Displaying posts categorized under

POLITICS

ON THE RECORD: WHERE THEY STAND ON FOREIGN POLICY BY DAMIAN PALETTA

The next U.S. president will confront a deeply unsettled world, from a Middle East in turmoil to a Europe struggling to contain an outbreak of terror attacks. Russia is expanding its influence and challenging its neighbors. China is flexing its powers both militarily and on the trade front. With many Americans weary from more than a decade of war, a miscalculation on any of these pressure points could have combustible consequences. Here’s a look at where the two candidates stand on foreign policy.
Russia
Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia has sought to expand its power and international clout in recent years, often in ways that have heightened tensions with the U.S. Russian hackers have penetrated networks all over the world, including the highest levels of the U.S. government. Russia has also threatened numerous neighbors in recent years, backing separatists in eastern Ukraine and annexing Crimea in 2014.
Donald Trump I believe an easing of tensions, and improved relations with Russia—from a position of strength only—is possible, absolutely possible. Some say the Russians won’t be reasonable. I intend to find out.— April 27 speech in Washington, D.C. »

Mr. Trump has floated the idea of creating a new alliance with Russia, saying a reset of relations is necessary to help ease tensions in Syria and elsewhere. President Putin has said complimentary things about Mr. Trump, which the GOP candidate has said expresses good faith. The perceived warmth between the two men, as well as the close ties between Moscow and some of Mr. Trump’s top advisers, have led some in the U.S. to posit that a Trump presidency would be a boon to Mr. Putin.
Mr. Trump has rejected the assertion by some Democrats that Russia hacked into the Democratic National Committee’s network and leaked emails in an effort to help the GOP nominee. In July, he invited Russia to unearth some of Mrs. Clinton’s emails from her time as secretary of state, a statement that alarmed lawmakers from both parties.
Hillary Clinton Well, my relationship with [Putin], it’s—it’s interesting. It’s one, I think, of respect. We’ve had some very tough dealings with one another. And I know that he’s someone that you have to continually stand up to because, like many bullies, he is somebody who will take as much as he possibly can unless you do. — Jan. 17 debate in South Carolina »

Mrs. Clinton has called Mr. Putin a “bully,” and has described the relationship between the U.S. and Russia as complicated. During the 2008 presidential election, she said Mr. Putin “was a KGB agent, by definition he doesn’t have a soul.” Mr. Putin later responded by saying, “I think at a minimum it’s important for a government leader to have a brain.” As secretary of state, she worked to broker more cooperation between the two countries. In 2009, she posed with Mr. Putin for a photo-op in which they pushed a big, red “reset” button.
By the end of her tenure, however, she wrote a private memo to the president warning that relations with Russia had hit a low point and the “reset” in relations was over, according to people who saw the document. In reaction to Mr. Trump’s call in July for Russia to seek out her emails, a top foreign-policy adviser to the Clinton campaign said “this has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent.”
China
The U.S. and China have had a complicated relationship for decades, as both nations are economically entangled and seen as super powers in different regions of the world. The U.S. is frequently at odds with China on issues like trade and foreign policy, but U.S. leaders have often stopped short of attempting to punish the communist country for its behavior, fearful that it could make problems worse. China is also one of the few countries that has influence in some of the most repressive parts of the world, such as North Korea, and it also holds a tremendous amount of U.S. debt.
Donald Trump China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization has enabled the greatest jobs theft in history.— June 28 speech »

Mr. Trump has bashed China persistently from his opening speech as a candidate, describing it as one of the U.S.’s top adversaries, particularly when it comes to economic policy. Mr. Trump says he would label China a currency manipulator, crack down on hacking, and threaten the Chinese government with steep tariffs if it doesn’t agree to rewrite trade agreements.
He would also expand the U.S.’s military presence in the South China Sea as a deterrent to China’s territorial claims to artificial islands there. He said he would toughen rules against the theft of intellectual property and combat subsidies China offers to boost exports. He opposes the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, the trade agreement which includes the U.S., Japan and 10 other countries.
Hillary Clinton Countries like Russia and China often work against us. Beijing dumps cheap steel in our markets… So I know we have to be able to both stand our ground when we must, and find common ground when we can. — June 2 speech in San Diego »

