will illegal foreign voters steal the election? Kris Kobach, fought in court for his state’s right to require citizenship documents from people who register to vote at motor vehicle offices. Last month, a federal appeals court struck down the Kansas law despite the U.S. Constitution’s conferral of responsibility for determining who may vote to states. In a scene straight out of Alice in Wonderland, Kobach faced a contempt hearing for battling against those who hold contempt for truly free and fair elecFORMER COLORADO Secre- tions. He was forced to sign an agreetary of State Scott Gessler identified ment with the ACLU allowing more nearly 5,000 noncitizens in Colorado than 18,000 motor-voter registrants to who voted in the 2010 general election. cast ballots this November while litigaGessler’s office uncovered upwards of tion continues. Last year, undercover investigative 12,000 noncitizens registered to vote. Liberal groups who oppose stronger journalist James O’Keefe and his Projtas team blew the election system protections attacked ect Veriwhistle on North him for trying to Carolina politiverify citizenship cal operatives who status — because encouraged people God forbid pubto vote even if lic officials sworn (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate they were noncitito uphold the rule zens. Like Kobach, of law actually do anything to enhance the integrity of our O’Keefe endures attacks on his efforts to ensure clean elections by grievanceelection system! Compounding the problem: The mil- mongers screaming about phony voter itant immigration expansionist group “disenfranchisement.” Never mind that Mi Familia Vota, connected with the a nonpartisan study in 2014 from Old Service Employees International Union, Dominion University concluded “that has ramped up its efforts in swing states 6.4 percent of noncitizens voted in 2008 to facilitate naturalization and registra- and 2.2 percent of noncitizens voted in tion of Latino voters who will promote 2010.” Put on your shocked faces: These ilthe open-borders agenda at the polls. Another rare defender of American legal noncitizen voters overwhelmingly sovereignty, Kansas Secretary of State supported Democrats. And their votes “It could all come down to Colorado.” That’s the latest conventional wisdom from presidential poll watchers. But it may not be legal American citizens in my adopted home state who choose the next commander in chief. Instead, it could very well be foreign noncitizens voting illegally in the Rocky Mountains — and in other crucial swing states — who seal our country’s fate.

Michelle

Malkin

were enough to tilt the presidential election results in North Carolina to President Obama, along with handing over “Democratic victories in congressional races including a critical 2008 Senate race (Al Franken’s victory in Minnesota) that delivered for Democrats a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.” THE ACLU and other left-wing groups sabotaging voter integrity laws see no voter fraud, hear no voter fraud and speak no voter fraud. Thanks to their efforts, voter ID laws have been tossed in Texas, Wis. and N.C.. Committed to flooding the voting rolls with every last potential Democrat constituent, their op-

erational motto is: No unqualified voter left behind. But J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department election lawyer in the Voting Rights Section, has exposed the systemic assault on the election process at every level by activist groups funded by liberal billionaire George Soros, including: — Blocking citizenship verification. — Automatic voter registration of welfare recipients without local verification checks — Massive foreign language ballot expansion. — Obstruction of efforts to include state qualification instructions on voter registration forms. This past week, the Public Interest Law Foundation uncovered thousands of foreign aliens registered to vote in swing states Virginia and Pennsylvania thanks to the federal Motor Voter law. It’s the tip of the iceberg because the studies include just a small sample of counties. Oh, Virginia voters, you’ll be thrilled to know that your top election officials are now trying to cover up the true extent of the scandal. PILF noted that the commissioner of the Virginia Department of Elections issued a written guidance to local election officials instructing them “not to respond to our requests for records pertaining to non-citizen voters.” In Pennsylvania, election officials are so apathetic and incompetent that even when aliens begged to get off the voter rolls because they had never registered to vote in the first place, they were ignored. Catherine Engelbrecht of election integrity activist group True the Vote is right: “Just voting isn’t enough.” KEEPING THIS republic depends on the vigilance of citizens committed to an almost impossible task these days: Making American elections American again.

October 12, 2016 2016 ELECTION: September 30, 2016

When facts, logic and history don’t matter

Take the most striking — and over- given you nothing. I will give you evlooked — moment of Trump’s GOP erything.” Everything, mind you. “I will give convention speech. He actually promised that under him, “the crime and you what you’ve been looking for for violence that today afflicts our nation 50 years.” No laughter recorded. In launching his African-American will soon — and I mean very soon — outreach at a speech in Charlotte, Trump come to an end.” catalogued the horrors that he believes Not “be reduced.” End. Humanity has been at this since, oh, define black life in America today. Then ised: “I will fix it.” Hammurabi. But the audience didn’t p r o m How primitive have laugh. It applaudour politics become? ed. Fix what? Family Nor was this structure? Social mere spur of the inheritance? Selfmoment hyper(c) 2016, Washington Post Writers Group destructive habits? bole. Trump was How? He doesn’t reading from a IN A MAN who doesn’t even drink teleprompter. As he was a few weeks say. He’ll will it. Trust him, as he likes coffee? This campaign is sinking to earlier when he told a conference in to say. After 15 months, the suspension of somewhere between zany and totally North Dakota, “Politicians have used you and stolen your votes. They have disbelief has become so ubiquitous that insane. Is there a bottom? nd now, less than six weeks from the election, what is the main event of the day? A fight between the GOP presidential nominee and a former Miss Universe, whom he had 20 years ago called Miss Piggy and other choice pejoratives. Just a few weeks earlier, we were seized by a transient hysteria over a minor Hillary Clinton lung infection hyped to near-mortal status. The latest curiosity is Donald Trump’s 37 sniffles during the first presidential debate. (People count this sort of thing.) Dr. Howard Dean has suggested a possible cocaine addiction.

Charles

Krauthammer

EDUCATION: October 4, 2016

Dunbar High School after 100 years

ne hundred years ago, on October 2, 1916, a new public high school building for black youngsters was opened in Washington, D.C. and named for black poet Paul Laurence Dunbar. Its history is a story inspiring in many ways and appalling in many other ways. Prior to 1916, the same high school had existed under other names, housed in other buildings — and with a remarkable academic record.

IN 1899, when it was called “the M Street School,” a test was given in Washington’s four academic public high schools, three white and one black. The black high school scored higher than two of the three white high schools. Today, it would be considered Utopian even to set that as a goal, much less expect to see it happen. The M Street School had neither of two so-called “prerequisites” for quality education. There was no “diversity.” It was an all-black school from its beginning, and on through its life as a high quality institution under the name Dunbar High School. But its days as a high quality institution ended abruptly in the middle of the 1950s. After that, it became just another failing ghetto school. The other so-called “prerequisite” that the M Street School lacked was an adequate building. Its student body was 50 percent larger than the building’s capacity, a fact that led eventually to the new Dunbar High School building. But its students excelled even in their overcrowded building. Some students at the M Street School began going to some of the leading col-

leges in the country in the late 19th century. The first of its graduates to go to Harvard did so in 1903. Over the years from 1892 to 1954, thirty-four of the graduates from the M Street School and Dunbar went on to Amherst. Of these, 74 percent graduated from Amherst and 28 percent of these graduates were Phi Beta Kappas. Other graduates from M Street High School and Dunbar became Phi Beta Kappas at Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth and other elite institutions.

Thomas

GRADUATES OF this same high school pioneered as the first black in many places. These included the first black man to graduate from Annapolis, the first black woman to receive a Ph.D. from an American institution, the first black federal judge, the first black general, the first black Cabinet member and, among other notables, a doctor who became internationally renowned for his pioneering work in developing the use of blood plasma. How could all of this come to an abrupt end in the 1950s? Like many other disasters, it began with good intentions and arbitrary assumptions. When Chief Justice Earl Warren declared in the landmark 1954 case of “Brown v. Board of Education” that racially separate schools were “inherently unequal,” Dunbar High School was a living refutation of that assumption. And it was within walking distance of the Supreme Court.

A higher percentage of Dunbar graduates went on to college than the percentage at any white public high school in Washington. But what do facts matter when there is heady rhetoric and crusading zeal? There is no question that racially segregated schools in the South provided an inadequate education for blacks. But the assumption that racial “integration” was the answer led to years of racial polarization and turmoil over busing, with little, if any, educational improvement. For Washington, the end of racial segregation led to a political compromise, in which all schools became neighborhood schools. Dunbar, which had been accepting outstanding black students from anywhere in the city, could now accept only students from the rough ghetto neighborhood in which it was located. Virtually overnight, Dunbar became a typical ghetto school. As unmotivated, unruly and disruptive students flooded in, Dunbar teachers began moving out and many retired. More than 80 years of academic excellence simply vanished into thin air. Nobody, black or white, mounted any serious opposition. “Integration” was the cry of the moment, and it drowned out everything else. That is what happens in politics. TODAY, THERE is a new Dunbar High School building, costing more than $100 million. But its graduates go on to college at only about half the rate of Dunbar graduates in earlier and poorer times. Politics can deliver costly “favors,” even when it cannot deliver quality education.

