EPA’S CREDIBILITY IN THE TOILET: Federal judge blocks EPA rule on jurisdiction over waterways. U.S. District judge Ralph Erickson (a George W. Bush appointee) has issued a preliminary injunction against implementation of the EPA’s new Clean Water Act rule that would extend the agency’s jurisdiction to virtually every waterway in the country.

Judge Erickson concluded that that the 13 States challenging the rule had established a “likelihood of success” on the merits of their claim that EPA has exceeded its authority:

The Rule allows EPA regulation of waters that do not bear any effect on the “chemical, physical, and biological integrity” of any navigable-in-fact water. While the Technical SupportDocument states that pollutants dumped into a tributary will flow downstream to a navigable water,44 the breadth of the definition of a tributary set forth in the Rule allows for regulation of any area that has a trace amount of water so long as “the physical indicators of a bed and banks and an ordinary high water mark” exist. . . While the Agencies assert that the definitions exclusion of drains and ditches remedies the defect, the definition of a tributary here includes vast numbers of waters that are unlikely to have a nexus to navigable waters within any reasonable understanding of the term. . . .

The Rule asserts jurisdiction over waters that are remote and intermittent waters. No evidence actually points to how these intermittent and remote wetlands have any nexus to a navigable-in-fact water. The standard of arbitrary and capricious is met because the Agencies have failed to establish a “rational connection between the facts found” and the Rule as it will be promulgated. . . .

 Itis within the purview ofthe traditional powers ofthe States to maintain their “traditional and primary power over land and water use.” Once the Rule takes effect, the States will lose their sovereignty over intrastate waters that will then be subject to the scope of the Clean Water Act.

Ouch–the EPA has been officially toasted. The Obama Administration is, as usual, playing hardball and taking the position that Judge Erickson’s opinion only blocks implementation of the waterways rule in the 13 States that were joined as parties to the litigation. Technically this is true, but normally an Administration won’t bother implementing a rule in some states while it is enjoined in others due to broad concerns regarding the rule’s legality. States that didn’t join the North Dakota lawsuit will now have to seek an injunction of their own, and may draw judges who are Obama Administration appointees less inclined to restrain federal executive authority.

So the buck certaily won’t stop with Judge Erickson, and the latest Obama Administration executive power grab looks headed to the Supreme Court.

ACTUALLY, IT’S JUST SINCE 2008: “The long, slow death of the rule of law in America.”

The most disturbing aspect of the scandal around Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server during her tenure as secretary of state is not the former first lady’s penchant for secrecy. . . .What’s truly unsettling is that it has been widely taken as read among both the media and the general public that Mrs. Clinton will likely avoid serious legal consequences for her behavior because the Justice Department is ultimately answerable to President Obama – and Democrats will not use the instruments of government to destroy one of their own. Whether that eventually proves true, the sentiment itself reveals a troubling trend in American politics. . . .

While this trend has been at work for decades – you can thank both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton for hastening the decline – it has reached escape velocity during the Obama years. The Justice Department, for example, already took a pass on prosecuting Lois Lerner, the IRS official at the center of the scandal in which conservative groups were singled out for special scrutiny by the federal government on the basis of their political beliefs. If there’s anything that ought to be a matter of consensus in American politics, it’s that holding the reins of power doesn’t give you carte blanche to turn the power of the state against your partisan rivals. Yet Ms. Lerner, having done that very thing, doesn’t seem to be much worse for the wear.

This hands-off trend isn’t limited by any means to the DOJ. Consider the current debate over the nuclear deal with Iran. By any reasonable reading, the agreement should have been presented to Congress as a treaty, requiring a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate to take effect. The White House, however, has refused to classify it as such, leaving Congress to haggle its way into an arrangement whereby the president can have his way with the support of just one-third of either house of Congress. . . .

That’s the organizing precept of this era in American politics: The rules apply until they put those in power at a disadvantage. Because we’ve arrived at this point incrementally, perhaps we’re not conscious of how sweeping the transformation is. So let’s be clear about what’s at stake: This is a wholesale abandonment of the foundational American principle of the rule of law.

Yep. The rule of law has been D.O.A. since 2008. It has suffered some injuries and insults prior to the Obama Administration, of course, but somehow it survived because both political parties seemed to care about it. That’s just no longer the case for the majority of Democrats today, who repeatedly vote for party interests over the  rule of law.

The only real question is whether, assuming a Republican wins the White House in 2016, can the rule of law be revived through some prolonged CPR? Or are we past the point of no return? Time will tell.

RACE BAITING + ENTITLEMENT = VERY ANGRY PEOPLE: Vester Flanagan Threatened Coworkers, Played the Race Card for Years.

Vester Lee Flanagan claimed in a suicide note Wednesday that June’s massacre of black parishioners at a South Carolina church was “the tipping point” that sent him on the path to murdering two journalists on live television Wednesday.

But in court papers and interviews with The Daily Beast, former colleagues describe Flanagan as a problematic employee, who was repeatedly reprimanded for his harsh treatment of coworkers, and complained racism was behind harsh evaluations of his work.

“He just had a history of playing the race card,” former WTWC anchor Dave Leval told The Daily Beast. “I know he did that in Tallahassee a couple of times…”

. . . .

But no one could guess that two years after he was fired, Flanagan would shoot two other journalists at his former TV station. . . .

“Vester was an unhappy man,” Marks said, adding, “when he was hired here, he quickly gathered a reputation as someone who was difficult to work with. He was sort of looking out for people to say things that he could take offense to.”

