RUTHFULLY YOURS

Of the 10 Republicans in Thursday’s debate, none was harder to explain than Donald Trump. It’s not that he isn’t a serious candidate. It’s that he was on the wrong stage, with the wrong people, at the wrong time.

Republicans have been working for the past decade to reconstruct a movement that collapsed in the mid-2000s as a result of laziness and loss of principle. It has been a wrenching process, full of tea-party uprisings and bitter primaries, uninspired presidential candidacies and blown elections, policy setbacks and government shutdowns. Still, the number of triumphs has been growing. The Republicans’ hold over governorships and takeover of the Senate, their new faces and new ideas, and their brimming presidential field all are signs that the Republican electorate has grown more thoughtful about the political process—and more demanding of smart, principled conservatives.

There was never any mistaking the aura of confident superiority from the host of ‘The Daily Show.’

It comes as no surprise that the end of Jon Stewart’s reign at Comedy Central should occasion a flow of testimonials fit for a revered leader. All that’s missing are the floral tributes in the streets. Long before word of Mr. Stewart’s departure was in the air, the reverential status he enjoyed as combination show host, news commentator and disseminator of all the latest in received wisdom was clear to all. Some of this week’s testaments, recorded in a New York Times piece Wednesday, sum the tone up nicely.

When President Obama on Monday announced new “Clean Power Plan” regulations to help mitigate climate change, more than a few religious leaders were quick to offer their blessing. Some 170 evangelicals—pastors, religion professors, nonprofit directors and others—sent an open letter to the president “to offer our support and encouragement for your efforts to overcome the climate challenge.”

The Evangelical Environmental Network, as the group calls itself, would “prefer that Congress act to reduce carbon pollution through a market-based approach, such as a revenue-neutral carbon tax swap that cuts other taxes,” but is nonetheless “grateful” for the president’s executive action.

The FBI is finally looking into Hillary Clinton’s handling of email as Secretary of State, but her campaign says not to worry because it’s not a “criminal referral” and she followed “appropriate practices.” The relevant question is why isn’t it a criminal probe?

Congress asked Charles McCullough III, Inspector General for the intelligence community, to evaluate whether classified information was transmitted or received by State Department employees over personal email systems. His office sampled 40 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails, determined that four contained classified intelligence, and passed that finding to Justice for review. This was merely a first step, and now we know the FBI is investigating the security of Mrs. Clinton’s private server.

The cartel faces the prospect of surging US output whenever oil prices rise

If the oil futures market is correct, Saudi Arabia will start running into trouble within two years. It will be in existential crisis by the end of the decade.

The contract price of US crude oil for delivery in December 2020 is currently $62.05, implying a drastic change in the economic landscape for the Middle East and the petro-rentier states.

Sen. Charles Schumer ended weeks of indecision Thursday night by announcing he would not support President Obama’s landmark nuclear deal with Iran.

The high-ranking Democrat released a statement saying that after “considerable soul-searching” he determined that there are “serious weaknesses” in the accord signed by Iran and six world powers in mid-July.

“I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy,” Schumer said.

“It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power.”

As the U.S. Presidential campaign starts its inevitable ramp up, one issue investors should consider is each candidate’s views on energy especially since energy policy has been consistently important in recent elections.

For all of the talk about clean energy, the reality is that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have come down primarily as a result of shale gas and oil displacing coal. Solar power is only just now getting to the point where it is cost effective versus conventional fossil fuels, and wind power is a bit further along, but still has a ways to go before it becomes a reliable generation source. Presidential candidates, especially on the left, prefer to talk more about clean energy than the benefits of fracking, but investors need to consider both aspects of energy policy.

On the Republican side, there are so many candidates that the nuances of most individual views have been lost amongst the shuffle. Nonetheless, a few trends do stand out. For instance, from front-runner Jeb Bush on down through the pack, most of the Republican group is skeptical about the impact man-kind is having on the Earth’s climate. Just about all are in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline and presumably would be supportive of more domestic fossil fuel production in general.

There are a few differences here and there, however.

For example, as governor of Florida, Bush did support various conservation efforts such as the Florida Forever Program, which focused on acquiring and preserving environmentally significant properties.