we hardly notice anymore. We are operating in an alternate universe where the geometry is non-Euclidean, facts don’t matter, history and logic have disappeared. GOING INTO the first debate, Trump was in a virtual tie for the lead. The bar for him was set almost comically low. He had merely to (1) suffer no major meltdown and (2) produce just a few moments of coherence. He cleared the bar. In the first halfhour, he established the entire premise of his campaign. Things are bad and she’s been around for 30 years. You like bad? Stick with her. You want change? I’m your man. It can’t get more elemental than that. At one point, Clinton laughed and ridiculed Trump for trying to blame her for everything that’s ever happened. In fact, that’s exactly what he did. With some success. By conventional measures — poise, logic, command of the facts — she won the debate handily. But when it comes to moving the needle, conventional measures don’t apply this year. What might, however, move the needle is not the debate itself but the time bomb Trump left behind. His great weakness is his vanity. He is temperamentally incapable of allowing any attack on his person to go unavenged. He is particularly sensitive on the subject of his wealth. So central to his self-image is his business acumen that in the debate he couldn’t resist the temptation to tout his cleverness on taxes. To an audience of 86 million, he appeared to concede that he didn’t pay any. “That makes me smart,” he smugly interjected. Big mistake. The next day, Clinton offered the obvious retort: “If not paying taxes makes him smart, what does that make all the rest of us?” Meanwhile, Trump has been going around telling Rust Belt workers, on whom his Electoral College strategy hinges and who might still believe that billionaires do have some obligation to pay taxes, that “I am your voice.” When gaffes like this are committed, the candidate either doubles down (you might say that if you can legally pay nothing, why not, given how corrupt the tax code is) or simply denies he ever said anything of the sort. Indeed, one of the more remarkable features of this campaign is how brazenly candidates deny having said things that have been captured on tape, such as Clinton denying she ever said the Trans-Pacific Partnership was the gold standard of trade deals. THE ONLY thing more amazing is how easily they get away with it.

Conservative Chronicle

SPACE LAUNCH: September 29, 2016

Will Musk launch for Mars off taxpayers’ backs?

lon Musk delivered a muchanticipated speech Tuesday at the 67th International Astronautical Congress in Guadalajara, Mexico, where he laid out his vision for colonizing Mars. There’s no doubt that taming our celestial neighbor would be a testament to human innovation and determination. Today, however, it might be more impressive if Musk could provide a vision for how his companies can succeed here on Earth first, especially without heavy reliance on taxpayer support.

SPACEX, founded by Musk in 2002, has never hid its ambition to one day enable people to live on other planets. In the meantime, the company has relied on income from the more mundane business of launching payloads into space with its Falcon 9 rockets. Earlier this year, SpaceX won an $82.7 million Air Force contract by promising to save taxpayers millions of dollars. (The bid was 40 percent less than what the government had estimated the mission would cost.) Cost savings are great, but only if they materialize. It’s too soon to tell, but as of now, the probability isn’t zero that SpaceX’s super-cheap launch cost will be illusory, especially if its rockets — and their expensive cargoes — keep blowing up. Last month, a Falcon 9 rocket blew up on the launchpad, taking with it a $200 million communications satellite commissioned for Facebook. American taxpayers should be thankful it wasn’t one of the Air Force launches. But now, with two major Falcon 9 explosions — the first occurring last year and costing NASA (i.e., taxpayers) $110 million — it’s worth at least considering whether Musk sold the military a lemon. Having won government support with the promise of cheaper launches — and with some backroom help from Sen. John McCain, who has a soft spot for his favorite liberal donor’s American-made rockets — SpaceX hoped to continue gobbling up military contracts and add to the billions it’s already making off NASA. But that plan is now in doubt, or at least it should be. Contractor competition is desirable, but with such expensive cargo on the line, any competent cost-benefit calculation has to compare the odds of catastrophic failure and not simply rely on the upfront bid price. For instance, United Launch Alliance, the maker of the Atlas V, offered launch capacity for roughly $120 million, which is much more than SpaceX’s $60 million. That said, ULA also has a sterling record of more than 100 launches with a perfect success rate. The cost of an explosion goes beyond the cost of another launch because it requires a time delay and the replacement of the cargo (some of which will be paid for by insurance). That means that consecutive explosions could very quickly add to the expense.

IN OTHER words, on the issue of three of his companies have benefited cost, the jury is still out. Though the heavily from taxpayers. Yet despite pressure put on the competition by Musk generous green energy handouts, his is a good thing and though ULA has defi- SolarCity is heavily indebted. He now nitely been challenged to look at its cost, wants to merge it with his electric car taxpayers must still ask what would hap- company, Tesla Motors, which also from almost $1.3 bilpen if the promised cost savings were benefited lion in subsidies. not to materialize. Solidifying his Government isn’t crony credentials, known to correct the epitome of its mistakes when crony capitalism cost overruns oc(c) 2016, Creators Syndicate itself, the Exportcur. Of course, lawmakers can always hide behind the Import Bank of the United States, has McCain argument that ULA’s Atlas V is subsidized the payloads for numerous powered by a Russian RD-180 engine, SpaceX launches. The Ex-Im Bank’s which he believes creates a security risk. chairman misrepresented this as supBut many others, including those in the port for “small business.” When it comes to colonizing Mars, military, disagree that the switch is withit’s easy to get swept up in Musk’s viout cost and consequences. Musk is no stranger to cozy relations sion. Commercial space flight has a with federal and state governments. All bright future, but that future shouldn’t

Veronique

de Rugy

be built on the backs of taxpayers. Yet it’s hard to see how SpaceX is ready to self-finance such a bold mission without heavy government involvement. THERE’S NO doubt that Musk is an impressive salesman and innovator. The government bought into his pitch of cheap rocket launches and rewarded him with lucrative contracts. Unfortunately, his low bid price may end up offset by the explosive tendencies of his rockets. Now that he has set his sights on Mars, let’s hope — for the future of science and exploration — that he can avoid similar disasters and also that he has the courtesy to leave taxpayers out of it. We are already very busy paying higher interest on our giant debt and taxes.

MEDIA BIAS: October 4, 2016

The horsewhipping of Donald Trump

o call the massive media obsessed — eyes roaming crazily in all directions, mouths afoam with horror — would be an understatement. They fear that the sovereign voters, in their obvious dimwittedness, could put Donald Trump in the White House. And so the words of abuse tumble forth. The New York Times is unable to take its corporate finger off the firealarm button. On Sunday, my favorite left-wing newspaper of record — to which I have, unaccountably perhaps, subscribed for three decades — cried aloud that Trump “could have” (legally, yes, but never mind that) avoided paying income tax for 18 years. Not that he “did,” just that he “could have,” in light of losses from what the Times helpfully characterized as “the financial wreckage he left behind in the 1990s through mismanagement” of various enterprises. Ah, the objectivity, the impartiality, the civic spirit of our journalistic eyes and ears — the media!

THE GREAT American commentariat, online and off, appears to have made up its own mind concerning the choice in November — and to have dedicated itself to making up everyone else’s as well. This, through subjecting the Republican presidential candidate to the journalistic equivalent of a horsewhipping, followed by a trip to the city limits astride a rail. One of the Times’ blacksnake masters, columnist Charles Blow, obliged the curious as the current week began with the remarkable psychiatric diagnosis that Trump is a “puerile, sophomoric

sniveler” and a “terroristic man-toddler.” Also “a bit of a bigot,” “a bully” and “fickle and spoiled and rotten.” By the time the media has worked its will in this enlightened manner, Melania Trump will have filed for divorce and a public apology. One thing you have to say for the “progressive” media’s anti-Trump campaign: It takes the readers’ and the viewers’ minds off Hillary Clinton. That is important, as a deep

William

examination of the lady’s credentials could get voters worrying over how much liberty is likely to be left at the end of a Clinton term. THE RESPECTABLE reasons for a Trump vote, obscured by the cracking of the horsewhip intended for Trump’s hindquarters, center less on his opponent’s strengths than on her weaknesses. Curiously, for a woman who has spent her life prepping to be the Great Something or Other, Clinton comes across as frail: Lacking ideas and convictions of any importance to a country undergoing changes likely to alter its basic character. Her pitiable attempts to humanize herself as a grandmother and good neighbor show that her main interest in life is your vote. Gaining it, she’ll figure out what next to do. Bernie Sanders — a conviction politician of non-Clinton-esque dimensions — pulled Clinton sharply leftward dur-

ing the primaries, and we saw how little anguish the journey occasioned her. She wasn’t giving up anything major, like prudence with taxpayers’ money. She was gaining votes. That was what counted. Free college? A sharply higher minimum wage? Sanders shoved in the chips; Clinton called him. She could raise him on the next hand; it’s still, after all, more than a month till the election. About the last thing America needs right now, besides another four years of Barack Obama — that prospect being, fortunately, off the table — is a president grateful to the left, malleable by the left, willing to let the left drive the American agenda: on Obamacare, on tax policy, on Supreme Court appointments, on military strength, on Middle Eastern policy, on the racial impasse on policing techniques, on educational standards, on the enduring moral norms of Christian and Jewish civilization. WHAT’S THE heart of Clintonism? One shouldn’t search for it amid the tangle and clutter of campaign happy talk. Clinton agrees heartily with the media as to Trump’s “unfitness” for the presidency, and why shouldn’t she? Keep all eyes on the personal attributes of the opposition and you’re spared the necessity of discussing traits and convictions you’ve shown no evidence of possessing — that is, beyond the conviction that real power and acclaim are near enough to smell. And if the media smells it, too, and resents your opponent’s hamhanded attempts to thwart your brilliant quest — well, that’s politics, right?