Flanagan also filed an employment discrimination suit against a Tallahassee, Florida, station where he worked from 1999 to 2000. (That case was settled out of court.)

According to one news report, Flanagan said he and another black employee were called “monkeys” and claimed a supervisor once said, “blacks are lazy and do not take advantage of free money” for scholarships and other opportunities. . . .

“The fact that he kept his job was because he was an African-American gay man. That’s pretty hard to say no to,” Sextro told The Daily Beast.

We have all encountered angry, entitled individuals like this. They aren’t just toxic to work with; they’re potentially dangerous. We typically give them wide berth, just to avoid the hurling of hurtful “racism!” accusations and potential violence that simmers just below the surface. Individuals like this may get reprimanded or bounced around (for the sanity of coworkers) but they rarely get fired, for fear of lawsuits.  This television station was frankly brave to fire the guy.

On a broader level, Flanagan is a sad but ineluctable product of the progressive left’s incessant race-baiting and claims of minority entitlement. He is, essentially, the love child of Al Sharpton and President Obama (with Elizabeth Warren as the surrogate).

IT’S ACTUALLY MORE LIKE A LIMP-WRISTED SLAP: Jeb Bush Takes a Cue From Donald Trump’s Playbook: Punch Back.

Mr. Trump has called Mr. Bush’s immigration plans “baby stuff” and his education policy “pathetic.” He has expressed mock sympathy for Mr. Bush’s audiences, who he says must be so bored that “they’re sleeping.” . . .

After enduring those slings and arrows for weeks, to the mounting dismay of supporters, Mr. Bush, the former Florida governor, and his aides have decided to venture outside their comfort zone and borrow a page from Mr. Trump’s playbook: Hit back, with force and creativity, over and over again in the coming weeks.

It is a turning point in Mr. Bush’s campaign that was on display Monday in McAllen, Tex., along the border with Mexico. There, Mr. Bush called Mr. Trump’s immigration plan “unrealistic,” described his policies as un-Republican and acidly recommended that the businessman read Mr. Bush’s book “Immigration Wars” to acquaint himself with a practical solution.

BAA, BAA RAINBOW SHEEP?: John Leo, “Ten Things You Didn’t Know Were Racist.” The list includes these tidbits:

“Baa, Baa Black Sheep” is racist. The nursery rhyme, which dates back to the Middle Ages, is under attack. Some schools and family centers in Scotland, England, and Australia have eliminated the word “black” as racist, and now refer to “rainbow sheep,” “happy sheep,” or “green sheep,” though these new adjectives make no sense at all. . . .

Liking white meat is racist. Writer Ron Rosenbaum said in Slate that racism accounts for the popularity of white-meat turkey over more flavorful dark meat. “White meat turkey has no taste,” he explained. “Despite its superior taste, dark meat has dark undertones for some. Dark meat seems to summon up ancient fears of contamination and miscegenation as opposed to the supposed superior purity of white meat.” . . .

Libertarians are racist. In an interview, testy HBO writer-producer David Simon (The Wire, Treme) severely criticized libertarians and suggested that libertarian rhetoric about “freedom” and “liberty” is just code for racism.

Disagreeing about any of this is, of course, racist. I was told several years ago by a colleague that when I said “let’s call a spade a spade,” it was racist, though of course it refers to a gardening implement (or to some, a suit of cards) and has nothing whatsoever to do with race. But that’s not really the point, is it?

RELATED:  “Sorry, Jeb, ‘Anchor Babies’ is a Slur.”  Because, you know, sometimes the babies are not white.

SCOPING OUT POTENTIAL RIVALS: Biden meets with Warren in Washington. Joe Biden is ramping up his overt exploration of taking on Hillary Clinton for the Democrats’ presidential nomination. He met with the Godfather Sen. Elizabeth Warren yesterday at the VP’s mansion in DC:

Warren and Biden discussed economic policy during a meeting that lasted about two hours, a person familiar with the discussion told CNN, adding that the presidential campaign or Biden’s future was not a particular focus of the discussion.

The meeting, confirmed by two people familiar with the session, is the biggest indication yet that Biden is feeling out influential Democrats before announcing his intentions.

Beloved by liberal Democrats, Warren decided to sit out a campaign of her own, but she has yet to formally endorse a candidate. In an interview on Friday, she told WBZ in Boston: “I don’t think anyone has been anointed.”

Other than kissing Warren’s ring, I’m sure Biden wants to make sure Fauxcahontas isn’t pondering throwing her own bow and arrow into the ring. I kind of like the idea of a scintillating Sanders-Chafee ticket once Hillary is indicted.

A TALE OF TWO MEDIA SOURCES: Donald Trump’s last minute decision to change the venue of a political rally in Mobile, Alabama has caused some outlets in the mainstream media to fully reveal their inability to report simple facts without mind-numbing spin. CNN, to their credit, seems to have (mostly) resisted the urge with “30,000 turn out for Trump’s Alabama pep rally“:

The event was previously planned to be held at the nearby Civic Center but was moved to the 43,000-seat Ladd-Peebles Stadium — a venue normally home to high school football games — to accommodate the crowd. The City of Mobile confirmed late Friday that 30,000 people attended.

At least CNN accurately reported the 30,000 attendance. But they failed to mention that Trump’s campaign team altered the venue late Thursday from Mobile’s approximately 2,000 seat Civic Center to the 40,000 Ladd-Peebles Stadium. Notice also that the CNN reporter couldn’t help but snark that the stadium was “a venue normally home to high school games.” While the stadium does host some of the bigger local high school football playoff games (and high school football is very big in Alabama), it is actually principally a college football venue, being the home stadium of the University of South Alabama football team and the GoDaddy Bowl.

