RUTHFULLY YOURS

This week the Washington Post reported that Cheryl Mills, who served as Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department, was simultaneously being paid by a private organization to negotiate with a foreign government. And that foreign government has been particularly generous to the Clintons.

In 2009, while Ms. Mills held the second most powerful job at State, she also represented New York University as it negotiated with officials from Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The school was preparing to open a campus there funded by the Abu Dhabi government. The campus opened in 2010 and welcomed Bill Clinton as a speaker at its inaugural commencement ceremony in 2014.

According to the Post, Ms. Mills was not paid by the U.S. government during the early months of the new Obama Administration, but was instead “officially designated as a temporary expert-consultant—a status that allowed her to continue to collect outside income while serving as chief of staff.” Outside of the Clintons and their staff, who else thinks it’s a good idea for senior State Department officials to be paid by private institutions to cut side deals with Middle Eastern dictatorships—or any foreign governments?

A previously unknown e-mail address used by Huma Abedin was discovered on Thursday, just hours before the top Hillary Clinton aide prepares to testify in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

Conservative watchdog group Citizens United discovered the address in an e-mail exchange that shows Clinton Foundation CEO Robert Harrison forwarding a speaking invitation for then-Secretary of State Clinton to both Abedin’s State Department account and an unfamiliar Abedin address on November 6, 2012. “I tried to send this to your ‘clintonemail.com’ address, but it bounced back as undeliverable, so here it is again,” Harrison wrote.

The new address is titled “humamabedin,” and appears to be a private e-mail account. The State Department redacted the account’s domain name, citing a personal-privacy exemption.

Lee Zeldin speaks softly and carries a big stick.

The freshman Republican congressman from New York’s First District sits in a banquette at The Fourth restaurant in Manhattan, sips a cappuccino, and says things at just above a whisper. But his words are the embodiment of peace through strength. Zeldin is a low-key tough guy.

“Nothing threatens America’s security more than the silence that’s coming out of the White House with regards to the way our enemies are testing us,” says Zeldin, 35. “America is being tested right now, President Obama is being tested. North Korea turns a key to a nuclear reactor. Russia is having a submarine off our coast of Georgia, or naval warships off the Pacific Coast. The Chinese naval fleet is just off the coast of Alaska while the president is there. Iran is threatening the United States and our allies while Congress is deliberating whether or not to approve the arms deal. We are being tested and we can’t be silent.”

Being tough doesn’t mean warmongering, Zeldin explains.

“When I say, ‘We can’t be silent,’ it doesn’t mean we want war. That’s what the Left likes to say. There is a huge range of options between silence and war. . . . Our enemies all around the world will continue to test us more and more, until the president and this country have the backbone to stand up for ourselves.”

The mild-mannered Mr. Zeldin generated headlines during the debate over Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. He didn’t just speak softly. He went totally silent.

Zeldin took to the House floor and asked his Democratic colleagues a simple question: “How do you support a deal based on verification without knowing what the verification is?” He offered to yield time and let any Democrat answer. He stood there, and soaked in their silence for ten seconds, as none of them could answer his question. A clip of this moment soon raced around the Internet.

Hillary Clinton’s laugh is so often transparently forced and insincere that it is a staple of Kate McKinnon’s impression of her on Saturday Night Live.

At the Democratic debate in Las Vegas, though, the former secretary of state let loose a long peal of amused delight and relief that had about it a strong hint of genuineness. Vermont senator Bernie Sanders had just said we had heard enough about her “damn e-mails.”

The crowd erupted in a standing ovation. Sanders had the signature line of the night, and it was in the cause of buttressing his opponent. He had put away the e-mail issue for the debate, and perhaps for the duration of the primary campaign.

If Joe Biden was sitting at home plotting his electability case against Clinton based on her ethics, the episode had to give him pause. Democrats evidently have about as much interest in delving into Hillary’s e-mail and related controversies as they do in re-litigating Bill Clinton’s impeachment.

Las Vegas was a reminder that it is awfully hard to lose a nomination if no one truly plausible, let alone formidable, is running against you. The structure of the Democratic race from the beginning has been about propping up Hillary Clinton, and it still is. The party is putting on a master class in how to nominate someone under FBI investigation, and is in willful denial about her vulnerabilities.

Yes, Hillary had a good night. She was polished, knowledgeable, shrewd, and hard-hitting — clearly, not someone to be trifled with. But the debate was a false indicator of her strength.

Democrats and their supporters in the media are congratulating themselves for a job well done in the first Democratic debate. Both Martin O’Malley and Hillary Clinton included in their closing remarks canned celebrations of how civil and morally superior the Democratic debate was compared with the earlier GOP donnybrooks.

The New York Times began its Wednesday editorial extolling the value of civility thus: “It was impossible not to feel a sense of relief watching the Democratic debate after months dominated by the Republican circus of haters, ranters, and that very special group of king killers in Congress.”

Longtime Hillary Clinton pet Lanny Davis churned out a column headlined, “The real winner in Las Vegas Tuesday night was the Democratic party — in stark contrast to the GOP.”