October 12, 2016 LABOR REGULATIONS: September 30, 2016

Labor to young Amerians: Work less, achieve less

25-year-old woman three Yet regulators at the U.S. Departyears out of college earns ment of Labor think it is their business a modest, but livable, sal- to monitor and control how many hours ary in a professional position where Americans like this work. she oversees the work of several other On Dec. 1, a new federal regulayoung people. tion takes effect that forces employers She works eight-to-ten hours every to pay overtime to a salaried weekday — then employee who goes home and works more than 40 takes a three-mile hours in a week unwalk. less that employee When she is already earns a (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate walking, she salary of at least sometimes thinks $913 per week (or about her job and how she can make $47,476 per year). those she supervises more productive. This alters an existing regulation that puts the minimum salary threshold ONE NIGHT on her walk, she has for salaried workers who must be paid a brilliant idea, which she starts imple- overtime at $23,660 per year. menting at work the next day. This The new regulation also includes a idea makes the jobs of her subordi- provision that every three years will aunates easier, more enjoyable and more tomatically increase the minimum salaproductive. It makes the family-owned ry employers must pay salaried workers business she works for more profit- to avoid paying them overtime. In 2020, able. the regulation estimates, it will rise to It puts her on a faster track to career $51,168. advancement and a higher salary. The Department of Labor published It is a win-win-win situation — in a an analysis that indicates that the new free and capitalist nation. regulation will initially expand the It is what America is all about. number of salaried workers eligible for So, when this young woman came mandatory overtime pay by 4.2 million. up with that great idea about her job Sixty-one percent of these 4.2 million on a three-mile walk after a 10-hour workers are 44 years of age or younger, workday was she working or having according to the analysis. Fifty-three private time? percent have a college degree or an adThe truth is it is nobody’s business vanced degree. but her own — because she was pursuThis regulation means that if an ing the American Dream. employer hires a 22-year-old college

Terry

Jeffrey

graduate and starts paying her a salary of $38,000 per year the day she receives her diploma, the employer will have to pay that 22-year-old salaried worker overtime pay whenever she works more than 40 hours in a week. A HARD-WORKING, ambitious young person who is excited about her job, sees great potential in it, wants to do it to the best of their ability, and sees an opportunity to have significant positive impact on her co-workers, her employer, her community and perhaps

even her country, is ordinarily a great asset to the organization that hires her. This is the person who understands that excelling at an entry-level job is the first step on the path to excelling in any profession. This is the person driven to work more hours precisely because she can achieve more and be more effective at her job by dedicating more time to it. She is willing to make the sacrifice because she loves what she does and is looking to advance in her profession, not stay in place. But the Department of Labor’s new regulation could turn the most focused and ambitious workers into a financial liability. Their commitment to hard work, to putting in the hours necessary to do the job well, could price them out of the market for some employers — and reduce the overall number of jobs available. “By increasing the number of workers who are eligible for overtime when they work more than 40 hours in a week, employers will have a choice,” the Department of Labor said in a summary of the rule. “They can either increase their employers’ salaries to at least the new salary threshold, pay workers the overtime premium for extra hours, or limit their work to 40 hours in a week.” The regulators made clear that their aim was to reduce the amount of work salaried workers do. “Under this rule, employers will have a renewed monetary incentive to support work-life balance,” said the summary. “Many workers will put in fewer hours without seeing a reduction in pay, giving them more time to spend with their families and in their personal pursuits.” THE LABOR Department’s message to young hard-working Americans is: Work less, and achieve less.

Conservative Chronicle

INTERNET: October 5, 2016

Obama gives away American control of the internet

THE INTERNET was created by n another blow to American global leadership, the Obama the United States a half-century ago administration is abdicating as a Department of Defense project. control of the internet. Countries that Within 20 years, its influence had loathe freedom will gain more influ- spread worldwide, and then-President ence over what you’ll be able to find Bill Clinton established and funded ICANN, to administer the technion the web. The U.S. started the internet and cal side — allocating and keeping served as its guardian for many years, track of web addresses, and ensuring unhampered access to guaranteeing that virtually any per- s m o o t h , websites. ICANN son or group, no reported to the matter how conU.S. Department troversial, could of Commerce. add a website to In recent years, the worldwide (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate hostile govnetwork. But on ernments have Oct. 1, the Obama administration surrendered U.S. over- pushed to make ICANN part of the sight to a multinational organization, United Nations. ICANN executives arthe Internet Corporation for Assigned gue that “fairness” dictates giving all nations an equal role. Names and Numbers. Obama warns that keeping U.S. ICANN WILL have sole power to control of the internet would “emboldgrant web addresses — or deny them, en authoritarian regimes,” It’s a repeat essentially banning sites from the in- of the same foolish argument Obama ternet. If a site doesn’t have an address makes that calling out Islamic terrorfrom ICANN, you won’t be able to find it. MEDIA BIAS: October 5, 2016 Donald Trump says this threatens our freedom of expression and our national security. Hillary Clinton is falling in line with President Obama, just as she did with n Oct. 2, the New York Times the Iran deal. The media are silent, prepublished an admittedly ferring to dwell on green frogs, Skit“fragmentary” front-page tles, “birthers” and beauty queens. ICANN answers to a council that story about Donald Trump’s taxes. Just includes more than 160 countries. The three pages were cited: Tthe first page of U.S., no longer the referee, has only the state tax returns Trump filed in New one vote. Just like China, which blocks York, New Jersey and Connecticut in tens of thousands of websites inimi- 1995. The Times reported that Trump cal to Communist Party control. And just like Iran, which censors political claimed a $916 million loss, which could messages and photos of women not — emphasis on “could” — have allowed wearing mandatory Islamic dress. The him to avoid paying federal taxes for “up danger is that repressive regimes will to 18 years.” The story was stuffed with outnumber free nations and impose speculation about what Trump may have potentially done. censorship everywhere. The Times was typically harsh in tone. “Imagine an internet run like many Middle Eastern countries that pun- The tax records “reveal the extraordinary ish what they deem to be blasphemy,” tax benefits that Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, derived from warns Republican Senator Ted Cruz. It could become impossible to get a the financial wreckage he left behind” web address that advocates for gay or with his financial “mismanagement.” A women’s rights, displays sexy lingerie tax expert declared that Trump “has a vast benefit from his destruction” in the or criticizes Sharia. Under the new arrangement, the early 1990s, like he was Hurricane DonU.S. loses power. That seems to be ald. the theme of Obama’s overall legacy WHAT COULD be true might well building — globalization and a reducbe true. But when did idle speculation tion in U.S. influence. Opponents of the Obama giveaway become a prestigious form of journalare going to court to reverse it. Last ism? The political imperative to destroy Friday, four states — Texas, Ariz., this man is inescapable. Everything the Times reports on Trump Okla. and Nev. — failed to get a federal court judge to delay the transfer. ought to require a mental disclaimer. It But expect more litigation ahead. Chal- has vowed to expose Trump as a dangerlenges to the giveaway will question ously unbalanced man who is not a role the constitutionality of Obama handing model for our children. (Apparently the over U.S. government property with- Clintons are role models.) It has blurred any difference between the news pages out getting Congress’s consent.

Betsy

McCaughey

ists will incite more attacks. Nonsense, says Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, “these countries already fail to respect freedom of expression.” In 2014, when Obama announced the deadline for the 2016 handover, Bill Clinton opposed it: “I just know that a lot of these so-called multistakeholders are really governments that want to gag people and restrict access to the internet.” Too bad Hillary Clinton doesn’t see that. Disappointing but not surprising from a former secretary of state who

left State’s cybersecurity in shambles. Ceding control to ICANN will put all federal websites, even military and Homeland Security sites, under the thumb of this multinational organization. The only protection is a letter of agreement with ICANN that is not legally enforceable. Good luck with that. ADVOCATES FOR cybersecurity, national defense and First Amendment liberty agree that ceding any control of the internet to intolerant, anti-democratic nations is a dangerous leap in the dark.

The NYT savaging its enemies

and editorial pages by openly declaring how Trump “lies” on the front page. The Times said that Hillary Clinton, by contrast, was only guilty of a “penchant for privacy” when her team lied and said she was merely “overheated” when she collapsed into a van. This is the same newspaper that published a front-page editorial by Jim Rutenberg in which he argued that a crusade against Trump is necessary and fairness is a trap. He said: “Journalism shouldn’t measure itself against any one campaign’s definition of fairness. It is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment.”

Brent

AT A HARVARD panel discussion, Times editor Dean Baquet insisted he would risk jail time to expose Trump on taxes. And he would also tell his lawyers that Trump’s tax records must be revealed because his “whole campaign is built on his success as a businessman and his wealth.” But do we really need tax returns to know Trump had some business failures and bankruptcy filings and then turned his empire around? Employing a Baquet standard — the basis of a candidate’s ap-

peal is the most urgent subject matter for investigation — why then wouldn’t the Times risk it all to expose feminist Clinton’s mistreatment of women, especially the women who accused her husband of sexual misconduct? What about those destroyed emails? Benghazi? The Clinton Foundation? Where’s the zeal these last few weeks to drill down, or even drill toward, the truth? Instead, the Times just published a story on Oct. 3 headlined, “Her Husband Accused of Affairs, a Defiant Clinton Fought Back.” Inside, the headline was “A Defiant Clinton Fought Infidelity Claims.” Two words were missing: “With Lies.” Reporter Megan Twohey displayed all the investigative aggression of Gomer Pyle. This was the Times’ summary of Clinton’s “bimbo”-patrol involvement: “Mrs. Clinton’s level of involvement in that effort, as described in interviews, internal campaign records and archives, is still the subject of debate. By some accounts, she gave the green light and was a motivating force; by others, her support was no more than tacit assent.” Times columnist Maureen Dowd at least quoted the memoir of George Stephanopoulos, saying, “She had to do what she had always done before: Swallow her doubts, stand by her man and savage his enemies.” OR LET THE New York Times do it instead.

