Conservative Chronicle for November 9 2016 by Mid-America Publishing Corporation

At Issue this week... November 9, 2016 2016 Election Barone (5, 11) Cushman (20) Elder (26) Lambro (13) Will (6) Clinton, Hillary Buchanan (3, 21) Malkin (30) Massie (10) Murchison (29) Prager (27) Thomas (4) CNN Scandal Bozell (6) Comey’s Action Kudlow (9) Lowry (1) Shapiro (22) Comstock, Barbara Charen (10) Cultural Decline Greenberg (24) Dear Mark Levy (19) Economics Sowell (29) Election Day Schlafly (2) FBI Napolitano (23) Saunders (23) Gender Gap Fields (25) Government Dependency Jeffrey (22) Israel Krauthammer (31) Johnson, Gary Saunders (30) Journalism Olasky (24) Leslie’s Trivia Bits Elman (14) Media Bias Coulter (7) Limbaugh (4) New Hampshire Will (12) Obamacare Harsanyi (15) Hollis (16) McCaughey (17) Moore (17) Politicians Williams (20) Random Thoughts Sowell (18) Republican Party Chavez (18) Will (8) Sexual Revolution Tyrrell (25) Social Security de Rugy (12) Taxes Saunders (28) Trump, Donald Lowry (26) Thomas (9) Two-Party System Shapiro (14)

Comey’s Action by Rich Lowry

The Democrats asked for this

efore Democrats burn James Comey in effigy, they should think about how the FBI director came to have an outsized influence in the election in the first place. It’s not something Comey sought or welcomed. A law-enforcement official who prizes his reputation, he didn’t relish becoming an object of hate for half the country or more. No, the only reason that Comey figures in the election at all is that Democrats knowingly nominated someone under FBI investigation. ONCE UPON a time — namely any presidential election prior to this one — this enormous political and legal vulnerability would have disqualified a candidate. Not this year, and not in the case of Hillary Clinton. The country has clearly lowered its standards in this election, and Donald Trump’s madcap candidacy provides evidence of that almost every day. But Hillary’s nomination was itself an offense against American political norms and an incredibly reckless act. And the Democrats were supposed to be the party acting rationally. Clinton effectively locked up the nomination in June and wasn’t cleared of criminal wrongdoing by the FBI until July. What if she had been indicted? Would Democrats have run her anyway? Would they have substituted in a 74-yearold socialist who had lost the nomination battle, or someone else who hadn’t even run? Any of these circumstances would have been unprecedented, but Democrats risked it. They did it, in part, because they could never bring themselves to fully acknowledge the seriousness of the email scandal and, relatedly, the ethical miasma around the Clinton Foundation. They considered it all another desperate trick of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. Clinton henchman David Brock demanded that the New York Times retract its initial report of Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email account in March 2015. A parade of Democratic operatives poohpoohed the whole thing, from Clinton spokesman Karen Finney (“a politically motivated series of attacks”), to James Carville (“not going to amount to a hill of beans”), to Howard Dean (“hooey”). When they first got together on a debate stage last October, Bernie Sanders,

the only man who had a chance to stop Clinton, pleased the crowd with a ringing denunciation of interest in her emails. Democrats bought the just-so stories offered up by the Clinton campaign. The FBI investigation was just a “security review.” The FBI wasn’t investigating Hillary, but only her server. Anything to deflect from the seriousness of the matter.

Rich

While Democrats willfully looked the other way, they put James Comey in an impossible position. An indictment would change the course of American history. That was all on him. He ultimately blinked. But he also put on the record the recklessness of Clinton’s practices as secretary of state in an attempt to create public accountability. COMEY’S CONDUCT is open to criticism, but there is no way to please everyone when handling an investigation with such high political stakes. His notification to Congress last weekend is an-

other case in point. All that can be said is that if Democrats didn’t want the FBI to have any part in the election, they could have considered that before handing Hillary Clinton their nomination. Trump may be a deeply flawed candidate, but he caught a wave of popular fervor; Hillary, with her astonishing vulnerabilities, is a production of the Democratic elites who did everything to get her over the finish line. Just how vulnerable is she? If it weren’t for the new trove of Huma Abedin emails, the blockbuster news this week would come via a Wall Street Journal report that the FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation — although Fox News reported the same thing at the beginning of the year, and Hillary, of course, dismissed it as an “unsourced and irresponsible claim that has no basis.” THE EMAIL scandal and Clinton Foundation will dog Hillary until Election Day and, should she win, into her presidency. For this, she has no one to blame but herself — and her irresponsible enablers. October 31, 2016

Conservative Chronicle

ELECTION DAY: November 1, 2016

Election Day and the dangers of early voting

hen FBI Director James Comey announced on Friday afternoon that his agents are reviewing 650,000 emails on a computer belonging to Hillary Clinton’s closest aide, Huma Abedin, political pundits immediately speculated about how this “October surprise” would affect the election. But the shocking news came too late for many Americans, because they’ve already voted. The day after Comey’s announcement, the New York Times reported that 22 million Americans have already voted in this year’s presidential election. That’s more than one-sixth of the expected turnout.

TO PUT THAT number in perspective, 22 million is more than the margin of victory in every presidential election in American history. President Obama’s 2008 margin of victory was only 10 million votes, and even Ronald Reagan’s “morning in America” landslide was only 15 million votes. Early voting began when a few states stopped requiring voters to provide a good excuse for obtaining an absentee ballot. Then a few more states began to set up special polling places for noexcuse early voting. In several states, most ballots are returned by mail long before Election Day.

Like so many bad ideas, early voting began as an accommodation for a small number of sympathetic people who were inconvenienced because they were elderly, disabled or needed to be away from home on Election Day. The exception widened in a gradual creep, until early voting became taken for granted, and then claimed as a right belonging to everyone. Early voting is not a constitutional right, as proved by the fact that Pa., N.Y. and Mich. still allow no early voting at all. Unfortunately, some federal courts have ruled that once a state allows early voting, that practice can never be curtailed because of its “disparate impact” on minority voters. A federal court ruled that Ohio could not reduce its 35 days of early voting, and another federal court ruled that North Carolina could not cut back its 17 days. The U.S. Supreme Court has never addressed the claim that early voting, once allowed, can never be limited. Before 2008, when Obama exploited early voting so successfully, many Republicans were lulled in the complacent belief that both parties would benefit from the added convenience of early voting. Republicans failed to foresee how labor unions and other interest groups could turn early voting into a powerful and one-sided engine for turning out Democratic votes.

Early voting enables Democrats to badger, berate, bribe or bamboozle reluctant, low-information voters to the polls.Democratic Party and union workers can identify reluctant voters and harass them until the party worker verifies that they have actually cast their ballot.

DEMOCRATS NO longer hide the advantage that early voting gives them. Right now, as Politico reports, Democrats are going “pedal-to-the-metal” in “an all-out blitz to turn out the early vote for Hillary, hoping to bank enough votes to overwhelm Donald Trump even before the polls open on Election Day.” Democrats are making a special effort to win the swing state of North Carolina, where a federal court overturned needed election reforms passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor. It’s no surprise that the AfricanAmerican early vote for Hillary is running behind what Obama got four years ago, but Democrats hope to make up that lost ground in the final seven days. It’s time to enforce the federal law which provides that federal elections take place in even years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, also known as “Election Day.” With a few exceptions for good cause, such as active-duty military service, all votes should be cast in your home precinct on that one day, all across America.

The U.S. Constitution requires that the delegates to the Electoral College cast their ballots for President on the same day, which is the third Monday in December following Election Day. By requiring each state’s presidential electors to meet on the same day at their respective state capitols, the Constitution prevents any state from interfering with another state’s election process. We can all agree that no member of a jury should vote on guilt or innocence until all the evidence has been presented at a trial. By the same token, voters should not cast their ballots before the political campaign is over. The integrity of elections is just as important as the universally accepted rules for jury trials, whereby jurors are asked to keep their minds open and withhold judgment until after closing arguments.Spreading out voting over an extended period of several weeks, or even a month or more, makes it impractical for poll watchers to monitor the voting for fraud. INTERNET SEARCHES on “can you change your early vote” spiked Friday afternoon after the FBI reopened its investigation of Hillary Clinton. Voters do not want another Watergate, which is what Hillary would be, and early voting should be replaced by traditional, informed voting on Election Day. 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.

•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

Need to make a correction on your mailing label?

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

November 9, 2016 HILLARY CLINTON: November 1, 2016

Hillary’s Watergate? The stench of corruption

fter posting Friday’s colBut it does appear that Abedin misled umn, “A Presidency from the FBI when she told them all communiHell,” about the investiga- cations devices containing State Departtions a President Hillary Clinton would ment work product were turned over to face, by afternoon it was clear I had State when she departed in 2013. understated the gravity of the situation. Clinton, understandably, was stunned Networks exploded with news that and outraged by Comey’s letter. For it FBI Director James Comey had in- casts a cloud of suspicion over her canformed Congress he was reopening the didacy by raising the possibility that the investigation into Clinton’s email scan- FBI director could reverse his decision of dal, which he had said in July had been July, and recommend her prosecution. concluded. By Monday, Oct. 31, new problems “Bombshell” declared Carl Bern- h a d arisen, some potenstein. The stock tially crippling or market tumbled. possibly lethal to a “October surClinton presidency. prise!” came the Reporters have cry. unearthed a near(c) 2016, Creators Syndicate The only exmutiny inside the planation, it seemed, was that the FBI FBI over the decision to shut down the had uncovered new information that investigation of the Clinton email scancould lead to a possible indictment of dal and Comey’s recommendation of no the former secretary of state, who by prosecution. then could be the president of the UnitAndrew McCabe, No. 2 at the FBI, has ed States. come under anonymous fire from inside the bureau as one of those most reluctant BY SUNDAY, we knew the source to pursue aggressively any investigations of the eruption. of the Clintons. Huma Abedin, Clinton’s top aide, McCabe’s wife, in a 2015 state sensent thousands of emails to the private ate race in Virginia, received $475,000 laptop she shared with husband Antho- in PAC contributions from Virginia Gov. ny Weiner, a.k.a. Carlos Danger, who Terry McAuliffe, a longtime friend and is under FBI investigation for allegedly major fundraiser for Bill and Hillary sexting with a 15-year-old girl. Clinton. The Weiner-Abedin laptop contains After the Senate race that McCabe’s 650,000 emails. wife lost, he was promoted from No. 3 at The FBI has not yet reviewed Abe- the FBI to No. 2, where he has far more din’s emails, and they could turn out influence over decisions to investigate to be duplicates of those the FBI has and recommend prosecution. already seen, benign, or not relevant to Justice Department higher-ups under the investigation of Clinton. Attorney General Loretta Lynch appar-

Pat

Buchanan

ently disagreed with Comey notifying Congress, and the nation, to new developments in the email scandal. Yet Comey had given his word to Congress that he would do so. In the Southern District of New York, which has jurisdiction over the Weiner sexting investigation, FBI agents have reportedly been blocked from opening an investigation into charges of corruption in the Clinton Foundation. This follows revelations that corporate chiefs and foreign rulers and regimes, hit up for contributions to the Clinton Foundation, were then urged by an ex-Clinton aide to provide six-figure speaking fees for Bill Clinton. This follows reports the Clinton Foundation took contributions for victims of natural disasters, and awarded multimillion-dollar contracts to contributors to do the work.

STILL UNANSWERED is what Bill Clinton and Attorney General Lynch discussed during that 30-minute meeting on the Phoenix tarmac, prior to the FBI and Justice Department decision not to indict Hillary Clinton. The stench of corruption is reaching Bhopal dimensions. What appears about to happen seems inevitable and predictable. If Hillary Clinton is elected, the email scandal, the pay-for-play scandal involving the Clinton Foundation, “Bill Clinton, Inc.,” the truthfulness of her testimony and reports of Clinton-paid dirty tricksters engaging in brownshirt tactics at Trump rallies, are all going to be investigated more thoroughly by the FBI. And if Clinton is president, there is no way her Justice Department can investigate the Clinton scandals, any more than this city in the early 1970s would entrust an investigation into Watergate to the Nixon Justice Department. If Clinton wins this election, and Republicans hold onto one or both houses of Congress, investigations of the Clinton scandals will start soon after her inaugural and will go on for years. And the clamor for a special prosecutor, who will, as Archibald Cox did with Nixon, build a huge staff and spend years investigating, will become irresistible. Realizing that this is the near-certain fate and future of any Hillary Clinton presidency, and would be disastrous for the country, Sunday night, Doug Schoen, who worked for President Clinton for six years, said he has changed his mind and will not be voting for Hillary. Donald Trump says this is worse than Watergate. As of now, it is only potentially so. BUT IF Hillary Clinton, this distrusted and disbelieved woman, does take the oath of office on Jan. 20, there is a real possibility that, like Nixon, down the road a year or two, she could be forced from office. Do we really want to go through this again?

Conservative Chronicle

MEDIA BIAS: October 28, 2016

Media bias is one thing: Its complicity is another

e keep reading that if Donald Trump’s personal issues weren’t sucking up all the media oxygen, his campaign might get more traction against Hillary Clinton from the WikiLeaks disclosures, but is that really true? Let’s concede that the ongoing allegations against Trump are a distraction and damaging to his campaign. Those matters are being litigated, figuratively and literally, so it is hard to argue that news of these allegations is being suppressed. BUT COULD we please put a pin in this for a minute and look at the Clinton scandals? Despite claims to the contrary, one is not automatically defending or covering for Trump by raising issues of Clinton corruption. Somehow Bill and Hillary Clinton always get a pass on their own misconduct by turning the allegations on their accusers and attributing them to smears by their political opponents, benefiting from an unconscionably protective liberal media phalanx. So talk about allegations against Trump all you want, but don’t use them as a license for Clinton’s misconduct, and don’t always try to besmirch the character of people seeking accountability from the Clintons by saying they are indifferent to women’s claims against Trump. I’m not indifferent to those claims, but I’m also not going to be deterred from calling out liberal media bias for fear that some on my side will say I’m just flacking for Trump. Nonsense. The issue of Hillary Clinton’s corruption is vitally important, as is the role of the liberal media in suppressing it. The Hill reported that in viewing recordings “of each major network’s evening newscasts, which are watched by an average total of 22 million to 24 million people nightly, the newest batch of WikiLeaks revelations was covered for a combined 57 seconds out of 66 minutes of total air time on ABC, NBC and CBS. ... On the other hand, allegations from four women of unwanted sexual advances by Trump were covered a combined 23 minutes.” This is what Newt Gingrich and others mean when they complain that liberal media are covering allegations against Trump 24 times as much as those against Clinton. And we wonder why the Clintons are able to skate through their lives with impunity. ARE WE TO assume from this that allegations against Hillary Clinton are about four percent as important as those against Trump on the matter of fitness for office? You can’t be serious. So what, then? Why would the liberal networks so shamelessly smother genuinely disturbing allegations against Clinton by highlighting allegations against Trump? Clinton gets a twofer here, a pass on the

WikiLeaks bombshells and hyper-focus and outrageously unbalanced. But that doesn’t faze them, because they are libon claims against her opponent. Can you imagine how the media erals and the highest ethic is pursuing would react if the facts were flipped — if their shared agenda, no matter how corthe sexual allegations were against Clin- rupt their means. There is no other ratioton and the Clinton Foundation, email nal explanation. This is one of the things that scares erasure, Benghazi and other scandals were connected to Trump? We would see me tremendously about a third Obama through Hillary Clinliberal media in full war mode, and there t e r m ton. Liberal media would be no end are thoroughly in to their caterwaulthe tank for these ing about Trump’s people and are helpcorruption and ing them fleece the national se(c) 2016, Creators Syndicate the American peocurity threat that ple. Look at their he would pose as president. Note: This hypothetical is not brazen apathy concerning the Obamquite fair to Trump because there actu- acare premiums debacle, which they are ally are sexual misconduct allegations lying about because they want to protect against Bill Clinton and ample evidence Obama and his agenda, they agree with that Hillary was not just his enabler but his and Clinton’s goal of single-payer an accessory after the fact, in terroriz- and want to help in advancing this neing Bill’s victims. The media have never farious goal, and, above all, they won’t cared about that. I repeat: My bringing do anything that might decrease Clinthese up doesn’t mean I’m excusing be- ton’s chances of winning the election. If the liberal media don’t care about havior Trump may or may not have entheir darling presidential candidate’s gaged in. But that’s not the point here. The liberal media aren’t stupid. They accepting from foreign governments know their coverage is biased, distorted donations to the Clinton Foundation —

David

Limbaugh

along with personal gifts on the side, as we’re now discovering, for influence (or even possible influence) — if they don’t care about Obama and Clinton’s self-serving lie that the terrorist attacks in Benghazi were inspired by a video, if they don’t care about her commingling government emails with her own emails and recklessly exposing classified information, if they don’t care about her intentionally deleting 33,000 emails under subpoena, if they don’t care about her and Obama’s egregious lies on Obamacare, if they don’t care about the targeting of political conservatives by the IRS, if they don’t care about Clinton’s assuring donors in private that she favors open borders and would protect Wall Street as president while telling the public the opposite, and on and on, can you imagine what kind of free rein Clinton would have if elected? IT’S ONE thing for conservatives to drone on about liberal media bias, which we’ve done for decades, but have we reached the point that it is becoming a threat to the republic as we have known it?

HILLARY CLINTON: November 1, 2016

Could we see an October demise? I love definitions because they help focus the mind. Under dictionary.com’s definition of “corrupt” one finds the following: 1. Guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: 2. Debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: 3. Infected; tainted. When used as a verb with an object we find: 4. To destroy the integrity of; cause to be dishonest, disloyal, etc., especially by bribery. 5. To lower morally; pervert. DON’T THESE definitions perfectly describe Hillary Clinton? As the FBI re-starts its prematurely halted investigation into Hillary’s “extremely careless” handling of classified materials, perhaps this time it will conclude what it should have concluded the first time around — that the Democratic presidential candidate and some of her aides engaged not just in carelessness, but in criminal activity. And isn’t it wonderfully ironic that the trip wire for the FBI’s announcement had to do with emails found on disgraced former Democratic congressman Anthony Weiner’s computer and probably (you should pardon the expression) his hand-held device on which he sexted with women and underage

girls? Among the computers reportedly seized by FBI agents is one Weiner shared with his wife and top Hillary aide, Huma Abedin, from whom Weiner is now separated. Typical of political Washington is the reaction by liberal Democrats, including Hillary Clinton herself. When FBI Director James Comey said in July there was nothing in Hillary’s behavior that warranted an indictment, liberals claimed she had been exonerated and praised Comey for his professionalism. Now that possibly new evidence has emerged necessitating an-

Cal

other look, Democrats and the left are jumping on Comey as a political hack. They can’t have it both ways, though they often try. ANOTHER ARGUMENT made by those favoring a second Clinton presidency is that she is not her husband and that Bill’s lying and extramarital affairs should not reflect on her. Really? It was Bill who bragged when he was running for president in 1992 that if he was elected “you get two for the price of one.” That exchange rate hasn’t changed.

He was right then. They are both sleazy and enabling of each other. If Hillary wins the election, the corruption (hers and his) will follow her into the White House because that is her character and also his. If Republicans hold a congressional majority, investigations into Clinton corruption will continue and government gridlock will be worse than it is now. Hillary Clinton would be the most unpopular president to enter the White House in modern times, perhaps of all time. Republicans and even some principled Democrats (there are a few), not to mention foreign leaders, would immediately regard her as weak and possibly a failure from the start. Her promises to continue and even expand the Obama “legacy” would not sit well with many Americans who are having difficulty finding jobs and are seeing their health insurance premiums skyrocket. DONALD TRUMP is a roll of the dice, but sometimes the dice come up a “seven,” not snake eyes. Whatever his character flaws, at least he would start something new, including protecting the Constitution, and promising to name judges who respect it. That possibility, along with Hillary Clinton’s severe character deficiencies, recommends that voters bet on a fresh start and give Trump a chance.

November 9, 2016 2016 ELECTION: November 1, 2016

Let’s play ‘Let’s Pretend’ and say that Trump wins

hen I was a child, there to 45 percent) in the same tracking poll was a Saturday morning as of Saturday. Clinton’s support level basically radio program called Let’s Pretend. It used words and sounds to stayed the same (within the margin of encourage young children to paint pic- error, anyway), while Trump’s perceptitures in their heads of make-believe bly grew, cutting Clinton’s lead toward statistical insignificance. The ABC worlds. So in that spirit, let’s pretend that News numbers are an exaggerated verhistory will show Donald Trump as be- sion of what’s happened to Clinton’s ing elected president Nov. 8. That result a v e r a g e poll lead, which was cut 7.1 percent Oct. 18 to is hard to imagine for anyone who has f r o m 4.6 percent Oct. 28. been watching ABC News pollclosely since the ster Gary Langer first presidential explains the debate, which was changes as moveSept. 26. Since (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate ment by Republithen, nearly all indications have been that Hillary Clinton can-leaning voters back toward Trump. is certain to win. So, as a thought exer- Like those elected officials who recoiled cise before the results are in, let’s try to from supporting him after release of the imagine how we could move from that Access Hollywood tape, these voters are seemingly real world to the “let’s pre- gravitating back to their preferred partend” world of President Donald Trump. ty’s candidate. Focusing on a single poll’s results is ONE SET of clues would come rightly criticized as cherry-picking by from the ABC News tracking poll. On smart polling analysts. But in our “let’s Sept. 22, before the first debate, the poll pretend Trump won” world, this particshowed Clinton leading Trump by a ular poll sets out with particular clarity a narrow 46 to 44 percent — virtually the trend that explains what happened. For one thing, it’s a world where votsame as the RealClearPolitics average of recent polls at the time. By Oct. 22, ers were given time to ponder, read and after the three presidential debates and perhaps reread some of the Clinton camone vice presidential debate, that lead paign’s emails revealed by WikiLeaks. They heard a Clinton spokesman try to had widened to 50 to 38 percent. Since then, ABC News has shown discredit the leaks as Russian disinforClinton’s lead narrowing, to 48 to 44 mation, possibly altered. But they may percent Oct. 26. Clinton’s 12-point ad- also have noticed the Clinton folks sayvantage among likely voters had been ing they had no time to check on their cut down all the way to two points (47 authenticity.

