And it is for individual freedom, not communism!

Karl Marx was wrong. When at last the working class rises, it is not for socialism, internationalism and equality: it is for capitalism, the nation-state and liberty.

Donald Trump’s movement – he and his followers are calling it a revolution – is a genuine proletarian uprising, perhaps the first in history. It is very hard to find an historical precedent for a downtrodden class actually rising spontaneously in protest against the ruling class without being incited to it by dissident members of the ruling class itself.

The libertarian Ilana Mercer writes at Townhall about “the disenfanchisement of the poor whites of America”:

The present ideology on immigration considers all whites, rich or poor, a privileged, “fungible monolith”. This outlook brooks little or no consideration of lives lived in penury for over a century. In particular: It overlooks the descendants of poor white Southern sharecroppers who did not own slaves, but were devastated by the War Between the States both “in human and economic terms”. Even now, this sizeable segment of the South has yet to recover; its attainments with respect to education and income mirror those of the region’s African-Americans, with one distinction: poor whites are barred from affirmative action programs.

These are the people – this is the DEMOS – whose chosen leader Trump is. Sure, he is a rich man, but he is not a member of the ruling elite – he is a builder. A very successful builder. No, he does not phrase his ideas felicitously. He does not develop an argument. He utters cries, he repeats himself. He expresses the half-formed, inadequately worded, but deeply and painfully felt opinions and desires of unconsidered people.

He speaks often of the plight of the poor blacks in the inner cities of America. And the poor Latinos. He is far from being a “racist” – the favorite boo-word of the Left.

The Ivy-League conservatives and leaders of the Republican party do not, many of them, “get it”. They feel threatened, along with their fellow members of the ruling class in the laughably named “Democratic Party”.

But there are a few who do.

Steven Hayward (yes, the same admirable Steven Hayward of PowerLine) writes at the Weekly Standard:

Win or lose, [Trump] has divided and may yet shatter the conservative movement …

Hayward says he does not believe Trump will win. He is interested in why a number of intellectuals he highly respects wish that he will.

Several Claremont eminentos appear prominently on the recent list of “Scholars and Writers for Trump,” including Charles Kesler, Larry Arnn, Thomas West, Hadley Arkes, Brian Kennedy, and John Eastman. … It is also worth adding that the Claremonsters on this list are typically at odds with many of their fellow signatories who hail from the “paleocon” and libertarian neighborhoods of the right — another indication of the extraordinary ideological scrambling effect of the Trump campaign.

Knowing my own deep Claremont roots — I earned a Ph.D. from the Claremont Graduate School while working at the Claremont Institute in the 1980s — several people have asked me to explain: “How is it that a group known for its emphasis on the idea of high statesmanship, and on the importance of serious political rhetoric, can champion Trump?” …

The Claremont sympathy for Trump needs to be better understood, because it differs fundamentally from the typical candidate scoring mentioned above. If Trump can’t live up to the idiosyncratic Claremont understanding of the meaning of his candidacy, the Trump phenomenon nonetheless opens a window onto the failures of conservatism that made Trump’s candidacy possible and perhaps necessary. Even if you reject Trump, there are vital things to be learned from him if we are to confront the crisis of our time. …

What is that crisis? It’s not the litany of items that usually come to mind—the $20 trillion national debt, economic stagnation, runaway regulation, political correctness and identity politics run amok, unchecked immigration that threatens to work a demographic-political revolution, and confused or unserious policy toward radical Islamic terrorism. These are mere symptoms of a much deeper but poorly understood problem. It can be stated directly in one sentence: Elections no longer change the character of our government. …

The closer source of the Claremont sympathy for Trump (though it should be noted that they are far from unanimous — several Claremonsters are Never Trumpers) is found in another aspect of the Claremont argument about which there is near-complete harmony among East, West, and everyone in-between: the insidious political character of the “administrative state”, a phrase once confined chiefly to the ranks of conservative political scientists, but which has broken out into common parlance. It refers not simply to large bureaucracy, but to the way in which the constitutional separation of powers has been steadily eroded by the delegation of more and more lawmaking to a virtual “fourth branch” of government [the bureaucracy]. …