October 12, 2016 2016 ELECTION: September 30, 2016

Trump threatens Clinton over Lewinsky — really?

onald Trump, always the hero of his own tales, closed out the first presidential debate with a tribute to his own courtesy and high-mindedness: “I was going to say something extremely rough to Hillary, to her family,” he said. “And I said to myself, I can’t do it. I just can’t do it. It’s inappropriate, it’s not nice. But she’s spent hundreds of millions of dollars on negative ads on me.”

LATER, THE candidate’s son, Eric Trump, offered that it required not just magnanimity for Trump to avoid mentioning the topic, but “a lot of courage.” tHE RHETORICAL term for what Trump is up to here is called paralipsis. It’s raising something by claiming to abjure it. “I could mention your DUIs, but I’ll refrain.” Thanks.

Once the campaign boiled down to probably think of her as the victim of two tabloid candidates, this pass was her husband’s behavior. Her favorabilinevitable. I’m old enough to remem- ity ratings shot up during the Lewinsky ber 2015, when many in both parties scandal. Does she deserve sympathy? Rep. opposed the specter of another Bush or another Clinton precisely because of Marsha Blackburn expressed what she to be the Trump weariness with all that they represent. perceived camp’s view when The voters decreed she offered: “I find otherwise, so let’s it so interesting that iron out a few there continues to wrinkles. be this conversaTrump must (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate tion about what presume that the he has said when Clinton sex scandals (and it must be those, and not the fi- you look at what she has done: Gennifer nancial and other scandals he’s referring Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinto, because Chelsea Clinton’s presence sky. My goodness.” supposedly stayed his tongue) repreBLACKBURN IS a little confused. sent a vulnerability for Hillary Clinton. That’s a large presumption. Most voters The party line on Trump’s wild, cruel

Mona

Charen

EDUCATION: October 4, 2016

The academic curtain

ack in the days of the Cold War between the Communist bloc of nations and the Western democracies, the Communists maintained pervasive restrictions around Eastern Europe that were aptly called an “iron curtain,” isolating the people in its bloc from the ideas of the West and physically obstructing their escape. One of the few things that could penetrate the “iron curtain” were ideas conveyed on radio waves. “The Voice of America” network broadcast to the peoples of the Soviet bloc, so that they were never completely isolated, and hearing only what the Communist dictatorships wanted them to hear. Ironically, despite the victory of democracy over dictatorship that brought the Cold War to an end, within American society there has slowly but steadily developed in too many of our own colleges and universities a set of restrictions on what can be said on campus, either by students or professors, or by outside speakers with views that contradict the political correctness of our time.

THERE IS no barbed wire around our campuses, nor armed guards keeping unwelcome ideas out. So there is no “iron curtain.” But there is a curtain, and it has its effect. One effect is that many of the rising generation can go from elementary school through postgraduate education at our leading colleges and universities without ever hearing a coherent presentation of a vision of the world that is fundamentally different from that of the political left. There are world class scholars who are unlikely to become professors at either elite or non-elite academic institu-

Despite the fervor with which demographic “diversity” is proclaimed as a prime virtue — without a speck of evidence as to its supposed benefits — diversity of ideas gets no such respect. Students taught economics by Keynesian economists are unlikely to hear about the 1921 recession, with double-digit unemployment, where the government did nothing, and unemployment fell by more than half, as the economy recovered on its own.

like The Federalist is seldom assigned reading, even though it is a very readable and profound explanation of the principles on which the Constitution of the United States is based, written by three of the men who actually wrote the Constitution. On the racial front, landmark studies like America in Black and White by Stephen and Abigail Thernstrom are unlikely to see the light of day in courses or even on college bookstore shelves. While there is no “iron curtain” around our campuses, there is a curtain, and its effects are dangerously close to the effects produced by the “iron curtain” around the Soviet bloc. What is lacking is anything like the Voice of America broadcasts to pierce the academic curtain. In an electronic age, there are plenty of sources from which forbidden facts and suppressed views can be beamed into the many electronic devices used by college students. There are many recorded speeches and interviews of outstanding thinkers, from the past and the present, with viewpoints different from the prevailing groupthink on campus, and these can be presented directly to students with electronic devices.

NOR ARE THEY likely to learn how grossly misleading are many of the income statistics cited to justify the agenda of the left. As economist Alan Reynolds put it, many people “form very strong opinions about very weak statistics.” Students are unlikely to go through college without being assigned to read The Communist Manifesto — often in more than one course — while a classic

SOMEONE FROM the real world beyond the ivy-covered enclaves would have to do it. And it is not yet clear who would do it or who would finance it. Perhaps some of those donors who have kept on writing checks to their alma maters, while the latter surrendered repeatedly to ideological intolerance, might consider such a project. Campus mobs could not shout down thousands of scattered iPads.

tions because they do not march in the lockstep of the left. Some have been shouted down or even physically assaulted when they tried to give a speech that challenged the prevailing political correctness. Harvard is just one of the prestigious institutions where such things have happened — and where pre-emptive surrender to mob rule has been justified by a dean saying that it was too costly to provide security for many outside speakers who would set off campus turmoil.

Thomas

and dangerous remarks on many subjects is to contrast what Trump has said with what Clinton has done. But in this case, what Clinton did was entirely verbal. She made comments about the women who accused her husband of sexual harassment and/or affairs. There are suggestions that she may have participated in behind-the-scenes efforts to discredit the women who revealed encounters with him. Her actual public comments were few, though she famously claimed that the Lewinsky story was part of a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” It’s not entirely clear that this is a slam-dunk against her. In the first place, people grew bored with the subject in 1998, so it’s hard to imagine that it’s some sort of silver bullet now. Second, while it’s possible that she is a total cynic, using her marriage as a vehicle for her ambitions, it’s also possible that it was more complicated than that — that she actually loved him and chose to forgive him. Who knows? Perhaps her determination to discredit Bill’s accusers had two motives: 1) To help his career, and 2) to delude herself as well. There may be shades of gray here. But whatever the peculiarities of her psychology and however nasty (not to say pathetic) her decision to go after Bill’s women, there is certainly no doubt that as between Bill and Hillary, he was by far the more culpable. He disgraced himself, humiliated his wife and embarrassed his daughter. That he was beyond shame — and carried the whole country with him in the 1990s — is his lasting legacy. Here’s the twist: Look at the man who threatens to pull the trigger on mentioning the Clinton scandals — a serial adulterer who is more removed from twinges of conscience than any figure in American political life. He boasts of his extramarital affairs. He humiliated the mother of his children. He is the Playboy philosopher made flesh. He even found the time to mock Paula Jones as a “loser” and argue that Bill Clinton’s conduct was “totally unimportant.” His factotums, Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani, are also serial adulterers, though they didn’t boast about it. Still, their boss’s crudeness has now rubbed off. Giuliani sniped that if Hillary Clinton really didn’t detect her husband’s affair with Lewinsky, she was “too stupid to be president.” NEITHER POLITICAL party has a monopoly on virtue. But there was a time when Republicans at least paid lip service to the ideal of marital faithfulness, and even felt constrained to resign their offices when caught out (see: Livingston, Bob). But Donald Trump has changed the Republican Party. A Clinton now leads one party, and the other is Clintonesque. Pots/kettles.

Conservative Chronicle

AMERICA’S COLLAPSE: October 2, 2016

What to expect if the election is stolen from Trump

ou may not want to agree with my conclusion, but if this election is stolen from Donald Trump, the utter collapse of America will be almost immediate. If Donald Trump wins, (as he certainly should), and if the Lord tarries, the collapse of America will be stalled for perhaps another 15-20 years barring another world war which Hillary Clinton and Erebusic neo-cons are committed to starting. Our system of jurisprudence is supposed to protect us from incestuous political camorras guilty of duplicitous machinations by politicians and those who fund them.

LIBERAL GROUPS and politicos cheered when then-Attorney General Eric Holder did what amounted to “destructuring” Civil Forfeiture laws. “Civil forfeiture” was argued to be a form of legalized theft whereby the government could take property, including money, when it was deemed linked to crime, without charging and/or convicting the accused. On the surface this sounds reasonable, unless you are liberal policy groups in which case you lament that the gutting of the Civil Forfeiture laws did not go far enough. However, combining the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) with the strengthening of Civil Forfeiture laws would put people like George Soros out of business if not behind bars. Soros could be held accountable for funding groups who are committing acts of domestic terrorism such as we have witnessed in Charlotte, North Carolina and Ferguson, Missouri. It would be no different than charging a person who funds a bank robbery or drug deals but who never touches or even sees the merchandise. Groups like Black Lives Matter (BLM) exist because people like George Soros surreptitiously fund them. If imams and Muslim groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) were held accountable and their personal property forfeited for advancing and sponsoring domestic terrorism, America would be safer. These laws worked against the Ku Klux Klan and the Mafia. Donald Trump is the only person willing to tackle the problem of illegals. The majority of Americans forget or are unaware that Mexicans declared what in effect was war on America back in the 1980s. As noted by the Federation For American Immigration Reform (FAIR): Most Mexicans believe that the United States unfairly took from Mexico what is now the Southwest of our country, and that it is legitimate for them to ignore U.S. immigration law when illegally crossing the border. (Chicano Nationalism, Revanchism and the Aztlan Myth; fairus.org)