Mrs. Clinton has been a constant critic of China’s human-rights record. She has called the current U.S./China dynamic “one of the most challenging relationships we have,” but she has also said the two countries share a “positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship.”
During her time as secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton said she pushed hard for China to agree to new greenhouse-gas emission standards. She also gave a 2010 speech that focused on internet freedom and criticized China, Tunisia, and Uzbekistan for having “stepped up their censorship of the internet.” The speech mentioned China 10 times. She was one of the U.S. officials in 2009 who launched an annual meeting between the U.S. and China focused on strategic and economic issues.
Europe and Brexit
The U.K.’s plan to leave the European Union is just the latest shift of tectonic plates there impacting everything from the economy to immigration. Some parts of Europe have never fully recovered from the financial crisis, and a migration surge from Syria and elsewhere has drawn different responses from different countries.
Donald Trump I said Brussels is a hellhole, and then all of a sudden it came out the attack took place in Brussels. I understand what’s going on around the world far better than these politicians do.— March 27 interview with ABC »

Mr. Trump has been sharply critical of European leaders for not doing more to combat the flow of terrorists across their borders, saying France and Belgium in particular have laws that made it difficult for national security officials to thwart recent attacks. He has said restrictions on gun ownership in these countries have prevented innocent civilians from protecting themselves during terror attacks.
Mr. Trump engaged in a testy exchange with then-U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron over Mr. Trump’s proposal to ban the entry of Muslims into the U.S. He lauded British voters’ decision to leave the European Union. He has also said Germany and other countries should pay the U.S. more money for military protection, or risk losing U.S. support.
Hillary Clinton The United States must work with Europe to dramatically and immediately improve intelligence sharing and counterterrorism coordination. European countries also should have the flexibility to enhance their border controls when circumstances warrant. — Nov. 19, 2015, in speech in New York City »

Mrs. Clinton speaks frequently about supporting U.S. allies in Europe, marking a contrast with Mr. Trump. But she has also said Europeans should do more to monitor the flow of foreign fighters back to Europe from Iraq and Syria, saying it poses terror threats. She made more than 50 visits to European countries as secretary of state, and has numerous relationships with leaders and diplomats there. Mrs. Clinton warned against the U.K. exiting the European Union, as her campaign had said Europe needed to remain united and that the British voice is an essential part of the EU.
Immigration and Mexico
Immigration has emerged as one of the most divisive issues of the 2016 campaign, with Republicans reversing course from an earlier push to enact a bipartisan overhaul of immigration rules. Immigration from Mexico and Latin America has traditionally been a flashpoint in U.S. politics, but in recent months the focus has shifted to immigration rules for people fleeing places like Syria and other unstable regimes in the Middle East.
Donald Trump When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best…They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.— June 19, 2015, speech in New York City »

Mr. Trump has called for building a roughly 1,000 mile wall, financed by Mexico, to secure the U.S.’s southern border. Until this wall is built, he has promised to “impound” all remittance payments “derived from illegal wages” sent from people in the U.S. to Mexico. He wants to triple the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, and has also proposed deporting the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants believed to be currently living in the U.S. and enhancing penalties for people who overstay visas.
He has called for ending “birthright citizenship,” which is the legal process for granting citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. Mr. Trump has said he will overturn the North American Free Trade Agreement, in part because he believes Mexico is using it to build a huge trade surplus against the U.S.
Hillary Clinton I think it’s important that we move to our comprehensive immigration reform, but at the same time, stop the raids, stop the round-ups, stop the deporting of people who are living here doing their lives, doing their jobs, and that’s my priority. — March 9 debate in Miami »

Mrs. Clinton has called for a comprehensive immigration overhaul, including a pathway to citizenship for those in the U.S. illegally, aside from violent criminals. She supports executive actions under the Obama administration that seek to protect millions of people from deportation, including young people brought to the U.S. illegally as children and parents of U.S. citizens. Mrs. Clinton used to say positive things about NAFTA but recently has been more circumspect, saying it helped some people and hurt others. Her main opponent in the Democratic primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, hammered her for her past support of NAFTA, as has Mr. Trump.
Iraq
President Barack Obama has tried to pull back the U.S.’s involvement in Iraq, but the country has splintered. Islamic State has taken advantage of bloody jostling between the Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds and retained a foothold in Mosul for more than two years. Iran’s influence with Iraq’s government has complicated U.S. diplomacy, and Iraq’s security forces have proven incapable—and at times unwilling—to repel Islamic State on their own.
Donald Trump George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East.— Feb. 13, during a GOP debate in South Carolina »

