RUTHFULLY YOURS

He is arrogant, egomaniacal and loose of lip, but surely nowhere near so dim that he actually believes he can win the Republican nomination and, after that, the White House. So what’s his game? Could it be that he has cast himself as the hidden ally and promoter of Ted Cruz?
What is the meaning of the Donald Trump phenomenon? You can say what you like about him. He seems to be an exasperating mixture of buffoonery, narcissism and political cunning. Irrespective of the contempt expressed by conservative pundits, neo-conservatives, paleo-conservatives and libertarians alike, the Donald has surged to nearly 25% support of the Republican Party base.

The respected conservative, Jonah Goldberg, sees Trump as both a CINO (conservative in name only), and a RINO, (Republican in name only). Yet, he has blown previous political calculations out of the water. I agree with Quadrant‘s Michael Warren Davis that Trump will not, we trust, win the nomination, and that if by some mischance he did last the distance to the Republican Convention in 2016, he would effectively destroy the GOP.

What really explains Trump’s rapid climb to the top of the polls.

Donald Trump’s blunt and clumsy comments about illegal immigration sparked the usual firestorm of criticism from the well heeled of both parties. Particularly vocal were those Republicans who think that an amorphous, make-believe category comprising “Hispanics” or “Latinos” will vote Republican if only Republican meanies like Trump would stop insulting them by complaining about illegal aliens. As usual, willful ignorance or blindness about the costs of illegal immigration underwrites these dubious ideas.

Trump’s comments about crimes committed by illegal aliens, for example, were attacked by the usual denial and obfuscation. Various statistics, some mixing illegal and legal immigrants, were touted as showing illegal criminal activity was proportionately less than that of the native-born. But as Brietbart reported, while illegal aliens are 3.5% of the population, based on federal sentencing data they represent 12% of murder convictions. Add state crime data, and according to an analysis at American Thinker illegals commit 10 times more murders than do citizens.

Those who think the Iranians outwitted us fail to recognize one very important thing: the White House never intended to contain Iran.

The nuclear deal with Iran is a wildly lopsided agreement. Whereas Iran received permanent concessions, the United States and its partners managed only to buy a little time. The agreement will delay the advent of a nuclear-capable Iran for about a decade—and much less than that should Tehran decide to cheat. Meanwhile, thanks to the deal, Iranian influence in the Middle East is set to grow. All of these benefits accrue to Iran without its ever having given any guarantee that it will change its revolutionary, expansionist, and brutal ways.

Why did the Obama administration accept such a deal? In trying to answer this question, some critics have claimed that the president and his negotiator, Secretary of State John Kerry, were simply no match for their opponents. The Iranians, so the argument goes, are master negotiators—they play chess while the Americans play checkers. “You guys have been bamboozled and the American people are going to pay for that,” Senator Jim Risch of Idaho told Kerry during recent hearings on the nuclear deal.

Can we be honest about illegal immigration?

It is a common challenge to almost every advanced Western country that is adjacent to poorer nations.

American employers and ethnic activists have long colluded to weaken border enforcement and render immigration law meaningless. The former wanted greater profits from cheaper labor, the latter wished more political clout for themselves.

A ‘third way’ approach to state-building gets a one-way ticket to trouble.

Salam Fayyad was once seen as a bright hope for peace in the Middle East. By the time he became prime minister of the Palestinian Authority in 2007, Mr. Fayyad had already earned credentials in the West as a World Bank technocrat. During his six years as a reformist prime minister, per capita GDP among Palestinians in the West Bank rose by 222%. Perceptions of Palestinian government corruption, as measured by Transparency International, also dropped dramatically.

No wonder David Welch, a former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, once called Mr. Fayyad’s administration “the best Palestinian Authority government in history.” President Obama praised him as “a true partner.”

In 2013 Mr. Fayyad resigned as prime minister of the Palestinian Authority after a series of policy disagreements with PA President Mahmoud Abbas—who is now serving the 11th year of his elected four-year term. Mr. Fayyad’s anticorruption crusade did not last beyond his tenure. But he has continued to press for reform. That may help explain why he is in legal trouble today, over a development organization he founded.

In “The Music Man,” Meredith Willson’s great musical, super salesman Harold Hill talks the townspeople of River City, Iowa, into buying trombones, bassoons and drums to form a boys’ band. Then, after the people of River City have committed belief and money to him, he’ll skip town.

Donald Trump is America’s Music Man, and the United States is his River City. Unlike the original, the Trump version isn’t going to have a happy ending.

Like Professor Harold Hill, Donald Trump must know it’s all a fabulous scam. How else to explain that on June 4—just before his presidential announcement—the Donald came to Mason City, Iowa, Meredith Willson’s hometown and the model for River City. And where did Donald Trump address Mason City’s locals? In Music Man Square.

Donations to family foundation increased after secretary of state’s involvement in tax case

A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts.

If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court.

Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS, an outcome that drew criticism from some lawmakers who wanted a more extensive crackdown.

As the majority-European-minority-African experiment that made America disappears into a Third World maelstrom of population-replacement and culture-eradication, the question, as we approach 2016, is whether there remains enough patriotism — love of country that is also openly declarable — to try to save it.

There is, alas, little good news. Yes, Trump, the man with the mouth who has at least blurted out the all-important message about borders, illegal aliens and sovereignty, has been surging on that message. This is evidence of rebellion in the land, and rebellion is good. It comes from a vestigial survival instinct; also from the bitter life experience that the GOP Establishment is a serial abuser of good conservatives and always will be.

Still, we have yet to hear Trump “clarify” his position on amnesty, which he appears to favor.

Venona intercepts indicate that Soviet GRU officer/State Department official Alger Hiss was awarded the USSR Order of the Red Star (above) after the Yalta conference.

—Readers of the often-perverse National Review will have noticed that FDR biographer and convicted felon Conrad Black has opened an extended firefight with Angelo Codevilla over Codevilla’s review-essay in the Claremont Review of Books about Henry Kissinger’s recent book.

Codevilla notes:

My review’s one and only reference to Conrad Black was to quote his praise of Kissinger’s book: “brilliantly conceived and executed . . . even by Henry Kissinger’s very high standards.” Black construes this as an “attack” on him, of “extreme belligerence.” Who am I to disagree?

Who, indeed. But such galactic departures from reality are quite routine for Black.

The “War on Terror” continues 14 years after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. Looking back further, it is more than 22 years since terrorists from the Middle East carried out deadly terror attacks at CIA Headquarters in Virginia (January 25, 1993) and the World Trade Center, in New York City, just one month later (February 26, 1993).
Make no mistake. We are at war with a vicious and insidious enemy that wants nothing less than the utter destruction of our nation and our way of life. They have committed unthinkable atrocities and undoubtedly will continue to slaughter, by the most barbaric means possible, anyone who stands in the way of their goals.

The purpose of my article is to ask a derivative of the fundamental question that was posed repeatedly in the 1976 movie thriller, Marathon Man: “Is it safe?” We must now ask, “Are we safe?” It begs the question that has a direct bearing on our security: “Have our leaders learned the lessons that history should have taught them?”