Stolen Podesta Wikileaks Emails Reveal People Don’t Matter

Quotation without comment.

From Mark Hemingway, in the conservative Weekly Standard:

America's greatest novelists could not have concocted a tale that so perfectly confirms dark suspicions about how the liberal elites running America really operate. Taken in total, the picture Podesta's emails present is of a man whose tentacles are adroitly moving all the levers of power. In retrospect, Podesta's casual attitude toward Clinton's email problems doesn't look oblivious—it looks prescient. Why should he worry about disgrace for Hillary Clinton when he and his friends in politics, business, and the media dictate what becomes a scandal?

In this respect, Podesta's emails help explain why the FBI ignored basic procedure, destroyed the computers of Clinton aides in "side agreements" to their immunity deals, and then refused to charge Clinton for egregious violations of laws governing classified information.

According to FBI files released in late September, Obama was emailing Clinton using a pseudonym.   .   . Had the Department of Justice charged Hillary Clinton, the nature of the president's correspondence with her might have quickly emerged as an issue. Pretty soon all of America would have been asking: What did Obama know about Clinton's illegal email server and when did he know it?

Clinton’s Clueless National Elite

The trouble with our current national elite is they really, deeply, truly believe they are better. They are the product of high SAT scores and elite universities, trained to rule, a bicoastal meritocracy in control of government, the media, the arts/entertainment, and the global, knowledge-based economy.

The old land-based aristocracy understood they held their exalted status via dumb luck. Our meritocracy is more arrogant, believing brains earn them the right to rule. Therefore, they cannot defer to the country’s vast, inferior majority. But the U.S. inconveniently is a democracy that proclaims all people equal. That’s not meritocracy!

Thus our outnumbered elite know they must by “hook or crook” maintain their status. That means rigged elections (see “Undocumented Democrats”). It means corruption (as in “Clinton Foundation”). It means Hillary’s “public” (false) and “private” (real) positions, as discussed here.

Hillary was raised a white-privileged Goldwater Republican, with no love for the masses. In college, along with many of her fellow late ‘60s anti-Vietnam elitists, she made a smooth transition from reactionary to radical without dropping her detachment from the masses, re-tagged “rednecks”.

Hillary was early to discover Saul Alinsky, even before he wrote Rules for Radicals (1971). Roger Kimball, in the conservative Washington Examiner, tells us that in 1969, Hillary wrote "'There Is Only the Fight ...': An Analysis of the Alinsky Model," a 92-page Wellesley College senior thesis that at the Clintons' request, remained embargoed until after they leave the White House.

We know that Alinsky:

• admiringly cited Lenin's observation that the Bolsheviks "stood for getting power through the ballot, but would reconsider after they got the guns.” 

• practiced deviousness, saying there would be "absolutely nothing here that the police department or the ushers or any other servants of the establishment could do about [trashing]. The law would be completely paralyzed.” 

• preached mouthing various nostrums about the welfare of children, access to healthcare, etc.; one might rail against inequality, sexism, racism, homophobia, etc., but at the end of the day, politics was all about the acquisition of power and life was all about politics. 

• in Rule No. 13 advocated, "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it ... All issues must be polarized if action is to follow.” 

• in Rule No. 4 said, "Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules,” adding, "You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian can live up to Christianity.” 

As Alinsky says, it’s all about power — the “private,” real side of defeating the enemy. Or, as Hillary herself described her opponents:

You know, just to be grossly generalist, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. . . Now some of these folks, they are irredeemable. . .

Comment: What’s so very wrong about the Alinsky/Clinton approach to power is that the differences between people are far less important than their similarities. We are all flawed. A century ago, the white world went crazy believing skin color determined who should rule — supposedly based upon the “science” of evolution. Then, it was about superior v. inferior races.

A world war later, have we not learned anything? Brains no more divide us than did skin color. In a democracy, meritocracy is doomed.

Hillary Clinton’s Hidden Campaign: Can’t Make This Up

Goldman Sachs' Lloyd Blankfein with Hillary Clinton

Controlling the “unaware and compliant”  

“we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry.”

— Hillary Clinton supporter Bill Ivey (email to campaign chief John Podesta)  

Putting down Catholics (and Evangelicals)

John Halpin of the Clinton front “Center for American Progress”:

Ken Auletta's latest piece on Murdoch in the New Yorker starts off with the aside that both Murdoch and Robert Thompson, managing editor of the WSJ, are raising their kids Catholic. Friggin' Murdoch baptized his kids in Jordan where John the Baptist baptized Jesus. Many of the most powerful elements of the conservative movement are all Catholic (many converts) from the SC [Supreme Court] and think tanks to the media and social groups.

It's an amazing bastardization of the faith. They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy.

Clinton Press Secretary Jennifer Palmieri:

I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn't understand if they became evangelicals.

—Wikileaks via “Independent Journal Review”

From Clinton’s private speeches (in Investors Business Daily):  

Fool the public:

If everybody's watching, you know, all of the backroom discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.

IBD comment: Believe one thing in public, another thing in private: That's a pretty good working definition of hypocrisy.  

Open borders:

My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it.

Asians and Jews up; blacks, Muslims, Gypsies down:

The main reason behind successful immigration should be painfully obvious to even the most dimwitted of observers: Some groups of people are almost always highly successful given only half a chance (Jews, Hindus/Sikhs and Chinese people, for example), while others (Muslims, blacks and Roma, for instance) fare badly almost irrespective of circumstances.