Mr. Trump has been critical of President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, saying it helped unleash a wave of instability in the Middle East that continues to sow chaos. Mr. Trump has said he opposed the invasion at the time, though critics have said his position on the matter wasn’t clear cut. He hasn’t specified what he would do to improve the situation in Iraq, though he has spoken frequently about working more closely with the Kurds.
Hillary Clinton The Iraqi national army has struggled. It is going to take more work to get it up to fighting shape. As part of that process, we may have to give our own troops advising and training the Iraqis greater freedom of movement and flexibility, including embedding in local units and helping target airstrikes. — Nov. 19, 2015, speech in New York City »

Mrs. Clinton voted in 2002 as a senator from New York to authorize the use of military force against Iraq, a decision that opponents have used to attack her for years and that she has since apologized for. She visited Iraq just once as secretary of state, in April 2009. She has criticized the Iraqi national army for not doing more to secure the country and deter Islamic State, and praised Kurdish forces fighting in the north of Iraq. She has called for pressuring Iraq to “get its political house in order” and the creation of a national guard.
Iran
Perhaps no country in the Middle East is expanding its influence as quickly as Iran, playing a role in the conflicts in both Iraq and Syria. Comments from Iranian leaders about destroying the U.S. and Israel and its past pursuit of nuclear weapons have made it a U.S. adversary for decades. The Obama administration has joined with several other top nations to broker a nuclear agreement with Iran if the Middle Eastern country abides by a number of conditions, and this deal remains a divisive foreign-policy issue on the presidential campaign.
Donald Trump Iran is a very big problem and will continue to be. But if I’m elected president, I know how to deal with trouble.— March 21 speech in Washington, D.C. »

Mr. Trump has been extremely critical of the recent nuclear agreement with Iran, saying the U.S. allowed Iran to access $150 billion in money that had been frozen. He has added that the White House received few concessions as part of the deal. He has proposed renegotiating the nuclear deal, though it’s unclear exactly how he would structure any agreement. He has called for doubling and tripling the sanctions the U.S. had historically placed on Iran as a way to force them toward more concessions. He has said he would “dismantle” the deal, but aides have said he would only seek to refine it. His precise plan is unclear.
Hillary Clinton I did put together the coalition to impose sanctions. I actually started the negotiations that led to the nuclear agreement, sending … my closest aides to begin the conversations with the Iranians. — Feb. 4 debate in New Hampshire »

Mrs. Clinton has struck a tougher stance than Mr. Obama with Iran. She has said she supports the recent nuclear agreement, but she criticized the Iranian government for its treatment of sailors who were detained after allegedly drifting into Iranian waters. She has said Iran continues to violate U.N. Security Council resolutions through its testing of ballistic missiles, and she has called for new sanctions against the country.
Mrs. Clinton was in the Obama administration during a historic thaw of relations between the U.S. and Iran. Mr. Obama wrote letters to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during Mrs. Clinton’s time in office, and she has taken credit for beginning negotiations. She was also part of a historic increase in sanctions against Iran during the early years of the Obama administration, which supporters say helped force Iran to negotiate on its nuclear deal.
Islamic State/Syria
When the terror network Islamic State, also known as ISIS, seized Raqqa in Syria in 2013, it set in motion a chain of events that reshaped how the U.S. and other countries view Muslims, confront terror, and interact with each other. Videos of gruesome beheadings and the extremist group’s use of social media to recruit and inspire acts of terrorism have upended decades of counterterrorism strategies, forcing U.S. and European officials to grasp for a new approach. The terror network’s geographic foothold is contracting but its ability to inspire terror attacks around the world makes it one of the world’s deadliest terror groups.
Donald Trump These are thugs. These are terrible people in ISIS, not masterminds. And we have to change it from every standpoint.— Dec 15, 2015, debate in Las Vegas »

Mr. Trump has said he won’t give a fully detailed plan to defeat Islamic State because it would take away the element of surprise. But he has said he would “bomb the shit” out of the group’s oil operations. He said it could take 30,000 U.S. troops to defeat ISIS in the Middle East, but he hasn’t committed to deploying a force of that size.
To deal with suspected terrorists, he has proposed changing international rules that forbid the military’s use of torture. He also proposed killing the family members of terrorists to serve as a deterrent to others. He has backed away from some of these comments amid a backlash from some current and former military officials—but not fully. On Syria itself, he has said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is “bad,” he stopped short of calling for his ouster. A key part of his Syria strategy appears to be giving Russia more flexibility to stabilize the region, as he’s said Moscow could be better positioned to influence changes there than the U.S.
Hillary Clinton ISIS is demonstrating new ambition, reach and capabilities. We have to break the group’s momentum and then its back. Our goal is not to deter or contain ISIS, but to defeat and destroy ISIS. — Nov. 19, 2015, speech in New York City »