Michael

Barone

Over the past week, the emails started getting coverage in mainstream media. The coverage has not been so vivid as the coverage of Trump’s denunciations of Miss Universe 1996, but it has been coverage nonetheless. And the stories have been unsettling. CONSIDER THIS message from Neera Tanden, head of the pro-Democratic Center for American Progress, to her predecessor John Podesta, chief of staff in the Bill Clinton White House and counselor in Barack Obama’s (two smart people who have operated at high levels for a long time): “Do we actually know who told Hillary she could use

a private email? And has that person been drawn and quartered?” It was in July 2015, a month after Trump entered the race. Tanden went on: “Like whole thing is f---ing insane.” This suggests a certain tension with Clinton’s omnipresent, sycophantic aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills. And it’s unnerving to read Abedin in 2015, years after Clinton’s concussion, emailing spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri, “She’s going to stick to notes a little closer this am, still not perfect in her head.” There could be an untroubling explanation, but it doesn’t suggest the kind of confidence you’d like people to have in a president. And then we have the revelations of Bill Clinton aide Doug Band on how much money he was raising from various sources for the Clintons personally, for the Clinton Foundation and for Hillary’s Clinton’s campaign. The Wall Street Journal’s conservative columnist Kimberley Strassel is surely not the only one to call the Clintons “griftersin-chief.” Much embarrassing information about the Clintons has come out on Friday afternoons, so it’s perhaps fitting that early last Friday afternoon, FBI Director James Comey announced that the FBI is reopening its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email servers because of the discovery of additional emails during an investigation of Abedin’s estranged husband, Anthony Weiner, in an unrelated case. Comey’s July 5 statement that Clinton, though “extremely careless,” would not be criminally prosecuted hurt her in polls; this Oct. 28 announcement won’t help. Whether it will send us hurtling into the “let’s pretend” world of President Trump is unclear, but it may get us closer. DO I THINK we’ll get there? No. But I’m less certain than I was last week.

Conservative Chronicle

2016 ELECTION: November 1, 2016

A fitting final chapter to the sleaze sweepstakes

s the presidential campaigns sink to the challenge of demonstrating that there is no such thing as rock bottom, remember this: When the Clintons decamped from Washington in January 2001, they took some White House furnishings that were public property. They also finished accepting more than $190,000 in gifts, including two coffee tables and two chairs, a $7,375 gratuity from Denise Rich, whose fugitive former husband had been pardoned in President Clinton’s final hours. A Washington Post editorial (“Count the Spoons”) identified “the Clintons’ defining characteristic: They have no capacity for embarrassment. Words like shabby and tawdry come to mind. They don’t begin to do it justice.”

TODAY, HILLARY Clinton strives to live again among some White House furnishings that she and her helpmeet were compelled to disgorge. Her campaign flounders because as secretary of state some of the nation’s business might have been melded with the contents of a computer that is pertinent to an FBI investigation of a former Democratic congressman’s alleged sexual texting with a female minor. Ransack the English language for words to do this justice. During the recent welter of reports about the Clintons’ self-dealing through their charity that has been very charitable to them, the New Yorker, reporting her plans to uplift the downtrodden, quoted her aspiration: “I want to really marry the public and the private sector.” This would solve the Clintons’ problem of discerning the line between public business and private aggrandizement: Erase the line. So, herewith America’s choice. Restore the House of Clinton. Or confer executive powers — powers that President Obama by his audacity, and Congress by its lethargy, have proven to be essentially unlimited — on another competitor in the sleaze sweepstakes, Donald Trump, who shares his opponent’s disinclination to disentangle the personal and the political. Into this political maelstrom, FBI Director James Comey injected an announcement that intensified the chaos without providing a scintilla of news that voters can use: An unknown number of emails of unknown provenance and unknown content might be “pertinent” to an investigation that already has established, beyond peradventure, that Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” with sensitive material. Add the FBI, and the Justice Department to which it belongs, to the carnage of institutions that is a byproduct of bad judgments by the political class that have voters asking Casey Stengel’s

tive groups. Or of the IRS’ subsequent destruction of subpoenaed emails pertinent to this. So, unsurprisingly, the most intrusive and potentially punitive federal agency continues to punish conservative groups for being conservative, according to Cleta Mitchell, a IT IS GRIMLY hilarious to hear it lawyer for political groups who conthere are indeed said that the Justice Department, by not f i r m s conservative orgaholding Comey to nizations who were established protargeted by the IRS tocols concernand have still not ing discussions received their taxof ongoing in(c) 2016, Washington Post Writers Group exempt status. vestigations, and In 2013, Barack concerning pronouncements close to elections, has Obama professed himself “angry” tainted itself. Obamacare would not about “inexcusable” IRS behavior, behave passed if Justice Department law- fore he decided there was not a “smidyers had not conducted what a federal gen” of IRS corruption. He claimed to judge declared a corrupt prosecution have learned about the IRS behavior of Alaska’s Republican senator Ted from the media. Now he claims that Stevens, costing him re-election. The he learned from the media about Clindepartment has enabled, by not seri- ton’s email abuses, although they had ously investigating, the IRS’ suppres- exchanged emails using her private sion of political advocacy by conserva- server. Perhaps. question. In 1962, Stengel, manager of the New York Mets, an expansion team en route to a record of 120 losses, looked down his dugout at his woebegone players and wondered aloud, “Can’t anybody here play this game?”

George

Will

The defining scandal of the Obama era has been the media’s lackadaisical consensus that Obama’s administration has had no serious scandal. This, although with the Justice Department protecting the IRS, the administration has (in the words of Richard Nixon’s White House counsel John Dean) used “the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.” CLINTON, THE ultimate author of her current agony, resembles no one so much as Nixon in her paranoia and joyless pursuit of joy. Her government career began with the House committee preparing Nixon’s impeachment. Twenty-two years earlier, he had saved his career by addressing a supposed scandal with his nationally broadcast “Checkers speech,” which was mawkish, abasing and effective. How fitting it would be for a Clinton “Checkers speech” to end our long national nightmare that this campaign has been.

CNN SCANDAL: November 2, 2016

CNN gets caught in cheating scandal

ush Limbaugh found just the right analogy for the CNN cheating scandal, where (now) former CNN analyst Donna Brazile fed “town hall” questions to Hillary Clinton. It’s the quiz-show scandal of the 1950s, where Charles Van Doren was given the questions on the NBC game show Twenty-One in advance and looked like a genius on national television. Van Doren later apologized to America, saying, “I have deceived my friends, and I had millions of them.”

THAT’S NOT the way CNN and Brazile reacted when exposed by the WikiLeaks emails. In the first incriminating email, Brazile told the Clinton team, “From time to time I get the questions in advance” and shared a question on the death penalty that Clinton would be asked on CNN’s March 13 town hall. When the cheating was uncovered, CNN claimed Brazile didn’t get the question from CNN sources, but instead from TV One’s Roland Martin, who had been a longtime paid CNN analyst. For his part, Martin denied sending Brazile the question. But she had it word for word. Brazile denied the very email, saying, “I never had access to questions and would never have shared them with the candidates if I did.” She even deepened the deception by protesting to Fox’s Megyn Kelly, saying, “As a Christian woman, I understand persecution, but I will not sit here and be persecuted.”

Then, on Oct. 31, the other shoe fell, deepening the lie. WikiLeaks released another email in which Brazile promised the Clintonites more town hall questions — “I’ll send a few more.” Brazile had also tipped Clinton aide John Podesta before a March 6 CNN debate in Flint, Michigan, that one local woman whose “family has lead poison ... will ask what, if anything, will Hillary do as president to help the (people) of Flint.”

Brent

What was CNN to do? The networks’ response was as bizarre as Brazile’s was dishonest. CNN claimed it had accepted her resignation on Oct. 14 — 17 days prior. The “public’s right to know” stops at the water’s edge of journalism. BUT WHY accept the resignation? CNN had a responsibility to fire Brazile for cheating, and it didn’t. CNN staged a phony event, and it got caught. So, like good liberals, it’s playing the victim card and blaming Roland Martin. Online, a CNN spokeswoman claimed, “We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton

campaign while she was a CNN contributor.” CNN insisted it “never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate.” What about on CNN’s airwaves, where it happened? Media reporters Brian Stelter and Dylan Byers — hour-by-hour fixtures for a Trump scandal or a Fox News controversy — disappeared. Brazile’s name went unmentioned after the news broke around noon on Halloween. On the morning of Nov. 1, it came up again on New Day when Republican Rep. Chris Collins raised it, saying, “Your own network, CNN, had to fire Donna Brazile on October 14th, for getting the town hall questions ahead of time, leaking them to the Clinton campaign.” CNN anchor Alisyn Camerota changed the subject, asking, “But congressman, how about the connections between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia?” CNN’S FRAUDULENT programming and its unwillingness to own up to it on television is another reason why trust in the media is at an all-time low (according to Gallup), and why a new USA Today poll reports that by nearly 10 to 1, the American people say the media want Clinton to win. CNN’s reputation has been sullied by this shameful episode. It really is the Clinton News Network.

November 9, 2016 MEDIA BIAS: October 26, 2016

Our new country: Women and minorities hit hardest

very ethnic group except whites bloc-votes for the Democrats. Coincidentally, the Democrats have brought in another 30 to 40 million nonwhite immigrants in the last few decades. It doesn’t help that white voters can’t agree on what constitutes an acceptable candidate. In 2012, working-class whites sat out the election, rather than vote for the out-of-touch rich guy they saw in Mitt Romney. This year, the out-of-touch rich guys say they’ll vote for Hillary because Trump is tacky and gross. THE SAD irony is that the only people who will be better off in our new country are mostly white plutocrats — the top .01 percent. The rest of us will be their servants. The people who will be worse off are everybody else — the working class, the middle class (who will soon be working class) and, most of all, women, minorities, children, the elderly, the weakest and most vulnerable members of society. Look to Mexico for your future — or any Third World country. Or to Univision’s Jorge Ramos. The ruling class in Mexico is composed of European-looking, white descendants of Spanish conquistadors who raped the native population, giving them only their Spanish names in return. (British settlers in America brought women with them.) Explaining Latino culture’s acceptance of incest and child rape, criminal justice researcher Shana Maier writes in a book about rape that “the male is the head of the household, and women are subordinate to men. ... Hispanics and Latinos are more likely than other racial/ethnic groups to blame the victim. The victim, not the perpetrator, is blamed for bringing dishonor to the family.”

One American detective said that, to- flowed from “traditional Chinese values day, police are being taught to keep an about adultery and loss of manhood.” “open mind” about child rape because The female head of the Asian-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, “it’s a cultural thing.” When it comes to multiculturalism, Margaret Fung, applauded the ruling. Somewhat amazingly, newspapers are you can’t say, We love the empanadas — but we don’t want 40-year-old men rap- more likely to report black crime than ing their nieces. This isn’t an a la carte immigrant crime. (Anything to keep the World immigration menu. We get ALL the attributes of the T h i r d flowing!) cultures we’re imIn 2013, a 13-yearporting. old girl was gangAs described in raped by about excruciating detail a dozen illein Adios, America! (c) 2016, Ann Coulter gal aliens, who The Left’s Plan to cheered and vidTurn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole, our media eoed the attack. When the news first broke, Shaneequa already have a totally “open mind” about incest and child rape — and murder! — Jupiter, who lived with her children in the apartment building where the gang rape when it’s committed by immigrants. Thus, for example, where I would occurred, complained that neither the pohave chosen the headline: “Illegal Alien lice nor apartment security had warned Convicted of Incest, Child Rape,” the residents about the danger. (That could Chattanooga (Tenn.) Times Free Press reflect poorly on illegal immigrants!) went with the less catchy: “Man guilty in EVEN IF Shaneequa had scoured the case of human smuggling.” And where I would have used the headlines, she would have been on the headline, “Illegal Alien Repeatedly lookout for “Austin men.” Or “Two.” Compare these headlines about the Raped 14-year-old Girl at Job Site,” the Commercial Dispatch in Columbus, same brutal sexual attack: — “Two held in attack on child” — Mississippi, went with the more subtle, “Columbus resident charged with moles- Austin American-Statesman (Texas), July 19, 2013 tation.” — “Two Mexicans placed on immiImmigrant women arrive in America, thrilled to have escaped cultures where gration detainers as third man is arrested rape, incest and spousal murder are ac- over five-day gang rape hell of teenceptable, only to discover that those age runaway during which she smoked crimes are perfectly acceptable in this crack” — Daily Mail Online (U.K.), July country, too — provided the perpetrator 24, 2013 Needless to say, the New York Times is from the very culture they fled. In 1989, Brooklyn judge Edward Pin- did not cover the Mexican illegal alien cus sentenced a Chinese immigrant to gang rape at all. By contrast, the Times, and every maprobation for a premeditated murder of his wife, on the grounds that the murder jor American news outlet, extensively

Ann

Coulter

covered another gang rape — of a girl about the same age, at about the same time, in about the same place. The second case only was “rape” because of the girl’s young age — she was 11. But she was an enthusiastic participant, sneaking out of her house at night to meet the men for sex. Those rapes, just a few years earlier, got a full-court press. The defendants were African-American. The victim was Mexican. That time, there were articles in the Huffington Post, GQ, Slate, Salon and Mother Jones. It even made the New York Times, despite no connection to a college fraternity or lacrosse team. Similarly, within a few months of one another in 2013, two men were arrested in separate child rape cases in Decatur, Alabama, for assaults on nine-year-old girls. One suspect was African-American, the other was a Hispanic immigrant. Only one made the newspaper. Guess which one? When excitable Muslims raped American reporter Lara Logan in Tahrir Square (another one of Hillary’s foreign policy successes!), journalists immediately set to work to find the shortest line from the Muslim rapists to white American men. Conclusion: The real problem was the female reporters’ American bosses and colleagues. (Definitely not Islam!) Sampling of New York Times commentary on Logan’s rape: — “Why We Need Women in War Zones” (“I would never tell my bosses for fear that they might keep me at home the next time something major happened. ... This attack also had nothing to do with Islam.”) — “Reporting While Female” (“Women reporters face another set of challenges. We are often harassed in ways that male colleagues are not. ... In my experience, Muslim countries were not the worst places for sexual harassment.”) Perhaps American men could do better, but, as American women may soon discover: They never had it so good. Manifestly, the purpose of our immigration policies is not to help Americans — or the immigrants who wanted to live in a place like America. They are designed to funnel welfare-dependent voters to the Democrats and cheap labor to the rich. (The Chinese immigrant who got probation for murdering his wife, for example, came to America based on his specialized skill of being a dishwasher.) OUR COUNTRY will be Zimbabwe, but — if all goes according to the Democrats’ plan — they’ll get to be Mugabe! That’s Hillary’s dream. If she wins, Joe Sobran’s parody of the typical New York Times headline (about anything) will come true: “Women and Minorities Hit Hardest.”

Conservative Chronicle

REPUBLICAN PARTY: October 27, 2016

GOP needs to revert to nominating Republicans

Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860 hen told that the New England transcendentalist with the lowest percentage of the popuMargaret Fuller had grand- lar vote (39.9) of any electoral winner in ly declared “I accept the universe,” the history. He received fewer than the comScottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle bined votes for two Democratic rivals, dryly remarked: “She’d better.” Much the Northerner Stephen Douglas and the ink and indignation has been spilled Southerner John Breckinridge. This did concerning whether Donald (“I am not prevent Lincoln from becoming the greatest president. much more humble than you would un- nation’s Majorities, however derstand”) Trump helpful, are not necwill “accept” the essary. In 14 of the election’s out39 elections since come. The nation, 1860 the winner like the universe (c) 2016, Washington Post Writers Group did not get a maof which it is the jority of the popunicest part, will persevere even without the election re- lar vote, including Woodrow Wilson sult being accepted by the fellow who (twice), Harry Truman, John Kennedy probably will be the first presidential and Bill Clinton (twice), Democrats all. Carter’s 50.1 percent of the popular candidate in 16 years to receive less — probably a lot less — than 45 percent of vote in 1976 was the only time in the 40 years after 1964 that a Democratic presithe vote. dential candidate would win a majority WHEN THE Jimmy Carter/Walter of the popular vote. Ronald Brownstein Mondale ticket lost 44 states in 1980, of the Atlantic notes, “Since the 1828 Mondale used his elegant concession election of Andrew Jackson, which hisremarks to herald “a chance to rejoice:” torians consider the birth of the modern “Today, all across this nation — in high two-party system, no party has ever won school cafeterias, in town halls, and the presidential popular vote six times churches, and synagogues — the Amer- over seven elections.” By the evening of ican people quietly wielded their stag- Nov. 8, the Republican Party will have gering power. ... Tonight we celebrate lost the popular vote for the sixth time in above all the process we call American seven elections, and will have lost three freedom.” Today, such political grace consecutive elections for the first time notes are rare as the nation slouches to- since the 1940s. In the last four elections (2000-2012), ward its first dyspeptic landslide — an electoral vote avalanche for a candidate no loser has fallen below 45 percent of regretted by a majority of the electorate. the vote and no winner has reached 53

George

Will

percent. This year’s winner is unlikely to become just the fourth nominee of the world’s oldest party (following Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson) to win more than 53 percent. The loser, however, could plunge close to the 37.4 percent that George H.W. Bush received in 1992 when Ross Perot took 18.9 percent of the vote. THIS YEAR’S winner probably will be the first Democrat since Grover Cleveland to become president without enjoying Democratic control of both houses of Congress. (Cleveland, the

last conservative Democratic president, vetoed more bills during his two, nonconsecutive terms than all of his predecessors combined.) This year will be the fourth of a particular kind of Republican disappointment since World War II. In 1946, 1994, 2010 and 2014 Republicans won huge victories in off-year elections but two years later lost the presidential election. Jefferson said “the boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave,” but some waves have become less turbulent. For example, in 2004, 13 states enacted — 11 of them by referendums — prohibitions on same-sex marriage. Three elections later, this issue has virtually disappeared from political discourse. Americans might feel as though they are living through an unceasing and unprecedented political maelstrom, but by one measure there is unusual stability: The nation is nearing the end of a third consecutive two-term presidency, something that has occurred only once before in U.S. history — the Virginia dynasty of the third, fourth and fifth presidents (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe). Of the five presidents in office from the inauguration of John Kennedy in 1961 through the departure of Jimmy Carter in 1981, not one served two full terms. THE LAST Democrat directly elected (that is, not counting Harry Truman or Johnson, who were elected after inheriting the office) to succeed a Democrat was James Buchanan, arguably the worst president ever. One hundred and sixty years later, Republicans fearing four Clinton years can reasonably hope there will be no more than four: The likelihood of Democrats winning a fourth consecutive presidential term will be reduced if the Republican Party reverts to its practice, adhered to since it chose John C. Fremont in 1856, of nominating a Republican.

November 9, 2016 COMEY’S ACTION: October 29, 2016

Just the facts, ma’am: The atmosphere has changed

while I don’t know about his appendix, way to losing his office, his seat and his he did lose his marriage for referring to reputation. (I have no information on the status of his appendix.) matters below the waist. And how bizarrely ironic is it that And Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s aide and Weiner’s soon to be ex-wife, Comey — who lost considerable credmay well lose her seat and her office, ibility a couple of months ago for although I couldn’t find any informa- building an iron-clad case against only to let her off the tion about her appendix, despite a long C l i n t o n hook — is now reGoogle search. opening her case On the other based not on Rushand, the FBI’s sian espionage or bombshell that it Julian Assange’s is reopening the (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate WikiLeaks, but on investigation into Anthony Weiner’s Hillary Clinton’s private email server may well cause the electronic sex life? This will not bring honor and glory Democratic presidential candidate to lose her office, her seat and her party. to J. Edgar Hoover’s venerable crimeAs to the condition of her appendix, fighting organization. Comey’s anwe’ll just have to guess, since no one nouncement, by the way, follows hot on knows the state of her deteriorating the heels of the revelation that Clinton pal and Virginia governor Terry McAuhealth. And then we have FBI director liffe channeled near $500,000 into the SO LET’S SEE here. Anthony Weiner lost his office and his seat. And James Comey, who may well be on his failed state senate campaign of Jill Mc-

e knew there could be a big October surprise before this bizarre and unpopular election finally came to an end. But who knew it would come from emails found on a device used by former Rep. Anthony Weiner, which was confiscated by the FBI after he sexted an underage woman — an act that cost him his job, his income and his marriage? As I pondered this on Friday afternoon, I had a faint recollection of Winston Churchill describing a tough loss in an MP election. Hat tip to Susan Varga, who located this Churchill gem: “In a twinkling of an eye, I found myself without an office, without a seat, without a party, and without an appendix.” Churchill had his appendix taken out during that election, which took place in 1922.

Larry

Kudlow

DONALD TRUMP: October 27, 2016

Donald Trump’s ‘contract’

ast Saturday, Donald Trump delivered a speech in Gettysburg, Pa., that he should have given much earlier in the campaign, minus the usual threats against women who have accused him of sexual assault. The speech, which was probably written for him because “deep” and “thinker” are likely not the first two words that spring to mind when you hear the name Trump, set out an agenda for what he promises to do should he be elected president. Trump’s promises were divided into three sections. The first action, he said, would “clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, D.C.”

HE’D START by proposing a constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms. One can safely predict that isn’t going to happen because in order for a constitutional amendment to be considered for ratification by the states, it must first pass Congress. Most members are not about to limit their own power and position. Trump would impose a hiring freeze on all federal employees, reducing the workforce through attrition. The military, public safety and public health would be the exceptions. That’s possible. For every new federal regulation, Trump would ask that two existing federal regulations be eliminated. That might work if Trump could persuade Congress that the regulations he wishes to eliminate were in fact failures.