The New York Times, as usual, couldn’t resist spinning and twisting the facts in its effort to make Trump (as with all things GOP) look as bad as possible, its headline reading “Donald Trump Fails to Fill Alabama Stadium, But Fans’ Zeal is Undiminished”:

Before Donald J. Trump arrived at a college football stadium here on Friday evening, the colorful guessing games that often accompany his campaign were very much in the air.

Would Mr. Trump actually fill all of the tens of thousands of seats at Ladd-Peebles Stadium, the home field for the University of South Alabama Jaguars? How would one of the largest cities in one of the country’s most conservative states respond to a candidate whose bombast and brashness can sometimes seem limitless? Would Mr. Trump wear a “Make America Great Again” baseball hat, perhaps to conceal the effects of the wilting Gulf Coast heat and humidity on his much-remarked-upon mane?

As usual, the answers — no, loudly and yes — came amid the trademark gusto of both Mr. Trump’s personality and his evolving campaign for the presidency.

“Now I know how the great Billy Graham felt, because this is the same feeling,” Mr. Trump, referring to the celebrated evangelist, thundered from a stage built for the night’s rally, where the vast stretches of empty seats indicated that attendance had fallen short of the more than 30,000 people he had predicted.

Aside from the fact that the New York Times reporter, Alan Blinder (apt name), didn’t realize that his piece had asked three questions but proceeded to answer only two “no, loudly and yes,” he answered his initial, irrelevant question about filling the stadium “no.” Mr. Blinder felt the need to go even further and “report” that there were “vast stretches of empty seats” and that “attendance had fallen short of the more than 30,000 people he had predicted.”

The title of the  New York Times’ piece and its failure to mention the last-minute venue change leaves the reader with the distinct impression that Trump had planned a rally in a large stadium all along, and had miserably and embarrassingly failed to fill it. This, of course, is 180 degrees from the actual truth. Can you imagine how the Times would have slobbered all over itself if Hillary Clinton had scheduled a rally in a 2,000 seat venue and, due to overwhelming interest, had changed the venue at the last minute to a 40,000 seat stadium, filling 30,000 of the seats? The Times would have been so excited it would have wet itself.

Look, whether you’re a fan of Trump or not isn’t the point here. The point is that, love him or hate him, the man is drawing unexpectedly large crowds, which is something no other Democrat or GOP candidate is doing. When reporters can’t seem to report this simple fact accurately, we all realize (once again) that we are being treated like little children who need to be “protected” by those who think they know better.

DEMOCRATS AND THE ISLAND OF MISFIT TOYS: The Democrats are increasingly looking like a political Island of Misfit Toys, where nothing is “quite right,” and everyone is just a little “off.”

An increasing number of the Island’s occupants–evidenced by progressive activists Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King–outwardly appear black, though they are genetically white. Some of them are genetically one gender, but believe they are another “inside.”

Still others espouse respect for choice and “women’s rights”, yet oppose GOP lawmakers’ attempt to make birth control pills over-the-counter, support brutal, murderous late-term abortions (that kill female babies, too), oppose attempts to educate women about alternatives to abortion, and want to force people who oppose abortion–including female health care providers and taxpayers–to provide/pay for abortion against their conscience. They also routinely demean female pundits and politicians on the opposite side of the aisle, calling them *itch, *unt, whore, twat, etc.  If you’re going to go around making “women’s rights” one of the defining planks in your political platform and fighting an imagined “war on women,” you might want to start supporting and respecting all women, including those that disagree with you.

Democrats uniformly proclaim fidelity to “diversity,” tolerance, and cry out against even “micro” aggressions against other individuals. But they have no tolerance whatsoever for diverse ideas, particularly when they emanate from minorities who wander away from the Democrats’ plantation. Black conservatives, for example, routinely are the subjects of macro-aggression by being labeled  “Uncle Toms” and “Oreos.”

Today’s Democrats are like the Jack-in-the-box on the Island of Misfit Toys: they appear to be a Jack-in-the-box (and maybe they really want to be), but they’re really a messed up Charlie-in-the-box, and that’s just not the same.

Now, if only we had an Island where we could send them, so they could think for awhile and (hopefully) become more self-aware before they’re ready to be re-integrated into society.

QUINNIPIAC POLL: CLINTON FALLING FAST VS. ALL GOP CANDIDATES IN FL, OH& PA: The poll was taken Aug. 7-18 and polled likely voters.

In Florida: Bush, Rubio and Trump all lead Clinton now:  Rubio +12; Bush +11; and Trump +2.

In Ohio: Clinton is still holding on to a slim lead over Bush and Trump (+2 and +5, respectively), but now trailing Rubio (who is +2 over her).

In Pennsylvania: Bush and Rubio lead Clinton (+3 and +7, respectively), but Trump trails her by 5 points.

RELATED:  The same poll showed that among likely GOP voters in the Republican presidential primary, the present frontrunner is Trump in Florida (at 21%, which is +4 over the next closest candidate, Ben Carson); Kasich in Ohio (at 27%, which is +6 over the next closest candidate, Donald Trump); and Trump in Pennsylvania (at 24%, which is +11 over the next closest candidate, Ben Carson).

ABSOFREAKINGLUTELY: A group of Special Operations vets and intelligence officials have asked Sec. of State Kerry to immediately strip Hillary Clinton and her top State Department aides Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan of their national security clearances.