Wikileaks titles for speeches delivered to Goldman Sachs and others:

"Clinton Talks About Holding Wall Street Accountable Only for Political Reasons"

"Clinton Suggests Wall Street Insiders Are What Is Needed to Fix Wall Street"

"Clinton Touts Her Relationship to Wall Street as a Senator”  

Why the hidden hypocrisy?

In our history, first came the shock of realizing the people are sovereign. In the U.S., that began with the election of 1800, when power passed from the Federalists to Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party, the pro-French-revolution rabble of farmers and decentralists who won an election where each side deployed its own controlled journals in an all-out dirty war.

The next shock came in the 1828 election, when Andrew Jackson’s popular-based Democratic Party overturned the old order, and at Jackson’s inauguration his common rabble tromped their mud-laden boots all over White House rugs and furniture. Abraham Lincoln’s minority-vote win in 1860 against three opponents, which put the new Republican Party in control of the North and triggered a Civil War, added a third shock to electoral continuity.

After each shock, the country’s moneyed elite adjusted to the new reality, working to insure the newcomers’ leaders and their followers came under the national elite’s control. The Republicans set the tone in post-Civil War America, with business and land-based wealth controlling most elections (14 of 18) from 1860 to the Crash of 1929.

Since 1930-32, Democrats have learned how a meritocracy of the “best and brightest” can hold power by manipulating shifting coalitions of the government-dependent, winning the popular vote in 13 of the last 21 presidential elections and holding the House for all but 4 years from 1930 to 1994.

Of course, a minority needs its “private” exchanges in order to control a “public” majority. The “private” works at fooling “a majority of the people some of the time” — that “some” time being each presidential election. Seeing into Hillary Clinton’s private world helps us understand how the elite fools us.

Ignorant Washington Elite Exposed

I am so pleased about publication of What Washington Gets Wrong: The Unelected Officials Who Actually Run the Government and Their Misconceptions about the American People, by Jennifer Bachner and Benjamin Ginsberg of Johns Hopkins. It shows what we suspected but had not seen in proof — our Washington D.C. elite thinks of itself as our betters (see nearby chart; click to enlarge).

Bachner and Ginsberg polled staffers from the White House and Capitol Hill, career civil servants, and private lobbyists and others who work closely with government. We learn from their work and from Kyle Smith’s accompanying New York Post article that:

• The insiders failed simple multiple-choice quizzes: 65% guessing median household income is lower than $52,000 a year, four out of five underestimating the white share of the population (78%), 64% underestimating the cohort aged 25 and up with a high school diploma (85%), and 80% guessing the homeownership rate is 62% or lower (poll says 67%, but home ownership is now down to 64%). 

• Like President Obama, who tells us terrorists are no more likely to kill you than your bathtub, the Washington elite thinks Islamic extremism is under control. Yet 71% of the public calls terrorism either a huge problem or a moderately big one. 

• When a congressman asked, on behalf of the taxpayers, the chief of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to talk about how much the agency’s new headquarters would cost (an estimated $125 million), director Richard Cordray replied, “Why does that matter to you?” 

• Franklin Township, NJ residents discovered in 2011 that they couldn’t send a tractor over to remove a tree that fell into a creek and caused flooding. They needed federal permission first, because the feds classified the stream as a “Class C-1 creek.” Thus flooding continued for 12 days, damaging many homes before the federal permit finally arrived.

Sunday Townhall: A Civil Debate?

Townhall Principals Cooper, Raddatz, Clinton, Trump

On “Hannity” (10/5/16, @27 minute mark), pollster Frank Luntz offered Trump (unsolicited) advice on how in Sunday’s “Town Hall” Trump can improve his debate performance:

1.  Be specific, say what you will do in your administration's first 24 hours, include a forensic audit because folks think government wastes money. 
2. Ask the audience a question, such as “How many of you feel safer than you did 8 years ago?” 
3. Ask viewers at home “Which one of us is more likely to bring about the change you desire?"

Overall, “take responsibility, show humility, lower the decibel level because you are interacting with real people, not a moderator.”

Good advice. But what about the story the mainstream media and last week’s debate moderator, NBC’s Lester Holt, insist on ignoring? Will Trump be able to get any of this in?

Paul Sperry at the conservative New York Post writes about how upset FBI agents are in the wake of that agency’s failure to mount a real investigation of Hillary Clinton’s crimes. As Sperry reported:

• Comey allowed immunity for witnesses that came with “outrageous” side deals preventing agents from searching for any computer documents written after the Congressional subpoena, especially messages from former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills to Clinton’s server administrator regarding destruction of evidence. 

• Comey accepted FBI destruction of Mills’ laptop, denying Congress the chance to look for destroyed evidence and making the FBI a party to the crime. 

• The witnesses Comey immunized suffered “chronic lapses in memory, made unsubstantiated claims of attorney-client privilege upon tougher questioning and at least two gave demonstrably false statements.” 

• Comey allowed Clinton a “voluntary” witness interview on a major holiday, and let ex-chief of staff Mills sit in on the interview, even though she, too, was supposedly under investigation. 

• Clinton’s interview lasted just 3½ hours, and despite 40 bouts of amnesia, she wasn’t called back. Three days later, Comey cleared her of criminal wrongdoing. 

Said retired FBI agent Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI’s computer investigations unit,“The FBI has politicized itself, and its reputation will suffer for a long time. I hold Director Comey responsible.”