Who should rule? The premise of the Constitution is that the people should rule. The premise of the administrative state, explicitly expressed by Woodrow Wilson and other Progressive-era theorists, is that experts should rule, in a new administrative form largely sealed off from political influence, i.e., sealed off from the people. At some point, it amounts to government without the consent of the governed, a simple fact that surprisingly few conservative politicians perceive. Ronald Reagan was, naturally, a conspicuous exception, noting in 1981 in his first Inaugural Address, “It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.”  …

The salient political fact is this: No matter who wins elections nowadays, the experts in the agencies rule and every day extend their rule further, even under Republican presidents ostensibly committed to resisting this advance. We still nominally choose our rulers, but they don’t reflect our majority opinions. No wonder more and more conservatives regard the GOP leadership in Washington as “collaborationists” with Democrats. …

Marini [Prof. John Marini of the University of Nevada, Reno, “a Claremont Institute stalwart”], a Trump supporter, told me last week, “Public opinion is in the hands of a national elite. That public opinion, the whole of the public discourse about what is political in America, is in the hands of very few. There’s no way in which you have genuine diversity of opinion that arises from the offices that are meant to represent it.” A good example of the defensive crouch of Republicans accepting the elite-defined boundaries of acceptable opinion was Sen. Ted Cruz’s comment shortly after the 2012 election that conservative social policy must pass through “a Rawlsian lens”,  an astonishing concession to the supercharged egalitarian philosophy at the heart of contemporary leftism. …

Trump’s disruptive potential explains therefore his attraction for Claremonsters. More than just a rebuke to political correctness and identity politics, a Trump victory would be, in their eyes, a vehicle for reasserting the sovereignty of the people and withdrawal of consent for the administrative state and the suffocating boundaries of acceptable opinion backing it up. A large number of Americans have responded positively to Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” because they too see Trump as a forceful tribune against the slow-motion desiccation of the country under the steady advance of liberalism. …

The Trump disruption thesis is not held uniquely by the Claremonsters. David Gelernter offered a version of this argument in the Wall Street Journal last weekend, and Victor Davis Hanson has been arguing along these lines for months. …

The exacting demands of statesmanship have seldom been put better than by Hillsdale’s Thomas G. West, one of the most fervent Claremont pro-Trumpers, in a 1986 essay: “A president who would successfully lead the nation back to constitutional government must have the right character, be able to present the right speeches, and undertake the right actions to guide the people to elect a new kind of Congress.” Last week, I asked West whether and how Trump could measure up to this understanding of what is necessary today. West points to what he calls Trump’s “civic courage”, i.e., his intransigence in the face of relentless attacks, his willingness to call out radical Islamic extremism by name while noting the guilt-infused reluctance of Obama and Hillary Clinton to do so, his willingness to question the bipartisan failures of foreign policy over the last 25 years, and his direct rebuke to the collapse of the rule of law in cities with large black populations. West thinks Trump’s breathtaking stubbornness and shocking candor are the ingredients for the kind of restorative statesmanship the times demand. …

That Trump can be made out to be the only candidate since Reagan who has represented a fundamental challenge to the status quo puts in stark relief the attenuation of conservative political thought and action over the last 20 years and the near-complete failure of aspiring Republican presidents to marry their ambition to a serious understanding of why the republic is in danger. …

Lincoln famously said in 1854, “Our republican robe is soiled.” We need only capitalize one word to adapt it to our time: “Our Republican robe is soiled.” The cleanup is going to be excruciating. But nothing is more necessary and important.

As intellectuals ourselves, we heartily agree. And we want Donald Trump to win.

If proof is still needed that Hillary Clinton is unfit to be president, this should be decisive:

From TruePundit:

“Secretary Clinton proved tonight she is unfit to be commander-in-chief,” a top-ranking DOD intelligence source said. “What she did compromises our national security. She is cavalier and reckless and in my opinion should be detained and questioned so we can unravel why she did what she did.”

According to Pentagon sources, the information Clinton disseminated publicly is Top Secret intelligence governed under the U.S. Special Access Program (SAP) which dictates safeguards and protocols for accessing and discussing highly classified and Top Secret intelligence.

The specific details of the country’s nuclear response time discussed by Clinton, sources said, are only known by a handful of individuals outside top military brass, including the following “need-to-know” (NTK) officials:

President
Vice President
Secretary of State
Secretary of Defense
Secretary of Homeland Security
Attorney General
Director of National Intelligence
CIA Director
Deputy Secretary of State
Deputy Secretary of Defense
Special personnel designated solely by the President in writing

Sources said late Wednesday Clinton likely violated two different types of Dept. of Defense SAP protocols. Since nuclear response is part of the sensitive national plan for nuclear war operations, all of its schematics are covered under both “Intelligence SAPs” and “Operation and Support SAPs”, sources said. Both contain Top Secret information.