Mrs. Clinton has said Sunni Muslims and Kurdish forces should play a bigger role in combating ISIS, and has also called for expanding U.S. airstrikes in Iraq and Syria to defeat the terror network. She has also called for combating Islamic State’s ability to use social media to recruit, train, and plan attacks, urging more cooperation from technology companies. She also has said the U.S. should play a bigger role in helping resolve the humanitarian crisis caused by a huge wave of migrants fleeing Syria.
The biggest difference between Mrs. Clinton and President Obama in this area is her push to create a no-fly zone over Syria, a move that would likely put the U.S. in direct conflict with Russia, which has bombed anti-Assad forces in the area. Mrs. Clinton has received criticism for comments she made in 2011 that suggested some U.S. officials from both parties viewed Mr. Assad as a “reformer.” She later said she was representing the opinion of others, not herself or the White House.
Israel and Palestinian territories
Chilly relations between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu have worsened in recent years, particularly over the White House’s nuclear agreement with Iran. The U.S. has traditionally had close ties to Israel, and this will be a major challenge for the next White House given all the instability in the Middle East.
Donald Trump When I become president, the days of treating Israel like a second-class citizen will end on day one.— March 21 speech in Washington, D.C. »

Mr. Trump has advocated for more U.S. support for Israel, and worked to build bridges with Tel Aviv by slamming the nuclear deal with Iran. He made some in Israel nervous when he said he would work to remain neutral in any peace talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders. He later softened his position, saying it would be very difficult to remain neutral. In March, he gave a speech to a meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington, D.C., that helped to assuage some of their concerns about his commitment to their views. In his convention speech in Cleveland, he called Israel “our greatest ally in the region.”
Hillary Clinton We may not have always agreed on every detail, but we’ve always shared an unwavering, unshakable commitment to our alliance and to Israel’s future as a secure and democratic homeland for the Jewish people. — March 21 AIPAC speech in Washington »

Mrs. Clinton has criticized Mr. Trump’s approach to Israel, trying to align herself very closely with Israeli leaders in their push for security. She has said her relationship with Israeli security officials spans more than 25 years and she has defended steps the country has taken to protect itself from rocket attacks. She has called for boosting U.S. support for Israeli missile-defense systems. She also supports helping Israel with technology to detect tunnels that Hamas uses to send fighters and bombers into Israel from the Gaza Strip.
Islam and Muslims
The Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks changed the way many Americans viewed Arab countries, and altered the lives of many unsuspecting Muslims living in the U.S. Over a decade later, the rise of Islamic State and the flood of Muslim migrants fleeing conflicts in the Middle East have created even more tension, with some calling for a rethink of the U.S.’s approach to the religion and others urging more cooperation.
Donald Trump Look, we have to stop with political correctness. We have to get down to creating a country that’s not going to have the kind of problems that we’ve had with people flying planes into the World Trade Centers.— Republican debate, Jan. 15 »

In December, just days after a husband-and-wife team killed 14 people at a holiday party in San Bernardino, Calif., Mr. Trump proposed a “total and complete” ban on the entry of all Muslims into the U.S. until authorities “can figure out what is going on.” The proposal proved popular with many GOP primary voters, but sparked intense criticism from some Republican leaders and Democrats, who said it would be unconstitutional and impossible to enforce.
Mr. Trump has said the threats posed by Islamic extremists are too dangerous and that stark new measures must be put in place to protect the country. He has since backed off the blanket ban, suggesting some flexibility. “We’re going to look at a lot of different things,” he said in late May. “We have to be vigilant and we have to be tough and smart.” In July, speaking on “60 Minutes,” he said a Trump administration would ban entrants from “terror states and terror nations” and would engage in “extreme vetting” of Muslims seeking to come to the U.S. from other countries, a theme he reiterated in his speech at the Republican National Convention.
Hillary Clinton This approach is un-American. It goes against everything we stand for as a country founded on religious freedom. But it is also dangerous. — June 14 speech »

Mrs. Clinton has said banning the entry of Muslims into the U.S.���even the proposal of it–will alienate Muslim allies in the Middle East and harm U.S. relations. She has said the proposal is being used by Islamic State to recruit new terrorists. To help combat terrorism and better spot warning signs of radicalized youth, she said the government must do more to build alliances with Muslim community leaders in the U.S.
CONTINUE AT SITE

Hillary’s Hate The Saul Alinsky devotee crystallizes who will be anointed — and who will be damned. Matthew Vadum

PHILADELPHIA — The legendary congenital liar Hillary Clinton accepted her party’s nomination for the presidency last night mercifully bringing the boisterous, chaotic freakshow that was the 2016 Democratic National Convention to an end.