Trump wants to institute a five-year ban on White House and congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service and also proposes a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government. He also favors a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections. These proposals also might work, but will require public pressure on Congress to achieve. Trump also proposed “seven actions to protect American workers.” These include his familiar promise to renegotiate NAFTA, or with-

Cal

draw from it. As for the Trans Pacific Partnership, he would pull out completely with no renegotiation. China would be declared a currency manipulator, which it is, but has Trump considered the response from Beijing, which holds an enormous amount of American debt? TRUMP WANTS to list restrictions on energy producing entities and finish the Keystone pipeline, which has been blocked by the Obama administration, despite numerous studies showing there would be little or no environmental impact. Trump would also cancel billions in payments to U.S. climate change programs and use the money to fix Ameri-

ca’s water and environmental infrastructure. Good. Polls show climate change is not high on the list of public concerns and many believe the “science” to be manipulated, even bogus. On national security, Trump promised to “cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama.” Why not? Obama did the same with many of George W. Bush’s executive orders. Trump again promised to name judges to federal benches, including the Supreme Court, “who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.” He would cancel all funding to sanctuary cities where illegal aliens are being sheltered. And Trump would capture and deport illegal aliens who commit crimes and cancel the visas of countries that refuse to take them back. That would be popular and difficult for Democrats to oppose. He again pledged “extreme vetting” of people from countries where terrorism is a major export. There’s more, including tax cuts for corporations to create jobs and bring back companies and their tax dollars from overseas, as well as school choice to help especially poor children escape failing schools. LIKE THEM, or not, these are substantive ideas. Is it too late for voters to digest them and possibly for those undecided, or against Trump, to swing toward him and away from the big government promises of Hillary Clinton? We’ll know in less than two weeks.

Cabe, who is the wife of FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, who helped oversee the agency’s investigation into Clinton’s private email server. And let it be known that Hillary Clinton helped raise $1 million for McAuliffe’s PAC. DID ANY of these connections have anything to do with Clinton’s getting off scot free from a criminal indictment? Nah. But wait, could it be that Donald Trump’s accusation that the system is rigged is correct after all? Now, from Churchill to Jack Webb. Remember him? He played LAPD Detective Sergeant Joe Friday on the great Dragnet series. He opened the show with, “This is the city: Los Angeles, California. I work here. I’m a cop.” But the straight shooting Detective Friday may be better known for this deadpan phrase: “Just the facts, ma’am.” Those are words that may go to the very heart of this presidential election. No matter what James Comey unveils in the days ahead, if anything, virtually no one in this country believes Hillary Clinton will ever divulge “just the facts.” That’s what the polls say, and for her they’re getting worse. And that’s exactly what the FBI bombshell has reminded the voting public. Clinton, Inc., is dishonest, above the law, on the take. New WikiLeaks-provided emails from Clinton aide Doug Band reveal the true nature of the Clinton cash operation: No matter what the stated humanitarian goals of the Clinton Foundation, every fiber and sinew of the organization is wrapped in self-dealing, self-enrichment, fraud and corruption. This is how the Clintons got rich. They traded cash for State Department visits and cash for government favors. And let’s not forget those $450,000 speeches by Bill Clinton and those $250,000 speeches by Hillary herself. And she can’t even tell the truth about that, as leaked emails show that she said one thing to Wall Street and quite another to the public. The election is a week and a half away, and the atmosphere has changed significantly. In the last several days, at long last, Donald Trump has been talking issues on the campaign trail. Issues like the economy, tax cuts, the need to repeal and rewrite Obamacare, and even African American inner-city problems. During this period, Hillary Clinton was deluged with email leaks and blindsided by the FBI. ISSUES BEAT email leaks. Polls are rapidly narrowing. Suddenly, the potential for a GOP three-house electoral sweep is growing larger.

Conservative Chronicle

HILLARY CLINTON: October 30, 2016

Her criminal history disqualifies her for president

hen challenged pursuant to Hillary Clinton’s email server scandal, a woman who supports Clinton was heard to tell a woman who supports Donald Trump: “But [Clinton] apologized for that.” When told of the conversation, I was offended by the flawed reasoning of the Clinton supporter but I wasn’t surprised. The truth is that Clinton didn’t apologize; she said that she wouldn’t do it again. Following the reasoning of the woman supporting Clinton, all a bank robber has to do to is promise not to rob another bank and he should go unpunished. OBAMA DISMISSED questions pursuant to the reopening of the FBI email investigation saying: “She’s really, really qualified ... Media stories go up and down, I know there’s a lot of crazy stuff on TV.” (Obama Ignores Clinton’s Email Controversy, Emphasizing Instead That She’s “Really, Really Qualified; Christi Parsons; Los Angeles Times; 10/28/2016) These two comments are breathtaking for: A) the unimaginable lack of reasoning by some voters; B) Obama’s unmitigated disregard for the rule of law. Criminal accusations have followed Clinton from the very start of her career as a corporate lawyer including up to this very day and hour. At some point reasonable people have to admit that the preponderance of guilt against her must be believed. Her lies about email server and cover-up isn’t just one isolated incident. It is the most recent in a career of one serious criminal allegation and investigation after another. Heaven only knows what she has done that we are unaware of. As president of the United States, Obama swore an oath: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Inherent in that Oath of Office is strict adherence to the rule of law and that the law applies to every man, woman and child equally. Saying Clinton is “really, really, qualified” has absolutely nothing to do with her relentless pursuit of behavior that others guilty of far less serious acts have served or are serving prison sentences. Being “really, really, qualified” (even if she were), does not put aside a professional life filled with one accusation of criminal behavior after another. And, specific to same, if she has been accused of one criminal act and scandal after another (including during her time as First Lady) what can be reasonably expected of her if she were president? Are we to believe that if elected president she would suddenly cease all illicit behavior?

HER IRRESPONSIBLE behavior could have a reasoned disagreement. If and willing disregard for law has proven it were about her position that abortion her unfit for the office of president. Re- should be allowed any time up to and spect for law is something that we teach including the last month of pregnancy, our children. Responsible parents do not we could engage in righteous disagreeit were about her positeach their children how to circumvent ment. If tion on foreign policy, the law, lie, deand domestic policy fraud, extort monwe could have cogent ey, etc. debate and disClinton’s poliagreement. cies are antitheti(c) 2016, Mychal Massie But it is about cal to the tradiher arrogant disretions America was founded upon. But it is her willingness spect for law. It is about her flagrant abuse to engage a life of criminality and her to- of law. It is about her attitude that she is tal lack of regard for law that disqualifies not held to the same standards of law to her for the office, which by any legiti- which every other American is held. It is mate consideration she isn’t fit to pursue. about her viewing herself as being above If it were only about the justices she the law and that the laws that apply to all would appoint to the Supreme Court we others do not apply to her.

Mychal

Massie

Every man heretofore who has held the office of president has been flawed on some level. But with that said, none have placed themselves above the law before taking office. None have sought the office of president with the criminal baggage clinging to them, as is the case with Clinton. It is not just an embarrassment to what America stands for and has represented to the world; it is a shameful disgrace to propriety and the history of the office of president. IN MY VIEW that more than anything else disqualifies her to be president and the fact that Obama is telling voters to dismiss her criminal behavior reflects upon his lack of character.

BARBARA COMSTOCK: October 28, 2016

New face of the Republican Party

omething quite startling happened in a close House race in northern Virginia this year. The Washington Post endorsed the incumbent Republican, Barbara Comstock. Comstock has been a familiar figure in the region for decades, but not in a way that would typically earn the Post’s admiration. In the 1990s, as chief counsel to the House Oversight and Reform Committee, she made the Clintons sweat with investigations into their hydraheaded scandals. She served three terms in the Virginia House of Delegates, winning each time in a district that leaned Democrat. In 2014, she ran for and won seat she now holds by a 16-point margin. IN A YEAR when the two majorparty presidential nominees are dismaying and demoralizing, it’s a relief to pay tribute to a politician who is honorable, able and worthy. Comstock knocked on 10,000 doors in each of her races for the House of Delegates, and was dogged and diligent about constituent service. From transportation to cyber security to snow emergencies, she filled her district’s inboxes with helpful information and offers of assistance. Virginia’s sprawling 10th congressional district extends from the close-in suburbs of Washington, D.C., all the way to the Shenandoah Valley bordering West Virginia. It’s a great district for a fearful flyer (not that Comstock is, just saying). But accessibility is double-edged sword. Most of the district lies within a couple of hours’ drive from the capital (some parts much closer), but that means the representative is expected at pretty much every event. A scroll through Comstock’s Facebook page shows that she almost

never begs off. She is like Zelig — everywhere. I once asked her how many nights per week she attends events. She allowed as how it’s usually seven: An Indian-American meet and greet; a Korean barbeque night; a high-tech conference (the Dulles corridor is the Washington area’s Silicon Valley); a high school homecoming; a veterans’ event; a film festival; a maternity home; a firefighters open house; a breast cancer awareness event; a Columbus Day parade (in the rain). For 34 years, the district

Mona

was represented by Republican Frank Wolf, whose particular passion was human rights. Since leaving Congress, he has worked with the Wilberforce Initiative, defending victims of religious persecution. Comstock has upheld the tradition, cosponsoring two pieces of legislation on human trafficking, demanding that the Obama administration devise plans to defeat ISIS, and initiating legislation to label ISIS’ crimes against Christians and others as “genocide.” THE 10TH district was happy with Wolf, but that doesn’t make it a safe Republican seat. It went for Romney by a margin of just one percent in 2012 and for Ken Cuccinelli by just one point in the 2013 governor’s race. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee targeted Comstock in 2015, hoping to make her a “one-term wonder.” They got a huge assist — not from Democrats, who had trouble drafting a challenger,

but from Republicans. Trump is trailing by about 10 points in Virginia, and is loathed in suburban communities like Fairfax County. GOP consultant Tucker Martin tweeted, “He’s at 29 percent in VA. Which is what you would get if you got nominated, burnt down Monticello, and then went on vacation until November.” (Actually, RCP puts Trump at 39 percent in Virginia, but the point stands.) LuAnn Bennett, a real estate executive whose own domicile has raised questions (the Washington Free Beacon reports that Bennett lived at the RitzCarlton in the District of Columbia and only acquired a rental in the district eight days before declaring her candidacy), offers the usual Democratic Party talking points: Equal pay for women (which has been law since 1963), a minimumwage increase to $15 per hour, universal pre-K and paid family leave. She unintentionally provoked laughter at a Loudoun Chamber of Commerce appearance when she praised the ACA for “making health care more affordable.” Through constituent service, opposition to Obamacare, support for defense, outreach to minorities and hostility to grandstanding government shutdowns, Comstock earned the endorsements of every major newspaper in her district. Bennett is struggling to hang Trump around Comstock’s neck. But Comstock never endorsed Trump, and in the aftermath of the Access Hollywood tape’s release, condemned his statements as “vile, disgusting and disqualifying.” IF THE Republican Party is going to survive post-2016, Barbara Comstock is exactly the sort of leader to help it rise from the rubble. She could be, she should be, the new face of the party.

November 9, 2016 2016 ELECTION: October 28, 2016

So far, Trump not sinking down-ballot Republicans

tions and priorities of Donald Trump and those of most Republican candidates, and not just because the latter aren’t spending days denouncing Judge Gonzalo Curiel or Miss Universe. Dozens of Republican candidates, using various verbal formulations, have made clear their non-support of or distaste for the presidential nominee. Polling in seriously contested Senate THE TREND is startling. In 2012, races shows that many voters are aware only four percent of voters opted for of this. The hyperactive octogenarians Barack Obama and a Republican con- Chuck Grassley in Iowa and John Mcgressional candidate, and only six Cain in Arizona — after 36 and 30 years percent went for Mitt Romney and a in the Senate, respectively — are runway ahead of Trump Democrat. That 10 percent total was the n i n g and also of Mitt lowest since the Romney’s 2012 question was first showing in their asked in 1952. states. Similarly, only Incumbent Re26 congressional (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate publican senators districts voted for a presidential candidate of one party with serious challengers are likewise and a congressman of the other. That’s running perceptibly ahead of Trump the lowest such number since 1920. It’s and Romney benchmarks in Fla. (Maralso part of a longer-term trend. Fewer co Rubio), Ill. (Mark Kirk), N.H. (Kelly districts split their tickets this way be- Ayotte), Ohio (Rob Portman), Pa. (Pat tween 1992 and 2012 than in any elec- Toomey) and Wis. (Ron Johnson). Their prospects differ, but they’re resisting tion between 1956 and 1988. One reason for this has been the any downdraft. Running more closely to Trump and increasing congruence between each party’s presidential and congressional Romney are North Carolina’s Richard candidates’ issue positions and priori- Burr and Georgia’s Johnny Isakson, neities. With the virtual wipeout of moder- ther of whom has campaigned heavily in ate Blue Dog Democrats in 2010, there his heretofore-Republican-leaning state. In Nevada, Republican Joe Heck is were few Romney-leaning Democrats or Obama-leaning Republicans running in a close race to win Harry Reid’s open seat — Republicans’ one chance for a anywhere. It’s different this year. There’s an ob- Senate gain. But Heck’s post-Access vious difference between the issue posi- Hollywood disendorsement of Trump ould a flailing Donald Trump campaign hurt down-ballot Republicans and cost the party majorities in the Senate and House? That seems possible, if he loses to Hillary Clinton by a margin similar to those in most current polls and if Americans keep on straight-ticket voting as they have increasingly in recent years.

Michael

Barone

may be hurting him in a state whose many non-college-educated whites gave Trump a wide-margin victory in its early caucuses. Heck is running better than Romney did but no better than Trump. MISSOURI AND Indiana, apparently safe for Trump, have serious Senate contests. Both have large belts of Southern-accented ancestral Democratic voters and were dead heats in the 2008 presidential race. In Missouri, Democrat Jason Kander, with an ad showing him assembling an Army rifle blindfolded, is about even with Republican incumbent Roy Blunt. In Indiana, Democrat Evan Bayh,

deemed a moderate when elected governor in 1988 and 1992 and senator in 1998 and 2004, jumped into the race in July. Bayh has been hammered for his fictitious Indiana residence and for seeking lobbying work while still a senator in 2010, but he leads narrowly in the latest polls. So personal factors and local peculiarities are shaping Senate races as in pre-Trump years. That’s apparently happening, too, in House races, to judge from the sparse publicly available polling. Republican incumbents in districts heavy with college graduates have been catering to them since before Trump appeared; those with many Hispanics have learned enough Spanish to debate en espanol. And Republicans running in districts with many non-college-educated whites (a demographic with whom Trump has been outperforming Romney) — the plains of Iowa, the north woods of Maine and Minnesota — may face no downdraft at all. One big risk for Republicans generally is that Trump’s talk of a rigged election may discourage Republican-leaning constituents from voting. And some down-ballot Republicans’ adaptations to local terrain may not get noticed amid the media hubbub over the latest Trump outrage. BUT SO FAR, down-ballot contests look less like the straight-ticket battles of recent years, in which few candidates ran significantly ahead of or behind party nominees. Instead, they look more like 1970s and 1980s contests, in which many incumbents and challengers, mostly Democrats but also Republicans, continually improvised and created individual personas tailored to their constituencies and capable of distinguishing them from unpopular national party leaders.

Conservative Chronicle

NEW HAMPSHIRE: October 30, 2016

As New Hampshire goes, so goes the Senate?

Sixty-four percent of voters say Ayotte’s voters. Of the state’s 1.3 million resipath to separation from Trump “makes dents, the 720,000 who will vote for senno difference” to them. Last week, ator are the targets of the $125 million UMass Amherst/WBZ released a poll — $173.61 per vote — that will be spent of likely voters, including those “lean- on the Senate contest by Nov. 8. Ayotte ing toward” a candidate, showed Ayotte will be outspent on television with a four-point by $20 million — by lead. Which must $10 million in the reflect the fact last two weeks — that, in a survey of but in this politicseight swing states, saturated state, (c) 2016, Washington Post Writers Group New Hampshire broadcast politihad the largest porcal ads may be the tion of voters (9.7 percent) intending to equivalent of wallpaper — semi-seen vote both for Clinton and for a Republi- but not really noticed. can Senate candidate. New Hampshire campaigning is costFOR 36 YEARS, the Senate seat ly because candidates must advertise on Ayotte occupies has been held by repJUST NINE months ago — time Boston television, which is watched by resentatives of a distinctive New Hampflies when you’re having fun — Don- almost 85 percent of New Hampshire shire Republicanism. Warren Rudman ald Trump won his first victory in this state’s primary. Ayotte could become an SOCIAL SECURITY: October 28, 2016 especially regrettable part of the collateral damage his campaign is doing to the party with which he is temporarily identified. But she probably will survive his undertow and win a second term, partly because she is almost everything people ocial Security is the largest However, since President George W. say they want in politics: She is neither single program in the fed- Bush tried and failed to reform the proold nor rich nor angry. eral budget. The retirement gram in 2005, Congress has abdicated She is 48 and often finds life amusing, and disability program will cost about its responsibility by simply avoiding as she recently did concerning former $950 billion this year, which is about the issue. Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh’s problem. 23 percent of the entire federal budOn the campaign trail, things are He is trying to convince Indiana to return get. Along with Medicare and Med- arguably worse. The two main canhim as a senator to Washington, where he icaid, these “entitlement” programs didates, Hillary Clinton and Donald has lived and prospered since voluntarily are already the main drivers of fed- Trump, have promised to leave Soleaving the Senate in 2011. When he was eral spending. Unless reined in, So- cial Security untouched. When asked recently asked the address of his Indiana cial Security and its counterparts will about what they would do about it durcondominium, he was stumped. Ayotte, eventually explode the federal budget. ing the debate, Trump responded: “I’m laughing, says, “I probably couldn’t tell Unfortunately, few in Congress — and cutting taxes. We’re going to grow the you my address in Washington.” There neither of the major-party presidential economy. It’s going to grow at a record she lives in a basement apartment, re- candidates — have any interest in ac- rate.” That’s all well and good, but we turning on weekends to New Hampshire, knowledging, let alone confronting, can’t grow our way out of this mess. where her husband runs a small land- the problem with Social Security’s in- That’s largely nonsensical. scaping and snow removal business. solvency. This year, New Hampshire has what has become an American rarity, a choice THAT IT’S insolvent isn’t debatbetween two grown-ups. Ayotte is the able. Social Security faces a $10 trilstate’s former attorney general. Her op- lion funding shortfall. Since 2010, (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate ponent, Maggie Hassan, 58, is ending her Social Security has been running a second term as governor. Both women constant cash flow deficit, meaning CLINTON DOESN’T want to have approximately 100 percent name that the taxes collected for the pro- cut benefits, either, but she’d acturecognition and benefit from what an gram aren’t enough to cover the ben- ally exacerbate the problem by raisAyotte aide calls “three degrees of sepa- efits paid to beneficiaries. To fill the ing taxes on the rich while increasing ration:” Almost everyone in this small gap and keep the checks going out, benefits for lower-income Americans. state has, or knows someone who has, the program has been drawing from Though the tax increase part of her met or otherwise had contact with the federal trust funds. However, the gov- plan might extend the life of the protwo. ernment’s trust funds aren’t like trust gram, it wouldn’t fix much. The ComWhich works to Ayotte’s advantage. funds in the real world. Trust funds in mittee for a Responsible Federal BudShe is running by running 5K races, bag- the real world contain assets; the gov- get looked at the issue and found that ging groceries, riding all-terrain vehicles ernment’s trust funds basically con- some increase in revenue would occur in the woods and generally smother- tain IOUs. What that means in simple in the short term, but a cash deficit ing the state with retail politics. Hassan, terms is that the government already would return within 10 years and grow whose challenge is to give voters a rea- has to go further into debt to pay So- over time. It concluded: “This change son to fire Ayotte, is relying heavily on cial Security’s bills — and it’s only go- would close just over one-third of Sonegative ads, especially ones criticizing ing to get worse. cial Security’s structural gap by 2090. Ayotte’s path to her current position of Even if one believes in the sanctity In other words, a substantial portion of refusing to vote for Trump. of the government’s combined trust the fix defers the problem, but does not funds in general, Social Security’s will fix it.” And that’s calculated even beBUT PAID ADS often do not dent be exhausted by 2034, thus triggering fore she starts to spend more on Social “three degrees of separation” knowledge. a benefit cut of roughly 25 percent. Security. n 1936, President Franklin Roosevelt defeated Kansas’ Gov. Alfred Landon in 46 of the 48 states, thereby creating the jest, “As Maine goes, so goes Vermont.” Eight decades later, New England has gone from the Republicans’ last redoubt in a bad year to their least receptive region in any year. Its six states have made 36 decisions in the last six presidential elections and the score is Democrats 35, Republicans 1 — New Hampshire supported George W. Bush in 2000. Republicans hold just two of New England’s 21 congressional seats, and two of 12 Senate seats, those of Maine’s Susan Collins and New Hampshire’s Kelly Ayotte.

George

Will

for two terms and Judd Gregg for three brought flinty fiscal Puritanism to bear on the federal government’s mismanagement of its fisc. New Hampshire currently has a Democratic senator, a member of Congress from each party, and a close contest for governor, so were Ayotte to lose, the state could be entirely blue, which does not suit the prickly (“Live Free or Die”) and purple spirit of a state where 40 percent of voters are registered independents. In this year’s crowded New Hampshire Republican primary, Ohio’s Gov. John Kasich finished second to Trump. Today, only 17 percent of those who supported Kasich support Trump. The center-right of the Granite State seems likely to decide this race, giving rise to the saying, “As New Hampshire goes, so goes the Senate.”