“Targeting options by ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missiles), air or sea, launch order, launch procedures and response are some of the most secretly guarded tenets of national security and nuclear war policy,” a Pentagon source said. “It’s truly incredible that (nuclear) response time as part of an ERO (Emergency Response Option) is now out there in the public domain to our adversaries.”

U.S. Defense sources said according to developed U.S. counterintelligence, military officials in China, North Korea, Syria, Russia, Iran and even actors like ISIS had no previous definitive intelligence to determine the U.S. nuclear response time, especially during an ERO, prior to Clinton’s admission Wednesday night. Sources reluctantly acknowledged her calculations were accurate. …

Clinton has come under fire time and time again for mishandling national security secrets via email, telephone and secure facsimile during and after her tenure as secretary of state. Her mishandling of classified and top secret intelligence sparked a year-long investigation by the FBI and various Congressional committees which continue to examine Clinton’s lackluster security controls with and attitude toward protecting some of the nation’s most sensitive data which she stored on an unprotected home server in the basement of her Chappaqua, New York home during her post at Foggy Bottom.

Clinton, just this week, unleashed a series of campaign ads painting Trump as a loose cannon who should never be in control of nuclear secrets and weapons. Clinton trumpeted the seemingly ill-timed ads Wednesday night at the debate prior to her rant divulging nuclear secrets herself.

Last night at a Catholic Church charity fund-raising event in New York, Hillary made a speech that was intended to be funny. It wasn’t. But it did demonstrate a probable loss of control of her mental faculties. If she is not parroting well-rehearsed babble, she  shoots her mouth off.  She made a flat “joke”: how will Barack get past the Muslim ban that Trump will impose? Plainly, she asserted that Obama is a Muslim. Was she aware that she was doing that? Did she intend to do it?

Did she intend to reveal top secret military information?

If she did, she is criminally traitorous, and unfit to be president.

If she did not, she is deranged, and unfit to be president.

In the third and final presidential candidates’ debate last night, Donald Trump refused to commit himself to accepting the results of the November 8 election (if Hillary Clinton wins it, understood).

He was right not to, when there are some 4 million dead people registered as voters, and the voting machines in 16 states are supplied by a George Soros-owned firm – Soros being the money-power behind the criminal campaign to get Hillary Clinton elected to the presidency. Furthermore, the manager of her campaign, John Podesta, wants any illegal immigrant to be able to vote on production of a drivers license.

Democrats cry that the Republican candidate’s refusal is “out of keeping with American history”:

Breitbart exposes their hypocrisy:

Democrats are aghast that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump would declare our election system “rigged,” and that he declined to state in the third presidential debate whether he would accept the result if he loses in November. …

Democrats — including Hillary Clinton — seem to have forgotten their own history of claiming elections are “rigged”.

1. 2000: Al Gore and the Florida recount.Yes, Gore eventually accepted the result — but only after withdrawing his concession, trying to have the vote recounted only in Democrat-heavy Florida counties, and suing to stop ballots from being recounted. Even after a consortium of media outlets concluded that George W. Bush had indeed won more votes in Florida, Democrats continued to claim the election had been “stolen” by the Supreme Court and Bush was an illegitimate president.
2. 2004: John Kerry and “rigged” machines.While Kerry conceded the election, he and his running mate continued to believe afterwards that the election had been stolen from them, possibly by voting machines. Elizabeth Edward said in 2007 that she had been “very disappointed” in Kerry’s decision to concede the election. And last year the New Yorker reported that Kerry believed “proxies for Bush had rigged many voting machines” in Ohio, and that he may in fact have won the election.
3. 2008: John Podesta and Obama’s voter fraud. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out recently, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have suggested that voter ID laws are a way of rigging elections against black people. And while they downplay fears of voter fraud, Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podestreported internally (via Wikileaks) in 2015 that Clinton operatives believed that “the Obama forces flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters” to win the primary.
4. 2014: Congress and a “rigged” district system.Thanks to the Tea Party wave election in 2010 in response to Obamacare, Republicans were left in charge of many state legislatures as they redrew congressional district boundaries. Except in a few states — such as Illinois, where Democrats drew several Republicans out of their seats — that meant Republicans held the advantage in the House. As a result, Democrats complained bitterlythat congressional elections were “rigged” against them.
5. 2016: Bernie Sanders and a “rigged” primary. Sanders uses the word “rigged” often to describe the economic system. But in 2016, the Democratic Party primary was rigged against him in a political sense — both openly, in the party’s anti-democratic super delegate system, and secretly, through collusion between party officials and the Clinton campaign. Sanders supporters protested at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia against what they called a “rigged” election.

