Friday, April 17, 2015

Thursday, April 16, 2015

A Thousand Ways to Die


By Alan Caruba

Does a day go by when we are not warned about something that might do us harm or kill us?

I recently received an email from the Surgeon General of the United States in which he said, “Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet with President Obama, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and health care professionals to discuss climate change. We talked about the impact of climate change on public health and the importance of prevention.”

The prevention of what? Climate change?

In the five thousand years of human civilization, there has never been, nor will ever be, a way to “prevent” climate change. This is not to say that earlier cultures didn’t try to solve drought or other weather-related problems by sacrificing the occasional virgin. We look back at that and regard it as primitive in the same way we find the notion of American Indians doing “rain dances” to induce a downpour to help the crops to grow a thing of the past.

The politicization of “climate change”, a planetary phenomenon that goes back about a billion or so years ago when the Earth took on its present atmosphere and weather patterns tells you everything you need to know about the White House and those who think they can tell outrageous lies to Americans, knowing at least half of them will believe those lives.

You’re not going to die from the "climate", but what kills Americans is well known.

The good news is that we’re living longer lives than the generations that preceded us.

We can determine what we eat and how much. Some of us thrive on exercise and others do well by ensuring they get a good night’s sleep. There are behaviors we should avoid, but their harm can be traced from a lack of moderation. People who opt for genuinely bad behavior such as drug addictions or alcoholism are simply ruining their own lives and those who care about them.

The obstacles to a long, healthy life often involve factors over which we have no control. These include family histories of illness, genetically passed on from generation to generation.

There are some fifteen most common causes of death in America and they range from diseases of the heart (28.5%) down to homicide (0.7%). That’s right. Even though our media is filled with news of homicides and popular culture features murder, the likelihood of suffering death that way is very small.

Disease of the heart (28.5%) and malignant tumors (22.8%) are responsible for more than 50% of the annual death toll. Other leading causes drop off dramatically by comparison. They include cerebrovascular diseases (6.7%), chronic lower respiratory disease (5.1%), and accidents (4.4%).

On my Facebook page I asked my friends to list some of the things they have been warned about over the years. The list included salt, bacon, processed meats, eggs, soft drinks, saccharin, sugar substitutes, margarine, and chocolate. I have no doubt you can think of other things you’ve been told to avoid. Now, not including things like gluten or peanuts that activate allergic reactions in some people, these and comparable things are not likely to kill you. My rule of thumb has always been to eat the real, the natural food product like butter and avoid the substitutes.

I have no doubt that people have died from smoking. Cigarettes have long been called “coffin nails” in acknowledgment of the way too much smoking can affect one’s lungs. That said, I have smoked for some fifty years and a good cigar is daily pleasure. My Father smoked a pipe for just as long and lived into his 90s. My Mother who taught the art of gourmet cooking, complete with every delicious sauce and method of preparation you can imagine, lived until age 98. An international authority on wine, she would remind her students that you can find it mentioned frequently in the Bible. It is a healthy addition to your diet.

While we are constantly being warned against everything as a potential cause of death, you might find it of interest to learn that the American Medical Association conducted several research studies in the last decade, concluding that approximately 225,000 Americans died from their medical treatments!

Unnecessary surgeries caused 12,000 deaths and hospital medication errors killed 7,000. The odds of dying from an infection you pick up in the hospital is impressive; some 80,000 deaths were attributed to that, but the largest number of deaths, 106,000, were attributed to “negative effects of drugs.” To put it another way, “doctor-induced deaths are the third leading cause of death in the U.S. after heart disease and cancer.”

While we live daily with warnings about everything from the air we breathe to the water we drink (both quite clean), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) collects data on mortality, including suicide. In 2013, suicide was the tenth leading cause of death in America. Someone committed suicide every 12.8 minutes. From 1986 to 2000, suicide rates had dropped from 12.5 to 10.4 deaths per 100,000 people. It is back up to 12.6, mostly involving people 45 to 64 years old, as well as those over 85 and older. The rate among men is four times higher than women and whites killed themselves (14.2) far more often than blacks (5.4) and Hispanics (5.7).

While the White House is adding to our stressful lives with utter nonsense about “climate change”, claiming it is affecting our health, there’s another group, those in charge of the United nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UFCC), whose greatest concern is the fact that there are some seven billion of us on planet Earth whom they blame for eating too much and using too much of its energy resources.