A day of rain finally broke the oppressive heat wave enveloping the Wells Fargo Center complex which was surrounded by miles of temporary black metal walls, layers of police, and Secret Service checkpoints manned by TSA employees. Inside the conventional hall, Democrats railed against border walls, the supposed systemic racism of police and the justice system, and having to show any kind of identification to vote.

Chelsea Clinton introduced her mother on the stage. It was an unremarkable speech not worth detailing here. Next followed a slick video about Hillary that was narrated by actor Morgan Freeman. The final words Freeman says are “How many ways will she light up the world? This is the woman.”

Hillary’s speech itself was interspersed not so much by boos but by anti-war chants and heckles by the legions of disgruntled Bernie Sanders fans. Her supporters came to her aid most of the time drowning out the dissenters by chanting “Hillary” and “U-S-A.”

The speech was like fingernails on a chalkboard. It was a poorly written address made worse because of Clinton’s stilted and at times strident delivery. Dressed in a white pantsuit, the former secretary of state over-pronounced her words as if she were a special education teacher or a singer in the Swedish band Abba. It had a slight air of condescension about it. And her cadence was weird, to say the least.

She is afflicted by her own special psychopathology. It is a mixture of sociopathy, incompetence, hubris, and contempt. She is our better so we’d better get with her. As David Horowitz tweeted during the speech, Clinton’s problem is that “most Americans know exactly what to make of her. This speech is so empty.”

ABC News footage seemed to show Bill Clinton dozing off momentarily during the long oration.

But Hillary gave the audience members what they wanted. It was a stroll through a liberal-progressive fantasy land, a place where money materializes out of thin air.

Welcome to the Communist Party, U.S.A. How Hillary’s scary speech revealed her mistake in wearing a white pants suit to her coronation. Daniel Greenfield

“This was a speech that could have been given in Moscow during the Cold War. Instead it was delivered to an enthusiastic audience of Democrats who love the idea of taking away someone else’s money. Beneath all the distractions, the celebrities and family stories, is the fundamental idea that Hillary has more of a right to your money than you do because she is “humbly” more enlightened than you are.”

Hillary made a mistake by wearing a white pants suit to her coronation. She should have worn red.

Wearing a white pantsuit, Hillary Clinton plodded out on stage to accept the nomination that she had schemed, plotted, lied, cheated, rigged and eventually fixed a series of elections to obtain.

Then she claimed that she was accepting the nomination of a race she had rigged with “humility”.

Humility is not the first word that comes to mind when thinking of Hillary Clinton. It is not even the last word. It is not in the Hillary dictionary at all. But this convention was a desperate effort to humanize Hillary. Everyone, including her philandering husband and dilettante daughter, down to assorted people she had met at one point, were brought up on stage to testify that she really is a very nice person.

This wasn’t a convention. It was a series of character witnesses for a woman with no character. It was an extensive apology for the Left’s radical agenda cloaked in fake patriotism and celebrity adulation.

Sinclair Lewis famously said, “When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross”. More accurately, when Communism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. That’s what the Democratic National Convention was.

This night presented Hillary Clinton as all things to all people. She was a passionate fighter who found plenty of time to spend with her family. She is for cops and for cop-killers. She likes the Founding Fathers and political correctness. She wants Democrats to be the party of working people and of elitist government technocrats. And, most especially, she cares about people like you.

The convention, like everything about Hillary, was awkward and insincere.

There was Bernie glaring into the camera just as Hillary was thanking him for rallying a bunch of young voters whom she hoped to exploit. There was Chelsea Clinton reminding everyone that the Clintons are a dynasty and that everyone in it gets a job because of their last name, right before introducing her mother whose only real qualification for her belated entry into politics was her last name. And there was Jennifer Granholm who got an opportunity to have an incoherent public meltdown at the convention.

