RUTHFULLY YOURS

So infectious is the boobery of the moment that the vector of contagion has penetrated even the high tower walls behind which dwells Hillary Rodham Clinton, into whose weedy enchanted kingdom few are admitted except discreet deliverymen with the usual weekly bulk shipments of eye-of-newt and toe-of-frog supplements. Herself frequently is banal, insipid, poorly informed, glib, contemptible, and almost always boring, but she’s usually not much of a genuine bomb-thrower, until she accuses her opponents of being genuine bomb-throwers, i.e., declaring that those in the pro-life camp who object to the vivisection of living human beings for commercial purposes are soul mates with “terrorists.”

Which terrorists, you ask? Herself won’t quite say, but these are terrorists who have nasty and atavistic ideas about the role of women in society. IRA? No . . . Sri Lanka’s Buddhist Power Force? Not quite . . . What’s left of the Euskadi Ta Askatasuna, Epanastatikos Agonas, or Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias De Colombia? I’d be surprised if the former secretary of state could correctly spell all three. The unnamed miscreants here are none other than the gentlemen of Derka Derka Muhammed Jihad (haka sherpa sherpa!), but Herself is too timid to name them even when she is libelously matching her Republican rivals with their theology.

In the present postmodern world, we are told that there is no such thing as a biologically distinct gender. Instead, gender is now socially constructed. It can be defined by the individual in almost any way he or she sees fit.

In the old days, many clinical psychologists would have believed that Caitlyn Jenner — who first came to fame as Olympian Bruce Jenner — is experiencing a well-chronicled psychological state known as transvestism, or the innate pleasure in wearing the clothes and assuming the manners and appearance of the opposite sex.

Jenner, however, identifies as transgendered. But even if the term is new, the condition is not. References to people acting or dressing as if they were members of the opposite sex — or somewhere in between — were commonly found in the works of ancient authors such as Catullus and Petronius. The difference is that the Greeks and Romans saw it as a psychosexual condition, while today’s postmoderns insist that the transgendered have assumed a self-constructed and genuinely new sexual identity.

Have they really?

Just another time-honored trick from the Clinton playbook.

Now that her presidential campaign is taking on water, a disingenuous former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said this week that she was accepting “responsibility” for illegally using an insecure private Internet server to transmit emails containing top-secret classified U.S. government documents.

Whatever that means in Clinton-speak.

Hillary claimed previously that she was taking responsibility for the Benghazi fiasco in 2012 that left four Americans dead. Nothing happened to her. We still don’t even have an official cause of death for Ambassador Chris Stevens who was initially reported to have been ritualistically sodomized and murdered by Islamic terrorists.

Why the Islamic Republic is readying for war not despite the Iran nuclear accord — but because of it.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) announced today that she would be voting in favor of a resolution of disapproval against the president’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action becoming the 14th Democratic congressional lawmaker to buck Obama. Two Senators, Chuck Schumer and Robert Menendez, also announced their intention to vote in favor of a resolution of disapproval.

In explaining her decision, Maloney quite accurately noted that even if Iran doesn’t cheat — an unlikely prospect given the Islamic Republic’s record of deceit and fabrication — the Iranians can legally become a threshold nuclear power once many of the restrictive provisions of the JCPOA expire in 8 to 10 years. In the best-case scenario, Obama has merely kicked the can down the road. Moreover, in 8 years, Iran will be a lot richer and infinitely more menacing thanks to sanctions relief as mandated by the JCPOA.

The Iran deal, by President Obama’s own admission, opens the path to Iran’s acquiring a nuclear arsenal, even as Iranian leaders continue to assert their determination to annihilate Israel. While the President has claimed at times that the agreement will prevent Iran from ever developing nuclear weapons, he has on other occasions acknowledged that, in fact, after fifteen years Iran will have a clear, short path to doing so.

Israelis across the political spectrum oppose the deal, fearful of the existential threat it represents, and most American Jews share their opposition. A significant majority of non-Jewish Americans do as well, both out of sympathy for Israel and out of fear of the apocalyptic Iranian theocrats gaining the ability to act on their threats against America as well as Israel.

But while objections to his Iran deal go far beyond Israel and elements of the American Jewish community, President Obama insists Israel’s is the only government opposing the agreement – an outright lie, given, for example, the clear if less publicly and forcefully articulated opposition of such countries as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates. He has also slandered American Jewish objectors with suggestions of dual loyalty, of mounting an expensive, unpatriotic campaign against the deal and in defiance of America’s best interests and of trying to push the nation to war. These hoary anti-Jewish canards have led many to call out the President for dabbling in anti-Semitism.

Hillary Clinton’s worst punishment will be her failure.