An article titled “Islam In America Ronald Yates, in his 1980 expose titled, “Chicano Plan: Give Southwest — Muslim Population and Growth” back To Mexico” (Chicago Tribune; said: “While specific figures may be 12/21/1980), wrote: During the height debated, what cannot be debated is the of the election campaign Ronald Rea- phenomenal growth of Islam. AccordUnited Nations statisgan endorsed a controversial plan that ing to the Muslim population would allow undocumented Mexican tics, the in the United States aliens to enter and grew by 25 percent work in the United between 1989 and States as long as 1998. In 1990 they wish. (c) 2016, Mychal Massie there were only Reagan may about 50 Islamic have viewed his plan as a concession to the millions of schools in America. Today the numMexican-American immigrants in this ber is over 200. Since 1990 the numcountry, but…thousands of Chicanos ber of “registered Islamic centers and and activist leaders say they will stop at mosques” has tripled to “more than nothing short of reclaiming California 2,500.” (Joseph P. Gudel; arabicbible. com) I reference this article because it and the Southwest for Mexico. is from 2001. Today we are still unable THE UNITED STATES is under to say factually how many Muslims threat of being taken over from within. there are in America, but we can say Political correctness and the idea that with certainty that the number is grow“e pluribus unum” means an unlimited ing exponentially thanks to Obama, open door policy that subscribes to the Paul Ryan, Hillary Clinton, et al. An April 2015 article by Caroline fallacious dictum that groups can come here and not assimilate into the Ameri- May stated: “Approximately 350,000 can culture but rather establish individ- to 400,000 children are born to illegal [aliens] in the U.S. each year. Due to ual bastions of foreign occupancy.

Mychal

Massie

current policy, all automatically become U.S. citizens. (Expert: Up To 400K Children Born To Illegal Immigrants In U.S. Annually, One In 10 Births; Breitbart.com; 4/29/2015) What these numbers portend is the progeny of these two groups are growing up in America with no allegiance to America or our Constitution. They are loyal to ideologies that are antithetical to American culture. It means the progeny from these groups are growing up and will be taking positions in politics and every other facet of American infrastructure. The way things stand now it is not if, but rather only a matter of time until the America you and I know collapses under the weight of the growing insolvency of Constitutional propriety. AS I SAID, the inevitable can be delayed but at this juncture I see no way it can be prevented. Naysayers can decry my warnings but they cannot disprove them. Donald Trump is the only one who sees the urgency of the situation that confronts us and for that reason alone he deserves our votes.

JANE JACOBS: September 29, 2016

Jane Jacobs: She was a loner

ane Jacobs was an outsider when she began to point out what was all too clear to her. But now hers is the conventional wisdom. Or as a sage named Yogi Berra was once said to have pointed out, it’s remarkable what one can observe just by watching. Now scarcely a day passes without someone citing Ms. Jacobs’ monumental work, The Death and Life of Great American Cities. But she wrote a lot more than one book in her time. Some geniuses do their best work piece by piece. Others just look around and report what they see, and that is far more than enough. She made a whole passel of distinguished adversaries in her time, the way this state’s highway department can still be counted on to oppose any ideas but its own. To quote the urban historian Alan Ehrenhalt, “It’s only a slight exaggeration to say that contemporary urban thought is a series of footnotes to Jane Jacobs.” WHERE DID she come from? Scranton, Pa., and where was she headed? On to just about everybody’s reading list — conservative and liberal and in-between. For hers was “a classic case of an independent mind in conflict with received wisdom,” according to Robert Kanigel, author of Eyes on the Street: The Life of Jane Jacobs. The young Jane Butzner, he notes, was an indif-

ferent student, paying attention to what would become her life’s work in only fits and starts. She would eventually be acclaimed by everybody from the late great William F. Buckley Jr. as a great conservative to the leading lights on the left. They saw her as a prophetess who raised her voice against urban planners who wanted to plan everything in sight, including most of us. We would adjust or else. Jane Jacobs would eventually enter Columbia University, that vast graveyard of hopes and dreams, but her so-so high-school record saved her from that sad fate. She was a self-taught intellectual, but couldn’t have had a better teacher.

Paul

DILATORY BUT difficult, she was independent in the best way possible — wandering about on her own. She was an amateur — that is, one who loved what she was doing without any pretense of making a step-by-step academic career of it. Then came the war in Vietnam, and the family absconded to Canada in order to keep her boys out of the draft. Jane Jacobs was stopped by the cops in

Toronto. Her husband was pulled over for obstructing the view from his rearview mirror by piling furniture in the back seat of their car. She was arrested for the heinous crime of jaywalking. Their 13-year-old daughter was stopped for walking down the street alone too early in the morning. Knowing the ever polite Canadians, all concerned doubtless behaved respectfully. Lord only knows what would have happened down here south of the international border. Tabloid headlines? Riots? Demonstrations? Street brawls? Even worse? Welcome to Canada, land of the Maple Leaf forever. It’s all a wonderful cautionary tale, one to be long treasured by devoted fans of both countries, each so different in their own respective and respectful ways. With much to teach citizens/ subjects of both domains. Nothing, it seems, is so impressive as good manners, and nothing so impressive as bad ones. WHAT ABOUT you? Seen anything interesting of late — either to you or anyone else? If not, why not? Could it be because you, unlike Jane Jacobs, haven’t bothered to look? It’s all in the eye of the beholder, as it was in hers. If she challenged the conventional wisdom of her time, who will step forward to challenge today’s?

October 12, 2016 DONALD TRUMP: September 29, 2016

Donald Trump’s rise reflects America’s decay

ooking on the bright side, per- including 6.4 percent of America’s haps this election can teach workforce in two years. Yet the 25 milconservatives to look on the lion jobs he promises to create would dark side. They need a talent for pessi- require more than doubling the current mism, recognizing the signs that what- rate of legal immigration to fill them, ever remains of American exceptional- according to economist Mark Zandi. Of ism does not immunize this nation from the Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo decidecay, to which all regimes are suscep- sion diluting property rights by vastly expanding government’s powers of tible. The world’s oldest political party is e m i n e n t domain, Trump says, “I to agree with it 100 an exhausted volcano, the intellectual h a p p e n percent.” Even Berstaleness of its renie Sanders rejects cycled candidate Kelo. unchallenged beWhen Trump cause a generation says “people are of younger Dem(c) 2016, Washington Post Writers Group not making it on ocratic leaders barely exists. The Republican Party’s Social Security,” he implies that people candidate evidently disdains his credu- should be able to “make it” on Social lous supporters who continue to swal- Security for a third or more of their low his mendacities. About 90 percent lives, and that he, like Clinton, is for of presidential votes will be cast for enriching this entitlement’s benefits. Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, refut- He will “save” the system by eliminating the theory that this is a center-right ing — wait for it — “waste, fraud and country. At the risk of taking Trump’s abuse.” Trump is as parsimonious with words more seriously than he does, on specifics regarding health care (“Plans some matters he is to Clinton’s left re- you don’t even know about will be degarding big government powered by an vised because we’re going to come up with plans — health care plans — that unbridled presidency. will be so good”) as regarding foreign HIS TRADE policy is liberalism’s policy (“I would get China, and I would “industrial policy” repackaged for faux say, ‘Get in [North Korea], and straightconservatives comfortable with presi- en it out’”). “Charismatic authority,” wrote Max dents dictating what Americans can import and purchase at what prices, and Weber in 1915, seven years before where U.S. corporations can operate. Mussolini’s march on Rome, causes Trump “wouldn’t approve” Ford man- the governed to submit “because of ufacturing cars in Mexico. He would their belief in the extraordinary quality create a federal police force to deport of the specific person. ... [C]harismatic 450,000 illegal immigrants a month, rule thus rests upon the belief in magi-

George

Will

cal powers, revelations and hero worship.” A demagogue’s success requires a receptive demos, and Trump’s ascendancy reflects progressivism’s success in changing America’s social norms and national character by de-stigmatizing dependency. UNDER HIS presidency, he says, government will have all the answers: “I am your voice. ... I alone can fix it.” The pronoun has unlimited antecedents: “I will give you everything. I will give you what you’ve been looking for for 50 years. I’m the only one.” Urban without a trace of urbanity, Trump has surrounded himself with starstruck acolytes (Mike Pence marvels at

Trump’s anatomical — “broad-shouldered” — foreign policy) and hysterics (Rudy Giuliani: “There is no next election! This is it!”). When Ferdinand VII regained Spain’s throne in 1813 he vowed to end “the disastrous mania of thinking.” Trump is America’s Ferdinand. The American project was to construct a constitutional regime whose institutional architecture would guarantee the limited government implied by the Founders’ philosophy: Government is instituted to “secure” (the Declaration of Independence) pre-existing natural rights. Today, however, neither the executive nor legislative branches takes this seriously, the judiciary has forsworn enforcing it, and neither political party represents it because no substantial constituency supports it. The ease with which Trump has erased Republican conservatism matches the speed with which Republican leaders have normalized him. For the formerly conservative party, the Founders’ principles, although platitudes in the party’s catechism, have become, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “a kind of civic religion, avowed but not constraining.” The beginning of conservative wisdom is recognition that there is an end to everything: Nothing lasts. If Trump wins, the GOP ends as a vehicle for conservatism. And a political idea without a political party is an orphan in an indifferent world. PESSIMISM NEED not breed fatalism or passivity. It can define an agenda of regeneration, but only by being cleareyed about the extent of degeneration, which a charlatan’s successful selling of his fabulousness exemplifies. Conservatism’s recovery from his piratical capture of the conservative party will require facing unflattering facts about a country that currently is indifferent to its founding.