Retired FBI agent Michael M. Biasello, calling “cowardly” Comey’s decision not to seek charges against Clinton, commented:

Comey has singlehandedly ruined the reputation of the organization. The accommodations afforded Clinton and her aides are unprecedented, which is another way of saying this outcome was by design. Had myself or my colleagues engaged in behavior of the magnitude of Hillary Clinton, as described by Comey, we would be serving time in Leavenworth.

The latest reporting adds to evidence we provided earlier that Comey in effect abetted Clinton’s obstruction of justice. Will Clinton II really end up as Nixon II?

Watergate II: FBI Director Comey Complicit in Crime

FBI's L. Patrick Gray                        FBI's James Comey

In 1972, Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray learned about the White House connection to Watergate, didn’t himself participate in the cover-up, but failed to expose it. As a consequence, the Senate declined to confirm Gray as FBI director. Gray resigned before major evidence against President Nixon became public.

Now we have another FBI director acting to protect the administration that pays his salary. More and more the Hillary Affair is looking like Watergate, though this time, the media switching sides is now helping the coverup.

Thank goodness for Republicans in Congress and for Wall Street Journal reporter Kim Strassel. They are putting the pieces together of a government conspiracy to obstruct justice, one guarded by FBI Director James Comey.

Strassel’s reporting on Wednesday’s House Judiciary Committee questioning of Comey zeroed in on two exchanges:  

Question 1.

Rep. Tom Marino (R., Pa.), an ex-Justice Department prosecutor who knows how investigations work, asked Comey why Hillary Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills was offered immunity in return for turning over her laptop, a laptop, according to Strassel, “Comey admitted investigators were very keen to obtain.” Marino wondered why Comey didn't simply convene a grand jury, get a subpoena, and seize the laptop?

Strassel writes:

Comey’s answer was enlightening: “It’s a reasonable question. . . . Any time you are talking about the prospect of subpoenaing a computer from a lawyer—that involves the lawyer’s practice of law—you know you are getting into a big megillah” [Yiddish for a long involved story].

The key words: “The lawyer’s practice of law.” What Mr. Comey was referencing here is attorney-client privilege. [But] here’s the rub: When Mills worked at the State Department she was not acting as Clinton’s personal lawyer. She was the secretary's chief of staff.

Mills was allowed to get away with this “attorney-client privilege” nonsense only because she claimed that she did not know about Clinton’s server until after they had both left the State Department. Ergo, no questions about the server.

Question 2.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah) showed Comey an email Mills sent in 2010 to Justin Cooper, Clinton’s personal employee charged with maintaining her private server. The email reads: “hrc email coming back—is server okay?” Cooper responds: “Ur funny. We are on the same server.”

As Strassel makes clear:

When Clinton had an email problem, Mills . . . called a privately employed Clinton aide and asked specifically about Clinton’s “server.” She did this as chief of staff at the State Department. Chaffetz asked Comey why the FBI [claimed] that Mills was ignorant about the server until later.

Comey suddenly sounded like a man with something to hide. “I don’t remember exactly, sitting here,” he said, in what can only be called the FBI version of “I don’t recall.” . . Really? Only a few minutes before he had explained that the Justice Department was forced to issue immunity to Mills because she had asserted attorney-client privilege. Yet he couldn’t remember all the glaring evidence proving she had no such privilege?

Mills was part of a criminal scheme. [Comey] could have offered immunity in return for the real goods on Hillary. But going that route would have required grand juries, subpoenas, warrants and indictments—all things that Comey clearly wanted to avoid.

As in Watergate I, the FBI seems to be aiding the administration’s “obstruction of justice”.

Watergate v. Clinton's Server: Media Switches Sides

Jonathan Turley is a distinguished law professor at George Washington University, D.C.  Turley is clearly distressed at the immunity the Justice Department awarded key potential witnesses in the Hillary Clinton affair:

Of all of the individuals who would warrant immunity, most would view [Cheryl] Mills as the very last on any list. If one assumes that there may have been criminal conduct, it is equivalent to immunizing H.R. Haldeman and John D. Ehrlichman in the investigation of Watergate. Mills appears repeatedly at critical moments as one of the most senior figures making decisions or monitoring events, including being informed as Clinton chief of staff of the search for emails by the State Department in response to a Freedom of Information demand in 2012 (three years before the disclosure of Clinton’s use of a private email server).

What do we know about Clinton's separate email server, and the related destruction of over 30,000 emails?  We know that after Watergate had forced Richard Nixon out of the White House, Nixon said failure to destroy the secret tapes of his private White House conversations was his "biggest mistake."

Clinton knows all about Watergate.  She was Democratic staff on the House Judiciary Committee's investigation of Watergate.  So it's no surprise that Clinton was determined to block her Watergate-type downfall by destroying any possible records of her crimes, and by making sure her aides and underlings won't be forced to testify against her.

In spite of his failure to destroy tapes, "obstruction of justice" is the crime that brought down Nixon.  Why is Clinton getting away with destroying evidence?  Answer: the media.

Our nation enshrined "freedom of the press" in the Constitution to be a check on abusive governmental power.  Press freedom worked as it should in Watergate.  The media, along with our independent judiciary and an executive branch special prosecutor, took down Nixon.

This time it's so different.  The media no longer operates as an independent check on executive overreach.  Today's media works hand in glove with the executive breach to keep progressives in the White House, helping them run America on behalf of our ruling elite.  Thus we live with weak investigations of Hillary's crimes, along with strong efforts to protect her stonewalling of the truth.