Social Security’s IOU trust fund

Veronique

de Rugy

But even that’s probably too optimistic, says the American Enterprise Institute’s Andrew Biggs in a recent Forbes column, because her “tax increases on the rich would boost revenues by far less than she imagines because of rarely-discussed interactions with other parts of the tax code.” Third-party candidates are only marginally better on the issue than Clinton and Trump. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian, has called Social Security a Ponzi scheme and has personally endorsed privatization. But he has also talked about means-testing benefits — curtailing the benefits of wealthy Americans — and raising the retirement age from 67 to 72. As he is on most issues, here Johnson is to the left of the Libertarian Party platform, which would “phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system.” Evan McMullin, an independent candidate, has acknowledged the problem of overspending on programs such as Social Security, but his plan is light on details. To the best of my knowledge, his reform ideas boil down to raising the retirement age and meanstesting the program. Same as Johnson. BEYOND SOLVENCY, Social Security suffers from many other problems, so meek tweaks, higher taxes or expanded benefits without other cuts aren’t acceptable solutions. The free market movement has provided many reform ideas over the years, from private accounts to an expansion of Roth IRAs or traditional individual retirement accounts to plain termination. Now is the time to act.

November 9, 2016 2016 ELECTION: October 27, 2016

Ignoring the voters’ no. 1 concern: The economy

serves as a proxy for business investment plunged 1.2 percent in September, the biggest setback since a 2.1 percent drop in February.” But Trump was ignoring the stagnant economy, or at best giving it lip service, focusing instead on his economic future and lining his own pockets. His chief defenders, like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, were ignoring the economy too, and going after Trump’s critics in the news media about the rash of sex scandals that have all but ended his political hopes. In an interview Tuesday with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, Gingrich was anTHE PERPETUALLY sluggish grily shaking his finger at her, accusing Obama economy was barely growing her of being “fascinated with sex” when at a little more than a one percent an- she dared to raise the sexual assault altions that at least 11 nual rate in the past six months, as the l e g a women have made government anagainst Trump. nounced ThursThe real estate day that factory mogul promoted orders fell last the scolding story month, along with (c) 2016, United Media Services at his ribbon-cutbusiness investting affair Wednesday, saying “Conment. “The U.S. factory sector is still on gratulations, Newt, on last night. That shaky ground,” the Wall Street Jour- was an amazing interview. We don’t nal said in another dismal report on the play games, Newt, right?” This has been the story of a campaign anemic economy — which never, ever draws any serious criticism from Hill- that has stooped to a new low in presidential politics when his utterly vulgar ary Clinton. “Orders for big-ticket manufactured language about his sexual exploits had goods dipped ... in September as a key to be bleeped out in TV news broadcategory that tracks business invest- casts or abbreviated in the newspapers. I mean, what kind of presidential ment fell by the largest amount in seven months,” the Associated Press reported candidate accuses his opponent of bethis week. “Orders in the category that ing a “crook” and a “nasty woman” in a onald Trump was promoting business this week, his own, at a ribbon-cutting ceremony for his newest luxury hotel, a few blocks from the White House. While the presidential election raced on without him, he was boasting that he finished the project under budget and ahead of schedule, and was now open for business. However, while Trump’s moneymaking advertisement was drawing nationwide promotion on the nightly news, the U.S. economy’s decline was getting much less attention.

Donald

Lambro

debate on nationwide television? It kind of makes one long for the good old days when Ronald Reagan made headlines with his “there you go again” remark in his debate with President Jimmy Carter. As Trump’s embarrassing campaign raced toward its final days this week, Kellyanne Conway, his campaign manager, appeared to be struggling when she was asked if she believed the women who have accused her boss of sexually assaulting them. “I believe ... Donald Trump has told me and his family, and the rest of America now, that none of this is true,” she told CNN’s Dana Bash. “These are lies and fabrications. They’re all made up. And I think it’s not for me to judge what those women believe. I’ve not talked to them, I’ve talked to him.” IT’S CERTAINLY no exaggeration to conclude that from the very beginning, Trump’s campaign has veered wildly off course. It began with his sweeping condemnation of just about all Hispanic migrants as serial rapists, drug dealers

and murderers, and his pledge to round them up and deport every one of them — then build a 2,000-mile wall along our border and make Mexico pay for it. While illegal Hispanic immigrants are the top issue for a small percentage of Americans, it isn’t a major concern among most Americans — not even close. Year after year, according to all the polls, one issue has been the No. 1 concern of most Americans: The economy. “Americans continue to cite the economy as the top problem,” the Gallup Poll reports this week. Its latest poll, conducted between Oct. 5-9, found that 17 percent of us point to the weak Obama economy as the most troubling problem facing our country, while “overall, 31 percent name at least one economic issue as their top concern.” “Dissatisfaction with government” comes in second on the poll’s list at 12 percent, and “race relations/racism” is third at 10 percent. Immigration and illegal aliens are in fourth place at a mere seven percent. Surprisingly, though, Gallup discovered a new concern among Americans that hasn’t appeared before in recent elections. “In the midst of the ongoing presidential campaign, seven percent of Americans cite the election as the top U.S. problem in October — higher than Gallup has found at this stage in recent presidential election years,” the pollsters said. “In October of each presidential election year from 2000 to 2012, no more than one percent of Americans mentioned the election as one of the country’s top concerns.” We have become accustomed to elections that are first and foremost about policies or the direction of the country, but this time the campaign has “instead focused on the candidates’ personal scandals,” the polling report said. To date, there are the troublesome “pay to play” email details about Bill and Hillary Clinton’s foundation, involving huge sums of money, and now, of course, Trump’s tawdry sexual scandal. WE ARE confronted with two very distasteful choices for president who are not seriously focused on the voters’ chief concerns about a weak, underperforming economy.

Conservative Chronicle

TWO-PARTY SYSTEM: October 26, 2016

An honest question for all voting Americans

n 1996, The Simpsons did a “Treehouse of Horror” episode featuring Bill Clinton running against Bob Dole. Halfway through the episode, during a presidential debate, Homer Simpson reveals that both candidates are “hideous space reptiles,” complete with dripping fangs, tentacles and one eye each: Kodos and Kang. The crowd screams in shock and horror. Then one of the aliens, Kodos, speaks: “It’s true; we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It’s a two-party system. You have to vote for one of us.” The crowd mutters in stunned agreement. One fellow speaks up: “Well, I believe I’ll vote for a thirdparty candidate!” “Go ahead,” says Kang, “throw your vote away.” Both aliens laugh hysterically as the crowd frets. Welcome to election 2016.

BUT THIS election does raise a serious question for people of all political affiliations: Do the political ends justify the means? Is there anyone who agrees with you on policy for whom you would not vote? The myth of the binary vote would force a “no” answer. If you must choose between two candidates, you choose the one who best reflects your policy priorities. But what if the candidate who best reflects your policy priorities is utterly unpalatable as a politician or a human being? What do you do then? You vote for him or her anyway. Take, as a hypothetical, a David Duke senatorial candidacy in Louisiana. A vicious racist and anti-Semite, former Ku Klux Klan head Duke is indeed running for Senate, and he’s garnering some five percent of the vote there; he’ll be included in the broadcast debate. Assume, for a moment, that Duke were the prospective 60th vote in the Senate to repeal Obamacare. Would Republicans vote for him? Most Republicans, asked about voting for David Duke, would likely say no to his candidacy no matter the circumstances. But some wouldn’t. They’d simply say that Duke on policy would be better than his Democratic opponent. Why lose a Senate seat to prove a point? THIS IS precisely the argument now taking place over Donald Trump on the Republican side of the aisle. No, Trump isn’t David Duke, of course. But that’s not the point: The argument in favor of Trump has had little to do with his qualities, and much to do with his status as the Not Hillary. That’s dangerous moral territory, at best. It’s basic “ends justify the means” logic. And that logic approves of any action by a candidate so long as that candidate votes the right way on an issue about which you care.

Conservatives used to mock such If so, let’s be honest about it. But let’s thinking. We used to scoff at Demo- also recognize where such voting logic crats calling Sen. Teddy Kennedy, leads: Directly to the worst people in D-Mass, a man who left a woman to positions of the greatest power. Many drown in the back of his car, the “lion Trump supporters are fond of saying back Stalin to stop of the Senate.” We used to sneer at the that they’d But that’s not the Democratic notion that Bill Clinton H i t l e r. question. The real could get away question is whethwith sexual aser they’d vote for sault so long as Hitler to stop the he backed aborCommunist threat tion-on-demand. (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate in 1933 Germany, Perhaps years of Democratic rule from the White or vote for the Communists to stop HitHouse has forced Republicans to aban- ler. After all, it was a binary choice. Or perhaps it wasn’t. Perhaps more don the notion that character matters in the slightest; perhaps we’ve just decid- people should have stood up and said ed to become Democrats of the right. “no” to the available choices.

Ben

Shapiro

If we all demanded more from our candidates, we’d get better candidates. But the binary election system creates a collective-action problem: If conservatives stand by their guns on character and Democrats don’t, Democrats have an inherent political advantage. UNLESS, OF course, Republicans can start making the case for character, rather than adopting the belief that character simply doesn’t matter. Unless Republicans forego Kodos and Kang and demand something better. If they don’t, we’re doomed to a lifetime of Kodosvs.-Kang elections, all the while patting ourselves on the back that we’re saving the country from the lesser of two evils.

LESLIE’S TRIVIA BITS: October 31, 2016

Leslie’s Trivia Bits

f you’re the sort of person who enjoys spotting goofs in major motion pictures, pay attention to the car license plates on screen. You’ll never run out of goofs to spot, from plates with the wrong design for the movie’s time period to that pesky question of which states require front plates and which don’t. One of the best-known license plate goofs comes from the 1978 horror movie Halloween. It’s set in Illinois, but the characters drive cars with California plates. Oops.

IN 1873, when architects Paul J. Pelz and John L. Smithmeyer won the commission to design the Library of Congress building in Washington, D.C., Pelz was the chief draftsman for the United States Lighthouse Board. The Point Fermin lighthouse in California, St. Augustine lighthouse in Florida and Hereford Inlet lighthouse in New Jersey are his creations. He might have wished he’d kept that reliable day job. Congress took 13 years to approve the start of construction, and as late as 1900, the Library of Congress architects were still awaiting payment for their work. The first year the National Hurricane Center used women’s names to designate hurricanes originating the Atlantic Ocean was 1953. That list started with a storm called Alice that passed through Florida in June and ended with Irene, which hit the Lesser Antilles in December. The same list of names was reused in 1954, when Hurricane Carol caused so much destruction in New York and New England it became the first storm to have its name “retired.” Since 1979, the list has alternated women’s and men’s names. Jacques Plante of the Montreal Canadiens was the first National Hockey League goalie to wear a face mask in league play. It was in November 1959

during a game between the Canadiens and the New York Rangers. Today, the NHL requires goalies to wear masks. Back then, even after Plante’s move, some players still opted to face the consequences without protection. The last NHL goalie to play without a mask was Andy Brown, who ended his NHL career with the Pittsburgh Penguins in 1974. The Thousand and One Nights is a collection of folktales from different sources in Asia and the Middle East, shared first by ancient storytellers then written down in the 9th century. What unites them is the tale of Scheherazade, a clever woman married to a vengeful king. Knowing he plans to kill her, she tells him the stories of “Aladdin,” “Sinbad the Sailor” and “Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves” among many others, which entertain the king and ultimately save her life.

Leslie

VERMONT’S ONLY National Park Service site is Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historic Park. The boyhood home of the 19th century environmentalist-writer George Perkins Marsh, the estate was later purchased by lawyer and conservation advocate Frederick Billings and through his descendants became the property of the Rockefeller family before it was deeded to the National Park Service. Billing itself as the birthplace of the American conservation movement, the park’s grounds include the oldest managed forest in the United States and, oddly, two nuclear fallout shelters — one under the main house and one under the bowling alley — that were added to the property in the 1960s.

TRIVIA 1. The fictional planned community of Cuesta Verde, California, was the setting for which scary movie? A) Child’s Play B) Friday the 13th C) A Nightmare on Elm Street D) Poltergeist 2. Whose personal collection of 6,487 books was the foundation of today’s Library of Congress? A) King George III B) William Randolph Hearst C) Thomas Jefferson D) Theodore Roosevelt 3. Who won a best actress Oscar for her role in the 1974 film Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore? A) Ellen Burstyn B) Louise Fletcher C) Diane Keaton D) Sissy Spacek 4. The NHL’s annual award for the “goalkeeper adjudged to be the best at his position” is named for whom? A) Frank Calder B) Marie Evelyn Morton (Lady Byng) C) Art Ross D) Georges Vezina 5. Which Middle Eastern capital is nicknamed the City of Jasmine because of the flowers that grow there? A) Amman B) Beirut C) Damascus D) Jerusalem 6. Which U.S. president is buried in Plymouth Notch, Vermont? A) Chester A. Arthur B) Calvin Coolidge C) Franklin Pierce D) John Tyler (answers on page 19)

November 9, 2016 OBAMACARE: October 28, 2016

When will liberals answer for Obamacare’s failures?

hese days, there’s been a lot of Of course mandating and subsidizing discussion about conservative health insurance will decrease the nummedia’s culpability in creating ber of uninsured. Yet punditry on the left unrealistic expectations and warped pri- seems to be under the impression that orities among Republican voters. It’s a coercing people to participate is revolureasonable critique. My question: When tionary policymaking. Countless times are we going to have this conversation in 2009, the president promised that about the other side — you know, the exchanges would offer those newly inone that enabled the passage of a mas- sured Americans more quality “choices” sive partisan health care reform law and “affordability” and push that’s failed to dedown rates overall. liver on almost all (He promised the rest its promises? of us that health care No doubt, premiums would you’ll remember fall by $2,500 for a (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate all those romantic family of four. Incharts and stories stead, they’ve risen from the liberal smart set predicting by over $4,800.) Obamacare’s affordability and success. New administration data released this Remember the jeering aimed at conser- week find that Obamacare premiums will vatives who argued that state-run mar- spike an average of 25 percent across the kets inhibiting genuine competition and country for benchmark plans in 2017. increasing regulations would only spur Americans will be forced to forfeit plans costs to rise? “Lies,” liberals said. they like or lose insurance altogether and accept a tax or fine — or whatever liberIN 2014, the Washington Post’s E.J. als are calling their state-enforced manDionne asked a valuable question: “Is date these days. there any accountability in American But don’t worry; consumers on expolitics for being completely wrong?” changes will also have far fewer choices. The answer: Of course not. Not for con- The number of health insurance carriservative talkers — and definitely not for ers in the exchanges will drop from 298 liberal pundits who keep modifying the this year to 228 in 2017. In five states meaning of success. — Alaska, Ala., Okla., S.C.and Wyo. — At the time, Dionne argued that the Af- there will be only one insurance compafordable Care Act was doing exactly what ny providing plans in 2017. It’s one too its supporters had predicted, “getting many for many on the left. Obamacare is working so well that health insurance to millions who didn’t have it before.” In reality, that was only Democrats are now pressuring Republione piece of Obamacare’s promise, and cans to fix it and Hillary Clinton is areven that accomplishment has been ret- guing that to save it, we need a “public roactively simplified to create an impres- option” — a euphemism for a government-run insurance program. You can’t sion of unqualified success. Far from it.

David

Harsanyi

save contrived marketplaces, because they never work. They don’t work even when you allow cronyistic insurance companies to write policy. They don’t work simply because technocrats massage numbers and cram them into a line chart. EVEN AS HE was boasting about his signature achievement this past week, President Obama conceded that six years after passage, Obamacare is still experiencing “growing pains.” You know, it’s just like a “starter home,” he said. “You hope that over time, you make some improvements.” Rest assured, those “improvements” never mean opening up markets or loosening restrictions. In other words, health

care reform was exactly what many Republicans feared it would be: A way to incrementally socialize the system. “We think they will ultimately be surprised by the affordability of the premiums, because the tax credits track with the increases in premiums,” Kevin Griffis, assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services, reassured exchange users after the rate hikes were announced. There are about 10 million customers who purchase their health care through HealthCare.gov and state-run offshoots. With no effective national reform in sight, that number will most likely grow. Although these consumers will have fewer choices, they will still receive financial assistance to offset the rate hikes. A spike in rates on the benchmark plans means more subsidies. Someone has to pay for what turns out to be little more than a new welfare program. Unlike the media seers who saw Obamacare paying for itself — magically bending the cost curve in the right direction and creating vibrant pretend marketplaces that offer uninsured Americans an array of affordable choices — I can’t see the future. The trajectory of the law, though, offers us two choices, broadly speaking. REPUBLICANS COULD let the law die. They could then reform the health care system by allowing it to function more like every other successful market in the country — with minimal interference from politicians. Or we could all accept another giant unfunded liability, higher taxes and further socialization of our health care system. The only question will be how quickly it will happen. One thing’s for sure, though. Despite all evidence, liberal cheerleaders of Obamacare will continue to act as if the law has been an awe-inspiring success.

November 9, 2016

Warned you then: Warning you now

here is plenty of bad news important ideologue, every liar, every about Obamacare. Premiums charlatan. That is why President Obama was able are set to skyrocket next year an average of 22 percent (a staggering to lie to you over and over again about 116 percent in Arizona). Of the 23 state keeping your doctor and your plan, and co-ops that were originally set to operate, get away with it. It’s why Obamacare architect Jonathan 16 have gone bankrupt, and the remaining seven are in dire financial straits. A Gruber could brag about “the stupidity of significant number of major insurance the American voter,” and adviser Ezekiel companies, including UnitedHealthcare, Emanuel could argue in favor of bureauHumana and Aetna, have pulled out of cratic rationing of health care, and get away with it. most (if not all) of It’s why Conthe exchanges on gress could pass the grounds that a 2,000-page bill the financial losses that not one of the are unsustainable. (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate members had read (Across the counin its entirely, and try, insurers have lost billions since 2014.) This leaves an why then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi increasing number of consumers with could infamously say, “We have to pass only one or two options to choose from. the bill so you can find out what’s in it,” Most have lost plans and been forced — and get away with it. Now you know what’s in it. Do you sometimes multiple times — into other still, seriously, want to give these condeplans, losing physicians in the process. scending jerks control over your and your AND THERE are plenty of writers family’s health care? The failure of Obamacare was — and (Kevin Williamson at National Review, Avik Roy at Forbes, Betsy McCaughey, is — inevitable. It has nothing to do with yours truly) who are saying “we told you people in government being stupid or corrupt (though, yes, you can find those who so.” It isn’t gloating. We warned you. fit that description). It’s just basic ecoWe shouted it from the rooftops. You nomics. Consumers benefit when there were told that we were lying, or corpo- are more choices, not fewer. Choices rate shills, or that we wanted old people create options and competition. Compeand sick people to die. To the contrary, tition ensures accountability and quality. we saw what was coming and wanted to And then there’s the tried-and-true rule of supply and demand: When many people avoid it. Yes, there were — and are — legiti- want something for which there is a limitmate concerns about people without ined supply, prices increase. When there is a surance. But the rallying cry of Obam- plentiful supply of a good or service, proacare — “We have to do something!” ducers have to lower prices to compete. It is madness, therefore, to insist upon — is precisely the wrong impulse. It is that self-imposed desperation that makes a system that further reduces consumers’ you targets for exploitation by every self- options.

Laura

Hollis

SO IF YOU are unhappy with Obamacare, here is this year’s warning: Do not elect Hillary Clinton. Clinton is the worst kind of charlatan. As the WikiLeaks dumps have demonstrated, she has nothing but disdain for huge swaths of the American public. Even her own staff complains that she refuses to listen. A sensible person would say, “This hasn’t worked. So let’s offer Americans more companies, more plans, more choices, because that’s what brings down prices.” Not Clinton. Her plan to “fix” Obamacare will be worse. She will push for what she and Obama and the other central planners have wanted for decades, singlepayer: One health care plan, run by the government and funded by taxpayers. She will tell you it will be cheaper. That will be a lie. (They told us that Obamacare would be cheaper, remember?) She will tell you that the quality of

care will be excellent. That will be a lie. (If you don’t believe me, consider that the government has provided appallingly poor care for 5.4 million Native Americans, and the Veterans Affairs scandal is another lesson in “government-run health care.”) She will tell you that it’s a system that works beautifully in other western nations. She will not tell you that the National Health Service in England is going broke (as is France’s system) and plagued by scandals; that Canadians wait four to five months to see a specialist (and Sweden isn’t much better); or that Finland is a ridiculous comparison — with 5.4 million people, it is half the size of Los Angeles county. She will not tell you that nothing along these lines has ever been tried in a country with over 300 million people. She will not tell you that neither you nor your doctor will decide what your care will be. She will not tell you that some faceless wonk somewhere will decide that you don’t get that appointment, that test, that medicine, that surgery, because, oops, we underestimated the cost, and there’s not enough money. She will not tell you any of this. But I have told you. Many of you regret your trust in President Obama and his deceitful promises about health care. We warned you that what he was promising was false, because no system could work the way he was describing it. Why would you make the same mistake again? Donald Trump is hardly the ideal candidate. But he has experience with both success and failure in business, and will be far more likely to encourage the competition and free market options that our struggling health care system needs. HILLARY CLINTON will only give us more to regret. Consider yourself warned. Again. October 27, 2016

This Week’s Conservative Focus

Obamacare

Obamacare implosion exposes web of lies and deceit

y now, everyone knows that spending? Try that with a business and the Obamacare is the public-policy feds will throw you in jail. flop of this generation. With the THE ONLY thing that has caught the latest news of premiums increasing 22 percent, insurance companies dropping left by surprise is that Obamacare has out, rising taxes and less completion, this burst into flames so much faster than even severe critics — such as myself — ever is truly the Hindenburg of health plans. But there is another part of the story thought possible. The left was praying news wouldn’t be exthat needs to be told. President Obama’s the bad posed until after the team and the liberal election. Now at least echo chamber lied Americans will go to about Obamacare the polls with the ugly from the start and facts right in front covered up the fi(c) 2016, Creators Syndicate of them. nancial time bomb One technique that would soon detonate in Americans’ laps. This was like the left used to try to shut up critics was Enron officials cooking the books to cover to accuse us of exaggerating the costs. up financial fraud. Anyone remember how Nearly two years ago I wrote a column Affordable Care proponents said that the that now looks pretty prescient. It began: “If there were a contest for the biggest system would pay for itself by using 10 years of revenue to pay for eight years of lie in Washington over the past 30 years,

Stephen

Moore

it would be hard to compete with President Obama’s boast that he would put 30 million more Americans on Obamacare subsidies and Medicaid, and this would reduce the deficit. ... This begs the question: Is there a single promise that Obama made about Obamacare that has proven truthful?” Well: It hasn’t bent the cost curve down; it has been a major driver of higher budget costs for health care (as the Congressional

Last chance to get rid of Obamacare

his election is a referendum on the Affordable Care Act. Almost everyone in America is affected, and it’s harming millions more people than it’s helping. Donald Trump is promising to “repeal and replace the disaster known as Obamacare.” Hillary Clinton defends it and wants to “build on it.” “Disaster” sums up the skyrocketing premiums and lack of choice facing many of the 11 million people enrolled in the exchange plans. The plans are unaffordable, unless you’re a low earner getting a free ride. Obamacare enrollees aren’t the only people being clobbered. If you get insured at work — as 155 million people do — your deductibles are up a staggering 49 percent since 2011 thanks to Obamacare. Part-timers are working fewer hours, so employers can avoid Obamacare’s employer mandate. Taxpayers are on the hook for some 50 new taxes. Seniors get hit the hardest. Over half of Obamacare’s costs are paid for by cutting Medicare, resulting in stingy care for seniors. HERE’S HOW Obamacare affects you: Insured through work? The law forces employers to provide a one-size-fitsall benefit package costing much more than pre-Obamacare coverage. The law also imposes a slew of new taxes. No surprise, employers are offsetting these costs by raising deductibles and reducing family coverage. In 2017, many companies will eliminate insurance for spouses. Working part-time? Hundreds of thousands of workers have had their

hours cut because Obamacare requires employers to cover “full-time” employees, meaning those working 30 hours a week or more. Ironically, colleges, where Democrats outnumber Republicans, are major culprits, slashing hours for adjuncts and student workers to evade providing insurance. Job hunting? Obamacare dampens the job market. In New York state, 17 percent of service companies and 21 percent of manufacturers are reducing their workforces to stay below 50 fulltime workers and dodge the employer mandate, according to the New York Federal Reserve.