Hillary Clinton herself has made at least one similar claim. National Review — which officially opposed Trump earlier this year — points out that Clinton told a private fundraiser in 2002 that George W. Bush had been “selected”, not “elected”.

It’s all too likely that the Democrats will find ways to skew the vote in Hillary Clinton’s favor. If she gets to the White House, by fair means or foul, the darkness of a criminal socialist corruptocracy will fall over America.

Trump is unwilling to lead his followers gently into that good-night.

They are calling their movement a revolution – against a complacent conspiratorial political establishment that serves its own interests rather than the interests of the people.

If the election is dishonestly won by Hillary Clinton, is a self-named revolutionary movement likely to accept the result meekly and quietly?

If Trump is elected, a new and better Republican Party may arise. If he is not, his defeat may bring the GOP to its end.

Cliff Kincaid writes at the Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research:

As the election draws close, a new report from a communist defector to the United States and a new book from two staunch conservatives have put the stakes in very dramatic terms. Former Romanian intelligence chief Ion Mihai Pacepa warns of a “looming disaster” if socialism takes hold in the United States, while J.B. Williams and Timothy Harrington contend that a “New American Revolution”, as represented by Donald J. Trump, is the only way at this point to save America from four more years of Marxist rule.

After almost eight years of Obama, desperation is setting in. Pacepa’s Looming Disaster report is being provided for free by WorldNetDaily, while the book, Trumped: The New American Revolution, is available for a modest price from a conservative website that celebrates American principles of freedom. They both make the critical point that an America built on freedom and capitalism is fading fast.

The Williams/Harrington book helps to explain the Trump phenomenon. There’s no doubt that the New York businessman is representing the views of millions of Americans who are disgusted by what America has become under Obama. As Trump says, this is a “movement” that has taken hold in the country. The authors explain the failures of the Republican Party in detail. …

This movement is real and determined to fight for American sovereignty, free enterprise capitalism, and educational reform.

We have seen in the squalor called Venezuela that the people may get beaten down, but they still see through the propaganda and disinformation when the products start disappearing from the store shelves and members of their families who protest the slide into socialism start “disappearing”.  They understand that the rhetoric about “Socialism for the 21st Century” is a big lie.

Likewise, a Hillary regime in the U.S. may continue to accelerate the descent into socialism, but the American people will still resist. The Trump voters will not go away.

So Trump or no Trump, the “new American revolution,” as Williams and Harrington call it, will never die.

Will Trump become the “last peaceful effort to retake control of their party and their country?” That’s what Williams and Harrington suggest may come to pass.

Will the Republican Party end up on “the ash heap of history”? They also suggest this is possible if Trump goes down to defeat.

Last Monday (October 17, 2016) Julian Assange’s Wikileaks released a tenth batch of John Podesta’s emails. He is the manager of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

We select from Truth Revolt’s selection of the main points they concern:

Major voter-fraud exposed as Clinton camp cites then-senator Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign in which he “flooded” the caucuses with “ineligible voters” thus securing his nomination in 2008. Colorado cited in particular. Implies Clinton camp to do the same.

And Obama is at present scoffing at the very idea that his Democratic Party would practice voter fraud in any shape or form!

After subpoena Podesta suggests withholding emails exchanged between Hillary Clinton and President Obama.“Think we should hold emails to and from potus?” Podesta asked in an email. “That’s the heart of his exec privilege. We could get them to ask for that. Three weeks later Camp Clinton used BleachBit to erase more than 33,000 emails, likely including those to and from POTUS discussed herein.

It seems they never even entertained the idea of obeying the law.

The Department of Justice colluded with the Clinton campaign on the email investigation likely in order to prepare her.

Clinton-attorney David Kendal admits legal team did not turn over important email thumb drive and server to State Department.

Collusion between the Hillary campaign and the media is routine.  