Giuliani: This Is the Most Anti-Police, Anti-Law Enforcement Convention I’ve Ever Seen

Former Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani appeared on Fox and Friends this morning to provide commentary on the Democratic National Convention. Rudy pointed out that not a single Philadelphia police officer was allowed on the convention floor. He said four high-ranking Philadelphia police officers told him Hillary Clinton did not want uniformed police officers wandering around the delegates.

Giuliani said that if he were the mayor of Philadelphia, he would not allow the convention in his city. “Suppose somebody got shot?” Rudy asked.
The Striking Contrast Between How the RNC and the DNC View the Police

“There’s no uniformed police officers because it might annoy some people?” Giuliani queried.

He went on to say: “This is the most anti-police, anti-law enforcement convention I have ever seen in my whole life.”

The Brouhaha Over Trump’s ‘Treason’By Andrew C. McCarthy

That the national security threat we are talking about today is Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton illustrates the wayward state of our politics.

Mrs. Clinton operated unlawful, amateurishly non-secure email servers and mishandled classified information – including the nation’s most closely guarded defense secrets, involving deep-cover informants and highly sensitive intelligence-gathering methods. She did these things in such a criminally reckless manner that it is virtually certain the ruthlessly adept Russian intelligence services (to say nothing of the Chinese, the Iranians, other sinister regimes, and cyber savvy jihadist organizations) have easily penetrated her communications and obtained our intelligence. In addition, though her emails were government records, she destroyed thousands of them.

Clinton has thus committed serious felony violations of federal law. These violations are flagrant betrayals of her public trust, the essence of high crimes and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment.

Nevertheless, tonight, one of our country’s two major political parties will nominate her to be the next president of the United States. That is atrocious … yet the story dominating today’s news is not Mrs. Clinton’s criminal and impeachable offenses; it is whether Donald Trump is guilty of treason.

Yes, treason – it’s apparently okay to use the word now. It is a word Republicans and their fellow ruling class Democrats would heretofore condemn any national security-minded American for using to describe the aid and comfort President Obama has given to our Iranian enemy. It is a word we still dare not utter in connection with the Obama/Clinton embrace of anti-American Islamists. But Trump’s own lack of restraint has evidently licensed Trump critique as a restraint-free activity.

And what on this occasion makes Trump guilty of treason rather than all-too-familiar Trumpian bombast? It is claimed that he has encouraged a hostile nation, Vladimir Putin’s Russia, to conduct espionage against Mrs. Clinton for the purpose of influencing an American election.

This claim, it should be noted, comes from Democrats and Republicans who – it seems like only yesterday – have told us that Russia, far from being hostile, was our strategic partner. It comes from a Democratic nominee who, as secretary of state, enabled Russia to take control of one-fifth of the uranium production capacity of the United States while millions in relevant donations and speaking fees flowed to the Clinton Foundation and her husband. And as for the scourge of foreign influence on American elections, the money that came the Clintons’ way thanks to the Russian uranium deal is but a small fraction of the foreign “donations” that have poured into their “charitable” foundation – influence purchases from what donors hope will be the next Clinton administration.

The world is upside down.

Here is what Trump said:

Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press… By the way they hacked, they probably have her 33,000 e-mails. I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 e-mails that she lost and deleted because you’d see some beauties there. So let’s see.

On their face – silly as I feel for taking the time to analyze something this stupid – Trump’s remarks did not, even in a jocular way, do what his hair-trigger critics accuse him of.

Hillary’s One-Candidate Race She’ll try to disqualify Trump because she loses if the election is a referendum on her. Kimberley Strassel

Conventions are useful for clarifying elections, and this week’s Philly confab notably so. A week of speakers—Democrat after Democrat beseeching the nation to please know that Hillary Clinton really is a good gal—has made something clear: This is, essentially, a one-person presidential race.

It’s Hillary against Hillary. This November is about whether Americans can look at 40 years of Clinton chicanery and nearly a decade of broken Obama promises, and still pull the lever for her. Not that Donald Trump doesn’t matter. He does, in that he can help sharpen those concerns. But Hillary is the main event.

The polls bear this out. Aside from his recent convention bump, Mr. Trump’s numbers have been largely consistent. Whether he leads or trails, and by how much, is mostly a function of voters’ shifting views on Mrs. Clinton. Lately her poll numbers have been devastating.

A CNN survey this week showed 68% of voters say she isn’t honest and trustworthy—an all-time high. CBS found virtually the same number: 67%. In the CNN poll, meanwhile, only 39% of voters said they held a favorable view of Mrs. Clinton. This is lower than any time CNN has polled Hillary since the spring of 1992—before she was first lady.