In their letter to Kerry, the group–the Special Operations Educational Fund–assert:

The reason our organization brings this matter to your attention is our belief that national security classified information was transmitted in emails by senior State Department officials that ended-up resident on the clintonemal.com server. This belief is clearly supported by the recent actions of two independent Inspectors General (State and DNI) who have referred the matter to the Department of Justice for further investigation. !he State Department IG, General Linick, stated that emails contained classified material when generated. It is now apparent that there were breaches involving five intelligence agencies.Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that this private server was inadequately protected from foreign intelligence penetration and malicious “hacking.” Indeed, the existence of this server and its use by senior State Department officials to send and receive official emails was first disclosed publically [sic]  by a hacker from Romania.

We at OPSEC strongly believe that every email passing through the clintonemail.com server has been compromised and is now available in the raw intelligence data files of a number of hostile security services around the world. This is a serious breach of our nation’s diplomatic, operational and strategic security.

OPSEC further states that a suspension of security clearance is “standard practice” when allegations regarding the mishandling or potential exposure of classified national security information are made, and cites the six recent examples involving Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, Ambassador to Kenya Scott Gration, Foreign Service Officer Peter Van Buren, CIA Director John Deutch, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, and General David Petraeus.

I find it hard to believe that Clinton’s (and her aides’) security clearances were not immediately suspended after the first IG report was issued, documenting that Clinton’s unsecured server contained classified information. Why on earth would individuals who have mishandled classified national security information be allowed–for even one day–to continue to have access to such information?

WELL, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS NOT AMUSING: “Judge Grows Irritated with State Department Foot-Dragging on Clinton Emails.”  The federal judge presiding over Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit seeking Hillary Clinton’s emails while Secretary of Stat has denied DOJ’s motion to delay a hearing to explain DOJ’s obstinance:

President Obama’s administration asked a federal judge for a one-week delay of a hearing convened to discuss why the State Department hasn’t been more forthcoming about Hillary Clinton’s e-mails. The motion was denied, but the judge moved the hearing back an extra hour, making clear that the move was his prerogative and not State’s. “Due to the Court’s calendar, the status hearing will take place at 1:00 p.m. on August 20, 2014 in Courtroom 24A, rather than 12:00 p.m. as originally scheduled,” U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote Tuesday afternoon. . . .

“The Department does not believe that a reasonable search for records responsive to plaintiff’s FOIA request requires a search of former Secretary Clinton’s server,” administration officials wrote in a status report to the judge.

The State Department also demurred when ordered to find out if there were other servers that might hold work-related records created by Clinton or two of her top aides, saying they were “not currently aware of any personal computing devices issued by the Department to former Secretary Clinton, Ms. Abedin, or Ms. Mills that may contain responsive records.”

That wasn’t good enough for Judicial Watch or, apparently, Judge Sullivan. “Taking this sworn statement on its face, it appears as though the declarant made no effort whatsoever to find out what electronic devices the former head of the agency and two of her closest advisors used to conduct official government business for four years and where these electronic devices may be located or if they are still in existence,” the group wrote in its request for the new hearing.

It’s not just foot-dragging. It’s obstruction of justice, providing Clinton with plenty of time to play hide-and-scrub. The Administration has been wildly successful at avoiding Congress’s investigations like the plague but is finally being held accountable by the courts. Congress is ineffectual and afraid of its own shadow. Federal judges, not so much; they don’t take kindly to being ignored or played.

SEN. BOB MENENDEZ (D-NJ): “My proposal for a better Iran deal.”  Writing in today’s New York Post, Menendez–a vocal critic of the Iran deal and consequently a thorn in the side of the Obama Administration–lays out his case:

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have repeatedly said that the choice is between this Iran nuclear agreement and war. I reject that proposition.

If the P5+1 had not achieved an agreement, would we be at war with Iran? I don’t believe that. For all those who have said they have not heard — from anyone who opposes the agreement — a better solution, they’re wrong. . . .

And I believe we could still get a better deal and here’s how: We can disapprove this agreement, without rejecting the entire agreement.

We should direct the administration to re-negotiate by authorizing the continuation of negotiations and the Joint Plan of Action — including Iran’s $700 million-a-month lifeline, which to date have accrued to Iran’s benefit to the tune of $10 billion, and pausing further reductions of purchases of Iranian oil and other sanctions pursuant to the original JPOA. . . .

A continuation of talks would allow the re-consideration of just a few, but a critical few issues, including:

First, immediate ratification by Iran of the Additional Protocol to ensure we have a permanent international arrangement with Iran for access to suspect sites.

Second, a ban on centrifuge R&D for the duration of the agreement to ensure that Iran won’t have the capacity to quickly break out, just as the UN Security Council Resolution and sanctions snapback is off the table.

Third, close the Fordow enrichment facility. . . .

Fourth, the full resolution of the “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s program. We need an arrangement that isn’t set up to whitewash this issue. . . .

Fifth, extend the duration of the agreement. One of the single most concerning elements of the deal is its 10-15 year sunset of restrictions on Iran’s program, with off-ramps starting after year eight. . . .

And sixth, we need agreement now about what penalties will be collectively imposed by the P5+1 for Iranian violations, both small and midsized, as well as a clear statement as to the so-called grandfather clause in paragraph 37 of the JCPOA, to ensure that the US position about not shielding contracts entered into legally upon re-imposition of sanctions is shared by our allies.

At the same time we should: Extend the authorization of the Iran Sanctions Act, which expires in 2016, to ensure that we have an effective snapback option; consider licensing the strategic export of American oil to allied countries struggling with supply because Iranian oil remains off the market; immediately implement the security measures offered to our partners in the Gulf Summit at Camp David, while preserving Israel’s qualitative military edge. . . .