NY Times warns Hillary in advance of stories it is about to publish

Email seems to reveal ABC’s George Stephanopolous colluded with Clinton camp to discredit Peter Schweizer, author of Clinton Cash.

Podesta says it’s great to be able to feed stories to the media who “Tee Up for Us” — cites NY Time’s Maggie Haberman.

Multiple emails reveal mainstream media collusion with the Clinton campaign including from the Washington Post and CNN, among other outlets. 

Clinton staffers discussed which of Hillary Clinton’s emails to release and which not to (i.e. delete).

Donna Brazile in fact had the exact wording of a proposed CNN town hall question and fed it to the Clinton campaign prior to the event. 

Trump is accused by the Hillary campaign of connections to Putin. Trump has no connections to Putin – but the Hillary campaign does:

Podesta owns 75,000 shares of Putin-backed company.

Details about Clinton’s involvement and cover-up in the Uranium One deal. During her time as Secretary of State, Clinton approved the sale of roughly 20% of our nation’s uranium production to a Russian-government backed company called Uranium One, which in turn donated millions to the Clinton Foundation. Clinton did not disclose these donations, covering them up instead.

They practice blatant lying to smear Trump:

Clinton camp planted fake sexist Trump jobs ads on Craigslist.

They despise blacks and Muslims:

African Americans and Muslims were disparaged as “losers”.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar — both big donors to the Clinton Foundation — are funding ISIS. 

Troubles within the campaign:

Campaign feared what, exactly, was in Clinton’s emails.

Clinton’s own campaign called her a “mediocre” and “lackluster” candidate.

Clinton campaign was concerned about Bill Clinton’s sex-life as a liability to the campaign. 

Campaign staff admitted that Clinton often lies and said she should not press Sanders for his medical records during the primaries, insinuating it would open a can of worms for her.

Their contempt for Bernie Sanders and his supporters was strong:

Hillary Campaign planned (and succeeded) to fool Bernie Sanders and his “self-righteous ideologue” supporters at the convention. Podesta and campaign staff planned to “throw [Sanders] a bone” at the convention by falsely vowing to curb the Superdelegate system. This was done to make Sanders and his “bitching” supporters “think they’ve won something.”

Hillary Clinton called Bernie Sanders supporters a “bucket of losers” in Goldman Sachs speech.

Eager researchers can dig into the email piles for themselves by starting at:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15616

(We have found the site difficult to access. Links don’t seem to work.)

The whole slimy Clinton mafia that has taken over the government, its agencies, the media and the country – and even exerts its will abroad, as it has shown by stopping Julian Assange’s internet access – needs to be brought down. Only the election of Trump can do it. 

Donald Trump is calling for “a revolution”. 

This is why a revolution is necessary: 

There is an in-crowd ruling America. Its grip on power is tight.

Here is Victor Davis Hanson’s description of it:

The D.C.”establishment” and its “elites”.

Collate the Podesta e-mails. Read Colin Powell’s hacked communications. Review Hillary’s Wall Street speeches and the electronic exchanges between the media, the administration, and the Clinton campaign. The conclusion is an incestuous world of hypocrisy, tsk-tsking condescension, sanitized shake-downs, inside profiteering, snobby high entertainment — and often crimes that would put anyone else in jail.

The players are also quite boring and predictable. They live in a confined coastal cocoon. They went largely to the same schools, intermarried, traveled back and forth between big government, big banks, big military, big Wall Street, and big media — and sound quite clever without being especially bright, attuned to “social justice” but without character.

Their religion is not so much progressivism, as appearing cool and hip and “right” on the issues.

In this private world, off the record, Latinos are laughed off as “needy”; Catholics are derided as near medieval and in need of progressive tutoring on gay issues.

Hillary is deemed a grifter [!-ed] — but only for greedily draining the cash pools of the elite speaker circuit to the detriment of her emulators.

Money — Podesta’s Putin oil stocks, Russian autocrats’ huge donations in exchange for deference from the Department of State, Gulf-oil-state-supplied free jet travel, Hillary’s speaking fees — is the lubricant that makes the joints of these rusted people move.

A good Ph.D. thesis could chart the number of Washington, D.C., insider flunkies who ended up working for Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac or Goldman Sachs — the dumping grounds of the well-connected and mediocre.