Mr. Trump’s poll numbers also bear this out. He is currently leading in the Real Clear Politics average despite no real ground game, little real fundraising, little policy message, a divided conservative electorate, and one of the messiest conventions on record. As of June 30, Mrs. Clinton and her allies had raised a stunning $600 million, which is already being spent to trash Mr. Trump. Yet to little or no effect. Mr. Trump is hardly a potted plant, but even if he were . . .

Mrs. Clinton’s problem is Mrs. Clinton. She is running against her own ethical morass. Already she was asking voters to forget about cattle futures and fake sniper fire and Whitewater and Travelgate. Then she chose to vividly revive the public nausea with her self-serving email stunt and her Clinton Foundation money grubbing.

Oh, she tried to roll out the usual Clinton defense: that this was just part of a renewed attack by political enemies. Yet the neutral inspector general of the State Department slammed her handling of official email; the FBI director (who works for Barack Obama) attested that she was careless with classified information; and she was caught on tape telling a series of lies about the situation. All of which makes it tough to blame the vast right-wing conspiracy. Tim Kaine’s many assurances that he “trusts” Mrs. Clinton was the campaign’s public acknowledgment that almost no one else in the nation does.

Hillary is running, too, against the reality of President Obama policies, which she promises not only to continue, but to build on. The president’s glowing appraisal Wednesday night of his time in office bore no relation to the country most Americans see—one in which health care costs more than ever, they struggle to pay the bills, and terror attacks on Western democracies are a weekly event. The state of the country might not be quite so grim as Mr. Trump painted it in Cleveland, but the mood is much closer to that grimness than to Mr. Obama’s forced optimism.

The president’s policies, which Mrs. Clinton now owns, have alienated significant tranches of voters that she needs this fall—in particular blue-collar Democrats. Coal communities are rejecting Hillary outright. Many union workers are too, whether they be Teamsters for Trump, or police officers appalled by the Democratic Party’s attacks on their profession. CONTINUE AT SITE

Hope Without Change Clinton is promising better results from more of the same policies.

Democrats in Philadelphia extolled Hillary Rodham Clinton as a tireless warhorse with a lifetime of hard experience who also happens to be fresh and modern and historic. The contradiction shows how hard it is to sell a candidate who has been a national figure for 25 years when the public wants change.

The truth is that Mrs. Clinton accepted the nomination Thursday night as the most predictable Democrat in generations. Democrats have tended to nominate relative unknowns with strategically ambiguous goals, like Bill Clinton in 1992 or Barack Obama in 2008, who ran on hope and change and revealed his true ambitions in the White House.

By contrast, Mrs. Clinton has been clear. She wants to serve as Mr. Obama’s political and policy heir, as she and he now admit. This won’t mean “change” unless the Clintons have an unusual personal definition of that word, as they do for “classified material.” A de facto third Obama term will mean the status quo, only more of it.

Also changeless will be Mrs. Clinton’s political and private character. Voters have seen enough of this national figure since 1992 to understand how she cuts ethical corners and then stonewalls and dissembles when discovered. This is why some 68% of the country believes she isn’t honest or trustworthy.

As divergent in temperament and worldview as Mrs. Clinton and Donald Trump are, her average unfavorable rating (55.4%) is nearly as high as his (56.9%). If voters do decide they’re “with her,” no one can claim they didn’t know what they were getting—the same policies that have produced slow growth and stagnant incomes, and no doubt more scandal.

Hillary Clinton’s Immigration Goals Make Her Economic Promises Impossible to Achieve Michael Cutler

On July 24, 2016, Hillary Clinton joined Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, her Vice-Presidential candidate for a joint interview by Scott Pelley, correspondent for the CBS News program, 60 Minutes. That interview has been posted under the title, “The Democratic Ticket: Clinton and Kaine.”

During that interview, when asked about her goals she said, in part:

“I want an economy that creates more jobs. And that’s a lot of jobs. I want an economy that gets back to raising incomes for everybody. Most Americans haven’t had a raise. I want an economy that’s going to help lift millions of people out of poverty. Because, given the great recession, we have fallen back in the wrong direction.”

Pelley should have asked how her adamant support for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) would help unemployed Americans find jobs and raise the wages of millions of American workers who are fortunate to still have jobs. CIR would result in the dumping of millions of newly authorized foreign workers into an overflowing labor pool that, by Clinton’s own admission, has not seen incomes rise, with millions of people currently live in poverty.