“Obviously less people would exert less pressure on the natural resources,” said Christiana Fiqueres, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCC. You can translate to mean that there are those at the United Nations who wouldn’t mind if a new plague came along to kill off thousands or if famine did the same thing.

You will live a lot longer if you figure out how to reduce the levels of stress in your life; if you eat well, but moderately; and if you avoid overdoing anything you know can harm you.
 
Don’t listen to the fear-mongers. In the words of Mr. Spock, live long and prosper.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

The Climate Change War Heats Up

Climate change march denounces capitalism

By Alan Caruba

There is so much at stake for the charlatans that have foisted the failed “global warming” hoax, followed by the equally dubious claims and predictions regarding “climate change”, that it should come as no surprise that they have begun to wage a propaganda war on the courageous scientists who led the struggle to educate the public about the truth and the organizations who supported their efforts.

Along the way, many groups and publications claiming scientific credentials abandoned those standards to pump out global warming and climate change propaganda. Scientists discovered they could secure grant money for “research” so long as it supported claims that the North and South Poles, as well as all the world’s glaciers were melting. “Research” that predicted vast hurricane activity or a massive rise in ocean levels became routine headlines. None of it occurred. Both the government and liberal foundations provided millions to maintain the hoax.

Now we have a President claiming that his daughter’s asthma was due to “climate change.”  It is obscene nonsense. If this was just a disagreement between scientists, we could look on as the facts determine the outcome, but there are vast agendas as stake so we have to keep in mind that billions have been wasted on “renewable energy” alternatives to replace fossil fuels; the oil, coal, and natural gas that are the heart’s blood of modern nations and our lives.

We have to ask why the United Nations Framework on Climate Change takes such a dim view of the world’s population that it cites its use of energy and other resources as a reason to reduce it instead of celebrating it. Hard-core environmentalists do not like humans because they build houses, start businesses, need roads, and generally consume a lot and then create trash. Climate change is also the platform the U.N. is using to "transform" the world's economy.

We have to ask why our government is engaged in shutting down the coal-fired plants that provide the bulk of the electricity we use. This isn’t just a war on coal. It is a war on our entire economic system, capitalism. It is a war on Americans by their own government.

Lately, politicians at the federal level have declared war on those scientists whose research and findings have helped the public conclude, along with eighteen years of a natural cooling cycle, that “global warming” is no threat and that we have far greater threats to address than the vague notion that “climate change” is a problem we humans can affect in any way. We can’t and we don’t.

A recent example has been letters sent to seven university presidents by Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee asking for information on scientists and professors who had given congressional testimony that raised questions about “climate change.”  Grijalva had no legal authority to request such information, but his intention was intimidation. In 2013, when asked about his legislative agenda by These Times, he replied “I’m a Saul Alinsky guy” referring to the activist whose book, “Rules for Radicals”, spells out ways to attack one’s political enemies.

Pete Peterson, the executive director of the Davenport Institute for Public Engagement at Pepperdine’s School of Public Policy, identified Grijalva’s letters as “scare tactics” concluding that we have come to a time when “The inability of politicians to confront another’s argument much less to attempt to persuade the other side, has become standard operating procedure. Now this toxic approach is extending to the broader world of policy—including scientific research.”

Around the same time, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and Sen. Ed Markey sent a letter to a hundred companies, grade groups and other organizations “affiliated with the fossil fuel industry asking whether they spent money to support climate research.”  The message was simple: do not sponsor research that would reveal inaccuracies or falsehoods regarding claims that “climate change” was a threat. The inference was that scientific research receiving such funding would betray scientific standards in ways that government or foundation funding would not.

Suffice to say the letters evoked outrage. As a policy advisor to the free market think tank, The Heartland Institute, I was aware of the response of its president, Joe Bast who called the letters something that “fascists do.” He was not alone. The Washington Times called the Senators “climate change Toquemadas” and The Wall Street Journal said the letters were nothing more than an effort to silence science.

When Sen. Whitehouse aired his unhappiness in an April 14 blog post the Huffington Post, “Right-Wing Groups Get Overheated on Climate Questions”, Bast responded asking, “If the Senator’s letter wasn’t intended as harassment of individuals who disagree with his extremist views on the climate, why the overly broad demand, the ridiculous deadline, the implied threat of action, and the news release saying it was intended to expose a diabolical conspiracy of ‘right-win groups’?”