Fortunately, the mainstream media is no longer the force it once was, and at least some truth is reaching the people who still remain sovereign.


 

Message to Hillary: Blue Lives Matter

“[Race] determines how [people] are treated in the criminal justice system. I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone not just police.”

—Hillary Clinton

In last night’s debate Clinton claimed the New York City murder rate is down under progressive Mayor Bill de Blasio. Wrong.

Clinton is also wrong to impugn that police are out to kill young black men, the meme of her “Black Lives Matter” friends. An April 2015 study by Peter Moskos, assistant professor at the City University of New York, found that white Americans are significantly more likely to die at the hands of police than blacks.

Said Moskos:

Adjusted for the homicide rate, whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks die at the hands of police. Adjusted for the racial disparity at which police are feloniously killed, whites are 1.3 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.

More facts, from the same Edmund Kozak article in “LifeZette”:

• Police are three times less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed white suspects — and take far longer to decide whether or not to shoot armed black suspects than armed white ones. 

• Blacks commit homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined. Black males between the ages of 14-17 commit gun homicide at nearly 10 times the rate of white and Hispanic male teens combined. 

• Over the past decade, black males comprised 40% of all cop killers, though they are 6% of the population. That means that an officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer. 

 As “Dragnet’s” Sgt. Joe Friday (picture) would say, "Just the facts, ma’am.”

Presidential Debates Matter, 1960-2012

Trump, Clintons in Happier Times

 According to GOP political guru Karl Rove:

When Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton meet Monday for the first of their three debates. . . a big mistake on either side could scramble the contest. But don’t count on it.

In fact, presidential debates have played a major or dominant role in deciding most (9 of 11) of the elections during which debates took place (as we wrote in 2012).  One just can't predict which debate in each cycle will matter (there have been 30 total), and why.

Here are the presidential debates that made a difference:

1960: First debate ever (in series of three). Kennedy held his own, looked better than Nixon, emerged as presidential, won debate and election. Debate so consequential that no debates take place in 1964, 1968, or 1972.

1976: Second debate of three. Ford unaccountably and inaccurately proclaimed Poland was not under Soviet domination, in spite of moderator’s effort to help him say otherwise. Ford lost debate and election.

1980: Only Reagan-Carter debate, held week before election. Reagan parried Carter attacks with “There you go again” and concluded by asking voters, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” Reagan won debate and election in a landslide. Debate so consequential subsequent final debates all held at least two weeks before election.

1984: Second debate of two. In first debate, Reagan stumbled and showed his age. In second, Reagan crushed the age issue by saying, "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." Mondale threat effectively collapsed at that point.

1988: Second debate of two. Asked if he would still oppose capital punishment if his wife were raped and murdered, Dukakis replied by statistically documenting the ineffectiveness of capital punishment. Dukakis lost the debate and the election to Bush 41.

1992: Second debate of three between Bush 41, Clinton, and Ross Perot. In first-ever town hall format debate, an apparently bored Bush was caught on camera looking at his watch during audience-candidate discussion of the weak economy. Symbolized Bush’s detachment from the economy and helped cost him the election.

1996: No debates of consequence. Clinton kept his lead over Dole through two debates.

2000: First of three debates. Gore caught audibly sighing several times during Bush 43 answers, a demonstration of condescension that voters disliked, helping cost Gore a very close election.

2000: Third of three debates. Gore walked up to Bush while Bush was answering a Gore question, invading Bush’s personal space, a demonstration of disrespect that voters disliked, helping cost Gore a very close election.

2004: Third of three debates. Kerry publicly called out Vice President Chaney’s lesbian daughter to make the point that homosexuality is inherent, not acquired, crossing a personal-political line to which the Chaneys strongly objected, likely costing Kerry votes in a close election.

2008: No debates of consequence. Obama kept his lead over McCain through three debates.

2012: Second of three debates.  In first, an aggressive Romney beat an unprepared Obama and tightened the race.  But in the second, Obama and moderator Candy Crowley of CNN ganged up on Romney for saying Obama falsely blamed the Benghazi massacre on an American video rather than terrorism, and a surprised Romney's lack of a comeback wiped out his first-debate advantage.

Debates matter most in tight races.  That describes where we are today.

Are Elite and Bureaucrats Covering Up Our Sick Economy?

"Democrats enable incompetence because they are beholden to public-sector unions that expect their members to get paid whether or not they do the job."

—Peter Thiel, PayPal founder

Tyler Durden, a pseudonym used by anonymous “Zero Hedge” financial industry analysts, mixes facts and opinion while writing about what’s wrong with today’s U.S. economic stats:

If we were in the midst of an expanding economy why would 41.6% of African Americans and 36% of Hispanics be receiving means-tested benefits each month?

The most blatant attempt by the ruling class to subvert the truth regarding our ongoing depression is the despicably absurd propaganda churned out by the government apparatchiks at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. With a working age population of 253.9 million people and only 151.6 million of them employed (27 million part-time, 15 million self-employed, 7 million working multiple jobs and worst of all 22 million government workers), the BLS has the gall to report only a 4.9% unemployment rate. There are 102.3 million working age Americans not working, but only 7.8 million of them are unemployed according to the highly educated establishment lackeys at the BLS. The other 94.5 million non-working Americans must be frolicking in the surf, sipping margaritas and counting the millions they’ve made in the rigged Wall Street casino.