Other Republicans have offered varying degrees of opinion and proposed action on energy policy. For instance, Scott Walker of Wisconsin has come out clearly in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline as well as fracking, but he has also expressed support for a devolved set of EPA powers. The EPA as currently constructed is a national institution, but there are also state-level equivalents throughout all 50 states. Walker is in favor of removing powers from the EPA and putting them in the hands of individual states in order to create a more customized and tailored regulatory environment by region. Walker’s view is that devolving these powers would lead to greater authority at the local level and more accountability to the residents impacted by those decisions.

Gen. Curtis E. LeMay, the former Air Force chief of staff who was an architect of strategic air power and insisted that the nation be willing to use nuclear weapons when necessary, died yesterday in a California military hospital. He was 83 years old and lived in Moreno Valley, Calif.

The retired four-star general died of a heart attack at the 22d Strategic Hospital at March Air Force Base, an Air Force spokesman said.

General LeMay, who directed the air assault over Japan in the final days of World War II and relayed the Presidential order to drop nuclear bombs, years later wrote that a solution to the Vietnam War might be to bomb North Vietnam ”back into the Stone Ages.”

After World War II he commanded the Berlin airlift, then for many years was the commander of the Strategic Air Command. He entered politics briefly in 1968 as the running mate of George C. Wallace in the former Alabama Governor’s unsuccessful campaign for the Presidency.

Years after relaying the orders from President Harry S. Truman to drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, General LeMay said the actions were not necessary.

‘Truman Told Me to Do It’

”We felt that our incendiary bombings had been so successful that Japan would collapse before we invaded,” he said in a 1985 interview with the Omaha World Herald. ”We went ahead and dropped the bombs because President Truman told me to do it. He told me in a personal letter.”

He was hawkish on the Vietnam War and an outspoken advocate of manned air power based on a willingness to use nuclear weapons.

When Mr. Wallace introduced him as his running mate in 1968 on the American Independent Party ticket, General LeMay called for use of any available means, including nuclear weapons, to end the war. Later, he visited Vietnam on a fact-finding mission and called for renewed bombing of North Vietnam, especially the harbor at Haiphong.

At exactly fifteen minutes past eight in the morning, on August 6, 1945, Japanese time, at the moment when the atomic bomb flashed above Hiroshima, Miss Toshiko Sasaki, a clerk in the personnel department of the East Asia Tin Works, had just sat down at her place in the plant office and was turning her head to speak to the girl at the next desk. At that same moment, Dr. Masakazu Fujii was settling down cross-legged to read the Osaka Asahi on the porch of his private hospital, overhanging one of the seven deltaic rivers which divide Hiroshima; Mrs. Hatsuyo Nakamura, a tailor’s widow, stood by the window of her kitchen, watching a neighbor tearing down his house because it lay in the path of an air-raid-defense fire lane; Father Wilhelm Kleinsorge, a German priest of the Society of Jesus, reclined in his underwear on a cot on the top floor of his order’s three-story mission house, reading a Jesuit magazine, Stimmen der Zeit; Dr. Terufumi Sasaki, a young member of the surgical staff of the city’s large, modern Red Cross Hospital, walked along one of the hospital corridors with a blood specimen for a Wassermann test in his hand; and the Reverend Mr. Kiyoshi Tanimoto, pastor of the Hiroshima Methodist Church, paused at the door of a rich man’s house in Koi, the city’s western suburb, and prepared to unload a handcart full of things he had evacuated from town in fear of the massive B-29 raid which everyone expected Hiroshima to suffer. A hundred thousand people were killed by the atomic bomb, and these six were among the survivors. They still wonder why they lived when so many others died. Each of them counts many small items of chance or volition—a step taken in time, a decision to go indoors, catching one streetcar instead of the next—that spared him. And now each knows that in the act of survival he lived a dozen lives and saw more death than he ever thought he would see. At the time, none of them knew anything.

There is nothing that corrupts conservatives quite as much as the need to be nice.

Conservatives are natural optimists who see the world as being basically a nice place. They are nice because they think that the world is nice. That worldview is not reciprocated by the other side.

Where conservatives see a country store, liberals see an oppressive outpost of capitalism. Where conservatives see a family, liberals see abusive patriarchy, oppressive gender norms, religious indoctrination and apple pie. Our current broken family society is the outcome of a cultural war waged against families based on that viewpoint.

The left is convinced that the world is an evil place, that people are basically terrible and that they are the only thing standing between us and the return of human slavery.

It’s no wonder that liberals are so nasty.