When “climate change” reaches the political heights of Congress and the White House, it should come as no surprise that the charlatans who want to use this hoax for their own benefit and agendas are going to unleash efforts to smear and intimidate those scientists who have put true facts before the public.

In late March, Michael Bastash of The Daily Caller reported that “A new Gallup poll shows that Americans’ concern about warming has fallen to the same level it was in 1989. In fact, global warming ranked at the bottom of a list of Americans’ environmental concerns, with only 32 percent saying they were worried about it a ‘great deal.’”

That’s what has the politicians and U.N. officers on the offensive to silence scientists and defame think tanks and other organizations that have helped Americans come to the sensible conclusion that a “warming” isn’t happening and the planet’s climate is something over which they have no control.

© Alan Caruba 2015

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

We're ALL Out of Africa


 By Alan Caruba

I think if we were honest enough to admit it, we are all bigoted in some way. Our gender or religion doesn’t really qualify us as superior to anyone else, but we tend to fall back on these identities and, consciously or not, assume they give us a reason to feel that we are not only in possession of a special truth, but that it grants us the privilege to feel better than others.

When we examine the issue of race, however, the bigotry is inherent because racial groups are inclined to assign superior characteristics to their own. It’s called human nature.

There is something else “human” that we need to address, over and above skin color, eye color, hair and other visible differences.

“All human variants in DNA in all people alive today trace their origins to countless common ancestors, all of whom lived in Africa more than sixty thousand years ago. As humans, everyone is related by common ancient ancestry, and ultimately, everyone is African.”

That is the message of a new book by Daniel J. Fairbanks, the dean of the College of Science and Health at Utah Valley University, a distinguished research geneticist and author. “Everyone is African: How Science Explodes the Myth of Race” ($18.00. Prometheus Books, softcover). In a world where race is a component of our lives, Fairbanks says, “Unfortunately, few people are aware of how much is known about the genetic basis of race—or more accurately, the lack thereof.”

“To many, the notion that race is inherited seems self-evident. Yet extensive genetic research has demonstrated that the genetic variation associated with what most people perceive as race represents a small proportion of overall genetic variation. When viewed on a global scale, there are no discrete genetic boundaries separating so-called races.”
 
It’s hard to argue with DNA, a molecule that encodes the genetic instructions of all known living organisms. Its scientific name is deoxyribonucleic acid and, along with proteins and carbohydrates, it composes the three major macromolecules deemed essential for all known forms of life. Most DNA molecules consist of two biopolymer stands coiled around each other to form a double helix.

What we take to be “race” traces back some one hundred thousand years ago when our species, humans, all lived in Africa. Those early ancestors began to migrate from Africa eventually inhabiting the entire globe. That makes the “human race” one race.

So much evil has been done in the name of race that much of our history and the world’s stems from the notion that the variations, Caucasian, Negro, Asian, are determinative of various traits we attribute to these and other “races.”  If we step back a bit, we will conclude we are talking about cultural differences, often the result of geological differences. As Fairbanks notes, regarding the findings of DNA research, “According to their estimates, people worldwide differ on average by about 0.1 percent, evidence that all humans are genetically quite similar to one another.”

It is hard, if not impossible, to argue with the science involved. “The oldest remains of what anthropologists call ‘anatomically modern humans’ (skeletons with features that resemble modern humans) are exclusively from Africa, dating to about two hundred thousand years ago. By contrast, the earliest remains of anatomically modern humans outside of Africa thus far discovered are about one hundred thousand years old.”

The migration out of Africa is dated to about sixty thousand to seventy thousand years ago “and their descendants, through many generations, eventually populated the rest of the world.”

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, “most of the mutations that became variants affecting skin, eye, and hair pigmentation happened outside of Africa in the distant descendants of people who originally left Africa..” Those variations then spread through their descendants within broad geographic regions.”

Those other people you see around you? You are related to all of them.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

Monday, April 13, 2015

Living in an Era of Decline

By Alan Caruba

Most of us know whether we are living in good times or bad. Some of us warn of decline when we see it coming. Some choose to ignore it by distracting themselves. The latter assume they cannot change events, but in a democracy where you get to vote for who represents you, we are all participants in one fashion or other, whether we vote or not.