Now, it is true that Donald Trump’s presence in the first two prime-time debates lends a superficial credence to claims that the Republican field is more coarse and insulting. Trump, after all, is coarse and insulting. He uses words like “losers” and “dumb” as if they’re punctuation marks.

Anybody remember the hype surrounding something called the “IT”? This device was set to revolutionize transportation in the new millennium. It was going to make the car look like the horse and buggy, conjuring images of the Jetsons while promising worldwide transformation in the mold of the PC. In a clever bit of marketing, it even received what sounded like a secret agent codename — “Ginger.”

We all know the end of that story — the Segway is a novelty item big with mall cops.

After a couple of impressive debate performances, Carly Fiorina is the new Segway candidate. Those looking for a constitutional conservative need to know what she can promise vs. what she could actually deliver.

In many ways, Carly’s business track record forms the linchpin in her viability as a candidate and a leader. Given her current “outsider” status, her thin political track record, and her touting of business successes on the campaign trail, her business history has deservedly received considerable scrutiny. It deserves more.

Let’s start at Lucent, where the record becomes troubling — perhaps even more troubling than her tenure at Hewlett-Packard.

The dumbest woman in the room just got dumber.

Just two old folks jawing…

U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer is urging Vice President Joe Biden to stay out of the Democratic presidential race and instead support Hillary Clinton, Politico reported on Thursday.

After months of deliberating on the issue, Biden is expected to announce this month if he will seek the nomination, as he did in 2008 and 1988, and a political action committee has been urging him to do so.

Boxer, who was a colleague of Biden’s during his long years in the Senate, told Politico on Wednesday that there was no reason for him to run. She was speaking after a televised debate on Tuesday among the Democrats who have announced they are running.

Forget your flu shot. It’s not influenza that infects our society. It’s apologies. We live in a land of near-Bubonic apology fever. Everyone is constantly being asked to apologize for something. (Apologize for eating a Big Mac. Apologize for saying Asians do better in math, etc., etc.)

These apologies range from the sublime to the ridiculous, but are mostly the latter. And the demand for the apologies comes almost exclusively from the left — a morally narcissistic group-think culture that relies on shaming others in order to obscure the truth and gain power.

A great deal of the success of Donald Trump can be ascribed to the fact that he recognizes this nonsense and wants no part of it. With a more intellectual, and often truly educational, style, Ben Carson has been largely the same way, so it was with some dismay I read his article in the Jerusalem Post, “‘Never Again’ means standing with Israel.” In response to accusations of “insensitivity to the Holocaust” on the part of the doctor for a statement he made saying that Jews might have been better off against the Nazis if they had had guns, Carson wrote the following:

In recent days I suggested that things might have unfolded in a very different manner in Europe had the Jewish people been armed and better able to defend themselves. What would have been the impact on Hitler’s war machine if his victims had had more access to guns? It is something that we will never know for sure.

Jahiliyyah is Arabic for ignorance, and it is the word that Muslims use to label the era prior to the arrival of Muhammad in Arabia — the Period of Ignorance they call it, ignorance about the true religion that Muhammad was commissioned by Allah to reveal to all mankind, or so Muslims believe.

Thanks to disinformation and politically correct avoidance, Americans have a bad case of ignorance about the real Muhammad. Not knowing the facts about him in this day and age is the new jahiliyyah, and at a time of crucial national elections, what Americans don’t know about the man who is at the root of all the Islamic horror that is exploding around the world is dangerous.

Muhammad was anything but holy and his message came from anywhere but God. Take a peek behind the protective curtain that Islam has erected around its founder and you will find a strange man who fell into epileptic swoons and believed the experiences of ecstasy that his malformed temporal lobe dished up was communion with God. Not only was he strange in that way, he was also extremely violent and killed and terrorized people who refused to believe him when he told them God talked to him through an angel.

Here are some examples of what America’s jahiliyyah about Muhammad consists of:

It is likely few people know that in spreading his cult Muhammad committed almost every crime listed by the International Criminal Court as a crime against humanity, yet two-thirds of the biographical details about him in the original Islamic literature give blow-by-blow accounts of these crimes. His crimes would get him hung today. They certainly discredit everything he claimed about himself.

The Bernie Sanders team boasts that more than 650,000 people have donated to the Vermont senator’s presidential campaign. Those donors ought to be asking for a refund, on grounds of political malpractice.

If Sanders devotees took a momentary break from their adulation, they’d realize they have good cause to get their money back. Most of Mr. Sanders’s low-dollar donors dug deep to send that $20 or $50 in the belief that their candidate is in it to win.

Mr. Sanders must be in this race for something, but it can’t be the Oval Office.

A candidate who was in it to win wouldn’t have given Hillary Clinton an assist with her email problem, or ignored her Clinton Foundation entanglements. Mr. Sanders radiates that he is too pure of heart, too sincere a liberal, too focused on “serious issues,” to deign to address Mrs. Clinton’s ethics. He brags that he doesn’t run negative ads; he deplores “political soap opera.” No doubt many of his supporters admire him for that. Mrs. Clinton certainly does. ( Bill Clinton will too, once he stops laughing.)