Yep. Menendez is only the second Senator from the Democratic Party to announce opposition to the Iran deal (the other being Charles Schumer (D-NY)). The Washington Post reports that “[s]o far, 23 of the 34 senators needed in the Senate to block an override of an Obama veto have announced their support for the deal.”  The House may have the necessary two-thirds’ opposition to reject the Iran deal, with a vote on a disapproval resolution expected in September.

CLINTON ATONES TO BLM FOR “US SINNERS”: Chuck Ross at the Daily Caller reveals “Hillary Clinton Accused of ‘Victim Blaming’ During Tense Black Lives Matter Meeting“: The “sinners” are, of course, white people, and Clinton assures the BLM representatives that she is committed to helping convince “us sinners” that what she calls “the original sin”–aka slavery–is erased by legal changes, including changing the “allocation of resources” in the country:

Watching the videos is entertaining, so I will post them below (two parts). The BLM spokesperson uses a very respectful tone, but look at the smarmy smirk on Clinton’s face throughout. It’s patent that she is simultaneously annoyed at being questioned (typical), and yet desperate to keep BLM’s votes by saying whatever they want to hear. If BLM believes anything Clinton says, they are insane. Pathological liars don’t keep promises.

GOP ESTABLISHMENT JUST DOESN’T GET IT: I heard Bill O’Reilly state last night that Donald Trump’s immigration reform plan–which among other things, calls for deportation of illegal immigrants–was unconstitutional because it would deny due process. That is patently ridiculous, since to my knowledge, no one is advocating deportation without all the process that is lawfully due to an illegal immigrant. Federal law classifies many immigrants as “deportable,” and they are deported with regularity, though the percentage of “deportable” individuals who are actually deported is very low.

Now, along comes Rich Cromwell at the Federalist, who asserts that Trump’s immigration plan would “Make America a Police State“:

[Trump] promises to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it, triple the number of ICE workers and have them cooperate with local gang task forces, mandate nationwide e-verify, return all criminals to their home countries, install a policy of detention rather than “catch and release,” and defund sanctuary cities, among other measures. To satisfy the “they took our jobs” crowd, he details plans to put American workers first through a series of bureaucratic hoops. . . .

If that’s your jam, then jam on, but if you want to actually have a smaller state with less bureaucracy and government intrusion, then Trump is not the droid you seek. His plans to make America great again increasingly look like Obama on stilts with a big bag of cocaine and no limiting principles.

Utter nonsense. So if a GOP candidate wants to build a wall, beef up ICE, deport illegal immigrants, detain illegal entrants, and defund sanctuary cities, they are functionally indistinguishable from Obama? Huh? Please.

I have been called a Trump “cheerleader,” which is amusing, since while I don’t hate the man the way some apparently do, I’m far from endorsing him. There is a principled concern about whether Trump is a conservative, and that triggers opposition from those whose “conservatism” litmus test centers around certain issues with which they and Trump part company. I get that. But for others who self-identify as conservative, Trump’s position on issues–immigration in particular–combined with his intrepid approach to the media and political correctness, is enough.

GOP establishment is trying so hard to discredit Trump that they don’t seem to realize that they are angering a large portion of their own constituency, which is hungering for leadership and a willingness to openly defy P.C. norms. To paraphrase Hamlet, me thinks they dost protest too much, and it is beginning to backfire on them and cause them to take openly hypocritical positions.

Indeed, they are now taking the position that deporting illegal immigrants is wrong. Oh, how the establishment loves to talk tough on immigration when it suits its purposes of ginning up conservatives on election day. But when a candidate comes along who actually wants to do something about the issue–and isn’t afraid to defy political correctness to do so–the GOP establishment suddenly cries foul, and brands him a fool, dictator, or police state zealot. The necessary implication is that the GOP establishment is all hat, no cattle on immigration.

No wonder increasing numbers of those who self-identify as Republican now openly abhor the party, and it totters on the brink of implosion.  But hey, I’m sure that’s all Donald Trump’s fault, right? Time for some GOP introspection.

TOO HAPPY, WHITE AND FEMININE? Yep, that’s what an angry AL.com writer seems to think about a sweet and upbeat sorority recruitment video posted by the University of Alabama’s chapter of Alpha Phi sorority. The writer, A.L. Bailey, complains:

No, it’s not a slick Playboy Playmate or Girls Gone Wild video. It’s a sorority recruiting tool gaining on 500,000 views in its first week on YouTube. It’s a parade of white girls and blonde hair dye, coordinated clothing, bikinis and daisy dukes, glitter and kisses, bouncing bodies, euphoric hand-holding and hugging, gratuitous booty shots, and matching aviator sunglasses. It’s all so racially and aesthetically homogeneous and forced, so hyper-feminine, so reductive and objectifying, so Stepford Wives: College Edition. It’s all so … unempowering. . . . Yes, sororities are known for being pretty and flirty; they aren’t bastions of feminist ideologies. But perhaps they shouldn’t completely sabotage them either. 

Why do I get the impression that A.L. Bailey is either an ugly, angry feminist who is jealous of the obviously pretty, happy, All-American college girls displayed in the video, or a nerdy, self-righteous progressive male hipster who could never get a date with one of these lovely young ladies? They seem fully empowered to me, and it’s not their responsibility, as college-age sorority girls, to fly the flag of radical, liberal/progressive feminism. In fact, A.L. Bailey seems utterly unaware of the possibility that these young women might think of feminism in very different ways from his/her own antediluvian stereotype. 

According to Scott Greer of the Daily Caller:

What this author is really saying is that these women shouldn’t be so darn white, happy and feminine.