If Hillary Clinton is elected President in 2016, historians and those who have lived through the first twenty years of this new century will see this score of years as one that began with much hope and descended rapidly into an expanding Islamic war on the world, seen most dramatically on 9/11 and followed by a financial disaster in 2008 that was widely predicted as the government pressured banks to make bad mortgage loans. It is doing that again.

Dramatically, too, in 2008 Americans—constantly told how racist we are—voted for the nation’s first black President, Barack Hussein Obama, even though little was known of him. Significantly, too, the voters rejected Hillary Clinton, thought to be the “inevitable” choice as the first woman President. Neither race, nor sex, is a predicate for being the leader of the free world. Experience, knowledge, and moral integrity is.

There is something tragic when a political party is able to offer only the past as their idea of the future. President Obama is already widely seen to have been a failure, presiding for six years while the nation’s debt soared to $18 trillion and millions remain unemployed. His foreign policies were administered by Hillary Clinton in his first term and her idea of what to do with nations that are our enemies is to “emphasize” with them and even “respect” our differences with them.

The most recent examples have been the negotiations with an Iran determined to have nuclear weapons and opening the door to diplomatic recognition of Cuba, a Communist dictatorship ninety miles from Florida.

What has been cited is a definition of national decline. As we close in on the 2016 elections, we are also at risk of having begun the new century from a position of leadership and strength we may not be able to achieve again due to our debt and the failure of a vision for a better future. While we have been living through these years, we have also understandably been paying greater attention to our own individual lives.

As a member of the senior generation, I and my cohorts have watched America decline from the most powerful nation on Earth, a leader for freedom, a stalwart opponent of the Soviet Union and Communism, to one led by a pathetic apologist who never passes on an opportunity to criticize America and emphasize its failure to live up to its ideals. We’re not perfect, but we still provide justice and opportunity as no other nation on Earth.

The generations behind us such as the “boomers” who arrived after World War II, enjoyed much of the best America has had to offer, but in the 1960s tended toward the growth of the drug culture and unwittingly experienced the decline in education standards that has left later generations devoid of knowledge about our founding principles and early struggles. More than twice their parents and grandparents engaged in wars far from home to thwart totalitarian regimes.

In the 1970s America saw the growth of the environmental movement which, by the late 1980s, was regaling everyone with doomsday predictions about a “global warming” that never occurred. What did occur was a government agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, that is threatening to cause a massive loss of the electrical and other sources of energy on which the nation—you and I—depend. Electricity may seem magical, but it requires years and years of planning and construction to ensure it is available when we flip the light switch. The EPA is quite literally an enemy comparable to one with an invading army.

So all of us, young and old, have arrived at the tail end of the first twenty years of the new century in a very different America than took on the challenge of the twentieth century and turned it into one of innovation and achievement.

That is critical to the choices Americans must make because the 2016 elections can either take us backward to past times—the 1990s—or forward to face the great challenges of our present and future times. We had financial success along the way, but we also had a massive financial failure in 2008 that originated earlier thanks to progressive ideas about home ownership. In 2001 we responded to the worst homeland attack since Pearl Harbor in the 1940s, fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but not grasping the full scope of the Islamic threat.

The progressive ideas of the current administration that the presumptive candidate of the Democratic Party will emphasize will allege inequities and inequalities between the Middle Class and those they call the “one percent” of the wealthy. Despite the fact that the wealthy are the source of millions in campaign funds, they will publicly scorn them as “Wall Street” and the “Big Banks.”  This is very much in keeping with the Progressive demonization of “Big Oil”. “Big Coal” and other alleged enemies of the nation.

These major elements of our economy are all in fact enemies of unemployment, providing thousands of jobs with good pay, and enemies of decline, providing the energy America needs to exist and grow.

The most disquieting aspect of the months ahead will be the role of the mainstream media that, with a few exceptions, will be the megaphone for failed progressive ideas, policies and programs. They will suffer a forgetfulness of the many scandals that have led to Hillary Clinton’s present bid to be the next President.

We are living in an era of decline that must be rejected and turned around with the “old fashioned” virtues of a marketplace economy free of a tax code no one can comprehend, environmental policies that slow and kill development, a federal government grown too large to do anything well—remember the introduction of ObamaCare and the fact that it has driven up insurance costs, not reduced them?