Hillary Clinton has spent a third of her adult life trying to become president. All for nothing.

The first time around, she wasted $200 million just to lose to Obama. $11 million of that money came from the notoriously “flat broke” couple. This time around she was determined to take no chances.

Together with her husband she built up a massive war chest using money from foreign governments and speaking fees from non-profits, funneled into her own dirty non-profit and a complex network of unofficial organizations staffed by Clinton loyalists, secured an unofficial endorsement from Obama and carefully avoided answering questions or taking positions on anything. There was no way she could lose.

Now she’s losing all over again.

The Continent’s leaders, most of them, apparently believe that more money must be provided to “refugees” countries of origin, thus lessening the incentive to leave. Surely, with a full-blown invasion well underway, only the simple-minded would deem this approach any kind of solution.
I do my own casual surveys when I am away, as I have been these past few weeks in Britain. They are totally unscientific. Once in conversation I ask those around me — generally in pubs, I admit — what they think about this and that. For example, in the Labour heartland of working-class Liverpool there was little disquiet about nut-job Jeremy Corbyn’s policies. In fact, there was approval — the slight problem only that no-one had much knowledge of his policies. Printing money, leaving NATO, cozying up to Islamists and, the killer in current circumstances, of having a more lenient approach to admitting so-called refugees, were not top of my interlocutors’ minds or, in fact, anywhere in mind.

The ‘refugees’ crisis so far as I can tell is causing particular concern though not, I think, quite as much as the size of the problem warrants. Two exceptions were an ex-Royal Navy chap I met who wanted to herd them at the point of guns and ship them back, and a building-maintenance chap who thought that not only should Islam’s haters be deported but their whole families with them. On the edge, you might think, but a least they comprehended how great is the problem.

Barack Obama isn’t the first President to overlook Iran’s bloody hands in hopes of better relations. Bill Clinton did much the same when the FBI’s investigation into the 1996 Khobar Towers attack began pointing to Iran.

The Khobar bombings killed 19 American airmen who were living in those towers. Then-FBI director Louis Freeh has written of how his efforts to press the Clinton Administration into an investigation of Iran’s role came to nothing. In 2001 a grand jury indicted 13 Saudis and an unknown Lebanese and implicated Iranian officials in the killings.

Now the Saudis are reported to have in custody the man believed to have masterminded the attack. His name is Ahmed al-Mughassil, and he is a member of Saudi Hezbollah. He was picked up in Beirut after arriving there from Iran.

No doubt the capture of al-Mughassil would have been more convenient for President Obama after his nuclear deal with Iran was in place. That is why it’s so important for Members of Congress to take note. From the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon to the Khobar Towers to the Iranian-made IEDs that took the lives of many of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran and its proxies have never hesitated to shed American blood.

Approaching Beijing on the basis of strength and example, not weakness and appeasement.

Over the past week, we have been dealt a painful reminder of just how important U.S. policy toward China is in the 21st century. On Monday, due largely to a crash in China’s stock market, U.S. markets suffered their worst day in four years. Insecurity and anxiety about the future—already high for American families—climbed even higher. It was a jarring illustration of how globalization is changing the U.S. economy.

China presents both opportunities and challenges. Trade with its growing middle class has opened American businesses to hundreds of millions of new customers. But Beijing’s protectionist economic and trade policies increasingly endanger America’s financial well-being. China is also a rising threat to U.S. national security. Earlier this year, it was behind the largest cyberattack ever carried out against the United States.

President Obama has continued to appease China’s leaders despite their mounting aggression. In addition to his insufficient responses to economic and national-security concerns, he has ignored the Chinese government’s mass roundups of human-rights advocates, oppression of religious minorities, detention of political dissidents, ever-tightening controls on the Internet, and numerous other human-rights violations. He has hoped that being more friendly with China will make it more responsible. It hasn’t worked.

Another government employee, another private account, another crashed hard drive.

When a government official (think Hillary Clinton) uses a private email account for government work (think Hillary Clinton) and then doesn’t turn over records (think Hillary Clinton), the public has to wonder why. For an example of that why, consider Thursday’s federal-court subpoena of Phillip North.

The North story hasn’t gotten a lot of attention, but it is a useful tale for clarifying exactly why we have federal records and sunshine laws. You see, government workers don’t use private email because it is “convenient.” They use private email to engage in practices that may be unsavory, or embarrassing, or even illegal. Let’s be clear about that.

Mr. North was, until a few years ago, a biologist at the Environmental Protection Agency, based in Alaska. Around 2005 he became enmeshed in reviewing the Pebble Partnership’s proposal to develop a mine there. Mr. North has openly admitted that he was opposed to this idea early on, and he is entitled to his opinion. Still, as a government employee his first duty is to follow the law.