In this world, there are Bill and Hillary, the Podesta brothers, Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner, Christiane Amanpour and Jamie Rubin, Samantha Power and Cass Sunstein, Andrea Mitchell and Alan Greenspan, and on and on.

Jorge Ramos goes after Trump; his daughter works for Hillary; and his boss at Univision badgers the Clinton campaign to stay lax on open borders — the lifeblood that nourishes his non-English-speaking money machine.

George Stephanopoulos, who helped run the Clinton campaign and White House, and who as a debate moderator obsessed over Mitt Romney’s answers to abortion hypotheticals, is the disinterested [sarcasm-ed] ABC News chief anchor.

CNN vice president Virginia Moseley is married to Hillary Clinton’s former deputy secretary at the State Department Tom Nides (now of Morgan Stanley) — suggesting “The Clinton News Network” is not really a right-wing joke.

Former ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, a —  pre-Benghazi — regular on the Sunday talk shows.

CBS president David Rhodes is the sibling of aspiring novelist Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser for “strategic communications and Speechwriting”, whatever that fictive title means.

ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman married former White House press secretary Jay Carney (now senior vice president for “worldwide corporate affairs” at Amazon: not just “corporate affairs” or “worldwide affairs” but “worldwide corporate affairs”). And on and on.

These nice people report on each other. They praise each other, award each other, make money together, and bristle with each other when they are collectively and pejoratively dubbed the “elites.” They write and sound off about “the buffoon” Trump and preen in sanctimonious moral outrage, as the rest of the country sees this supposedly lavishly robed imperial class as embarrassingly naked.

It is in the interests of all of them to do anything and everything they can, legal or not, ethical or not, to get Hillary into the presidency. 

Only the election of Trump can break their imperial power.  

PS. Hanson doesn’t mention James Comey, Director of the FBI, who personally decided against the prosecution of Hillary Clinton for her manifest crimes.

Go here to read about his place in the power web.

“We manipulate the vote with money and action.”

Here is James O’Keefe’s second hidden camera video exposing the dirty works of violent thug groups funded by George Soros. (See the first one, third post below.)

This one is chiefly about rigging elections. They boast they have been doing it – for the Democratic Party of course – “for fifty years”:

Later: One of the election fraudsters recorded here by the Project Veritas camera, Bob Creamer, has resigned from his “responsibilities working with the [Hillary Clinton] campaign” as a result of the publication of the video.

He is the second villain to fall in James O’Keefe’s campaign, following Scott Foval who was fired after the first video  appeared.

Who is ultimately behind the violence at Trump rallies?:

Bob Creamer has visited the White House 342 times since 2009, White House records show. He met with President Obama personally 47 times. 

Donald Trump has been accused of having no sense of humor. Here he sends himself up.

Hillary Clinton is not a thinker. A schemer, yes. A manipulator, yes. Cunning and devious by nature, yes. But a thinker, no. Her mind is vapid, her thoughts banal. Yet powerful corporations will pay her six-figure sums to utter her flat, dull, pointless ideas to their chief executives.

From Investor’s Business Daily:

Graft: In 2013 Goldman Sachs spent more than two-thirds of a million dollars on Hillary Clinton. And what did it get for its sizable investment? Very expensive pabulum. WikiLeaks has released the complete transcripts of Clinton’s three appearances at Goldman Sachs. These are the transcripts that Clinton adamantly refused to release during the primaries, when Bernie Sanders was calling for them to be made public. At the time, pundits wondered if the speeches contained remarks that might undercut Clinton’s support with the Democratic Party’s increasingly leftist base. But it turns out that Clinton was probably more concerned that the transcripts would reveal how banal her remarks were. That would, in turn, raise questions about why Goldman Sachs was willing to part with so much money for three hours of mostly worthless clichés and bromides. There’s only one real possible explanation. Clinton was cashing in on her tenure in government, and Goldman Sachs was buying influence. They used to call the former graft, and the latter crony capitalism. Despite their billing, these were not Clinton speeches, but Q&A sessions. As a reader service, we’ve read the complete transcripts of all three events, and have pulled together a sampling of the kind of “insights” for which Goldman Sachs paid Clinton $225,000 an hour to deliver.

IBD’s selection follows, and from it we have made a short selection of our own to illustrate what we assert about her mental insipidity:

“Now the way I look at this Tim, is it’s either going to work or it’s not going to work.”

“Elections are about winning and losing and who gets to make decisions.”