Betsy

SIXTY-FIVE OR over? Obamacare awards bonus points to hospitals that spend the least per senior. Researchers found that at 231 hospitals getting bonuses for low spending, seniors died needlessly because of inadequate care. For example, seniors having heart attacks were forced to wait too long for angioplasties. Obamacare emergency room rules slap seniors with bills for “observation care.” You’re in the hospital, but you’re not officially “admitted.” It’s a costcutting gimmick. When it’s time to go home, Medicare doesn’t pay and you’re stuck with a huge tab. A physician? Thank Obamacare for the thousands of pages of new regulations dictating how you treat your

Medicare patients. Precious minutes that could be spent talking to a patient are wasted filling out tedious, repetitive government forms. Physicians are glued to computer screens, following prompts, instead of making eye contact with their patients and listening to them. Refusnik? If you’re uninsured and refuse to buy Obamacare, the average penalty is $995 per adult, $500 per child. Ouch. Clinton promises voters to make Obamacare better. With billions of dollars of extra spending. But she’s not going to remove the mandates causing people to lose work hours or their jobs. As for the regulations suffocating doctors, count on Clinton to pile on more. Worst of all, Hillary Clinton wants to expand Medicare to people in their 50s. Seniors are already having a hard time finding a doctor to treat them for Medicare’s low rates. Adding millions of 50-somethings trying to see the same doctors will make it impossible to get an appointment.

Budget Office acknowledged last month); it hasn’t given consumers more choices; and it certainly has not saved the average family $2,500 a year. WHEN I wrote this piece, I was excoriated in the left media as a liar and deceptive. New York Magazine even published an article about me titled: “Guy Who Gets Paid to Say Obamacare Doesn’t Work Can’t Find a Single True Fact to Support His Case” If anything, I understated the case against Obamacare. The Obamacare insurance companies now want billions of dollars in a taxpayer bailout because the exchange’s costs are in a death spiral. Healthy people aren’t signing up, and sick people are enrolling at a record pace. So this will add billions more to the program’s cost. So much for Obama’s claim this wasn’t going to cost taxpayers a penny. The few remaining Obamacare defenders meekly say that most people are not facing 22 percent premium hikes because most Americans are in employer plans. But those employer plans are starting to see the same rising pressures. Mike Tanner, Cato’s health care expert, reports that not only are Americans going to pay more; they’re going to get less: “Deductibles have risen steadily since the ACA began. The average deductible for a family with a Silver plan now exceeds $6,400. Total out-of-pocket costs can exceed $12,000.” Even the one goal of Obamacare that should have been easy to achieve given the massive cost of the program isn’t being achieved. Instead of 24 million covered, the number is half that — 11.4 million. The vast majority of Americans who have gotten health insurance under the new law were dumped into Medicaid. This is a welfare program for people with very low incomes. Shouldn’t we define success in America when fewer, not more, people are receiving welfare? So, I will ask the same question I asked two years ago, only with more evidence in hand now: Is there any sane person today who doesn’t recognize the law as a costly and obvious failure?

TRUMP KNOWS Obamacare has to be junked. His plan eliminates the unaffordable mandates and penalties. Consumers will choose from wide variety of plans, sold across state lines, with special help for people with pre-existing conditions. Donald Trump gives states flexibility to improve Medicaid for the poor. His plan resembles what House I’M WAITING for an apology from Republicans are pushing, which means it might actually get passed. On Nov. 8, New York Magazine for their smear, but voters have the chance to rid this nation that’s about as likely as Obamacare ever saving money. of Obamacare. They should seize it. November 2, 2016

November 1, 2016

Conservative Chronicle

RANDOM THOUGHTS: November 1, 2016

Random thoughts from Dr. Thomas Sowell Random thoughts on the passing scene: There seem to be fewer bumper stickers this year than in previous presidential election years. People may decide to vote for one of these candidates, but apparently they are not proud of their choice. It is astonishing that some people think that the answer to the problems of Obamacare is to go to a “single payer” system. But “single payer” is just another way of saying “government monopoly.” Does anyone pay attention to how government monopolies operate — from the local DMV to Veterans Administration hospitals?

Have we reached the ultimate stage of absurdity where some people are held responsible for things that happened before they were born, while other people are not held responsible for what they themselves are doing today?

Each political party has picked a loser this year. Unfortunately, one of them is going to win, and then the whole country can lose, big time. I am so old that I can remember when liberals were liberal, and when common decency was actually comTHE PLIGHT of Middle East refu- mon. gees is something that any decent human Have you ever encountered even one being can sympathize with. But other human being — whether in perrefugees have been helped in their own son, in print or in the broadpart of the world cast media — who — with money, denied that climates food, medicine change? If not, why and other things, do you suppose in settings more zealots for the cat(c) 2016, Creators Syndicate compatible with astrophic “global POLITICS HAS turned the lofty their own way of life, rather than being warming” theory want laws passed to ideal of equality into the ugly reality of brought across an ocean to a country that punish “climate change deniers?” Is it resentments of other people’s achieve- neither fits them nor which they fit in. because they are losing the battle of evments — and a feeling that the world owes you something, while you owe REPUBLICAN PARTY: October 28, 2016 nobody anything, not even common decency. Why should the fate of the economy depend on the guesswork of the Federal Reserve — and the guesswork of the stock market about what the Federal Ren a little more than a week, the vice-presidential nominee. Reagan and serve will guess? Republican Party will undergo a Kemp were optimistic men who sought Politicians have learned to call their major realignment. Either it will to broaden the GOP’s appeal beyond the spending of the taxpayers’ money “in- become the party of Trumpism, with base. vestment,” even when it is just pouring or without Donald Trump in the White Ryan’s supporters come from the busimoney down a bottomless pit, in order to House, or it will become the party of ness community, large and small, and win votes from the recipients. House Speaker Paul Ryan and other eco- suburbia. They want lower taxes and The NAACP’s decision to back the nomic and foreign policy conservatives. less government regulation and see the teachers’ unions, who donate money to The wheels were set in motion for this private economy as the country’s main them, against charter schools that pro- realignment in 2010, when local tea party engine of growth. His supporters are vide thousands of black children their groups emerged as a loose coalition of champions of free markets and free trade, only hope of a better life, means that the anti-establishment Republicans. viewing both as the path to prosperity for NAACP should no longer be considered all Americans. They see immigrants as a part of the civil rights movement, but just THOUGH THE different factions resource for the future and believe that another part of the race hustling racket. of the tea party differed in their focus on no matter where they come from, people In a few months from now, Barack major issues from state to state, they had seeking to immigrate to AmeriObama will no longer be President of the a few elements in common. Tea party- ca will follow in the footsteps United States. But the same gullibility ers were as suspicious of big business as and frivolity of the voters that put him in they were of big government. They were the White House will still be there to put uneasy with the demographic changes the fate of America, and of Western civi- taking place in the country and feared lization, in other fatally unreliable hands that multiculturalism and multilingual(c) 2016, Creators Syndicate in a nuclear age. ism would fundamentally change the Hillary Clinton has performed the ver- nature of what it means to be American. of all previous groups by learning Engbal magic of turning her years of repeat- They were older, likelier to be on Social lish, moving up the economic ladder and ed disastrous decisions in foreign policy Security and Medicare, and therefore sus- becoming a part of the great melting pot. into a political asset called “experience.” picious of broad entitlement reform. And The political left’s hatred of Donald because they prided themselves as a botBUT THERE are temperamental difTrump is ironic, because both he and tom-up movement, many in the tea party ferences between the two faces of the Rethey have the same pattern of automatic rejected the leadership of the Republican publican Party, as well. The Trump wing demonizing of those who disagree with Party and the agenda that had defined the is motivated by anger and resentment. Its their views, rather than confronting op- GOP for a generation or more. members believe they’ve been cheated posing arguments with hard evidence or Populism became the face of this in the new economy, with rewards goconvincing logic. new brand of Republicanism, and it was ing only to whom they deem as the elites If the media seriously wanted to re- ripe for someone like Donald Trump to — those with college educations and port the news — instead of spinning it capture. Paul Ryan, on the other hand, advanced degrees, who they think look — they could stop calling rioters “pro- emerged from the deep roots of tradi- down on them. And they aren’t entirely testers” and stop calling terrorists “mili- tional Reagan conservatism. Those in wrong about the latter. tants.” Whereas the Trump supporters are anthe Ryan wing of the party were the inLetter from a reader: “The Social- heritors of not only Ronald Reagan but gry, the Ryan wing of the party is cereists want to take the ‘sting’ out of pov- also Jack Kemp, a former quarterback bral, maybe too much so. Speaker Ryan erty. They don’t understand that it’s the elected as a congressman from New York told members of his party in December: ‘sting’ that got everyone I know out of who became George H.W. Bush’s HUD “If we want to do what we believe in, then poverty and not a minimum wage.” secretary and then the 1996 Republican we need a mandate from the people. And

Thomas

Sowell

idence on “global warming” and need to shut up others? One of the mysteries of the ages is why the political left has, for centuries, lavished so much attention on the wellbeing of criminals and paid so little attention to their victims. THE MONUMENTAL tragedies of the 20th century — a world-wide Great Depression, two devastating World Wars, the Holocaust, famines killing millions in the Soviet Union and tens of millions in China — should leave us with a sobering sense of the threats to any society. But this generation’s ignorance of history leaves them free to be frivolous — until the next catastrophe strikes, and catches them completely by surprise.

The party of Trump or Ryan?

Linda

Chavez

if we want a mandate, then we need to offer ideas.” He laid out those ideas over the summer in his “Better Way” plan, which included tax reform, a balanced budget, health care reform, improved national security and the elimination of poverty. As comprehensive and impressive as the Ryan agenda is, it lacks the emotional appeal of “Make America Great Again” or “Build a Wall,” something to rev up audiences and rally around. If the GOP were to become the party of Trump, I believe that it would wither and die. Demographics alone would doom it, and not just because whites are shrinking as a proportion of the population. Any party hoping for majority status has to appeal to college graduates and women, at a minimum. But the Ryan wing of the party faces challenges, as well. It’s got to convince the Trump supporters that free trade benefits all Americans, especially workingclass Americans, whose dollars go much further because of access to more affordable goods. It needs to convince those voters that newcomers aren’t just cheap labor, that they fill important niches in the economy that keep jobs in the U.S., benefiting everyone. And it has to come up with an emotional appeal that has thus far been lacking in its wonkish agenda. IF HILLARY Clinton wins the presidency, opposition to her big-government programs, tax increases, court nominees and nanny-state proposals will undoubtedly unite Republicans temporarily. But the party will still have to put together a winning coalition of voters if it is ever to win the White House — which will require much fence-mending and outreach to those turned off by the 2016 presidential race.

November 9, 2016 DEAR MARK: October 28, 2016

The official Dear Mark presidential endorsement

e are fast approaching Election Day which means it’s time for the illustrious Dear Mark endorsement for president. The 2016 election has been the most “interesting” of my lifetime as the substantive issues facing our country have gotten lost in the onslaught of personal attacks. The election has become far more about personalities than policies which is a shame considering the problems our country faces. Now I’ll be the first to admit that both candidates have significant character flaws. Donald Trump can be boorish, arrogant, and maybe a little egotistical and he also has hair that defies the laws of physics but that pales in comparison to Hillary’s faults. Mrs. Bill Clinton has proven to be a liar time after time not to mention being neck deep in political corruption during her 30 years of so called public service. I thought her husband was bad but Hillary lies when the truth will do just fine.

THIS IS NOT to say that character isn’t important to me when choosing a president. It’s just that the contrast in policies couldn’t be starker almost eliminating the personality factor in my book. Take a look at where the candidates stand on the following issues. The Supreme Court — This is probably the most important consequence of who enters the White House in January. Trump has announced who he would put on the Supreme Court and they all appear to be strict constitutionalists. Hillary will pack the court with more bleeding heart activist judges like Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan. This may sound draconian

but I believe we could kiss the First and Second Amendments goodbye as a result of Hillary’s choices. Advantage Trump. The Border — As the WikiLeaks have revealed Hillary is in favor of open borders which spells disaster for our country which is already $20 trillion in debt. Trump has been vilified for saying he will build a wall but something has to be done to secure our borders or the United States will no longer be a sovereign nation. Trump has never said he was against immigration; it’s simply a matter of following the law and identifying the people entering our country. Advantage Trump.

Mark

Obamacare — The news that enrollees in the 2017 Affordable Care Act are being hit with double digit and in some cases triple digit price increases shows the continued implosion of Obama’s signature legislation. Hillary wants to tweak the law by increasing subsidies and penalties while Trump wants to repeal and replace. Advantage Trump. Foreign Policy — Hillary claims to have experience because she served as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State. Not all experience is good experience because under the guidance of President Obama and Hillary, the world is a bigger mess than when they took office. Putin is enjoying the toy reset button Hillary gave him while he’s treating the world like a real life game of Risk.

Trump is a strong leader who is not ashamed to put America’s interests first. Advantage Trump. Jobs — A rising tide lifts all boats and creating jobs in America will cure a lot of our ills. Trump has created thousands of jobs through his business ventures. In fact he just opened another hotel in Washington. Hillary has only created three private sector jobs in her life through the scandalous Clinton Foundation — hers, Bill’s and Chelsea’s. Advantage Trump Draining the Swamp in DC — Trump promises to shake up Washington in order to solve our problems and that includes getting rid of Republicans if necessary. On the other hand Hillary won’t drain the swamp as she has already basically proclaimed she will be Barack Obama’s third term. She’s just going to bring in her own snakes and alligators. Of course she’ll be bringing back the slimiest swamp creature of all — her husband. Advantage Trump. By simply looking at the candidate’s positions on the issues my official endorsement goes to Donald J. Trump. Is he the perfect conservative? No, but he will shake up Washington enough to allow for the conservative movement to go forward. I COULD end this piece by saying it doesn’t matter who you vote for just as long as you vote. But it actually does matter who you vote for and I am urging you to “Make America Great Again” by voting for Donald Trump. E-mail your questions to marklevy92@aol.com. Follow Mark on Twitter @MarkPLevy

CONTACT INFORMATION Individual Contact Information 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 Schlafly - phyllis@eagleforum.org 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, Erick Erickson, Joseph Farah, David Harsanyi, Laura Hollis, Terry Jeffrey, Larry Kudlow, David Limbaugh, Dick Morris, William Murchison, Dennis Prager, Ben Shapiro, Thomas Sowell, Matt Towery 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) The community of Cuesta Verde was the setting for Poltergeist. 2) In 1815, Thomas Jefferson’s personal library was acquired as the foundation for the Library of Congress. 3) Ellen Burstyn won an Oscar for her role as Alice in Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore. 4) The NHL’s annual award for the “goalkeeper adjudged to be the best at his position” is named for Georges Vezina. 5) Damascus, Syria, is nicknamed the City of Jasmine. 6) Calvin Coolidge is buried in Plymouth Notch, Vermont.

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

Conservative Chronicle

2016 ELECTION: October 27, 2016

The politics of personality and polling

he election is, in fact, not quite over. As you watch and listen to the media in the next week, keep a few questions in mind. Are they covering and discussing the policy positions of the two presidential candidates or are they covering and talking about polls and personalities? Why is that? In an effort to win — one strategy is to create a new front if you know you cannot win on another win. The Democrats cannot win on policy, so they are focusing on polling and personality.

LET’S SET the stage. This month, the Center for Public Integrity analyzed the political donations of “journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism.” What they found was “Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton.” Let’s look at the media coverage this week as an example. Both candidates attended non-campaign events. AP reported the following on October 25 in a story titled “The Latest on the U.S. presidential race”:. “Hillary Clinton is attending an Adele concert in Miami and picking up some support along the way... Hillary Clinton is getting an early birthday present — an Adele concert in Miami...A small group of reporters traveling with Clinton were not allowed to accompany her inside the arena for the concert.” In contrast, the next morning, AP promoted its Big Story by Lisa Lerer and Jill Colvin with this headline: “Trump spends precious campaign time promoting his businesses.” Way down in the body of the story, they mention that “After stopping at the hotel not far from the White House, Trump will visit North Carolina for two campaign rallies Wednesday.” The takeaway in comparing the two stories — it’s OK to take time to go to a concert and get an English pop star’s endorsement, it’s not OK to take time to celebrate the hard work of opening a hotel. Odd message. Consider this media bias when you look at how Trump’s speech in Gettysburg on Saturday was handled. There, he unveiled his “Contract with the American Voter.” The result: There has been almost no media coverage of the contract and little discussion about the policies it promotes. Why? It’s easier to focus on the polls and personalities rather than engage in in-depth discussion about the policies themselves. So, in an effort to shine some light on Trump’s Contract, here is a summary:

Day one, Trump would, “propose a Partnership ... direct my Secretary of Constitutional Amendment to impose the Treasury to label China a currency term limits on all members of Congress manipulator ... direct the Secretary of ... a hiring freeze on all federal em- Commerce and U.S. Trade Represenployees ...(exempting military, public tative to identify all foreign trading safety, and public health)... a require- abuses that unfairly impact American ment that for every new federal regu- w o r k e r s ... lift the restrictions lation, two existing regulations must on the production be eliminated ... of $50 trillion dolJackie a five-year-ban on lars’ worth of White House and job-producing Congressional American energy (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate officials becomreserves ... lift the ing lobbyists afObama-Clinton ter they leave government service ... a roadblocks and allow vital energy inlifetime ban on White House officials frastructure projects ... cancel billions lobbying on behalf of a foreign gov- in payments to U.N. climate change ernment ... a complete ban on foreign programs and use the money to fix lobbyists raising money for American America’s water and environmental inelections.” frastructure.” Trump “will take the following five HE WOULD take “the follow- actions to restore security and the coning seven actions to protect American stitutional rule of law: Cancel every unworkers: “Announce my intention to constitutional executive action, memorenegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from randum and order issued by President the deal under Article 2205 ... announce Obama ... begin the process of selectour withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific ing a replacement for Justice Scalia ...

Gingrich Cushman

cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities ... begin removing the more than two million criminal illegal immigrants from the country ... suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur.” Trump will work with Congress during the first 100 days for the following: “Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act, End The Offshoring Act, American Energy & Infrastructure Act, School Choice And Education Opportunity Act, Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act, Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act, End Illegal Immigration Act, Restoring Community Safety Act, Restoring National Security Act, Clean up Corruption in Washington Act.” WHILE IT’S fine to oppose a candidate after you take the time to understand his or her policies, it’s sad when serious discussion about policy is thrown out the window and replaced by chitchat about polls and personalities.