Unfortunately, Bailey is not a fringe outlier. Her article is only the latest salvo in the left’s war on sorority girls.

Last Friday, The Washington Post published an article urging the removal of “the Southern belle from her inglorious perch.” A noted ideal for sorority women in the southeast, the belle in the eyes of the Post is instead a horrific icon of white supremacy.

Thankfully, according to WaPo, southern schools like the University of Georgia are taking the bold step in banning the southern belle’s dreaded “hoop” skirt. This skirt, as the author Elizabeth Boyd believes, is just as much of a “racial symbol” as a noose or Confederate battle flag. That’s why it must go — and so must the belle herself.

Well, I’m certainly no big fan of the hoop skirt, having worn them several times for proms and sorority events when I was a young woman living in Atlanta. But to suggest that the hoop skirt–or being a Southern “belle”–is a “racial symbol” is patently ridiculous. Hoop skirts are uncomfortable and inconvenient, which is why they are no longer worn very often. But they have nothing whatsoever to do with any racial beliefs, anymore than wearing cotton clothing does. Just because cotton was grown principally in the South and harvested by slaves, does this make cotton a “racial symbol”?

C’mon people, grow some common sense, and maybe a little self esteem. Not everything associated with “the South” is racist, and certainly being a southern “belle” or gentleman–i.e., someone of good manners, grooming and education–is something we should be encouraging, not disparaging. And yes, such individuals can come in all races, religions and ethnicities. And a sunny disposition–on anyone–is always preferable to the depressing, too-serious angry liberal/progressive attitude of perpetual grievance.

MATTHEW CONTINETTI: Pardon Hillary Now.

Clinton maintains she followed the rules. But she’s been proven wrong before. Who knows what the FBI and intelligence community might find—or how it might affect her campaign.

What Clinton needs most of all is a way out, a means of escape. Before she can recover politically, the legal uncertainty must end. And the only way to end it is a presidential pardon. Clinton’s future isn’t only tied to President Obama’s job approval and economic performance. It’s also tied to his compassion. Obama alone can resuscitate Hillary’s campaign. . . .

The most famous preemptive pardon in American history was of Richard Nixon. President Ford absolved his predecessor of all crimes he “has committed or may have committed or taken part in” between inauguration day 1969 and resignation day 1974. Obama could do better than Ford by absolving Clinton of all crimes she “has committed or may have committed or taken part in” between, say, January 20, 2009 and January 20, 2025. That would give her some wiggle room. And why not pardon Huma, too. She’s suffered enough. . . .

Not only would a pardon have legal consequences. It would have political ones. It would be a tacit endorsement of Clinton, a message to Biden not to run. Scrutiny of Clinton would fade. A few news outlets might continue to dig around—we at the Washington Free Beacon will never, ever stop—but most reporters, who’d rather not be writing about this scandal anyway, would turn elsewhere.

Obama would look magnanimous. The country would be spared years of Clinton drama it doesn’t want. A pardon would be a final display of Obama’s moral superiority to the woman he defeated long ago—exactly the sort of self-righteous gesture that most appeals to him.

Continetti is being mischievously playful, of course. Obama could, indeed, pardon Clinton prophylactically and given the mainstream media’s bias, any crimes she has committed would be immediately relegated to their “yesterday’s news” pile and forgotten. But we all know Obama viscerally hates Hillary about as much, or more than, a conservative, Southern white male, so no one will be holding their breath waiting for this to happen. It would be fun–just for kicks and giggles–for someone in the press to to inquire about the possibility. 

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT’S RACIST TO TEST APTITUDE: Former Colorado Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo has an oped in Big Government arguing that all voters should be required to pass the same basic civics test (administered in English) that legal immigrants seeking U.S. citizenship are required to pass:

Shouldn’t all voters possess that same rudimentary knowledge of the Constitution and our federal system of government as naturalized citizens? Why not require all citizens to pass the same civics exam as immigrants have to pass if they want to join the voter rolls? . . . .

This proposal is blatantly “pro-immigrant”: it says native-born citizens should live up to the same expectations we have for new citizens. What’s wrong with that?

Of course, if implemented this proposal will not end all voter ignorance. But it would be a giant step in the right direction. It places equal weight on the responsibilities of voting as on the right to vote.

When I first proposed this a few years ago in a speech to the Tea Party convention in Nashville, I was slammed by the New York Times– which is always a good sign you are onto something good. The NY TIMES, lacking any other argument, played the race card, charging that I was advocating a “return to Jim Crow laws.” Isn’t it blatantly racist to assume blacks can’t pass a simple civics exam in the same rates as others?

Why yes, yes it is quite racist, Tom. But the Democrats literally survive on racism–it is the air that keeps the party alive these days. And perpetuating the stereotype that blacks are inferior, cannot be expected to compete with other races, require government programs to survive, etc., are all part of the Democrats’ agenda of keeping blacks distracted and enraged by incessant, false cries of “racism!,” which is designed to keep blacks and other “aggrieved” minorities firmly planted in perpetuity on the Democrat plantation.

NO NEED TO “WONDER,” SHE’S NOT: CNN National Security Analyst Unloads On Hillary Over Email Scandal: ‘I Wonder Whether She Is Capable Of Being President.’  Former CIA operative and CNN national security analyst Bob Baer, whom the Daily Caller describes as “not known for being a political partisan,” had this to say about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to send and receive classified matter while Secretary of State:

“If this was on her server and it got into her smart phone, there’s a big problem there,” Baer said during an appearance on CNN International Saturday, noting that the sensitivity of the information reportedly found on Clinton’s private server was likely more secret than what Edward Snowden pilfered.