Conservative Chronicle

ABC’S AGENDA: September 30, 2016

ABC keeps ‘modernizing’ the family leftward ABC debuted the sitcom Modern Family in 2009 in part to push a broader acceptance of same-sex couples. But the cultural deconstructionists cannot rest until the mission is complete, so then they pushed it even further, agitating for a broader acceptance of same-sex marriage as just as sacred as traditional marriage. Now, the deconstructionists are doing it again, this time pushing transgender acceptance... with a transgender child actor.

THIS NEW initiative came just a few weeks after transgender actors became the latest social justice cause pushed at the Emmy Awards. When he accepted a highly politicized Emmy award for the second year in a row, Jeffrey Tambor of Transparent pleaded that he should be the last “cisgender” actor — an actor who “identifies” with his or her biological sex — to play a transgender on television. He said: “Please give transgender talent a chance. Give them auditions. Give them their story.” This trend was already underway. One CNN writer gushed that “Modern Family is truly living up to its name.” It hired Jackson Millarker, an eight year old from Atlanta, Georgia, to play a transgender boy who pressures the gay characters, Cam and Mitchell, to explore whether they are tolerant enough. Cam and Mitchell are upset when their adopted daughter, Lily, calls her new playmate Tom (formerly Tina) a “weirdo.” You read that correctly. The child is eight years old. When the episode aired on Sept. 28, Millarker was on screen for just seconds, and the transgender plot was a mere fraction of the half-hour. Cam and Mitchell first imagine themselves winning parenting awards for their daughter’s commitment to tolerance. When the “weirdo” moment arrives, they’re upset, of course. One says to the other, “One little spat, and her instinct is to go all baby bigot on him?” Then, Mitchell’s father asks how they would react if their Lily decided to become “Lou.” They want to approve but struggle with the thought. In horror, Cam says, “Are we not being as tolerant as we think?” Mitchell replies, “But that’s our thing, lording our tolerance over others.” THAT’S A fitting slogan for Modern Family and the Emmy-awarding elite. Gay actor Jesse Tyler Ferguson, who plays Mitchell, tweeted that he was “super proud of this weeks episode.” The director of the episode, Ryan Case, took to Instagram to post a photo of herself with Millarker with the caption: “This is Jackson Millarker. He’s

eight years old, from Atlanta, and just daily life.” They insisted that they gave happens to be transgender. He plays the child “the freedom to express himLily’s friend Tom in this week’s Mod- self however he felt comfortable.” You read that correctly, as well. ern Family and he’s wonderful. One of the many reasons I love being a part of Four years old. In today’s oh-so-tolerant culture, it this show.” People magazine touted Stacey and seems no one ever opposed this child’s of actual biology. Jen, the two lesbian parents of Jack- d e n i a l Millarker insisted son, who say that on being referred he “transitioned to with male proat six years old.” nouns at age six, They boasted: and his parents “We followed (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate said: “He entered Jackson’s lead from a very early age and supported second grade as his true self, a boy. His him in every aspect of his transition. ... family, friends, and school have been He was always a very gender-neutral very supportive from the beginning. child, but at the age of four he start- He is now a confident, happy, healthy ed experiencing intense anxiety in his young man.”

Brent

Bozell

They loved ABC’s invitation, saying, “Jackson has been a young activist in our community and he knew that Modern Family would portray the role of a transgender child in a positive light.” Apparently, America’s culture is unanimous. If millions of you disagree, then you’re prehistoric, stuck in the dark days of...2009. Question: Have you ever known a six year old who questioned (without any prompting) his or her own gender? We pose that question to the entire national readership of this column. DISNEY-OWNED ABC runs a Mickey Mouse “news” operation.

DREAMS: October 4, 2016

Dreams: Welcome return to the past

he morning after, he hated to let the precious shards of the night before go. So he stayed in bed, trying to hold on to them. They came back in bits and pieces, like precious jewels rolling around in his head. They made no sense at all, which was just fine with him. As in all dreamwork, identities were mixed, one time jarring against another like railroad cars bumping into each other in crazy succession. But it didn’t matter except to make each a more welcome return to some joyous, crazy quilt of a happy past. HIS GRANDFATHER, derby and goatee always in perfect place, was holding his hand as they crossed Independence Boulevard and Lawndale Avenue in another century. He had never felt so secure. Then they were walking past all the stores owned by immigrants along Texas Avenue in Shreveport, where each had his storefront to keep up and keep running. He knew them, each and every one. Some he loved, others he feared. When he got to the latter, they walked over to the far edge of the broad sidewalk. He had seen his first MPs there, pulling over to break up a drunken street brawl. What fun. What excitement for a five-yearold. His far older sister Lillian, gone long ago now, might as well have been another of his many aunts. But then she and her cohort of high-stepping, highhaired friends were there again in his delighted head. Most of Lillian’s buddies were children of Syrian immigrants. It was from them that he grew up having heard his first words of Arabic, not that he distinguished them from any other snatches of her marvelous polyglot mix of Yid-

dish, Southern American, Long Island New Yorkese and who knows what else. For it was all a rich language of her highly personal own. Not till much later, after she had married George Rothkopf, a typically upward-bound, 100 percent American type, did he make any distinction among them. George was out at Barksdale Air Force Base, a clerk typist whose next stop might have been the jungles of the Pacific, for the war in Europe was ending and nobody yet prepared to believe the horrible news only then coming out. Certainly his mother didn’t. For she had grown a great believer in German science, sanita-

Paul

tion, and general progress. Even she would use physicians only with Teutonic names. Soon enough in this jumbled land of dreams he was performing the last service he could for her at a Roman Catholic sanitarium just off Margaret Street, where other high-hatted types of a different persuasion glided past on the well-waved floors, keeping up with their different, eternal times. He was holding her cup of cracked ice to her parched lips as she sipped. IT WAS A dream drawn by Picasso as profiles merged this way and that, one face fading into another, then returning in Technicolor — glorious, scary, shining and dark by turns. He saw them all now, cradling him in his arms, holding him proudly for the professional photographer somewhere downtown, but downtown where —

Shreveport, Chicago, under L tracks, on top of an Empire State Building of long ago, yet here and now. He knew nothing then or now, except they claim it was all gone but somehow remained in this land of dreams, now as cloudy as the view he once could see from 20,000 feet up. Or maybe right along old Greenwood Road as the Continental bus jumbled and roared with him inside it. Was he headed for Fort Sill at the time or back to another outpost called the enduring past, which is far from past in the corners of his mind? Lillian and George, mama and papa, Bubba Chava and Zehde Chaim; they all mixed and didn’t quite match. He was still wearing his baby shoes, or were those combat boots? Was he in the fatigues he wore in the Army or his Little Lord Fauntleroy outfit? He only knew he was smiling for the camera on command. BUT THIS much never changed, never could change. His mother had seen him get his Army commission as a second lieutenant and was so proud of him. At just the right moment, all new officers and gentlemen were supposed to doff their academic gowns so all could see their uniforms underneath. Her pride still radiated his life as surely as it would brighten his death. Carolyn, Brooke, the whole cast of feminine leads in his life, swam by like Esther Williams, gliding alongside him. How strange. In life he never could swim but now in this strange world of the mind he swam like a dream. Will dreams never cease? Surely neither in this world nor the next. How good it will be to see this whole star-studded cast again, now and then and forevermore.

October 12, 2016 2016 ELECTION: October 4, 2016

Anti-Trump: Aborting the Trump revolution

n taking that $915 million loss in 1995, and carrying it forward to shelter future income, Donald Trump did nothing wrong. By both his family and his business, he did everything right. In a famous 1947 dissent, Judge Learned Hand wrote: “[T]here is nothing sinister in so arranging one’s affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. ... Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: Taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant.”

THIS WRITER’S father spent his career as a tax accountant who studied tax codes and utilized every permissible deduction to keep his clients’ tax bills as low as legally possible. That was his business, as it is the business of every accountant, including those who prepare the returns of

the politicians and journalists piling corrupt ruling class that controls this on Trump as some sort of scofflaw tax capital city. Consider but a few of the disasters cheat who has evaded his moral obligathat establishment does not want distions to the state. One needs a machete to cut through cussed or debated, or the American people thinking about, when they head this hypocrisy. polls in November. Hillary Clinton benefited from a for the There is the great $700,000 loss on betrayal of the her 2015 income American working taxes. In the days class, the deindusof poverty in Artrialization of the kansas, she took (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate country and the a $2 deduction for loss of economic a contribution to independence it took America a cencharity of Bill’s old underpants. Five weeks before Election Day, tury to achieve. This disaster was produced by the Trump’s taxes have displaced the former Miss Universe as the critical issue, trade deals enacted by Beltway politias determined by the anti-Trump me- cians for the corporate contributors of their campaigns whose highest loyalty dia. Their motivation is not difficult is to the bottom line of a balance sheet. to discern. Their goals are two. First, ON BEHALF of these specials make Trump unacceptable as an agent of change. Second, keep the people interests, U.S. politicians made the distracted from their determination to People’s Republic of China the greatrid America of the incompetent and est manufacturing power on earth and