Would the labor participation rate and employment to population ratio be hovering at levels last seen in 1978 if the jobs market was booming? And don’t blame it on Baby Boomers retiring. With 28% of people over 55 years old with no retirement savings and the median retirement savings of those 55 to 61 years old of $17,000, few Boomers can afford to retire on $12,000 of Social Security per year. The percentage of those over 55 years old working is at an all-time high, while the percentage of men 25 to 54 (prime working years) working is at an all-time low. Since 2007 the country has added 5.6 million mostly low paying service jobs, while 15.7 million Americans have supposedly left the labor force of their own free will, and the unemployment rate is virtually the same. Only an Ivy League educated economist or highly paid CNBC pundit would believe such malarkey.

[I]f you want the true unemployment rate you must adjust the government figures for the misinformation which began in 1994. Long-term discouraged workers were defined out of official existence in 1994. If you stop looking for a job because there are no jobs available, the BLS pretends you no longer exist and you are dropped from their unemployment calculations. John Williams at Shadowstats rightfully adds these discouraged workers, who are willing to work, back into the calculation and surprise, surprise, the real unemployment rate in this country has been between 18% and 23% for the last seven years (see graph below). Those rates are identical to the worst years of the Great Depression.

 

Comment: Real unemployment "between 18% and 23%" for 7 years.  Wow.

Government workers are like the media; they are woven into America’s progressive elite. Here, from conservative commentator Glenn Harlan Reynolds, in USA Today:

the civil service, though supposedly professional and nonpartisan, has become a Democratic Party monoculture. Federal employees overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, donate to Democrats, and, by all appearances, cover for Democrats as a routine part of doing their job.

Clinton Post-Convention Bounce Disappears

In the closely-watched and trusted "RealClearPolitics" average of national polls -- 2-way between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and 4-way adding in Libertarian Gary Johnson and the Green Party's Jill Stein -- Clinton leads Trump by a combined average of 2.9%.

On July 18, before both parties' conventions, Clinton led Trump by a combined average of 3.2%.  Now for the first time, both post-convention "bounces" are gone, and the combined poll average difference between the two is down to the margin of error.

On August 8, after what the "Huffington Post" called Trump's "Worst Week Any Candidate's Ever Had," Clinton's lead over Trump in the "RealClearPolitics" combined averages was 7.8%.  "HuffPost" crowed, "Polls taken late this week show Democratic candidate Clinton leading Trump by double digits nationwide. The businessman is even behind in deep red states like Georgia."

"HuffPost" ended with "Only 12 more weeks to go..."  Well, 4 of those weeks are gone, and the race is  now "margin-of-error" tight.

Still 8 more weeks to go...  

Latest Jobs Report: U.S. Economy Stays Flat

Yellen: Dove on Growth

The U.S. created 151,000 jobs in August, below the consensus estimate of 170,000 jobs. The six-month job creation average is 175,000 jobs, just 30,000 jobs a month above the level needed to keep pace with population growth.

Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Amherst Pierpont Securities, said:

The August employment report was not a disaster but it was just weak enough that any chance that Janet Yellen and her band of doves might think about surprising us and raising rates later this month just went out the window.

Unemployment is a lagging indicator, and the fall in job creation numbers over the Summer (271,000 in June, 275,000 in July, now 151,000) is trailing the nearly flat gain in GDP: only 1.2% over the past year.

“Clinton-State Foundation”: More Facts

Clinton Aides -- Foundation Friends -- Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin

With the catchy title “Aiding and Abedin,” Steve Hayes in the conservative Weekly Standard adds further detail to the “Department of Clinton-State” scandal.

First Hayes provides background. In Bill Clinton’s last year (2000), he wanted to visit South Asia. He would be the first president since Jimmy Carter in 1978 to do so. But he would skip Pakistan because General Pervez Musharraf had seized power in a military coup there six months earlier.

The New York Times on February 18, 2000 noted that while "Pakistan has been lobbying hard in Washington” for a visit, Clinton was right to stand firm, given Pakistan’s failure to return to civilian rule. But four days later, Hillary Clinton, speaking at a private home gathering on Staten Island, said she hoped her husband would change his mind.

The gathering was a $1,000-per-plate fundraiser hosted by prominent Pakistani New York doctors, who admitted lobbying for a presidential stop in Pakistan. The fundraiser was for Hillary Clinton, then a U.S. Senate candidate, and organizers knew they needed to raise $50,000 for her to show up.

Two weeks after Hillary Clinton expressed her “hope,” the White House announced the president would visit Pakistan. While the White House insisted Hillary Clinton's views had no bearing on her husband's decision, in a New York Times follow-up under the headline "Donating to the First Lady, Hoping the President Notices," the paper wrote of Hillary Clinton's candidacy: "While her husband still occupies the White House, people may seek to influence his policies by making donations to her Senate campaign."

And that’s exactly why the Pakistani hosts moved their fundraiser to before the president’s final South Asian schedule decision.

Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the Clinton Foundation followed this very pattern: people influenced her foreign policy by donating to the Foundation. Clinton and her top aides, in Hayes’ words, “eagerly provide special access to Clinton Foundation donors” because those donors gave to the  Foundation.

In 2009, Clinton’s cabinet nomination focused on the Foundation. "The main issue related to Senator Clinton's nomination that has occupied the committee has been the review of how her service as secretary of state can be reconciled with the sweeping global activities of President Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation," said Senator Richard Lugar, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s ranking Republican. People “may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the secretary of state."