POLITICIANS: November 2, 2016

The rich and us: Who’s to blame?

icrosoft co-founder Bill Gates, having a net worth of $81.8 billion, and Amazon. com CEO Jeff Bezos, having a net worth of $70.4 billion, are the nation’s two richest men. They are at the top of the Forbes 400 list of America’s superrich individuals, people who have net worths of billions of dollars. Many see the rich as a danger. New York Times columnist Bob Herbert wrote, “It doesn’t really matter what ordinary people want. The wealthy call the tune, and the politicians dance.” His colleague Paul Krugman wrote, “On paper, we’re a one-personone-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.” It’s sentiments like these that have led me to wish there were a humane way to get rid of the rich. For without having the rich around to be whipping boys and distract our attention, we might be able to concentrate on what’s best for the 99.9 percent of the rest of us. LET’S LOOK at the power of the rich. With all the money that Gates, Bezos and other superrich people have, what can they force you or me to do? Can they condemn our houses to create space so that another individual can build an auto dealership or a casino parking lot? Can they force us to pay money into the government-run — and doomed — Obamacare program? Can they force us to bus our children to

biggest sugar cane growers, and they co-own the world’s largest refining company, American Sugar Refining, which markets its product under the brand names Domino, C&H, Redpath, Tate & Lyle and Florida Crystals. During the 2014 election cycle, Florida Crystals contributed more than $860,000 to candidates and political spending groups. It spent more than $1 million lobbying Congress, the U.S. departments of Agriculture and Commerce, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Here’s my question to you: Do you think it forked over all that money to help our elected representatives uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution? Nonsense. The Fanjuls and other sugar (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate producers want Congress to use tariffs our elected public officials grant them to keep foreign-produced sugar out of the power to rip us off, rich people have our country so they can reap the finanlittle power to force us to do anything. A cial benefits from being able to charge lowly municipal clerk earning $50,000 Americans two to three times the world a year has far more life-and-death pow- price of sugar. er over us. It is that type of person to SO HERE’S the ultimate question: whom we must turn for permission to build a house, ply a trade, open a res- If some rich people can line the pocktaurant and do myriad other activities. ets of politicians to do their bidding at It’s government people, not rich people, the expense of the rest of us, who’s to who have the power to coerce us and rip blame? I think it’s we, the people, who us off. They have the power to make our are to blame for not using our votes to lives miserable if we disobey. This coer- run such politicians out of town — and cive power goes a long way toward exthat’s most of them. But that might be deceitful of us, for we also ask politiplaining legalized political corruption. cians to enable us to live at the expense TAKE JUST one of thousands of of others. examples. The Fanjuls are among the schools out of our neighborhood in the name of diversity? Can they force us to buy our sugar from a high-cost domestic producer rather than from a low-cost Caribbean producer? The answer to all of these questions is a big fat no. You say, “Williams, I don’t understand.” Let me be more explicit. Bill Gates cannot order you to enroll your child in another school in order to promote racial diversity. He has no power to condemn your house to make way for a casino parking lot. Unless

Walter

Williams

November 9, 2016 HILLARY CLINTON: October 28, 2016

A presidency from hell? If Hillary wins

hould Donald Trump surge from close to her, she appears not to be a terbehind to win, he would likely ribly likable person. Still, such attributes, or the lack of bring in with him both houses of them, do not assure a failed presidency. Congress. Much of his agenda — tax cuts, de- James Polk, no charmer, was a one-term regulation, border security, deporta- president, but a great one, victorious in tion of criminals here illegally, repeal the Mexican War, annexing California the Southwest, negotiating of Obamacare, appointing justices like and division of the OrScalia, unleashing the energy industry — a fair egon territory with could be readily the British. enacted. Yet the hostilOn new trade ity Clinton would treaties with Chiface the day she na and Mexico, (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate takes office would Trump might need economic nationalists in Bernie Sand- almost seem to ensure four years of pure ers’ party to stand with him, as free-trade hell. The reason: Her credibility, or rather Republicans stood by their K-Street conher transparent lack of it. tributors. Consider. Because the tapes revealed Still, compatible agendas and GOP self-interest could transcend personal he did not tell the full truth about when animosities and make for a successful he learned about Watergate, Richard Nixon was forced to resign. four years. In the Iran-Contra affair, Reagan faced BUT CONSIDER what a Hillary potential impeachment charges, until exsecurity adviser John Poindexter testified Clinton presidency would be like. She would enter office as the least-ad- that Reagan told the truth when he said mired president in history, without a vi- he had not known of the secret transfer of sion or a mandate. She would take office funds to the Nicaraguan Contras. Bill Clinton was impeached — for lywith two-thirds of the nation believing ing. she is untruthful and untrustworthy. White House scandals, as Nixon said Reports of poor health and lack of stamina may be exaggerated. Yet she in Watergate, are almost always rooted moves like a woman her age. Unlike in mendacity — not the misdeed, but the Ronald Reagan, her husband, Bill, and cover-up, the lies, the perjury, the obPresident Obama, she is not a natural po- struction of justice that follow. And here Hillary Clinton seems to litical athlete and lacks the personal and rhetorical skills to move people to action. have an almost insoluble problem. She has testified for hours to FBI She makes few mistakes as a debater, but she is often shrill — when she is not agents investigating why and how her boring. Trump is right: Hillary Clinton is server was set up and whether secret intough as a $2 steak. But save for those formation passed through it.

Pat

Buchanan

Forty times during her FBI interrogation, Clinton said she could not or did not recall. This writer has friends who went to prison for telling a grand jury, “I can’t recall.” After studying her testimony and the contents of her emails, FBI Director James Comey virtually accused Clinton of lying. Moreover, thousands of emails were erased from her server, even after she had reportedly been sent a subpoena from Congress to retain them. DURING HER first two years as secretary of state, half of her outside visitors were contributors to the Clinton Foundation. Yet there was not a single quid pro quo, Clinton tells us. Yesterday’s newspapers exploded with reports of how Bill Clinton aide

Doug Band raised money for the Clinton Foundation, and then hit up the same corporate contributors to pay huge fees for Bill’s speeches. What were the corporations buying if not influence? What were the foreign contributors buying, if not influence with an ex-president, and a secretary of state and possible future president? Did none of the big donors receive any official favors? “There’s a lot of smoke and there’s no fire,” says Hillary Clinton. Perhaps, but there seems to be more smoke every day. If once or twice in her hours of testimony to the FBI, grand jury or before Congress, Clinton were proven to have lied, her Justice Department would be obligated to name a special prosecutor, as was Nixon’s. And, with the election over, the investigative reporters of the adversary press, Pulitzers beckoning, would be cut loose to go after her. The Republican House is already gearing up for investigations that could last deep into Clinton’s first term. There is a vast trove of public and sworn testimony from Hillary, about the server, the emails, the erasures, the Clinton Foundation. Now, thanks to WikiLeaks, there are tens of thousands of emails to sift through, and perhaps tens of thousands more to come. What are the odds that not one contains information that contradicts her sworn testimony? Cong. Jim Jordan contends that Clinton may already have perjured herself. And as the full-court press would begin with her inauguration, Clinton would have to deal with the Syrians, Russians, Taliban, North Koreans and Xi Jinping in the South China Sea — and with Bill Clinton wandering around the White House with nothing to do. THIS ELECTION is not over. But if Hillary Clinton wins, a truly hellish presidency could await her, and us.

Conservative Chronicle

GOVERNMENT DEPENDENCY: November 2, 2016

Medicaid/CHIP enrollees outnumber Obama voters

hirty-two years ago, the Unit- Medicaid and the Children’s Health Ined States of America unified surance Program. Back in the July-to-September peribehind the re-election of Ronald Reagan as president, giving him an od of 2013, according to the Centers for Electoral College victory of 525 to 13. Medicare and Medicaid Services, the monthly enrollment in Walter Mondale, Reagan’s oppo- a v e r a g e Medicaid and CHIP nent, only manwas 56,392,477. aged to win his As this column home state of noted last week, Minnesota and the CMS has refederal govern(c) 2016, Creators Syndicate ported that as of ment’s homeland July there were of Washington, 72,810,267 people enrolled in MedicD.C. Reagan, according to the National aid and CHIP. This is more people than Archives, won 54,455,075 popular have ever voted for any candidate runvotes in 1984 — more than any presi- ning for president of the United States. Some people may ask: Why does dential candidate up to that point. Monthis matter? dale won only 37,577,185.

Terry

Jeffrey

AFTER REAGAN’S 1984 landslide, the national population grew, but the popular and Electoral College vote totals of winning presidential candidates declined. Two full decades would pass before any candidate would eclipse Reagan’s record 54,455,075 in the popular vote. No subsequent president has come close to his 525 Electoral College votes. And none has argued as forcefully for limited government. In 1988, George H.W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis 48,886,097 to 41,809,074 in the popular vote and 426 to 111 in the Electoral College. In 1992, Bill Clinton defeated Bush 44,908,254 to 39,102,343 in the popular vote — with Ross Perot taking 19,741,065 votes. Clinton won the Electoral College 370 to 168. In 1996, Clinton defeated Bob Dole 45,590,703 to 37,816,307 in the popular vote — with Perot taking 7,866,284 votes. Clinton won the Electoral College 379 to 159. In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore 50,456,062 to 50,996,582, but won the Electoral College 271 to 266. In 2004, Bush defeated John Kerry 60,693,281 to 57,355,978 in the popular vote — with both candidates, after 20 years, eclipsing Reagan’s 1984 record of 54,455,075. Bush won the Electoral College that year by 286 to 251. Four years later, Barack Obama set yet a new record for the popular vote, defeating John McCain 69,297,997 to 59,597,520 and taking the Electoral College 365 to 173. In 2012, Obama’s popular vote dropped to 65,444,241, but he still outpolled Romney, who took 60,587,978. In the Electoral College, Obama won 332 to 206. But no candidate for president has ever won as many popular votes as the number of people currently enrolled in

MANY OF the people enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program are not eligible to vote. Many, obviously, are children and not old enough to vote. But the expansion of Medicaid and CHIP illustrates a fundamental change in the relationship between Americans and the federal government. These programs did not exist 55 years ago, when John F. Kennedy was president. Now,

like other so-called “means-tested entitlements,” they divide Americans into two groups: Those who take them, and those who pay for them. In the middle is the federal government, which takes from those who are not dependent on it and gives to those who are. All Americans are forced to be on one side or the other. Either they be-

come dependent on the government or they pay the government so others can be. ON BOTH sides, individuals lose power over their own lives. In the middle, the government gains power over both.

COMEY’S ACTION: November 2, 2016

What FBI Director Comey did wrong

n July, FBI Director James Comey shattered his near-sterling reputation by letting Hillary Clinton off the hook. After delivering a meticulous case against Clinton for setting up a private server and allowing classified information to flow into it illegally, he inexplicably decided not to recommend indictment by the Department of Justice. This followed hard on President Obama announcing he would begin publicly campaigning for Clinton, Attorney General Loretta Lynch meeting secretly with Bill Clinton at a tarmac in Arizona and the FBI performing a peremptory interview with Hillary Clinton — after which Clinton attended a late showing of Hamilton. Minutes before Obama took the stage with Clinton, allowing her to use a lectern with the presidential seal, Comey announced there would be no indictment. COMEY’S DECISION set off jubilation in Democratic circles, and rage in conservative ones. I wrote for National Review, “This sort of open moral debauchery would have made Boss Tweed blush.” Then came last Friday. Comey announced, in a letter to lawmakers, that new emails had been found

on a device in Anthony Weiner’s possession — no, not that device — and that they could shed new light on the Clinton private server investigation. All hell broke loose. Democrats immediately labeled Comey faithless, a political hack manipulated by the Russians. Republicans said that all was forgiven and that Comey had finally corrected his original error.

Ben

IN REALITY, Comey merely committed the cardinal moral sin: He valued his institution over doing the right thing. He did it in July, and he did it again in October. In July, Comey decided that he didn’t want the FBI dragged into the presidential election. To that end, he stepped beyond the normal powers delegated to the director of the FBI and publicly requested that the DOJ not intervene with Clinton. His goal: To protect the FBI from accusations by the left of politicization. And just to demonstrate how apolitical the FBI supposedly was, Comey listed all the findings of the investigation. The result: The left was overjoyed,

and the right thought the FBI rigged. Now, Comey wants to ensure that the FBI isn’t accused of being a Hillary Clinton tool. He knew as soon as he heard about Weiner’s device that he’d eventually have to tell the public about the re-initiation of the Clinton investigation, and he feared that if he waited until after the election he’d expose the FBI to a thousand Hillary-controlled-the-FBI allegations. So he came forward. The result: The right was overjoyed, and the left thought the FBI rigged. Whenever someone seeks to protect an institution rather than telling the truth, the institution pays the price. When NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell attempted to soft-pedal the abuse of women in the NFL in order to “protect the shield,” he only ended up destroying the brand. When Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold Obamacare in the name of protecting the reputation of the Supreme Court, he only ended up destroying that reputation. Comey has destroyed the reputation of the FBI. THE ONLY solution to the complete undermining of institutions lies in the honesty of those who head those institutions. At least Comey came clean this time. For Comey and the FBI, though, it’s too little, too late.

November 9, 2016 FBI: October 27, 2016

So just what happened to the FBI?

hen FBI Director James Comey announced on July 5 that the Department of Justice would not seek the indictment of Hillary Clinton for failure to safeguard state secrets related to her email use while she was secretary of state, he both jumped the gun and set in motion a series of events that surely he did not intend. Was his hand forced by the behavior of FBI agents who wouldn’t take no for an answer? Did he let the FBI become a political tool? Here is the back story.

THE FBI began investigating the Clinton email scandal in the spring of 2015, when the New York Times revealed Clinton’s use of a private email address for her official governmental work and the fact that she did not preserve the emails on State Department servers, contrary to federal law. After an initial collection of evidence and a round of interviews, agents and senior managers gathered in the summer of 2015 to discuss how to proceed. It was obvious to all that a prima-facie case could be made for espionage, theft of government property and obstruction of justice charges. The consensus was to proceed with a formal criminal investigation.

Six months later, the senior FBI warrants. A judge would perceive the agent in charge of that investigation re- need for search warrants to be not acute signed from the case and retired from in such a case because to a judge, the the FBI because he felt the case was absence of a grand jury can only mean going “sideways;” that’s law enforce- a case is “sideways” and not a serious ment jargon for “nowhere by design.” investigation. As the investigation dragged on in John Giacalone had been the chief of the New York City, Philadelphia and secret and Donald Trump simultanebegan to rise in the Washington, D.C., field offices of the o u s l y Republican presiFBI and, at the dential primaries, time of his “sideit became more ways” comment, apparent to Giawas the chief of calone’s succesthe FBI National (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate sors that the goal Security Branch. of the FBI was The reason for the “sideways” comment must have to exonerate Clinton, not determine been Giacalone’s realization that DOJ whether there was enough evidence to and FBI senior management had de- indict her. In late spring of this year, cided that the investigation would not agents began interviewing the Clinton work in tandem with a federal grand inner circle. jury. That is nearly fatal to any governWHEN CLINTON herself was inment criminal case. In criminal cases, the FBI and the DOJ cannot issue sub- terviewed on July 2 — for only four poenas for testimony or for tangible hours, during which the interviewers seemed to some in the bureau to lack things; only grand juries can. Giacalone knew that without a grand aggression, passion and determination jury, the FBI would be toothless, as it — some FBI agents privately came to would have no subpoena power. He the same conclusion as their former also knew that without a grand jury, the boss: The case was going sideways. A few determined agents were frusFBI would have a hard time persuading any federal judge to issue search trated by Clinton’s professed lack of

Andrew

Napolitano

FBI: October 27, 2016

The FBI: The ‘Fix Be In’

he FBI’s reputation has sunk so low under the Obama administration that its initials seem to stand for: The Fix Be In. The bureau’s no-hurry investigation into Hillary Clinton’s deleted State Department emails seemed engineered to see no evil. Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that Attorney General Loretta Lynch is replacing FBI agents and prosecutors who oppose charging New York police in the chokehold death of Eric Garner (because they aren’t sure the police committed a crime and don’t think they can get a conviction) with staff who want to throw the book at NYPD. PUNDITS HAVE voiced their fear that Donald Trump would use the Justice Department to go after his political enemies — and rightly so after Trump said he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton and send her to jail. (So much for the presumption of innocence.) How can these same critics not see how the Obama Department of Justice has turned into a political arm of the Democratic Party? Consider the Clinton investigation. The FBI granted limited immunity to five Clinton aides, including Paul Combetta, who deleted Clinton emails in

March 2015 after Congress had subpoenaed her records. FBI agents waited a year before they questioned Clinton in July for an hour and a half. Shortly thereafter, Director James Comey announced there would be no indictment in the case; even though Clinton did not hand over “several thousand” work emails to the State Department, there was no proof of “intentional misconduct.” Lynch didn’t help herself when she met privately with

Debra J.

former President Bill Clinton on a Phoenix tarmac on July 2, while the investigation was under way. Lynch later admitted the meeting “cast a shadow” on her decision-making on the case, but assured the public she would “be accepting” the FBI prosecutors’ recommendation. NEW YORK police should be so lucky. As the Times reported, FBI officials in New York oppose bringing charges against Officer Daniel Pantaleo and others involved in the 2014 arrest of Eric Garner, 43, for selling bootleg ciga-

rettes. Pantaleo wrapped an arm around Garner’s neck. Garner protested, “I can’t breathe.” (After an ambulance arrived, Garner had a heart attack.) It is painful to watch video of the fateful arrest, but a state grand jury saw the video, heard Pantaleo testify that he did not mean to use a chokehold, and chose not to bring charges in December 2014. The grand jury did not see intentional misconduct. Brooklyn-based FBI officials who investigated Garner’s death oppose prosecuting Pantaleo and his fellow officers. Rather than heed them, Lynch is steering the case toward Washington-based staff in the Justice Department’s civil rights division who want to prosecute the arresting officers. CLINTON GETS every consideration; NYPD gets every doubt. Pantaleo’s attorney Stuart London told the Times, “In our system of justice, politics should never take the place of rule of law.” That’s a quaint thought, but in this Obama administration there is a clear double standard. The bar is so unreasonably high that there is no way prosecutors can establish if Clinton meant to break the law. However, the Justice Department has few qualms about presuming the worst about beat cops.

memory during her interview and her oblique reference to a recent head injury she had suffered as the probable cause of that. They sought to obtain her medical records to verify the gravity of her injury and to determine whether she had been truthful with them. They prepared the paperwork to obtain the records, only to have their request denied by Director Comey himself on July 4. Then some agents did the unthinkable; they reached out to colleagues in the intelligence community and asked them to obtain Clinton’s medical records so they could show them to Comey. We know that the National Security Agency can access anything that is stored digitally, including medical records. These communications took place late on July 4. When Comey learned of these efforts, he headed them off the next morning with his now infamous news conference, in which he announced that Clinton would not be indicted because the FBI had determined that her behavior, though extremely careless, was not reckless, which is the legal standard in espionage cases. He then proceeded to recount the evidence against her. He did this, no doubt, to head off the agents who had sought the Clinton medical records, whom he suspected would leak evidence against her. Three months later — and just weeks before Clinton will probably be elected president — we have learned that President Barack Obama regularly communicated with Clinton via her personal email servers about matters that the White House considered classified. That means that he lied when he told CBS News that he learned of the Clinton servers when the rest of us did. We also learned this week that Andrew McCabe, Giacalone’s successor as head of the FBI Washington field office and presently the No. 3 person in the FBI, is married to a woman to whom the Clinton money machine in Virginia funneled about $675,000 in lawful campaign funds for a failed 2015 run for the Virginia Senate. Comey apparently saw no conflict or appearance of impropriety in having the person in charge of the Clinton investigation in such an ethically challenged space. Why did this case go sideways? Did President Obama fear being a defense witness at Hillary Clinton’s criminal trial? Did he so fear being succeeded in office by Donald Trump that he ordered the FBI to exonerate Clinton, the rule of law be damned? Did the FBI lose its reputation for fidelity to law, bravery under stress and integrity at all times? THIS IS NOT your grandfather’s FBI — or your father’s. It is the Obama FBI.

Conservative Chronicle

JOURNALISM: October 28, 2016

Mediadictablanda: Time for journalistic reformation

landa,’ soft journalistic despotism where officials do not tell reporters what they must write, but most journalists at influential media outlets enthusiastically participate in groupthink. They embraced “progressive” concepts in college and have bulwarked those ideas since then by living and working in echo chambers where seldom is heard a contrary word. MY FAVORITE was his description The few who read more widely and think of soft despotism: “The will of man is not more broadly learn to self-censor their shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; work if they wish to rise. ‘Mediadictablanda’ was evident men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from act- when the Obama administration could ing. Such a power does not destroy, but not completely cover up all its initial lion cash payment to it prevents existence; it does not tyran- $400 milIran’s rulers. And nize, but it comon Aug. 18, as new presses, enervates, evidence of Obama extinguishes, and administration lies stupefies a people, emerged, NBC, till each nation is (c) 2016, God’s World Publications ABC and CBS ald Trump controversies than to Clinton reduced to nothing evening news ones. better than a flock shows gave that news two minutes of of timid and industrious animals.” GOVERNMENTS prefer ‘mediadicWhen I was 40 in Texas and eager to coverage, while covering for almost 14 learn a little Spanish, I sat in a classroom minutes a story about a lie at the Olym- tablanda’ to ‘mediadictadura:’ No need with students half my age and learned pics. ‘Mediadictablanda’ has also ruled to pay overtime to jailers if journalists how some Spaniards starting in 1930 in recent months as those three networks will imprison themselves and torture played with the word ‘dictadura’ (dicta- have given much more coverage to Don- only readers and viewers who care about torship) and created a new word, ‘dictablanda’ (soft dictatorship): A ‘dictablanda’ CULTURAL DECLINE: October 27, 2016 regime preserves some liberties as long as the ruled don’t rile the rulers. Having paid my dues, I’d now like to make up two longer Spanish words to create another contrast: ‘mediadictadura’ ack when the prudes of an- of simple good taste. No gentlemen vs. ‘mediadictablanda.’ China and other other century were being they, as every new tweet reveals. The countries that censor journalistic content badmouthed by a generation Big Creep, as Monica Lewinsky once suffer under ‘mediadictadura.’ Many powerful Chinese media are state-run. on the verge of sexual liberation, they tagged him, now campaigns alongside a Those that aren’t face increasingly heavy were dismissed as a wave of the past. newer model one. Who needs ‘em excensorship. As the South China Morn- Queen Victoria, whose long reign gave cept those who keep track of new lows ing Post reported in August, “Beijing her name to a whole era, looked at in American behavior, and last time Yr. has tightened control over online news the unwholesome spectacle unfolding Faithful Observer was already deep into websites, ordering editors-in-chief to around her and pronounced: “We are the minus numbers. While technology has moved fortake full responsibility for any wrongdo- not amused.” ward with relentless speed, the uses to Nor should she have been. Any more ings and implementing around the clock which it’s been put have grown than Elizabeth II should be amused by monitoring.” The Post, still exerting occasional the carryings-on of her family, good more and more dubious. Injournalistic independence in Hong Kong, German hausfrau she long has been. reported that “the measures came within When respectability is no longer rea month of the sacking of Wang Yong- spectable, all lose their bearings and zhi, editor-in-chief of the online news genuine sentiment is replaced by only department of Tencent, the Shenzhen- sentimentality. It is not a step up. (c) 2016, Tribune Media Services based internet giant.” Wang’s offense: A YET TODAY a new Victorianism deed, the pace of spiritually empty Tencent report said Chinese President Xi Jinping had “furiously” given an impor- dawns in the form of ideology. Political post-postmodernism has been enough correctness now has proliferated to the to put in doubt any theory of evolutant speech. point where trigger warnings and other tion. On the contrary, the de-evolution CHINESE CHARACTERS for “de- attempts to protect the already over-proof American men becomes more and livered a speech” and “furiously spoke” tected young abound. As if the whole more pronounced. So does the hypocare similarly pronounced. A computer in- object of political and social activity risy of the formerly gentle sex, many of put error apparently led to the impression were to not be active at all, but rather to whose members complain about being that Xi ranted. At least Wang was only seek safe places where none are really harassed even while dressing and acting like streetwalkers. fired: Other journalists have been impris- available, like the world. The phenomenon has been called deIn this sad era, men who don’t cononed. Some small publications can still fly under the government’s radar, but of- fine their locker-room talk to the locker fining deviancy down, and the diagnoficials try to turn the important into the room are rightfully exposed and con- sis fits. It’s not that we’re entering some demned. Cases in point: Donald Trump new dark age but rather one so bright, impotent. That’s ‘mediadictadura.’ The United and Bill Clinton, brothers under the so Trumped up that the tawdriness of it States now suffers under ‘mediadictab- skin when it comes to their absence shines like a sign above the big tent at a hen I was 30 in Delaware and bored with writing speeches for DuPont Company executives, I inserted references to baseball in half a dozen consecutive speeches and then did the same with quotations from Alexis de Tocqueville, the 1830s author of Democracy in America.