“One thing I’ve learned is that there’s no one that knows what’s going to happen in the Middle East.”

“We’re in a time in Syria where they’re not finished killing each other.”

“The sharing of intelligence requires the gathering of intelligence and the analysis of intelligence.”

“Xi is very much committed to coming up with some plans.”

“So that’s what you get paid all those big bucks for, being in positions like I was just in trying to sort it out and figure out what is the smartest approach for the United States and our allies can take that would result in the least amount of danger to ourselves and our allies going forward.”

“I believe that doing your job actually is the right thing to do.”

Find more such gems of wisdom, wit and insight here at IBD.

And of course, if one wants to be fair, one can search for anything better in the transcripts themselves here.

If anyone finds anything resembling an interesting idea, or a piece of information worth having, we would be grateful – and surprised – to have it brought to our attention.

This is a very important video made by James O’Keefe of Project Veritas (via Breitbart).

America may be about to elect to the highest power a gang of violent crooks as low as any ever bred in a moral gutter. They are using gutter tactics to win this election – and they are boasting of it:

Heard of “bird-dogging”? The video explains what it means.

We particularly savor the words of one Scott Foval, of Democracy Partners and/or People of the American Way, who organizes violent attacks but is a moral poseur, proud of “the way I was raised”.*

And they call Trump a “Nazi”!

* Scott Foval has been fired since this video was released. But he is merely a scapegoat for the people who employed him to do what he did. They will continue with their dirty work.

The press is all out to make Donald Trump look like a sexual predator – which he is not – in order to get a criminal elected president.

Kimberley Strassel writes at the Wall Street Journal:

Even if average voters have the TV on 24/7, they still probably haven’t heard the news about Hillary Clinton: That the nation now has proof of pretty much everything she has been accused of.

It comes from hacked emails dumped by WikiLeaks, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, and accounts from FBI insiders. The media has almost uniformly ignored the flurry of bombshells, preferring to devote its front pages to the Trump story. So let’s review what amounts to a devastating case against a Clinton presidency. …

Clinton staffers debated how to evade a congressional subpoena of Mrs. Clinton’s emails — three weeks before a technician deleted them. The campaign later employed a focus group to see if it could fool Americans into thinking the email scandal was part of the Benghazi investigation (they are separate) and lay it all off as a Republican plot.

A senior FBI official involved with the Clinton investigation told Fox News this week that the “vast majority” of career agents and prosecutors working the case “felt she should be prosecuted” and that giving her a pass was “a top-down decision.”

The Obama administration — the federal government, supported by tax dollars — was working as an extension of the Clinton campaign. The State Department coordinated with her staff in responding to the email scandal, and the Justice Department kept her team informed about developments in the court case.

Worse, Mrs. Clinton’s State Department, as documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show, took special care of donors to the Clinton Foundation. In a series of 2010 emails, a senior aide to Mrs. Clinton asked a foundation official to let her know which groups offering assistance with the Haitian earthquake relief were “FOB” (Friends of Bill) or “WJC VIPs” (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs). Those who made the cut appear to have been teed up for contracts. Those who weren’t? Routed to a standard government website. …

The entire progressive apparatus — the Clinton campaign and boosters at the Center for American Progress — appears to view voters as stupid and tiresome, segregated into groups that must either be cajoled into support or demeaned into silence. …

The leaks also show that the press is in Mrs. Clinton’s pocket. Donna Brazile, a former Clinton staffer and a TV pundit, sent the exact wording of a coming CNN town hall question to the campaign in advance of the event.

Other media allowed the Clinton camp to veto which quotes they used from interviews, worked to maximize her press events and offered campaign advice.

Mrs. Clinton has been exposed to have no core, to be someone who constantly changes her position to maximize political gain. Leaked speeches prove that she has two positions (public and private) on banks; two positions on the wealthy; two positions on borders; two positions on energy. Her team had endless discussions about what positions she should adopt to appease “the Red Army” — i.e. “the base of the Democratic Party”.

John Perazzo rightly asserts in an excellent article at Front Page:

Hillary Clinton is a woman with a mindset that is totalitarian in every respect.

To make matters worse, she is a lying, deceiving, manipulative, self-absorbed criminal without a shred of personal virtue.

Truly it can be said that never before in American history has anyone so unfit and so undeserving, run for president. Never. 

He gives ample evidence for his assertion. The whole thing is worth reading.