“Seriously, if I had sent a document like this over the open Internet I’d get fired the same day, escorted to the door and gone for good — and probably charged with mishandling classified information,” Baer said.

“If this in fact were on her hand held [phone] — was sent to her or she forwarded it in any way — I wonder whether she is capable of being president,” he added.

“If” it were on her phone? Of course these emails were on Clinton’s phone–her initial, lame excuse for using a private email server rather than the secured, State Department server, was that she didn’t want the horrible inconvenience of carrying two different phones for her official versus personal emails.  Any ordinary government employee would already be wearing an orange jumpsuit in federal prison by now. Clinton’s cavalier actions evince a reckless disregard for top secret U.S. national security information. She is utterly unfit to be President, and no “ifs” or other qualifiers are required. Simply put. anyone who supports her candidacy after this revelation is more interested in protecting the Democratic party than American national security.

NEWS YOU CAN USE: Yes, rats can swim up your toilet. And it gets worse than that.  Of course, the author lives in D.C. Rats of all kinds are ubiquitous there.

LAMEST. ENDORSEMENT. EVER.: Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) endorses Hillary Clinton in the Des Moines Register.  It’s strangely mostly about Harkin, not Hillary, but he does manage a paragraph and a sentence or two about her:

Hillary Clinton’s commitment to public service stems from the same values. Her mother, Dorothy, was abandoned by her parents and sent to live with relatives who did not want her. By age 14, she was working to support herself just to get by. Guided by her mother’s experience, Hillary has devoted her career to championing the needs of children. She has been a tireless advocate for women and families since I first met her. As First Lady of the United States she was instrumental in advancing the idea that health care should be a right and not a privilege. As my colleague in the Senate and as Secretary of State, she made women’s rights and economic opportunity central to American foreign policy. Hillary has never forgotten who she is fighting for. . . .Today, too many talented children face limits on their futures. They need a champion in the White House. I know Hillary Clinton will be that champion.

Um, okay. So we should elect Clinton because (1) her mother had a tough childhood; (2) she loves children; (3) she is a feminist; and (4) she supported socialized medicine as a “right”? Geez, Tom, is that all you’ve got?

WRONG COLORS: Larry Elder explains why it’s “not news” when “Unarmed White Teen Killed by Cop; Two White Cops Killed by Blacks.”

The media enthusiastically remind us that it’s the first anniversary of the death of Ferguson’s Michael Brown, a death that spawned the so-called Black Lives Matter movement.

In a September speech at the United Nations, President Barack Obama said, “The world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri — where a young man was killed, and a community was divided.”

Never mind that both a grand jury and the federal Department of Justice exonerated the officer who shot and killed Brown. Never mind that neither the physical evidence nor eyewitness testimony corroborated the assertions that Brown had his hands up or that he said, “Don’t shoot.” . . .

The media enthusiastically remind us that it’s the first anniversary of the death of Ferguson’s Michael Brown, a death that spawned the so-called Black Lives Matter movement.

In a September speech at the United Nations, President Barack Obama said, “The world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri — where a young man was killed, and a community was divided.” . . .

In just the last two weeks, two cops, who happened to be white, were killed by two suspects, who happened to be black. And an unarmed white teen was killed by a cop.

In Tennessee, Memphis police Officer Sean Bolton approached an illegally parked car, apparently interrupting a drug deal that was taking place inside. The car’s passenger got out, engaged Bolton in a physical struggle and shot the officer multiple times. Bolton, a 33-year-old Marine vet who served in Iraq, died at the hospital. . . .In Louisiana, Shreveport Officer Thomas LaValley was dispatched to investigate a potential prowler, an armed man reportedly threatening a family member inside a house. When LaValley arrived, he was shot multiple times, and pronounced dead at the hospital. . . .

In South Carolina, an unarmed teenager was shot and killed by a cop. Zachary Hammond, 19, was out on a first date when he was fatally shot by a Seneca police officer during a drug bust. . . .The Hammond family wonders why so little national attention has been focused on their son’s death. “It’s sad, but I think the reason is, unfortunately, the media and our government officials have treated the death of an unarmed white teenager differently than they would have if this were a death of an unarmed black teen,” said Eric Bland, the family’s attorney.

We all know that it’s #BlackLivesMatter, with the emphasis being on black. It’s an overtly racist movement, focusing on police killings of blacks, not any other race, and without regard to any actual statistical data or evidence in particular cases. Instead of shunning such overt racism in 2015, top Democrats are embracing it, and Republicans are trying to stay as quiet as possible, lest the racist ire be directed toward them, as it was recently with Bernie Sanders.

#BlackLivesMatter is racially divisive at a time when this country desperately needs unity, and its votaries have on blinders about the biggest problem of all in the black community: black-on-black murder. The only candidate who seems to have the courage to acknowledge this is Ben Carson.  So far, the Black Lives Matter movement has left Dr. Carson alone, presumably because of his race. How typical of them. Perhaps they are also afraid that a thoughtful, fact-based response by a black Republican candidate might take away some of the momentum of  their self-righteous, divisive, racist indignation?

COMIC CANARIES IN THE POLITICAL COAL MINE: Steven Hayward at Power Line ponders how the “Late-Nite Comic Indicator” portends trouble for Hillary Clinton:

I don’t know if any quantitative political scientist has ever devoted the time to see whether there is any correlation between the frequency of jokes by late night TV comics and the fortunes of a political figure, but my hunch is if the data are waterboarded long enough, you’ll find one. In any case, given that pop culture is a leading indictor, Hillary is in trouble.