Republicans wanted strong assurances and a detailed statement of rules. But Democrats, happy to leave things vague, won. And now we have Clinton's unequivocal July claim: "There is absolutely no connection between anything that I did as secretary of state and the Clinton Foundation."

We earlier showed how in the person of Clinton aide Huma Abedin, the supposed “firewall” between the Foundation and Clinton’s State Department apparently didn’t exist. Hayes provides more evidence:

• In June 2012, Hillary Clinton's chief of staff Cheryl Mills flew to New York City to interview two candidates to lead the Foundation. Also, Laura Graham, the Foundation’s chief operating officer, left 148 telephone messages for Mills between 2010 and 2012 —the two-year period for which State provided records. Not only do the records leave out calls when Graham and Mills connected, but also Graham’s 148 messages were far more than those left by any other person. 

• Director James Comey said the FBI recovered thousands of work-related emails that Clinton failed to turn over, but many others were deleted. While the FBI director nonetheless assured the public "there was no intentional misconduct" in email sorting, Comey acknowledged: "They deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.” 

• Clinton’s team used "BleachBit," a technology that, according to its website, allows users to "shred files to hide their contents and prevent data recovery" and "overwrite free disk space to hide previously deleted files.” It means that Clinton, who took virtually no precautions to safeguard her emails while on her server, “BleachBitted” her withheld emails, doing so two years after leaving State, and only when she realized otherwise the government would see them. 

Comment: It’s called “obstruction of justice.”

Clinton Corruption: Latest Facts

We now know that Hillary Clinton set up and shielded her email server from the American public — but not from capable foreign governments — for one purpose: hide the money-making machine she wanted the State Department to become. She agreed to serve Barack Obama as his loyal Secretary of State not only to advance her path to the White House, but also to earn even more money for the Clinton Foundation, which is her amoral husband’s, her family’s, and her large entourage’s principal source of income.

Conservative Ed Morrissey, in The Fiscal Times, has catalogued recently-unearthed evidence of Hillary Clinton’s corruption, especially shocking since she is our presumed next president:

• An Associated Press review of State Department and Clinton Foundation records shows that more than half of Secretary Clinton’s official State Department meetings or conversations with non-government officials involved Clinton Foundation donors. 

• Of 154 total outsiders, the at least 85 with Clinton Foundation connections provided $156 million to the Foundation, 40 giving $100,000 or more. Another 16 foreign government representatives donated an additional $170 million. 

• These donations violated Obama’s Memorandum of Understanding demanded of Clinton before he appointed her to run the State Department. Clinton pledged total transparency and solid firewalls separating State and the Foundation. On transparency, AP had to sue (and wait for years) to get Clinton’s calendars. 

• Initially rebuffed when requesting an appointment, the Crown Prince of Bahrain forced an e-mail exchange between Foundation executive Doug Band and Clinton aide Huma Abedin that secured the $32 million donor his desired audience with Clinton. 

• For Bahrain, a country on State’s Human Rights Watch list for the “torture and mistreatment of detainees,” the meeting coincided with Bahrain’s contribution to the Foundation while Clinton ran State. Between 2010 and 2012, arms sales to Bahrain increased by 187% over a similar Bush administration period, and included $70,000 in toxic chemical sales, all as Bahrain was suppressing its own Arab Spring uprising, the kind Obama encouraged elsewhere. 

• Victor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian steel magnate donated over $8 million to the Clinton Foundation and committed up to $20 million more. Pinchuk used his Foundation connections to meet a “top Clinton aide” at State. As secretary, Clinton hosted a dinner for the Foundation’s donors including Pinchuk, a supporter of the pro-Russian regime that Ukrainians overthrew in late 2013, a move the Obama administration supported.

• Pinchuk additionally had been selling oil pipeline and railroad equipment to Iran during Clinton’s tenure, in apparent violation of tight sanctions placed on Tehran over Iran’s nuclear-weapons development. 

• Regarding Pinchuk’s sales, an ex-Bush administration official said, “Congress needs to determine why sanctions were not imposed in this case, and whether pressure was put on lower level State Department officials to overlook this violation.” 

Looking at America's future under Clinton, Morrissey concludes, “When character and integrity no longer matter, Mike Royko’s suggested motto for Chicago of ubi est mea is the only standard that applies: Where’s mine?”

For blacks, Obama is “2 steps forward, 6 back.”

“The Democratic Party has run nearly every inner city in this country for 50 years, and run them into financial ruin. They’ve ruined the schools. They’ve driven out the jobs. They’ve tolerated a level of crime no American should consider acceptable.”

—Donald Trump

Delroy Murdock

Conservative black commentator Delroy Murdock, source of the above Trump quote, said Trump told his suburban Milwaukee audience last week that violent crime was up 17% in America’s 50 biggest cities in 2015, homicides climbed 50% in Washington, D.C. this year, and in Baltimore, murders are up 60%.

To Murdock, “Obama’s value to blacks is almost purely symbolic. It’s quite literally two steps forward, six steps back.”

Murdock’s “two steps forward, six steps back:”

• The unemployment rate has improved. According to the latest data, joblessness for black Americans has slid from 12.7% at Obama’s first inauguration to 8.4% in July — down 33.9%.

• The unemployment rate for blacks from ages 16 to 19 declined over that interval, from 35.3% to 25.7% — down 27.2%.