All of us of voting age have a heavy responsibility to know and understand the times in which we live and to make wise choices or know we shall be living in an era of failure for the nation we love.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

Living in an Era of Decline



By Alan Caruba

Most of know whether we are living in good times or bad. Some of us warn of decline when we see it coming. Some choose to ignore it by distracting themselves. The latter assume they cannot change events, but in a democracy where you get to vote for who represents you, we are all participants in one fashion or other, whether we vote or not.

If Hillary Clinton is elected President in 2016, historians and those who have lived through the first twenty years of this new century will see this score of years as one that began with much hope and descended rapidly into an expanding Islamic war on the world, seen most dramatically on 9/11 and followed by a financial disaster in 2008 that was widely predicted as the government pressured banks to make bad mortgage loans. It is doing that again.

Dramatically, too, in 2008 Americans—constantly told how racist we are—voted for the nation’s first black President, Barack Hussein Obama, even though little was known of him. Significantly, too, the voters rejected Hillary Clinton, thought to be the “inevitable” choice as the first woman President. Neither race, nor sex, is a predicate for being the leader of the free world. Experience, knowledge, and moral integrity is.

There is something tragic when a political party is able to offer only the past as their idea of the future. President Obama is already widely seen to have been a failure, presiding for six years while the nation’s debt soared to $18 trillion and millions remain unemployed. His foreign policies were administered by Hillary Clinton in his first term and her idea of what to do with nations that are our enemies is to “emphasize” with them and even “respect” our differences with them.

The most recent examples have been the negotiations with an Iran determined to have nuclear weapons and opening the door to diplomatic recognition of Cuba, a Communist dictatorship ninety miles from Florida.

What has been cited is a definition of national decline. As we close in on the 2016 elections, we are also at risk of having begun the new century from a position of leadership and strength we may not be able to achieve again due to our debt and the failure of a vision for a better future. While we have been living through these years, we have also understandably been paying greater attention to our own individual lives.

As a member of the senior generation, I and my cohorts have watched America decline from the most powerful nation on Earth, a leader for freedom, a stalwart opponent of the Soviet Union and Communism, to one led by a pathetic apologist who never passes on an opportunity to criticize America and emphasize its failure to live up to its ideals. We’re not perfect, but we still provide justice and opportunity as no other nation on Earth.

The generations behind us such as the “boomers” who arrived after World War II, enjoyed much of the best America has had to offer, but in the 1960s tended toward the growth of the drug culture and unwittingly experienced the decline in education standards that has left later generations devoid of knowledge about our founding principles and early struggles. More than twice their parents and grandparents engaged in wars far from home to thwart totalitarian regimes.

In the 1970s America saw the growth of the environmental movement which, by the late 1980s, was regaling everyone with doomsday predictions about a “global warming” that never occurred. What did occur was a government agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, that is threatening to cause a massive loss of the electrical and other sources of energy on which the nation—you and I—depend. Electricity may seem magical, but it requires years and years of planning and construction to ensure it is available when we flip the light switch. The EPA is quite literally an enemy comparable to one with an invading army.

So all of us, young and old, have arrived at the tail end of the first twenty years of the new century in a very different America than took on the challenge of the twentieth century and turned it into one of innovation and achievement.

That is critical to the choices Americans must make because the 2016 elections can either take us backward to past times—the 1990s—or forward to face the great challenges of our present and future times. We had financial success along the way, but we also had a massive financial failure in 2008 that originated earlier thanks to progressive ideas about home ownership. In 2001 we responded to the worst homeland attack since Pearl Harbor in the 1940s, fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but not grasping the full scope of the Islamic threat.

The progressive ideas of the current administration that the presumptive candidate of the Democratic Party will emphasize will allege inequities and inequalities between the Middle Class and those they call the “one percent” of the wealthy. Despite the fact that the wealthy are the source of millions in campaign funds, they will publicly scorn them as “Wall Street” and the “Big Banks.”  This is very much in keeping with the Progressive demonization of “Big Oil”. “Big Coal” and other alleged enemies of the nation.

These major elements of our economy are all in fact enemies of unemployment, providing thousands of jobs with good pay, and enemies of decline, providing the energy America needs to exist and grow.

The most disquieting aspect of the months ahead will be the role of the mainstream media that, with a few exceptions, will be the megaphone for failed progressive ideas, policies and programs. They will suffer a forgetfulness of the many scandals that have led to Hillary Clinton’s present bid to be the next President.