Pat

Buchanan

DONALD TRUMP: October 3, 2016

Let’s face it: We all avoid taxes

ive Donald Trump credit for going big. When he wanted to declare a $915,729,293 loss on his 1995 tax returns, the software used by his accountant couldn’t accommodate anything higher than a seven-figure loss. The accountant had to add the first two digits, “91,” with a typewriter. The improvisation gets to what is most noteworthy about Trump’s tax gambit, which is the sheer scale of it. AS REPORTED by the New York Times from leaked Trump tax documents, the businessman declared the enormous loss to avoid paying federal income taxes in future years, perhaps for almost the next two decades. The report was quickly deemed a bombshell, but it didn’t reveal anything illegal or — besides the jaw-dropping number — even unusual. The so-called net operating loss carryforward that Trump took advantage of is not an exotic loophole in the tax code. Many industrialized countries have similar provisions. In 2014, more than a million taxpayers declared net operating losses. The provision simply reflects that if you, say, lose $100,000 setting up a business and earn $50,000 the next year, it makes no sense for the government to tax the $50,000 as if it were the only part of the equation; the loss should be accounted for, too. Whenever there is a story like this in the political news, liberals trot out the

old chestnut from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.” Never mind that civilized society existed on this continent long before the institution of the federal income tax as we know it in 1913. The rejoinder to those congratulating themselves on paying taxes is, Do you take deductions? Do you employ an accountant? Or, Do you pay taxes that you don’t technically owe? Almost no one does the latter, of course, at least not intentionally. We all operate in keeping with an-

Rich

other chestnut from another jurist, Judge Learned Hand. He wrote in a 1935 case: “Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.” HILLARY CLINTON may rend her garments over Trump’s minimization of his tax liability, yet the Clintons surely aren’t maximizing their own. As tax expert Ryan Ellis points out in a Forbes column, the Clintons realized a capital

loss of $700,000 in 2015, which they can use to offset future capital gains. The damage to Trump of the Times story is probably not his tax strategy. The candidate had all but admitted to it during the first debate, when he called avoiding taxes “smart.” Rather, the vulnerability for Trump is the fact — stated in black and white in his own filings — that he lost nearly a billion dollars by recklessly overextending himself in the 1990s. This will be thrown back at him every time he touts his business acumen. In other words, all the time. Trump is also done no favors by his overzealous surrogates, Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie. They were out on the Sunday shows calling him a “genius” for his tax avoidance. This is not only over-the-top (were “shrewd” and “canny” deemed insufficient descriptors?), it implies that there was some complex manipulation at work. It would have been much better to emphasize the pedestrian nature of Trump’s tax maneuver, rather than blowing it up into an unsurpassed triumph of a master at gaming the tax code. IF TRUMP had released his taxes or even some of them, he wouldn’t have been vulnerable to a leak that, coincidentally, hit the news as the campaign enters the homestretch. He has enough enemies that he could be certain that information about his taxes would get out, and there may be yet more to come. He teed up this October Surprise.

halted the traditional annual rise in wages of our working men and women. Beijing is now using the wealth compiled to build up their air, naval and missile forces to push us out of Asia and back across the Pacific. Then there is the illegal invasion of America and Europe by the impoverished masses of the south, who have never before been fully assimilated into any Western nation. Unrivaled since the last days of the Roman Empire, this invasion has Americans pleading for a security wall on their border, propelled Britain’s exit from the EU and could yet cause a breakup of Europe. What is at stake here? Ultimately, Western civilization. We have wars going with no end in sight in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Yemen. We have Beltway hawks howling for a “no-fly zone” and the shooting down of Syrian planes, through the chairman of the Joint Chiefs warns this could mean war with Russia. The War Party does not want Americans heading to the polls thinking of the thousands of dead and wounded and trillions of dollars lost in their misbegotten adventures in the Middle and Near East. Trump is new to national politics. Yet, with all the mistakes he has made, and all the savagery of the media attacks upon him, he is still, remarkably, very much in the race for president of the United States. That his crowds remain huge and his following loyal, and that he remains competitive, testifies to the depth of the detestation of our cultural, political and media elites out there in Middle America. But what happens if Hillary Clinton’s media acolytes keep the country’s focus on trivial pursuits, and she prevails? What happens to America, if the uprisings and rebellions in the two parties — Donald Trump and Ted Cruz in the GOP, the Bernie Sanders revolt in the Democratic Party — are turned back, and we get in 2017 the same old people and same old policies we repudiated in 2015 and 2016? What happens if the election, in which America demanded change in both parties, results in change in neither party? One wonders: Do America’s reigning elites believe the Trump movement is but a passing phase? Do they believe that the rise of populist and nationalist parties across Europe is but a seasonal epidemic of the flu that will die out, after which we can all get back to building the New World Order of Bush I and Barack Obama? WILL HISTORY look back upon 2016 as a system failure?

Conservative Chronicle

BORDERS: October 4, 2016

Voters reject John Lennon’s ‘World as One’ “The president believes the world will be a better place if all borders are eliminated — from a trade perspective, from the viewpoint of economic development and in welcoming people from other cultures and countries.” That’s a paraphrase of a speech former President Bill Clinton made only months after leaving office, on Sept. 10, 2001, in Melbourne, Australia. There’s apparently no transcript; the quotation is from the businessman who hosted the forum, appearing in an article in the next day’s Melbourne newspaper, which, thanks to time zone differences, was about 12 hours before the airliners hit the twin towers.

THE WORDS are an interesting indicator of a general attitude, a prevailing sentiment taken largely for granted not just by Democrats and Americans like Clinton but also by elite leaders of many parties in the advanced democracies around the world. Call it Lennonism, after John Lennon’s lyrics in “Imagine.” “Imagine there’s no countries,” Lennon sang. “Nothing to kill or die for. ... Imagine all the people living life in peace. ... And the world will be as one.” It’s an appealing vision but perhaps an odd one for someone born, as Lennon was, when and where the Battle of Britain was raging in the skies overhead. Today, 15 years after Clinton’s talk in Melbourne, Lennonism remains the credo of many elite leaders but is in grave trouble with voters. Examples A and B are the so-called comprehensive immigration reform legislation, backed by both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and the campaign to keep Britain in the European Union, led by Prime Minister David Cameron. Both failed. The key provision of the immigration bills was to legalize the presence of many or most of the estimated (by the Pew Research Center) 11 million to 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States before border and workforce enforcement provisions could take effect. Both parties had political motives for this. Democrats favored it because they figured most undocumented immigrants would vote for their party. Many Republicans, notably Bush, favored it because they didn’t want to see Texas and Florida go the way of California — where immigrant votes seemed to have made a Republican-leaning state safely Democratic. What both ignored is that many voters think that borders and laws should mean what they say. American citizenship should be reserved, they think, for those inclined to obey American laws. Legalizing undocumented immigrants’ status without assurance of future en-

to win in November. But comprehensive immigration legislation still looks like a goner. Most Americans don’t want all borders eliminated. Britain’s Cameron — a product, like THE LENNONIST actions of Barack Obama’s and the campaign rhet- the Clintons and the Bushes, of elite oric of Hillary Clinton provide support universities — staked his prime minisfor this view. Obama, in an executive tership on persuading British voters to order now blocked by federal courts, go along with a status quo in which unmoved to legalize the presence of five elected European Union commissions a n d courts could overturn million undocumented immigrants. British laws and Clinton has incompel Parliament dicated she would to pass unwanted legalize the preslegislation. ence of millions Cameron and of undocumented (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate financial elites immigrants and would deport no immigrants who have made dire predictions that Brexit — not broken any laws other than immi- leaving the EU — would damage Britgration laws. Apparently, she has not ain’s economy. They acknowledged repudiated her Ohio campaign’s tweet, that EU diktats could be irritating but in response to Donald Trump’s state- implicitly accepted that the EU leaders’ ment that “no one has a right to immi- goal of an “ever closer union” was ingrate to this country:” “We disagree.” evitable. Fifty-two percent of a record turnout That’s pure Lennonism — no borders. Current polling suggests she’s likely of British voters thought otherwise. Alforcement, they argue plausibly, would incentivize further waves of illegal immigration.

Michael

Barone

most everywhere outside inner London and Scotland, majorities voted to take the economic risk — which currently looks to have been greatly overstated — and to give control of Britain’s borders back to its voters’ elected representatives. Cameron resigned and was replaced by Theresa May, who opposed leaving the EU but now says that “Brexit means Brexit.” The British vote came against the urging of Obama and his threat that Britain would go “to the back of the queue” if it ignored his advice. OBAMA BELIEVES that “the arc of history” bends in the Lennonist direction. It might be nice if it did. But continued terrorist attacks since the day after Bill Clinton spoke in Melbourne, like the bombs raining down on Britain as John Lennon was born, leave plenty of reason to doubt that the world is ready to “live as one.”