• But, the overall labor force participation rate for black Americans has slipped from 63.2% to 61.2%— down 3.2%.

• This metric also slumped for black teenagers, from 29.6% to 27.7% — down 6.4%.

• The percentage of black Americans in poverty has grown under Obama, the Census Bureau reports, from 25.8% in 2009 to 26.2% in 2014 — up 1.6%.

• Real median income among black households during Obama, the Census says, slid from $35,954 to $35,398 — down 1.5%.

• The number of blacks on Food Stamps soared under Obama — from 7,393,000 in 2009 to 11,699,000 in 2014 — up 58.2%.

• Also, from Obama’s arrival through last June 30, the percentage of black Americans who own homes plunged from 46.1 to 41.7%, the Census reports — down 9.5%.

“Clinton News Network” Edits Call for Violence

Quotation without comment.

From the conservative Washington Times:

Sherelle Smith encourages her community to burn the suburbs of Milwaukee

Both online and on television, CNN edited out Sherelle Smith, the sister of a black man who was killed by police in Milwaukee on Saturday, calling for rioters to take their violence “to the suburbs.”

Correspondent Ana Cabrera reported Ms. Smith was “calling for peace” in a televised segment Monday on CNN Newsroom, NewsBusters reported.

The network showed a brief clip of Ms. Smith telling protesters: “Don’t bring the violence here and the ignorance here.”

But CNN cut away before Ms. Smith called for rioters to “take that s– to the suburbs.”

“Stop burning down s– we need in our community,” Ms. Smith said in her extended remarks. “Take that s– to the suburbs. Burn they s– down. We need our s–. We need our weaves. I don’t wear it. But we need it.”

A CNN.com article on Monday framed the issue similarly, reporting that Ms. Smith “condemned violence carried out in her brother’s name, saying the community needs those businesses.”

American Racism

Milwaukee Riots

New York University is going to make it easier for ex-criminals to attend its institution. In the conservative Weekly Standard, Naomi Schaefer Riley writes that NYU is taking questions about criminal background off its applications. To Riley, the reason is obvious. NYU wants more blacks in its student body, and criminal backgrounds disproportionately keep blacks away.

But Riley, who is sensitive to how poorly affirmative action actually helps disadvantaged minorities, reminds readers that the practice

has led many students to make the toxic assumption that minority students are not as capable. As NYU's very own Jonathan Haidt wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal, "As a result of these disparate admissions standards, many students spend four years in a social environment where race conveys useful information about the academic capacity of their peers." Admitting, in the name of diversity, students who are even less qualified "is likely to make racial gaps larger, which would strengthen the negative stereotypes that students of color find when they arrive on campus.”

Do we really want affirmative action bringing black ex-felons to the academy? Says Riley:

Now imagine what would happen if white and Asian students on campus had the impression that not only were their black peers less likely to have performed well on standardized tests or on their high school report cards, but were also more likely to have criminal records.

We all know that alumni preferences have long favored white applicants. Or have they?

Riley tells us that

one recent Harvard study of 30 elite colleges found that "legacy" applicants—often disdained as receiving a kind of old-boys-network preference—actually had slightly higher average SAT scores than the overall pool of applicants.

So much for that affirmative action excuse.

Conservative Heather MacDonald, in the City Journal, is upset about the continuing violence of blacks against police from one American city to another that has now reached Milwaukee (see picture, above). She calls it racism.

To MacDonald:

the narrative’s biggest lie is that white people are the most powerful source of racism today—a lie embraced by elite white society itself. When that society is not twisting itself into knots trying to hire or promote as many blacks as possible, it is in a constant state of anguish trying to track down those deep, if invisible, pockets of white racism that supposedly explain ongoing racial disparities. Black racism, however, is far more pervasive than any vestigial white racism, as anyone who has spent time in inner-city black neighborhoods knows.

I have been warned by residents of one Harlem housing project not to venture into a neighboring project because the hatred of whites is even more acute there. A resident of the Taft Houses in East Harlem told me of the abuse she took as a child because her mother was Irish. Black flash mobs and participants in the “knock-out game” are motivated by anti-white animus, though the media strive frantically to ignore both the violence and the emotion generating it.

Blacks are the primary source of interracial violence. In 2012, blacks committed 560,600 acts of violence against whites, and whites committed 99,403 acts of violence against blacks, according to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey provided to the author by a Bureau of Justice Statistics statistician. Blacks, in other words, committed 85% of the interracial crimes between blacks and whites, even though they are less than 13% of the population. It would be naïve to think that some of that black-on-white violence does not have a racial tinge to it.

It’s about Hillary Clinton.

“Clinton will contribute nothing to lift the flatlined aspirations of the eight Obama years. There is also the matter of Clinton mores.”

—Daniel Henninger, Wall Street Journal (paid subscription)  

Economy

From Keith Koffler, in the conservative “LifeZette”:

• In 2014, the last year for which data are available, and after six full years of Obama's stewardship, median household income was $53,657. That's nearly $4,000 lower, in constant 2014 dollars, than it was in 2007, the last year before the recession hit. And it was nearly $1,650 below 2008, the year before Obama took office.

From Andy Puzder, CEO, CKE Restaurants:

• In July of this year, there were 5.2 million more people employed than in December of 2007 when the recession began. However, the employable population has increased by [20.4] million people—that’s nearly four times the increase in number of people who found jobs. Perhaps more disturbing, just 2.3 million of those who found jobs found full-time jobs. In other words, over half (56%) of the net gain has been in people working lower-paying part-time jobs.