We are living in an era of decline that must be rejected and turned around with the “old fashioned” virtues of a marketplace economy free of a tax code no one can comprehend, environmental policies that slow and kill development, a federal government grown too large to do anything well—remember the introduction of ObamaCare and the fact that it has driven up insurance costs, not reduced them?

All of us of voting age have a heavy responsibility to know and understand the times in which we live and to make wise choices or know we shall be living in an era of failure for the nation we love.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

Saturday, April 11, 2015

Avoiding Hillary Misery



By Alan Caruba

While we endure the daily lies of President Obama, do we really want to have another four to eight years more of Hillary Clinton’s? It’s not like we don’t have ample evidence of her indifference to the truth and that is not what America wants in a President, now or ever.

The office has already been degraded to a point where neither our allies nor our enemies trusts anything Obama says. Do we really want to continue a process that could utterly destroy our nation?

Hillary Clinton’s announcement that she intends to run for President is predicated not on any achievements in her life beyond having married Bill Clinton. Instead, her message is that America needs a woman as President. Having already elected an abject failure because he was black, one can only hope and pray that enough voters will conclude that America needs to avoid race or gender to be the determining factor.

In 1974 the 27-year old Hillary was fired from a committee related to the Watergate investigation. Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised her and when the investigation was over, he fired her and refused to give her a letter of recommendation. When asked why, he said, “Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee, and the rules of confidentiality.”

She has not changed. Writing about her emails, Ronald D. Rotunda, a professor at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law, said her admitted destruction of more than 30,000 emails “sure looks like an obstruction of justice—a serious violation of the criminal law. The law says that no one has to use email, but it is a crime (18 U.S.C. section 1519) to destroy even one message to prevent it from being subpoenaed.” The law, said Rotunda, punishes this with up to 20 years imprisonment.

Instead, Hillary is asking voters to give her at least four years in the highest office in the land.

Even pundits like The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd, writing in mid-March responded to Hillary saying “None of what you said made any sense. Keeping a single account mingling business and personal with your own server wasn’t about ‘convenience.’ It was about expedience. You became judge and jury on what’s relevant because you didn’t want to leave digital fingerprints for others to retrace.”

“You assume that if it’s good for the Clintons, it’s good for the world, you’re always tangling up government policy with your own needs, desires, deceptions, marital bargains, and gremlins.”

Around the same time as Dowd’s rebuke, I wrote that I thought that the revelations about the emails and the millions the Clinton foundation received from nations with whom she was dealing as Secretary of State would be sufficient for those in charge of the Democratic Party to convince her not to run. I was wrong. I was wrong because I profoundly underestimated Hillary’s deep well of ambition and indifference to the laws everyone else must obey. I was wrong because the Democratic Party is totally corrupt.

It is not as if anyone paying any attention would not know that she is politically to the far Left, a politician who does not believe that the powers of our government are derived from “the consent of the governed.” Throughout her life she has let us know that with quotes such as:

“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

“(We) can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.”

“I certainly think the free-market has failed.” These quotes are the personification of Communism.

In March, the political pundit, Peggy Noonan, writing in The Wall Street Journal, said “We are defining political deviancy down.” Referring to the email scandal, she asked “Is it too much to imagine that Mrs. Clinton wanted to conceal the record of her communications as America’s top diplomat…?”  That was the reason she ignored the government’s rules regarding such communications. Rarely mentioned is the very strong likelihood that her email account had been hacked by our nation’s enemies and thus everything she was doing, officially and privately, was known to them.

“The story,” said Noonan “is that this is what she does and always has. The rules apply to others, not her.” That is, simply said, a criminal mentality. “Why doesn’t the legacy press swarm her on this?” asked Noonan. “Because she is political royalty.”

We fought a Revolution to free America from the British royalty. This was so ingrained in the thinking of the Founding Fathers that section 9 of Article One of the Constitution says “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States. And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” That’s what the foundation did.

Noonan had earlier written a book about Hillary. “As I researched I remembered why, four years into the Clinton administration, the New York Times columnist William Safire called Hillary ‘a congenital liar…compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.’”

“Do we have to go through all that again?” asked Noonan. “A generation or two ago, a person so encrusted in a reputation for scandal would not be considered a possible presidential contender. She would be ineligible. Now she is inevitable.”

Well, maybe not inevitable. We have a long time to go until the primaries arrive and then the election. We have enough time to ask ourselves if we live in a republic where merit, integrity, and honesty are still the standards by which we select our President.

© Alan Caruba, 2015