SHALE: September 28, 2016

The shale bust: What can be next?

ipeline explosions that shut down whole towns. Floods that require evacuations of low-lying parts of long-established communities. And now some folks who are owed royalty checks say that there are drillers who take an exorbitant share of what’s owed them by deducting entirely too many fees and expenses from the landowners’ checks. Even ardent supporters of exploring for natural gas may rise up in protest in these ever-trying circumstances. “This is robbery,” complains Doug McLinko in Pennsylvania’s naturalgas country, aka the Marcellus Shale. “People up here are fighting mad.” He was speaking from what’s got to be the country’s largest field of natural gas. Prices were already depressed in this market, where some landowners have seen their payments go down to next to nothing or even gotten notices saying they owed the drillers money. The worldwide glut of petroleum products continues to take its toll not only on the market but people’s tempers.

est — and ire. Who can blame them? All the economic analysis in the world about how things that go up must come down, boost may only presage bust, and so dispassionately on may not help much when the wolf is at the door and yowling. It was one thing when Chesapeake Energy was eager to negotiate all these royalty contracts and landowners were ready to sign on the dotted line, which many proceeded to do, but quite another when the tables were turned and the oil-and-gas money was

HERE IN Arkansas, as well as Texas, Ohio, La., Okla. and Pa, one company — Chesapeake Energy — is facing lawsuits over how much it’s charging landowners. Those welcome checks were once the salvation of family farms. They were some folks’ source of income. But now, in this market, folks may be examining their royalty checks with renewed inter-

TO QUOTE the economist Bernard Coase, great champion of private contracts rather than ordeals by litigation, “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.” To many landowners, they’re due 12.5 percent of whatever the natural gas fetches on the once free market, citing the drillers’ own sales pitches when they were looking for property owners to sign

Paul

turned off like an old-fashioned gas heater that no longer worked. The hiss, then pop, could be exasperating. Sellers’ remorse set in with a vengeance. And the figures can be read to give Innocent Reader whatever result he preferred.

leases. But drillers may contend the royalty payments are calculated appropriately, considering the current market price — but minus all the afterthe-fact deductions for transportation and processing. After shaking the couch cushions to see what they might turn up, that’s about the end of some businessmen’s search for investment. Though once upon a time, before the boom burst, they would never have needed to resort to such measures. The money just kept rolling in, and people got used to depending on it. The free market offers many answers but, alas, no panaceas. And those who would make it an object of worship can become as deluded as anyone else who has adopted a false god as his own. And just as adept at turning into a snake-oil salesman who believes he’s discovered the secret to it all — whether he’s a money crank, a supposed scholar who believes the Earl of Oxford wrote under the name of William Shakespeare, or ... well, pick your own favorite “scholarly” delusion. JUST WAKE us when it’s over because even to watch this show is painful, let alone participate in it. But duty calls, and there’s no more escaping it than any other of life’s obligations great, small and in-between.

October 12, 2016 VLADIMIR PUTIN: September 29, 2016

Trump ignores ‘buddy’ Putin’s atrocities

onald Trump, who has been ing for the bombs to fall,” a Washington Vladimir Putin’s chief U.S. Post dispatch reported Thursday. “After they do, rescue workers venapologist, remains strangely mute about the rising death toll caused ture out, navigating the rubble and craby Russian airstrikes on Syrian hospi- ters left by earlier bombings, to dig out victims without headlights or lamps. tals and other civilians in Aleppo. The continued bombing by the Syr- They haul them to hospitals swamped ian regime — backed by Putin’s war with patients being treated on the floor tors who barely sleep planes — continued this week without by docand must choose let-up, repudiating which lives to save a cease-fire negoand which to let tiated by Secrego,” write Post tary of State John reporters Liz Sly Kerry that wasn’t (c) 2016, United Media Services and Louisa Loveworth the paper it luck. was printed on. In the wee hours of Wednesday mornTHE DEATH and terror inflicted on ing, two hospitals, Allepo’s biggest, noncombatants is the work of Putin, a were hit in the dark — killing patients KGB thug in his earlier days, now the and effectively destroying the facilities. At least 1,700 bombs have carpeted evil force behind Moscow’s efforts to bomb Aleppo into oblivion. This is eastern Aleppo in the week since the sothe man whom Trump has generously called cease-fire agreement, with bunpraised as a “strong leader,” someone ker-buster bombs, designed for military he likes, who he could “get along well” targets, being dropped on apartment buildings filled with Syrian families. with and do business with. This is what Trump’s good friend Putin, playing to Trump’s enormous ego, has called him “a very colorful, tal- is up to lately, as the GOP presidential ented man,” and, according to the real candidate looks the other way and reestate mogul, has praised him as “bril- fuses to condemn the atrocities Putin has inflicted on a besieged civilian popliant.” Putin’s bombings continue around ulation. Trump seems incapable of critithe clock, but the nighttime attacks are cizing anything Putin does, no matter the worst, according to this week’s news how sinister or outrageous. If anything, reports from the region. Syrian “families he has in the past attempted to cover up huddle together in the dark, gathered in his actions. In an interview just a few weeks one room so that they don’t die alone, listening to the roar of the jets and wait- ago on ABC’s This Week With George

Donald

Lambro

Stephanopoulos, Trump argued that Putin’s military forces were not in Ukraine. Despite widespread coverage of Putin’s seizure of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, followed by Russian tanks pushing further west into that country, Trump still insisted, “He’s not going into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down.” When Stephanopoulos raised doubts about that, saying “Well, he’s already there, isn’t he?” the fact-challenged Trump backed off his statement, conceding, “OK, well, he’s there in a certain way.” Trump, apparently, is ignorant of the skullduggery Putin has been up to that makes Russia a dangerous adversary, both to its neighbors and to U.S. security itself. THIS WEEK, a Dutch-led international investigative team said that a surface-to-air missile smuggled into Ukraine from Russia brought down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in 2014 over eastern Ukraine, killing all 298 passen-

gers and crew members. The missile launch vehicle “was brought in from the territory of the Russian Federation and after launch was subsequently returned to the Russian Federation territory. This conclusion is based largely on forensic investigation,” the Dutch national police reported. The investigators said they’ve identified more than 100 individuals who are linked to the airplane attack, and that the investigation will continue into 2018 to identify those “who ordered the plane to be shot down.” Meanwhile, there is growing evidence that Russia is behind a number of cyber intrusions into U.S. databases at the Democratic National Committee and, now, on voter registration data in several states. FBI Director James B. Comey told the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that investigators discovered efforts by hackers to crack into state voter registration files in Illinois and Arizona. Russia is suspected of being behind the cyber attacks on the DNC’s computers, and the FBI has informed voter registration officials in Arizona that they attempted to gain access into their systems in June. The hacking attempt was said to have shut down the state’s voter registration system for a week. “We are urging the states just to make sure that their deadbolts are thrown and their locks are on, and to get the best information they can” from the Department of Homeland Security, Comey said. Putin has made hacking into our databases one of his country’s top priorities, according to America’s top national security specialists. And these newly discovered intrusions are only the tip of the iceberg. So this is the bad guy that Trump naively thinks is a good friend — someone he can deal with, someone he can trust, someone who wouldn’t think of invading Ukraine. Sure. The Russians are already in Ukraine, waiting for the right moment to send their tanks toward the capital of Kiev, perhaps after the November election. AND THE Syrians — men, women and children — are being slaughtered by Putin’s planes without a discouraging word from Vladimir’s good buddy, Donald Trump.

Name _________________________________________________ Address ________________________________________________ City _____________________ State _____________ Zip _________ Credit Card Number # ___________________________________

Billing Information.

Name _________________________________________________ Address ________________________________________________ City _____________________ State _____________ Zip _________

Send a Free Sample.

(U.S. Currency Only) Call for current foreign rate information.

Name _________________________________________________ Address ________________________________________________ City _____________________ State _____________ Zip _________

______/_______

Expiration Date

Credit Card

❏ American Express

❏ Discover Card

❏ MC / VISA

❏ Check Enclosed

Order Total $___________

❏ 52 issues - $75.00

❏ 26 issues - $41.00

❏ 13 issues - $23.00

Select the number of issues you would like.

❏ 52 issues - $75.00

❏ 26 issues - $41.00

❏ 13 issues - $23.00

Select the number of issues you would like.

Michael Barone, Austin Bay, Brent Bozell, Pat Buchanan, Mona Charen, Linda Chavez, Ann Coulter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, Larry Elder, Leslie Elman, Joseph Farah, Suzanne Fields, Paul Greenberg, David Harsanyi, Laura Hollis, Terence Jeffrey, Charles Krauthammer, Larry Kudlow, Donald Lambro, David Limbaugh, Rich Lowry, Michelle Malkin, Mychal Massie, Stephen Moore, Dick Morris, William Murchison, Andrew Napolitano, Marvin Olasky, Dennis Prager, Debra J. Saunders, Phyllis Schlafly, Ben Shapiro, Thomas Sowell, Cal Thomas, Matt Towery, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., George Will, and Walter Williams.

Featured and Contributing Columnists

The weekly publication that features newspaper columns from America's leading conservative commentators.

Conservative Chronicle

Place your order on line at www.conservativechronicle.com

Call toll free in the US 1-800-888-3039

Send this form with payment to: Conservative Chronicle, Box 29 Hampton, IA 50441-0029 or

Your Own Subscription.

(2 or 3 would be great!)

Name _________________________________________________ Address ________________________________________________ City _____________________ State _____________ Zip _________ Sign Gift Card as: ________________________________________ Attach extra sheets for additional gifts.

Give a New Gift Subscription.

You can share this publication and help us expose the truth in 3 ways.

Help Us Spread The Conservative Message.

•NEWSPAPER• •DATED MATERIAL•

RUSH!

Postmaster: Timely Material Please deliver on or before 10/12/16 Periodicals Postage Paid Mailed 10/6/16

Read Michael Barone, Suzanne Fields & Cal Thomas on Pages 16-17

Presidential Debate

This week our CONSERVATIVE FOCUS is on:

Read Stephen Moore’s Column on Page 1

Not Trumped-Up Trickle-Down

Trump’s Plan

Wednesday, October 12, 2016 • Volume 31, Number 41 • Hampton, Iowa