Marvin

Olasky

Imminent Victorians

Paul

Greenberg

truth. But Oct. 31 is Reformation Day, celebrating the heroism 499 years ago of Martin Luther when he sent 95 theses to his ruling archbishop, and then posted them on the door of All Saints’ Church. Maybe next year will bring the beginning of a much-needed reformation of journalism.

carnival, or plastered all over one of the joints in New Orleans’ shrunken French Quarter: GIRLS! GIRLS! GIRLS! If you seek a monument to this mixedup age, just look around — at fashion, politics or young people you might be passing in the street, or more likely, who are passing you, too busy peering into their iPhones to notice where either you or they are going. Granted, some things don’t change, like the tendency of old-timers like me to condemn a whole generation unjustly. See this column as a prize example of that bad habit. Consider this a guilty plea and a decision to throw myself on the mercy of the court. But in mitigation, please note that what changes tends to attract our fickle attention, not what stays the same. And who would want to live in a world that never changes anyway except a few old fuddy-duddies like myself? IT’S NOT that the world has turned upside down, but more sideways, like a familiar painting hung slant-wise on the wall. The times seem not so much out of step but in step with some of our most dubious impulses. What blurb would a perverse reviewer give them? Powerfully emetic! Every act worth ignoring! Something definitely not to tell your children about! And so fitfully on. Strength. We’ll all need it.

November 9, 2016 GENDER GAP: October 28, 2016

The boys fall into the gender gap now

eading is not for sissies, as the front page of the newspaper demonstrates every morning in the homestretch of a raucous presidential campaign. But there’s a deeper problem, one that civility and good manners won’t cure. The really bad news is that boys are falling into a gender gap far removed from mere politics. Great numbers of boys won’t read, even when they can, and when they do crack open a book or pick up a newspaper or magazine, they don’t stay with it very long. The concerns in a competitive technological age are obvious. BOYS SKIP pages to avoid the hard stuff, and understand less. Extensive studies in both the United States and Britain show this clearly. “Boys of every age,” the surveyors found, “no matter the nature of the literature before them, typically read less thorough-

ly than girls.” They take less time to ing phenomenon. Over the past quarter process the words, lazily skipping parts century graduation rates have steadily with abandon. They choose books too increased among young women, but easy for them and fail to move on to not among young men. Barely 40 percent of the college graduates in one tougher material.” This has cultural and political impli- recent year in the United States were cations beyond the concerns of politi- male, according to the Center for EdPolicy. Many teachers cal candidates, authors and newspaper u c a t i o n and administraeditors. And a lot tors think this is of people, in and directly related to out of newsrooms the habits of readand faculty lounging that boys dees, are deeply (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate velop in the early concerned. A survey by the Center for Education Policy grades and continue with through high found that “in every state and in every school. grade, boys are trailing behind girls in SINCE THE National Assessment reading, (and it’s) the most pressing gender gap facing our schools.” The of Education Progress began measurproblem is only worse now, as a new ing this gap in the late 1960s, with measurements taken at ages nine, 13 study in Britain shows. The reading and comprehension gap and 17, the gap has fluctuated. In 2004, between boys and girls, teachers specu- the gap among fourth graders narrowed late, is responsible for another disturb- to five points, but had expanded by

Suzanne

Fields

SEXUAL REVOLUTION: October 27, 2016

The angry woman makes history

s I have been saying, the sexual revolution of the 1960s is now over. We can thank Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s gang of angry women (which Trump either knew or did not know years ago) for that. I think it is a contribution to the moral life of the republic, but I might be wrong. Arguably, the females of the species began the sexual revolution; and unarguably, they are now ending it. Frankly, I, for one, am relieved. There is nothing more frightening than an amorous — if that is the word — woman aroused and on the move.

I AM SURE that many women from the era of the sexual revolution will — if they are still with us — disagree when I say that women began the sexual revolution. And one does not want to disagree with these eminently disagreeable women. So I shall concede a point or two. Men played a role in the sexual revolution of yesteryear. To begin with, there was Hugh Hefner, the force behind Playboy magazine and an early herald of the revolution. But there were also Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem. Steinem was a leading proponent of the notion that women were just like men when it came to the sexual impulse, though they have different plumbing. A few years later came the real practitioners of zoo sex: The pornographers. That is to say the writers of dirty books and the stars of pornography. Today the stars of pornography are not easily

identified, and many do not even maintain a decent pornographic work. Truth be known, the life expectancy of these practitioners of the sexual revolution is not terribly long. They expire from drug overdoses and horrible diseases. Yet Hugh and Gloria are still around. All of these adventurers out on the frontiers of sex in decades past propounded the line that sex was a beautiful thing. It was so very healthy, poetic, humane and, at its most preposterous, a cause for world peace. They got this hooey from European

R. Emmett

quacks who plied their hokum in the 1920s and 1930s. Come to think of it, they plied their hokum about the time Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini were plying their much more dangerous hokum. These swamis of sex hung around Vienna and Berlin, and their most absurd wizard was Wilhelm Reich, inventor of the orgone box. From it one could supposedly partake in the “hypothetical universal life force” — if one did not catch the flu or a head cold first. AS I HAVE said, I think at the outset it was the women who brought on the sexual revolution. All they had to do was say “no.” There has always been among the males of the species a reckless fellow who would, in contem-

porary terms, make “an inappropriate proposal.” In years long gone a lady simply said “no,” or more emphatically, “Are you kidding?” If the cad persisted, she snickered and called in the authorities. That all broke down around 1965. After that, a growing number of women said “yes,” and a growing number of men thought the cool thing to do was to try their luck. For decades, they have been hitting on what appeared to be pay dirt, and in growing numbers. Now it has all changed. Women are saying “no” in growing numbers. Increasingly, they decide that they meant “no” weeks, months or even years after their initial opportunity to say “no.” And they are charging the men with ever graver acts of indelicacy, to the point of aggression. It makes one wonder whether sex was ever a beautiful thing, at least under certain circumstances. THE SEXUAL revolution lasted about half a century and was of a piece with other anomalies, such as the use of drugs, petty crime and, most recently, a man’s legal right to use a woman’s public bathroom if he will announce himself a woman or a transgender woman. In fact, this is the only act of aggression against women allowed in our society today, and apparently it’s encouraged by the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. I know it sounds odd, but at last all the other nonsense of the sexual revolution is over, and I can still love my wife in a proper way, toujours amour.

three points four years later. The gap in high school was a stunning 11 points. The phenomenon is not altogether new, though the distractions are. Three centuries ago, writes Peg Tyre in her book The Trouble With Boys, the English philosopher John Locke lamented that “male students were not able to write as well as female students, and he marveled at how much more easily girls picked up foreign languages.” A librarian in Santa Clara County, California, reported that she has always found it more challenging to find books, particularly books of fiction, to hold the interest of boys. There’s no appetite among boys, for example, like the appetite among girls and women for the works of Jane Austen. Not so long ago boys eagerly read Mark Twain’s stories of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn and his own adventures on the Mississippi River, or the boys’ baseball novels of John R. Tunis. But now, not so much. Perhaps they could be introduced to True Grit, by Charles Portis, a robust adventure on the nineteenth-century American frontier, full of outlaws, gun fights, deadly rattlesnakes and saloon brawls — all things that ought to keep boys interested. But the research in Britain shows little difference in how fiction and nonfiction books attract and hold the attention of young men. Boys often choose nonfiction but don’t read or comprehend it any better than fiction. Girls do better than boys on both. Keith Topping, a professor of social research at the University of Dundee in Scotland, who led the British study, said “a lot of people will argue that boys are much less likely to read ‘story books’ — fiction — than girls and that’s one reason why girls are better (at it) than boys. ... Boys tended to choose nonfiction but were not reading it any better than girls. “What you need,” he said, “is teachers, classroom assistants and librarians spending time with a child to talk about choices.” Good teachers are creative. Anna Konig, an English teacher for boys and girls with emotional and social difficulties, invited a “therapy dog” into her class, thinking it would get boys involved. She persuaded eight boys in the class to read to Perdy the Labrador, “who offers a non-judgmental ear.” During the week, the kids began discussing what book they think Perdy would enjoy. THE GRADES of the boys have risen two levels. “There’s a real buzz around reading now,” Konig said. “The only drawback is a slightly hairy classroom at the end of each session.” But the trade was worth it in a classroom gone to the dogs.

Conservative Chronicle

2016 ELECTION: October 28, 2016

Trump vs. Clinton: A risk vs. a disaster

Clinton insists that “President senting alleged victims of Trump’s Obama doesn’t get enough credit” for sexual misconduct and her support for the swell job he did with economy. Clinton, who is alleged to have hired This would be the economy in which, private detectives and lawyers to dig for the first time in history, a president up dirt on her husband’s accusers. has presided over a recovery without One such accuser, Juanita Broaddrick, a single year of at least three percent claims not only that she was raped Clinton but also that growth in gross domestic product. by Bill two weeks after the This would be the alleged rape, Hillsame economy ary Clinton verbally with an alleged threatened her. low unemployHillary Clinment number that (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate ton, mind you, Gallup CEO Jim Clifton calls “the big lie,” given the has never been asked by anyone in the large number of people who simply media about Broaddrick’s allegation. abandoned the job hunt or are under- Never. And only one national reporter, Sam Donaldson, has ever asked Bill employed. Clinton about Juanita Broaddrick’s alMEANWHILE, it’s yet another legation. Ever. Clinton’s answer? He day in which another woman who al- referred Donaldson to his lawyer, Daleges she was kissed, groped, touched vid Kendall. Donaldson quickly tried or made fun of by Trump has appeared again, asking the then-President to WITH A Republican candidate, the with her attorney, feminist Gloria “simply deny it.” Same answer: “My media can be counted upon to seize Allred. Allred, a Clinton supporter, attorney ... speaks for me.” And that upon any deficiencies — big or small, sees no contradiction between repre- was that. real or imagined — while giving the Democrat a pass. So Trump’s “failure DONALD TRUMP: October 27, 2016 to ever apologize” outweighs an examination of Clinton’s flat-out lie during the third debate when she insisted that the Supreme Court Heller case was about “toddlers,” as opposed to the funIt’s as if Bob Dole began doing ads highly enjoyable things like speaking to damental issue of whether the Second Amendment confers an individual right for Viagra before the 1996 election was adoring crowds. And losing — especially an isoover. to keep and bear arms. With less than two weeks before lated, one-man-against-the-world loss In Heller, nowhere in the majority decision or in any of the dissenting de- Election Day, Donald Trump evidently — serves him just fine. If the reports cisions does the word “toddler” appear. wants swing voters to know that the of Trump’s interest in a post-election Clinton, a year ago, flat-out said, “The Trump National Doral Miami golf re- media property are true, he just needs Supreme Court is wrong on the Second sort got recognized by Successful Meet- an inflamed splinter of his supporters Amendment.” To normal people, this ings Magazine for its renovation, among as his base audience, convinced that he was done in by a rigged system and that meant she opposed what the decision many other honors and distinctions. he went down fighting in fists-flying ruled on which, again, was whether we, THIS IS something genuinely new Trump style. as individuals, have a right to keep and under the sun: Abraham Lincoln didn’t bear arms. Meanwhile, we learn more and more use the 1860 campaign to promote about what the media labels an “email the fine legal representation available scandal,” when the accurate descrip- through the firm of Lincoln-Herndon. tion is “national security scandal.” The Mitt Romney in 2012 didn’t try to per(c) 2016, King Features Syndicate Espionage Act criminalizes gross negli- suade investors to go with Bain Capital. THIS IS how he’s campaigned over Fringe candidates have run in the Regence in the handling of important national security matters. The law does not publican primaries before to promote the past month, to the chagrin of all the require, as FBI Director James Comey themselves and their business interests Republicans whose electoral chances falsely stated, an “intent.” Nor is it rel- (typically in book sales and speaker are inevitably caught up in his. But what evant, as Clinton insists, whether or not fees); no one has ever gotten so far that does Trump care? His investment in the broader Republican Party is nil. He her private server, the one she main- he could do it in the general election. There has never been such a yawn- didn’t come up within it. His latest bout tained in her basement, was “hacked.” Five people who worked with or for ing mismatch in incentives between as a registered Republican — his party Clinton, including her chief of staff, all a party’s nominee and the party itself, registration has gone back and forth — received immunity deals, something with the nominee tending to his ego and dates from only April 2012. He hasn’t normally given to get someone to flip on his business as the party that is tethered spent years endorsing and fighting for a target. Some of the five were involved to him holds on for dear life, hoping Republican candidates or building an in deleting emails after the emails were to preserve some vestiges of power in extensive grassroots operation and donor network. subpoenaed. But the “target,” that is Washington if he loses. He showed up one day and said he Trump surely would rather win. He to say Hillary Clinton, was deemed by Comey to have lacked sufficient crimi- talks all the time of how it will all have wanted to be in charge, and Republican nal intent to be prosecuted. So why the been a wasted effort if he loses. But primary voters said OK. No one should immunity deals? Who knows — and as it hasn’t been that much of an effort. be surprised that he has proved wholly far as most of the media are concerned, Trump has spent all of 17 months on his self-interested — pursuing stupid venpresidential campaign, much of it doing dettas that satisfy his personal sense of who cares?

wo weeks left to go in the election and the electorate feels like a battered NFL fan. The game gets increasingly old and tiring to watch, and playing it can inflict permanent brain damage. Democrats can be counted upon to call the Republican opponent racist, whether the opponent is the priestly Mitt Romney or the Supreme Court justice who wrote the Dred Scott decision. Donald Trump, you see, is “racist” because, among other reasons, at a campaign stop he pointed to a black man and called him “my African-American.” Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is not anti-Semitic, even though three witnesses, one of whom took and passed a polygraph, claim that she referred to her husband’s former congressional campaign manager as a “f---ing Jew bastard.”

Larry

Elder

SO HILLARY Clinton is a candidate who wants to continue the same policy that’s given us the worst recovery since 1949; who has clearly violated the Espionage Act and placed the nation’s security at risk; who told the Benghazi victim’s families that the death of four Americans was inspired by a video, while telling her daughter and foreign officials something entirely different; whose charitable foundation engaged in pay-to-play in Haiti, so that donors got contracts for disaster relief and non-donors went to the back of the line; who wants to gut the Second Amendment; who wants to continue the same foreign policies that that have encouraged aggressiveness on the part of ISIS, Russia and the Chinese; and whose media compadres, including scribes with the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNBC, have been outed by WikiLeaks as colluding with her campaign. And she is now odds-on favorite to become the next president of the United States.

Trump’s for-profit campaign

Rich

Lowry

honor but put everyone else in the party in an impossible position, and taking precious time out of the final leg of the campaign to promote his properties. It is true that almost every politician is selfish to some extent. But the usual dynamic is that personal ambition naturally aligns with the broader interest of the party. Members of the House and the Senate who covet leadership positions devote energy and resources to promoting their colleagues; would-be presidential candidates dole out favors to party officials and activists high and low in hopes of getting an advantage in an early caucus or primary state. Because Trump’s ultimate ambition involves promotion of his brand, he is utterly free from these normal forces. If, say, Ted Cruz were losing to Hillary Clinton right now, in the back of his mind he’d be building for the next attempt in four years, not hedging his bets and promoting other ventures. Republican voters supported Donald Trump in the primaries for many reasons, but one of them was to “burn it down,” a sentiment directed, in part, at the Republican Party and especially its establishment. IF THE WORST comes to pass, the people who care about the party and its traditional ideals will be left to sift through the ashes. While the arsonist will be back up at Trump Tower, looking out, as always, for his bottom line and the main chance.

November 9, 2016

HILLARY CLINTON: November 1, 2016

Still think Hillary is a role model for your daughter?

hree months ago, I wrote a as president, if she is elected, will be a column refuting the claim re- good thing for your daughters. Quite the contrary. peatedly made by supporters The notion that Hillary Clinton is a of Hillary Clinton that having a woman president — specifically, Hillary Clin- role model for young American women ton — would be a terrific thing for girls is yet another testimony to the moral decline of America — not to mention to and young women. In light of how much more we now the moral state of the American Left and know about Clinton’s activities while the Democratic Party. While many of us who are voting secretary of state and the renewal by the FBI of its investigation of her private for Donald Trump readily acknowlambivalence over email server as well as the revelation, edge our doing so, one nevdenied months er hears any moral ago by Clinton, ambivalence from that it is investiDemocrats, libergating her familyals or anyone else run charities, it (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate voting for Hillary is a topic worth Clinton. revisiting. Good Indeed, Clinton supporters — espeand decent men and women who are Democrats ought to stop thinking this cially women — speak of the Demoway — for America’s sake and for their crats’ nominee with pride. They actually say that they yearn for her to be presidaughters’ sake. dent so as to serve as a model for young ONLY THOSE in willful denial American women. If Clinton supporters said, “I will can continue to reject the overwhelming evidence that Clinton is essentially support just about any Democrat for a crook, prone to chronic lying, and, president, no matter how personally imworst of all, she has betrayed America’s moral, because I consider defeating Rebest interests for those of herself and her publicans the most important thing we Americans can do on Election Day,” I husband. There is nothing I can say to those could live with that. The converse, after all, is my posipeople. But to those Democrats who will tion. I will support just about any Revote for Clinton but who are neverthe- publican for president, given the perless able to acknowledge Hillary Clin- haps irreparable damage the Left and ton’s extraordinary ethical defects, I the Democrats have wreaked on Amerimake the following appeal: Do not be- ca — on its universities, its economy, its lieve, let alone claim, that having her race relations, its standing in the world,

Dennis

Prager

its allies, on free speech and on the mor- about blacks voting for blacks, Jews al fabric of American life. for Jews, Hispanics for Hispanics, and Mormons for Mormons because the BUT CLINTON supporters don’t candidate is a member of their “tribe.” say that. Rather, they extol the virtues Such group-think is the opposite of what of a profoundly unethical woman who, America was set up to be — a place mounting evidence indicates, sold her where, for once, the individual, not the country’s interests for her and her hus- individual’s group, is what most matters. band’s personal and political gain. And It is also worth noting that the majorthey endlessly repeat the claim about ity of conservative women would not how wonderful it would be for girls and think this way. Women with conservayoung women to see this woman in the tive values are far less committed to feWhite House. male solidarity than liberal women. In my earlier column, I characterWhy is that? ized the argument that it is important for Because conservatives do not think women to vote for a woman president as as tribally as liberals. People on the left morally primitive. I feel the same way think of themselves as worldly, but this is true only regarding national identity — they value national identity far less than people on the right. But what the left has done is trade in national identity for race, gender and class identity. Most conservative women are not impressed with the idea of “female solidarity.” And almost all conservatives regard racial solidarity as just another term for racism. Moreover, far more conservative women think that if a woman is going to serve as a model for their daughters, then her primary responsibility and achievement is making a healthy and character-building home. They are therefore less likely than liberal women to think in terms of astronaut or president when they think about a female role model for their daughter. Certainly, in terms of America’s wellbeing, they are right. America needs far more great mothers and wives than it needs female astronauts and presidents. ANY SUPPORT for Hillary Clinton because she is a female is troubling. It is statement that gender identity is more important than moral character. That is the message every parent who asks his or her daughter to look to Hillary Clinton as a model is communicating.