• These numbers have consequences. A recent Pew Research study found young adults more likely to be living in their parents’ homes than at any time since 1940. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly one in six young men is either jobless or incarcerated, up from about one in 10 in 1980, when the economy was in recession.  

Mores

From Austin Bay, University of Texas adjunct professor:

• Hillary. . . “does awful.” She commits a dreadful (and at times criminal) action with calculation and an unrestrained presumption of privilege. Her dreadful action is provable, having witnesses (grieving parents), or, in the case of her national security information crime, a feckless Jim Comey discovering evidence verifying her gross negligence. A month later Hillary lies about Comey’s investigation. Credit [Fox News’] Chris Wallace with confronting her—but Hillary’s reptilian being scarcely blinks. She apparently believes that by October mis- and mal-informed voters will believe Comey exonerated her. Hillary believes Americans are stupid.

From Jonah Goldberg, in the conservative National Review:

• Hillary Clinton is a known quantity. She’s Nixon in a pantsuit. She’s been a tedious, grating, cynical, corrupt presence in our lives for nearly three decades. Hillary . . . doesn’t know what to make of the public. And even I can muster some sympathy because “getting it” would require understanding something about herself that no person would want to understand. Who wants to accept that after a lifetime of public exposure people have concluded they just don’t like you or trust you?

From conservative John Hart, in “Opportunity Lives”:

• The problem with Clinton. . . and today’s Democratic Party, is that instead of encouraging civil society they constrict and suffocate civil society. In practice, Clinton’s [“It Takes a Village”] is a dystopian world of minders, regulators and tax collectors. And it’s a place where the rules don’t apply to the rulers.

Everywhere: “We are Family!”

Edward Steichen’s 1955 Museum of Modern Art masterpiece, “The Family of Man,” has been hailed as the “most successful exhibition of photography ever assembled”. In book form with words by Carl Sandburg, The Family of Man has been in print for 61 years with over 4 million sold.

Some of Sandburg’s words:

People! flung wide and far, born into toil, struggle, blood and dreams, among lovers, eaters, drinkers, workers, loafers, fighters, players, gamblers. Here are ironworkers, bridge men, musicians, sandhogs, miners, builders of huts and skyscrapers, jungle hunters, landlords, and the landless, the loved and the unloved, the lonely and abandoned, the brutal and the compassionate — one big family hugging close to the ball of Earth for its life and being. Everywhere is love and love-making, weddings and babies from generation to generation keeping the Family of Man alive and continuing.

French critic Roland Barthes within the year called “The Family of Man” a product of "conventional humanism," a collection of photographs in which everyone lives and "dies in the same way everywhere ." "Just showing pictures of people being born and dying tells us, literally, nothing.”

Here’s my take. Family is the first and most important step beyond self. Our elite may care about us, but first and most important, they care about their own family. It’s just who we are. The elite hope you will accept their honest love of their own family and let them be, not seek to overthrow them for their very human aspirations. Something like, “Don’t Worry, Be Happy.”

Understand, the definition of “family” is loose. Terrorists blow themselves up because they are sacrificing for a family, whether their original family or an adopted one.

Are you happy, or are you angry enough to disrupt the established order? Loving your family can carry you either way.

Hillary, Obama, and FDR: Big Bad Government

Happy Days?

Yes, after July’s revised figures on job creation, U.S. average job increase over the last 4 months has risen to 179,000 a month, above the 145,000 minimum needed to stay even with population growth.  

But. . .

According to the Washington Post’s Ed Rogers:

93% of counties in the United States still have not fully recovered from the recession when factoring in job creation, the unemployment rate, GDP and median home prices in each county across the country. . . [T]his is modern, turbocharged, malignant malaise that the Democrats obviously can’t fix. [Recent] average job creation does not undo the damage caused by Obama’s failed economic policies. [And] Clinton’s embrace of all things Obama is forcing her to maintain a steady stream of discredited happy talk on the economy, which only generates more cynicism about her and more doubts about her ability to change anything about the economy.

Phil Gramm and Michael Solon, writing in the conservative Wall Street Journal, undertake a deeper dive that compares Obama’s Great Recession recovery to the worst recovery of all-time: Franklin Roosevelt’s long, slow (1933-40) Great Depression slog:

From 1932-36, federal spending skyrocketed 77%, the national debt rose by over 73%, and top tax rates more than tripled, from 25% to 79%. But the tectonic shift brought about by the New Deal was the federal government’s involvement in the economy, as a tidal wave of new laws were enacted and more executive orders were issued than by all subsequent presidents combined through President Clinton.

As government assumed greater control, private investment collapsed, averaging only 40% of the 1929 level for nine consecutive years. League of Nations data show that by 1938, in five of the six most-developed countries in the world industrial production was on average 23% above 1929 levels, but in the U.S. it was still down by 10%. Employment in five of the six major developed countries averaged 12% above the pre-Depression levels while U.S. employment was still down by 20%. Before the Great Depression, real per capita GDP in the U.S. was about 25% larger than it was in Britain. By 1938, real per capita GDP in Britain was slightly higher than in the U.S.

The dominant lesson of the Great Depression and the Great Recession is that when government overspends, overtaxes and over-regulates, economic freedom is suppressed and economic growth vanishes.