RUTHFULLY YOURS

So Hillary Clinton has a new plan to rid politics of big money and secrecy. Question: Do the words Clinton Foundation come up anywhere in her proposal?

Mrs. Clinton announced Tuesday that as President she would have the government provide matching funds for campaign donations below a certain dollar amount, lower the cap on the amount individuals can contribute to candidates, and force independent groups to disclose their donors. She would also try to rewrite the First Amendment to allow more regulation of political speech.

The point of this exercise is to appeal to her party’s campaign-finance obsessives and blunt the appeal of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who has made money in politics a cornerstone of his presidential campaign. It’s also intended to change the subject from stories about the $1 billion or so that she and Bill Clinton have raised from various big-money donors for political and other purposes over the past two decades.

The movement was founded on a falsehood. Scapegoating the police ignores the true threats to the urban poor.

The great lie of the summer has been the Black Lives Matter movement. It was founded on one falsehood—that a Ferguson, Mo., police officer shot a black suspect who was trying to surrender—and it is perpetuated by another: that trigger-happy cops are filling our morgues with young black men.

The reality is that Michael Brown is dead because he robbed a convenience store, assaulted a uniformed officer and then made a move for the officer’s gun. The reality is that a cop is six times more likely to be killed by someone black than the reverse. The reality is that the Michael Browns are a much bigger threat to black lives than are the police. “Every year, the casualty count of black-on-black crime is twice that of the death toll of 9/11,” wrote former New York City police detective Edward Conlon in a Journal essay on Saturday. “I don’t understand how a movement called ‘Black Lives Matter’ can ignore the leading cause of death among young black men in the U.S., which is homicide by their peers.”

At State Department, the Democratic front-runner and an aide softened their stance against letting Tehran enrich uranium.
WASHINGTON—Hillary Clinton, in her last months as secretary of state, helped open the door to a dramatic shift in U.S. policy toward Iran: an acceptance that Tehran would maintain at least some capacity to produce nuclear fuel, according to current and former U.S. officials.

In July 2012, Mrs. Clinton’s closest foreign-policy aide, Jake Sullivan, met in secret with Iranian diplomats in Oman, but made no progress in ending the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program. In a string of high-level meetings here over the next six months, the secretary of state and White House concluded that they might have to let Iran continue to enrich uranium at small levels, if the diplomacy had any hope of succeeding.

Political responses to crises are often tardy and embarrassingly fad-driven, as with the current global outcry over the image of a three-year-old Syrian boy washed up on the Turkish shore. He was hardly the first innocent victim of this century’s most brutal war. Where has the world been for the last 54 months?

Indeed, the unfolding humanitarian crisis was an entirely foreseeable consequence of Obama’s spineless Syria policy, and the Western European leaders who followed it. So, despite Obama’s efforts to anesthetize the public, it is understandable if some collective shame for Western failures — driven by tragic images that went viral — has prompted Europe suddenly to announce that it will accept more refugees from the war-torn Middle East.

But how did the West become more responsible for the Mideast refugee crisis than the wealthiest Mideast states (whose funding of Islamist rebels helped to create that crisis)? According to news reports and think tanks, Arab Gulf donors have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Syria in recent years, including to ISIS and other groups.

“If somebody tells you he wants to cut your throat, the last thing you do is buy him a knife” – Senator Lindsey Graham

Unable to recognize the Iranian threat, Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid, called into question the intelligence of those opposing the Iran deal. However, Reid’s “Best reason” to support the deal, as he explained on CNN, is because “Cheney’s against it.”

While pressuring 41 Democratic Senators to support his deal, President Obama failed to convince the American people, the majority of which opposes it for reasons similar to that of Senator Graham.

As debates continue in the United States, the Europeans are trampling over each other as they rush to offer business deals to the mullahs and eagerly bolster cultural and academic ties with Iran.

It’s busy in Tehran. On September 8, in a joint press conference with his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani, Austrian President Heinz Fischer announced: “Austria’s bilateral trade with Iran will grow to $335 million” this year. He emphasized Vienna’s willingness “to cooperate with Iran in both political and economic fields.” Later, a delegation of some 230 Austrian businessmen signed 15 memoranda of understanding (MoUs) worth over 80 million euros with the Iranians.

Herbert London President, London Center for Policy Research

When Klemens Von Metternich, 19th century Austrian diplomat extraordinaire, thought about European stability, he walked a tightrope between the Tsar’s goals with those of Napoleon. He had Austria serve as an “impartial mediator” in Napoleon’s invasion of Russia and at the same time promising to throw Austria’s weight against Napoleon. This pretense of neutrality was maintained until 1813 when Napoleon was increasingly pressed by his adversaries.

At the Congress of Vienna, Metternich balanced Russian, French, Polish and Austrian and even emerging German interests. It was an artful effort that his admirers contend inspired a century of relative peace. Henry Kissinger, who wrote about and studied Metternich’s diplomacy, applied the Metternichian strategy with the outreach to China during the Cold War a gesture that, some argue, led to the fall of the Soviet Union.