Conservative Chronicle

TAXES: October 30, 2016

Sneaky new tax is in the air: Measure K1

ou just want to watch mov- homeowners using less water than they ies and TV shows where and used to. A growing number of households when you want to, so you probably think a column about utility rely on cellphones only and don’t bother taxes has nothing to do with how you with landlines. Alameda, City Manager get your entertainment. Wrong. The city Jill Keimach told me, has seen its phone of Alameda, California, has put a mea- utility tax revenue decline annually — about $250,000 a sure, Measure K1, before its voters that l o s i n g — since its high would allow Alameda to tax pay-per- y e a r point in 2008. Alview and video ameda has been streaming serviccharging celles like Netflix and phone users a utilHulu as if they ity tax, Keimach were public utili(c) 2016, Creators Syndicate tells me, but difties. Watsonville has a similar measure. Other Califor- ferent companies have paid different nia municipalities have passed similar amounts. Measure K1 establishes that language. They haven’t begun to levy cellphone users would pay the standard utility taxes on these platforms, but fig- 7.5 percent utility tax. Cellphone companies could have ure as soon as one city decides to levy this tax, there will be a stampede across fought cities’ taxing them as utilities, but they didn’t. Figure they needed elected California. officials to win approval for cellphone SOME BACKGROUND for those tower placement. Next problem: Younger households of you not steeped in the philosophy behind utility taxes. Residents pay them also are saying no to cable, so it should because governments spend money or come as no surprise that cities are lookissue special permits for infrastructure ing for ways to make up for lost cable — they lay pipes for water, lay cable or revenue. So they’re going after “emergwires for electricity, telephones and ca- ing technologies.” Unlike the cellphone ble TV. Utility taxes pay for the services companies, however, the tech compahomeowners use — and often contrib- nies are fighting back. Michael Petricone of the Consumer ute extra revenue to city coffers. Alas for government bureaucrats, Technology Association calls Measure technology and modern attitudes have K1 “an absurd expansion of the definiput a dent in utility revenue. Energy tion of utility.” Think of “the precedent conscious consumers are committed to this sets,” he noted, if cities can tax serconserving energy, and hence they use vices that don’t utilize public easements less electricity. California’s drought has or infrastructure as utilities.

Debra J.

Saunders

UNLESS YOU are watching streamed shows on cable TV (in which case you’re paying a cable tax), there are no cables or wires involved in watching streamed videos. Robert Callahan, California executive director of the Internet Association, calls Hulu and other platforms “apps” — because many people watch shows on their phones and their iPads or other tablets. Keimach and Assistant City Attorney Alan Cohen assured me that if voters pass Measure K1, the city won’t start taxing streaming services without a vote of the City Council. The law allows it, Cohen told me, “but we would defi-

nitely get the elected council’s approval first.” And: “Alameda is not going to be out in front on this issue.” The Internet Association tells me an estimated 40 California cities have adopted measures with similar language — without levying the new tax. As I write this, however, Pasadena is floating the idea. And once one city taps into streaming video, others surely will follow. Mayor Trish Spencer — the one lone vote against the tax (mostly for reasons that have to do with employee compensation) — countered, “Whatever our staff is telling you, that’s not legally enforceable.” She warned that no voter should approve Measure K1 who is not prepared to authorize this new tax. Pay-per-view, Netflix and Hulu don’t need city councils to find their way on your TV set, tablet or phone. Many consumers watch videos through cable or their phones — so they already pay the utility tax. Many consumers use a number of apps — they’d have to pay a tax for each service. Supporters say Measure K1 would not increase the utility tax rate, but it could rack up the things for which residents are taxed and that could add up. “We want to draw a line in the sand and say that websites and apps are not utilities,” Callahan said. If utility revenues are dropping, and they are, that doesn’t mean cities should be able to “just slap” new utilities taxes onto nonutilities. Where would it end? IF CITIES can suddenly tax applications that allow residents to watch video, what’s to stop them from taxing your tunes, too. Music — iTunes, Amazon Prime — could be the next frontier. Why not interactive video games? They’re not utilities. But the cities need the money, so they’ll just pretend they’re utilities.

November 9, 2016 ECONOMICS: November 1, 2016

Has economics failed? Look at history

t is especially painful for me, as an economist, to see that two small cities in northern California — San Mateo and Burlingame — have rent control proposals on the ballot this election year. There are various other campaigns, in other places around the country, for and against minimum wage laws, which likewise make me wonder if the economics profession has failed to educate the public in the most elementary economic lessons.

NEITHER RENT control nor minimum wage laws — nor price control laws in general — are new. Price control laws go back as far as ancient Egypt and Babylon, and they have been imposed at one time or other on every inhabited continent. History alone should be able to tell us what the actual consequences of such

laws have been, since they have been never raised rents, that would still not around for thousands of years. Anyone get one new building built. who has taken a course in Economics RISING RENTS are a symptom of 1 should understand why those consequences have been so different from the problem. The actual cause of the what their advocates expected. It is not problem is a refusal of many California officials to allow enough housing to be rocket science. Nevertheless, advocates of a rent built for all the people who want to rent control law are saying things like “this an apartment. Supply and demand is one of the first will prevent some landlords from gougtaught in introducing tenants and making a ton of money t h i n g s tory economics off the housing textbooks. Why it crisis.” should be a mystery The reason to people living in there is a housing an upscale comcrisis in the first (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate munity — people place is that existwho have probing laws in much of California prevent enough housing ably graduated from an expensive colfrom being built to supply the apart- lege — is the real puzzle. Supply and ments and homes that people want. If demand is not a breakthrough on the landlords were all sweethearts, and frontiers of knowledge.

Thomas

Sowell

HILLARY CLINTON: November 1, 2016

Oh, what a year! It’s come to this “Argh!” I think that’s a reasonable, however inelegant, take on this fall’s electoral fun — whose elements I suppose I need not summarize. We shake our heads in bewilderment. It’s come to this, really? The brains of the Founding Fathers and the blood and toil of those who followed them — reduce to this moment, and to the question of the moment: Which of two political misfits gets to run the American show for a few years? Er ... yes. It does more or less come down to that. But that shouldn’t lead us to deduce from this campaign season the final ruin of America. “There is a lot of ruin in a nation,” the great Adam Smith is reported to have replied when a friend frantically entered Smith’s drawing room proclaiming Britain’s doom after Gen. Burgoyne surrendered at Saratoga.

IT SITS poorly, all the same, with those who yearn for ordered freedom and honorable government to contemplate the present choice: Donald Trump as the agent of rescue from the clutches of maybe the most self-involved politician in the land — one who, all too evidently, wants to be president because she wants to be president. The main problem with Hillary Clinton isn’t her backstage machinations; it’s her second-rate-ness as a public figure. The admission is hard to make, in that she may actually win the presidency. She demonstrates no gifts for leadership; she drives away rather than attracts. She seems to lack ideas as to what America needs (except herself as

president): making speeches, proposing laws, meeting and greeting and taking her chair at the top of the table. She doesn’t lay out visions; she chirps and chatters. That’s no slam on female orators. The titanic Margaret Thatcher hardly ever said anything not worth weighing, whether for agreement or disagreement. Clinton’s mounting challenges over past emails stem, apparently, from a well-developed personal habit of acting on what seems to help Clinton, to the exclusion of all other courses. Her strategy, when she guesses wrong, is to brass it out: “Don’t dare question me: I’m the heir to the throne.” Modesty, we could all probably agree, is not Clinton’s biggest asset.

William

WHAT’S THAt you say? Donald Trump is fundamentally no wiser than she, no more steeped in political and philosophical arcana? I’ll buy that one, up to a certain point, with two reservations: 1) Trump’s lifespan in politics has been a lot shorter than hers, affording him scanter exposure to ideas, and 2) a becoming number of his advisers and counselors are halfway sane in the political sense, unlike the way-left-wing Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, two counselors and enablers to Clinton. Again, I venture the not-too-far-out judgment: Argh! What’s likely to happen if Clinton wins, as the pollsters and prognostica-

tors seem to fancy? What tricks will Clinton, Warren and Sanders try to bring off? So far to the political left is this ensemble, with no visible interest in non-left-wing solutions, that nothing of importance is likely to happen under a Clinton regime. It’s thought that Republicans will probably retain control of the House and perhaps the Senate, as well. That means a standoff — and maybe that is the best indicated outcome — unless Clinton adopts, through practice in the mirror, a sympathy she has never shown for ordered liberty, local rights and traditional standards of behavior. The national Democrats don’t think much of, or even much about, ordered liberty. Clinton’s ability to marshal them away from left-wing, pro-heavygovernment stances on energy and taxation cannot be overestimated: The less so if the issue of the day — emails and the FBI — comes to dominate her tenure. Trusting Clinton’s word is not the country’s fallback position. And that may be less our fault than hers, on account of her apparently shallow acquaintance with the reasons America’s first president (per Parson Weems’ telling) might have fessed up to the cherry tree incident. Those reasons would be, for instance: Duty’s call; a sense of destiny as more than just the achievement of an ancient ambition; a sense of honor; and deep love of the higher things in life, as distinguished sharply from the lower. ANYWAY, HERE we go. We’ll see soon enough. Argh.

A century ago, virtually any economist could have explained why preventing housing from being built would lead to higher rents, and why rent control would further widen the gap between the amount of housing supplied and the amount demanded. Not to mention such other consequences as a faster deterioration of existing housing, since upkeep gets neglected when there is a housing shortage. Today’s economists have advanced to far more complicated problems. It is as if we had the world’s greatest mathematicians but most college graduates couldn’t do arithmetic. Part of the problem is that even our most prestigious colleges seldom have any real curriculum requirements that would ensure that their graduates had at least a basic understanding of economics, history, mathematics, science or other fundamental subjects. Many students and their parents spend great amounts of money, and go into debt, for an education that too often leaves them illiterate in economics and ignorant of many other subjects. Part of the problem is that many college graduates do not take a single course in economics. Another part of the problem is that many economics departments leave the teaching of introductory economics in the hands of some junior or transient faculty member, or even graduate students who get stuck with the job. One of the things that made me proud of the economics department at UCLA when I taught there, decades ago, was that teaching the introductory economics course was the job of a full professor, even if not the same professor every year. In all too many subjects today, the introductory course is taught by junior faculty, transient faculty or graduate students, while the full professors teach only upper level courses or postgraduate courses. That may save a department the expense of staffing the introductory course with their more highly paid members. But, it is extravagantly expensive from the standpoint of society as a whole, when it means sending graduates out into the world unable to see through the wasteful economic hokum spread by politicians. THAT IS HOW you get ill-informed voters who support price controls of many kinds, without understanding that prices convey economic realities that do not change just because the government changes the prices. It is as if someone’s fever was treated by putting the thermometer in cold water to bring the temperature reading down. You don’t get more housing with rent control.

Conservative Chronicle

HILLARY CLINTON: November 2, 2016

A fifth Clinton presidency? Hill, no!

keep hearing that Hillary Clinton would be “Obama’s third term.” The math is wrong. Barack Obama served the Clinton crime family’s third and fourth term. Electing Hillary woulad doom America to a fifth Clinton White House. From 1993-2001, under the “Two for the Price of One” Clinton regime, we suffered through Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewatergate, Missing Rose Law Firm Billing Records-gate, Chinagate, Lincoln Bedroom Rentalgate, Creepergate, Pardongate, Chronic “-Gate” Fatigue, and IRS weaponization against Clinton critics. From 2008-2016, we endured Hillarycare 2.0, Clintonomics 2.0, more Clintonian IRS witch hunts, systemic sabotage of government transparency, corrupted Justice Department obstruction of justice, and bottomless Foggy Bottom favor peddling. THINK ABOUT it. Obama’s “Hope and Change” administration was infested with moldy-oldie Clintonites from day one. They ruled the roost on hiring decisions, economic policy, health care, energy and the environment, immigration, and, of course, the State Department. At the center of it all? John Podesta, the ultimate Beltway barnacle. He has inhabited D.C.’s chambers of power since 1979, when he served as the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Democratic majority counsel. He then worked for former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle — the disgraced tax cheat who parlayed his public service into a $5.2 million personal fortune as one of Washington’s biggest influence peddlers, along with his lobbyist wife. As Slick Willie’s first staff secretary, Podesta acted as chief paper-pusher, scandal patrolman and “bimbo eruption” suppression ninja. He accumulated several other policy hats, dabbling in telecom security and regulatory policy before ascending to deputy chief of staff. In the second Clinton term, he took over as chief of staff with comprehensive control over “policy development, daily operations, congressional relations, and staff activities of the White House” — along with primary influence over federal budget and tax policy, as well as privacy and national security. It was Podesta who fielded the call near the end of the Clintons’ reign in 2000 that led to the sordid pardon for Clinton donor Marc Rich. Who was it that lobbied him? His old law school pal and bestie Peter Kadzik — now the Obama DOJ assistant attorney general in charge of investigating top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s newly discovered emails. But I digress. With the Clintons’ blessing in 2003, Podesta secured funding from billionaire subprime mortgage fat

But later, missing Rose Law Firm billing records tied to the complex Whitewater and Castle Grande real estate and savings and loans racket were mysteriously discovered in a private reading room of the Clinton White House. With Hillary’s and Foster’s prints on them. The “Obama” years also resurrected AS CO-CHAIRMAN of Barack Obama’s transition team in 2008, Pod- scandal-tainted Clintonites Eric Holder, esta filled top policy lots with his think impeachment lawyer Greg Craig, Chicaand Goldman Sachs tank’s staffers, including special Depart- go crony guy Rahm Emanment of Health and uel, fellow GoldHuman Services man Sachs money assistant Michael man and econoHalle and HHS my-wrecker Larry Director Jeanne (c) 2016, Creators Syndicate Summers, openLambrew. Those borders extremist Podesta minions worked under another former Clintonite, and Janet Reno underling-turned-Obama Obama’s second HHS secretary, Sylvia Labor Secretary Thomas Perez, and former Clinton EPA head-turned-Obama Matthews Burwell. Matthews Burwell was the Clinton energy czar Carol Browner. Before there was BleachBit, Browner aide who rummaged through former Hillary Clinton law partner/confidante and covered her tracks the old-fashioned way. deputy White House counsel Vince Fos- At the Clinton EPA, she was caught orter’s garbage after he committed suicide. dering her computer technician to purge She denied taking any records belong- and delete all her files just as a federal ing to Foster during her dumpster dive. court had ordered her to preserve any cat Herbert Sandler to create the Center for American Progress — the radical think tank at the center of the liberal universe in Washington, D.C. The Latin translation for “Center for American Progress?” Quid pro quo.

Michelle

Malkin

government documents related to a public records lawsuit over her regulatory favors to left-wing environmental groups. Not only did she have computer technicians clear and reformat her hard drives, but also email backup tapes were erased and reused in violation of records preservation practices. Browner’s EPA was held in contempt of court, but she escaped any legal consequences (the Clinton way!) and went on to doctor data during the BP oil spill saga under Obama. I don’t care what side of the political aisle you occupy. Sixteen years of payfor-play plunder and corruptocracy by Big Government statists masquerading as “progressives” is 16 years too many. Do you really want to keep Washington in the decrepit hands of Bill and Hill’s henchpeople? Can we long endure another four or eight more years of Clinton schlock and awfulness? ENOUGH IS enough. Lock her up later. Lock her — and all her sleazy, money-grubbing minions — out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. now.

GARY JOHNSON: November 1, 2016

Why I’m voting for Gov. Gary Johnson

f I were a Democrat, then I’d be as furious with my fellow partisans for nominating Hillary Clinton as I am at my fellow Republicans for nominating Donald Trump. Once again, Clinton is in hot water because of her reckless decision-making. Her original sin was setting up a home-brew server. Her second sin was deciding to delete thousands of emails under subpoena. Defenders act perplexed as to why the Democratic nominee set up this email system. I assume she had many, many things she wanted to hide — which is why she lied about the whole arrangement.

THE GOP nominee lacks conviction, character and self-control. Trump didn’t keep his promise to release his tax returns. He trash-talks women and minorities. In all my years of covering politics, I’ve never seen a campaign where supporters actively blame the candidate’s lack of self-control — not his advisers or pollsters — for the harebrained things he says. Even his most enthusiastic fans say Trump is his own worst enemy. Clinton or Trump? I truly have no idea which candidate would be worse. Either nominee would take the oath of office in the face of angry partisan foes itching for payback. Either nominee has ample self-destructive impulses likely to empower an army of detractors.

That’s why I’m voting for Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson. The former GOP governor of New Mexico had the right stuff to win election and re-election in a purple state. Johnson believes in small government. He was not afraid to challenge federal mandates. In his first term, he cut the state workforce by 1,200, capped state budget increases at 4.2 percent (down from 10 percent) and vetoed 388 bills, according to the Almanac of American Politics. When he ran for re-election in 1998, he won 55 percent of the vote.

Debra J.

WHEN I tell people I’m voting for Johnson, wags invariably respond: “You mean the guy who doesn’t know where Aleppo is?” (When an MSNBC talking head asked Johnson what he’d do about Aleppo, Johnson responded, “What is a leppo?”) My quick rejoinder: Running mate Bill Weld, the former GOP Massachusetts governor who won re-election in a blue state, can be in charge of foreign policy. My more serious answer: Johnson doesn’t answer snap questions well in part because he doesn’t have a staple of canned sound bites he endlessly repeats.

When I interviewed Johnson this summer, I asked him to name the first three regulations he’d work to eliminate. He drew a blank — he couldn’t name three. He instead said, “I’ll bet that we’re able to do away with hundreds of regulations in a matter of weeks.” Later he mentioned he would get rid of the federal Department of Education and Department of Housing and Urban Development. He’s not afraid to push for smaller government. He has been a strong critic of the failed federal war on drugs. He supports legalizing recreational use of marijuana. That is, he understands where the federal government should pull back. Gary Johnson doesn’t like being called an isolationist; he sees himself as a “non-interventionist.” He told me he believes U.S. troops should work to defeat the Islamic State because “ISIS has attacked us.” I fear that he will reduce America’s military footprint abroad, but at least he has little appetite to send U.S. troops in harm’s way for unclear objectives. IS HE READY to be president? No. Neither is Trump. And Clinton isn’t ready to be the kind of president who works within simple rules. From Day One, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will sow chaos. So I’m going with the no-drama candidate who actually means what he says.

November 9, 2016 ISRAEL: October 28, 2016

Is Obama preparing a parting shot at Israel?

Bernie Sanders tried to introduce into the Democratic Party platform a plank more unfavorable to Israel. He failed, but when a couple of Clinton campaign consultants questioned (in emails revealed by WikiLeaks) why she should be mentioning Israel in her speeches, campaign manager Robby Mook concurred, “We shouldn’t have Israel at public events. Especially dem activists.” For whom the very mention of Israel is toxic. And what to make of the White House’s correction to a press release THIS ORWELLIAN absurdity about last month’s funeral of Shimon is an insult not just to Judaism but to Peres? The original release identified cation as “Mount Herzl, Christianity. It makes a mockery of the losalem, Israel.” The the Gospels, which chronicle the story J e r u correction crossed of a Galilean Jew out the country idenwhose life and tifier — “Israel.” ministry unfolded Well, where throughout the (c) 2016, Washington Post Writers Group else is Jerusalem? Holy Land, most Sri Lanka? Moreespecially in Jerusalem and the Temple. If this is nothing over, Mount Herzl isn’t even in disputed but a Muslim site, what happens to the East Jerusalem. It’s in West Jerusalem, very foundation of Christianity, which within the boundaries of pre-1967 Isoccurred 600 years before Islam even rael. If that’s not Israel, what is? But such cowardly gestures are mere came into being? This UNESCO resolution is merely pinpricks compared to the damage Isthe surreal extreme of the worldwide rael faces in the final days of the Obama campaign to delegitimize Israel. It fea- presidency. As John Hannah of the tures the BDS movement (Boycott, Di- Foundation for Defense of Democravestment and Sanctions), now growing cies recently wrote (in Foreign Policy), on Western university campuses and there have been indications for months some mainline Protestant churches. And that President Obama might go to the it extends even into some precincts of U.N. and unveil his own final status parameters of a two-state solution. These the Democratic Party. ast week, the U.N.’s premier cultural agency, UNESCO, approved a resolution viciously condemning Israel (referred to as “the Occupying Power”) for various alleged trespasses and violations of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Except that the resolution never uses that term for Judaism’s holiest shrine. It refers to and treats it as an exclusively Muslim site, a deliberate attempt to eradicate its connection — let alone its centrality — to the Jewish people and Jewish history.

Charles

Krauthammer

would then be enshrined in a new Security Council resolution that could officially recognize a Palestinian state on the territory Israel came into possession of during the 1967 Six-Day War. THERE IS a reason such a move has been resisted by eight previous U.S. administrations: It overthrows the central premise of Middle East peacemaking — land for peace. Under which the Palestinians get their state after negotiations in which the parties agree on recognized boundaries, exchange mutual recogni-

tion and declare a permanent end to the conflict. Land for peace would be replaced by land for nothing. Endorsing in advance a Palestinian state and what would essentially be a full Israeli withdrawal removes the Palestinian incentive to negotiate and strips Israel of territorial bargaining chips of the kind it used, for example, to achieve peace with Egypt. The result would be not just perpetual war but incalculable damage to Israel. Consider but one example: The Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, destroyed and ethnically cleansed of Jews by its Arab conquerors in the war of 19481949. It was rebuilt by Israel after 1967. It would now be open to the absurd judicial charge that the Jewish state’s possession of the Jewish Quarter constitutes a criminal occupation of another country. Israel would be hauled endlessly into courts (both national and international) to face sanctions, boycotts (now under color of law) and arrest of its leaders. All this for violating a U.N. mandate to which no Israeli government, left or right, could possibly accede. Before the election, Obama dare not attempt this final legacy item, to go along with the Iran deal and the Castro conciliation, for fear of damaging Hillary Clinton. His last opportunity comes after Election Day. The one person who might deter him, points out Hannah, is Clinton herself, by committing Obama to do nothing before he leaves office that would tie her hands should she become president. CLINTON’S SUPPORTERS who care about Israel and about peace need to urge her to do that now. It will soon be too late. Soon Obama will be free to deliver a devastating parting shot to Israel and to the prime minister he detests.

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 11/9/16 Periodicals Postage Paid Mailed 11/3/16

Read Laura Hollis, Stephen Moore & Betsy McCaughey on Pages 16-17

Obamacare

This week our CONSERVATIVE FOCUS is on:

Read Rich Lowry’s Column on Page 1

Democrats Ignored Her Misdeeds

Hillary Scandals

Wednesday, November 9, 2016 • Volume 31, Number 45 • Hampton, Iowa