From last night, first, Conan:

A new poll shows that Hillary Clinton is only six points ahead of Bernie Sanders. Today a very confident Hillary said, “Oh, please. Like I’m going to lose the Democratic nomination to a left-wing senator nobody’s ever heard of?”

Well, we know that the late night funnymen like Letterman, O’Brien, Fallon, Stewart are all thinly disguised Obama shills, possessing the typical Hollywood/journalist self-identification as liberal/progressive Democrats. When you lose this crowd, you’re definitely in trouble.

WHEN DOES A CANDIDATE BECOME A CANDIDATE? It’s an interesting legal question, posed by law professor and former FEC Chair Brad Smith in this Daily Caller piece:

A group supporting more campaign regulations called the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) recently filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that four candidates violated federal law by not declaring their presidential candidacies until June.

When one officially becomes a candidate matters because becoming a “candidate” triggers a host of legal requirements under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). A candidate has to publicly disclose detailed, personal financial information. A campaign’s fundraising is heavily regulated, along with a candidate’s ability to raise funds for other causes, to be reimbursed for travel to speak at colleges or to civic groups, and even to accept volunteer help.

CLC’s main target is Governor Jeb Bush. CLC complains that, well before his June announcement, Bush had been raising money, not for his campaign, but for two political action committees, Right to Rise PAC and Right to Rise Super PAC, which promote issues and candidates aligned with his political agenda.

However, raising money for other candidates and issues, even if it might indirectly help a person run for office, doesn’t make one a candidate. In fact, FECA specifically defines a “candidate” as someone who raises or spends more than $5,000 to run for office. . . .

In September of 2014, for example, Hillary Clinton appeared at a “Steak fry” in the early caucus state of Iowa. Does paying for a flight to Des Moines, buying a tank of gas, and eating a steak, more than two years before an election make one a candidate? Under CLC’s bizarre approach, it might. Or it might not. Guess wrong, and Secretary Clinton could be fitted for an orange pantsuit.

Smith is adept at pointing out the inconsistency in CLC’s approach to interpreting the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). And as much as I like the idea of seeing Hillary Clinton in an orange jumpsuit surrounded daily by large, short-haired and heavily tattooed inmates, I’m not willing to restrict her First Amendment speech and association rights to classify her informal candidacy explorations as the legal equivalent of an actual candidacy (nor is Smith). That principled stance, however, is never shared by liberal/progressive campaign finance “reform” groups like CLC, whose rage is never directed at leftist ideological comrades.

SANDERS +7 OVER CLINTON IN IN N.H.: The latest Boston Herald poll conducted Aug. 7-10 has Bernie Sanders beating Hillary Clinton by 7 points in New Hampshire among likely voters in the Democrats’ primary. The poll revealingly showed that a majority of Democrats–51%–described Clinton’s candidacy as “you could support her, but you’re not enthusiastic about her candidacy.” 46 percent of those polled thought Joe Biden “should” challenge Clinton for the nomination, with 42% saying he “should not,” and 12% “unsure.”

Clinton’s support should dip even further now that it’s been confirmed that she did, in fact, receive/send top secret classified State Department emails using her unsecured home email server.

RELATED: The Washington Post, “Bernie Sanders’ big challenge explained in 2 charts.” Apparently, it’s blacks. They don’t really like him.

GREG LUKIANOFF AND JONATHAN HAIDT: . . . have a terrific piece in The Atlantic, “The Coddling of the American Mind.”

The press has typically described these developments as a resurgence of political correctness. That’s partly right, although there are important differences between what’s happening now and what happened in the 1980s and ’90s. That movement sought to restrict speech (specifically hate speech aimed at marginalized groups), but it also challenged the literary, philosophical, and historical canon, seeking to widen it by including more-diverse perspectives. The current movement is largely about emotional well-being. More than the last, it presumes an extraordinary fragility of the collegiate psyche, and therefore elevates the goal of protecting students from psychological harm. The ultimate aim, it seems, is to turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness. It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse. . . .

There’s a saying common in education circles: Don’t teach students what to think; teach them how to think. The idea goes back at least as far as Socrates. Today, what we call the Socratic method is a way of teaching that fosters critical thinking, in part by encouraging students to question their own unexamined beliefs, as well as the received wisdom of those around them. Such questioning sometimes leads to discomfort, and even to anger, on the way to understanding.

But vindictive protectiveness teaches students to think in a very different way. It prepares them poorly for professional life, which often demands intellectual engagement with people and ideas one might find uncongenial or wrong. The harm may be more immediate, too. A campus culture devoted to policing speech and punishing speakers is likely to engender patterns of thought that are surprisingly similar to those long identified by cognitive behavioral therapists as causes of depression and anxiety. The new protectiveness may be teaching students to think pathologically.

The whole piece is excellent.

Sadly, the Socratic method is virtually extinct in undergraduate classrooms. In law school, where it has historically been the predominant lecture method, I’d say it’s now a vulnerable species.

It takes time and patience to teach in the Socratic method (one has to slog through many initial irrelevant answers and work to pull the student toward the relevant). It also requires students to think outside their comfort zone, as the teacher purposefully challenges the student’s answers. But it works like nothing else I’ve ever seen/experienced to instill critical thinking skills.

In today’s hypersensitive classroom environment, Socratic learning should probably come with a “TRIGGER WARNING: This class may make you think.” And this, of course, would cause legions of complaints and “accommodations” requests by delicate snowflakes who prefer to live their lives in gloriously, depressingly isolated “hear no evil” mode.