In point of fact, already the number of authorized foreign workers who enter the United States each month exceeds the number of new jobs that are created.

Clinton frequently has called for achieving “wage equality.” When making this goal the topic of her discussions, she invariably links achieving wage equality to raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour. If you do the math, this works out to just $21,008 annually. Raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour results in an annual wage of $31,200. This is certainly not a middle-class wage.

The question never asked about wage equality is with whom would she make American workers equal?

The PCE, Pt. 25: In the (Russian) Tank for Hillary : Diana West

Think the Soviets were the only ones to invert reality?

—“The Post-Constitutional Election, Part 24,” is here.

The world has left merely-bonkers behind when Clinton, Inc., the most corrupt, corruptible and corrupted political duo in modern history, is held up as the nation’s bulwark against the Russian Bear; when Donald Trump, the man who seeks to save US sovereignty, the military, the 2nd Amendment and to stop Muslim immigration is smeared as “a Russian stooge.”

Welcome to the Democrats’ last stand.

It really is desperation-time for the Left (which includes much of the Right) when the only way to spin the most recent Wikileaks’ email dump showing unabashed MSM-DNC collusion to rig the presidential nomination for Hillary Clinton is to try to ignore the systemic corruption the leak reveals, and instead blast the leak itself as a Russian hack that is evidence that Donald Trump is “Putin’s candidate.”

But let’s imagine that this Wikileak gusher is proven to be a Russian hack. How can any self-respecting intelligence student not at least consider whether Putin is in fact throwing a lifeline of an issue — Trump as “Russian stooge” — to his own ever-pliable but catastrophically damaged candidate, Crooked Hillary?

All leaks aside, however, it is a fact that it was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who gave her required approval to the sale of a Canadian company holding 20 percent of U.S. uranium stocks to Putin’s Russia — after nine members of the company’s board kicked $145 million into the Clinton Foundation. (Thank you, Peter Schweitzer.) That’s not “promoting Putin’s polices,” as the rap on Trump goes; that’s executing them.

What Russian strongman could possibly want a President of the United States more pliable, or, as Barack Obama, mentored and advised by a troika of Communist progeny himself, might say, more “flexible” than that?

Only by omitting such a “link” between Clinton and Putin’s Russia (and $145 million for the Clinton Foundation) can the media-political complex possibly paint Hillary as some kind of latter-day J. Edgar Hoover, anti-Communist firebrand — and never, ever the Alinskyite candidate. So omit it they do.

Here’s their storyline:

Supposedly, because of Trump’s (failed) attempts to do business in Russia; supposedly, because, as described, for example, by Anne Applebaum, among Trump’s advisers are 1) Carter Page, who, she writes, has “long-standing connections to Russian companies, including Gazprom, and has supported the Russian invasion of Ukraine”; and 2) campaign manager Paul Manafort, who “worked for many years in Ukraine on behalf of Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian president ousted in 2014,” Donald Trump is “finally” America’s honest-to-goodness “Manchurian candidate.”

Applebaum writes: “But now it is 2016, truth is stranger than fiction, and we finally have a presidential candidate, Donald Trump, with direct and indirect links to a foreign dictator, Vladimir Putin, whose policies he promotes.”

“Finally”? This presumes US presidential candidates and, by extenstion, their administrations, have had no such “links” before. This is like saying FDR didn’t have Harry Hopkins et al (to the max); as if FDR’s Veep and 1948 presidential candidate Henry Wallace didn’t have at least two top Soviet spies in waiting to fill top cabinet posts (FDR alumni Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White); as if Harry Truman, with full knowledge from the FBI, didn’t appoint Soviet agent White to head the IMF; as if Robert Kennedy didn’t have an ongoing “back-channel” relationship with Soviet agent Georgi Bolshakov; as if Bill Clinton didn’t mysteriously vacation in Brezhnev’s Moscow in December 1969 and Prague less than a year after Soviet tanks crushed Prague Spring; as if Obama wasn’t mentored and guided by a troika of Soviet-linked Communist progeny, and more.

Trump Dominates the DNC The GOP candidate clearly frightens the Democrats to death. Matthew Vadum

PHILADELPHIA — Democrats put in plenty of good words for Hillary Clinton during their convention yesterday but they focused most of their energy on trying to assassinate the character of Donald Trump.

The Left is now going after the Republican nominee with brass knuckles. The latest Democrat attack line accuses Trump of committing treason for asking Russia or any other governments that may have Clinton’s mountain of missing emails in their possession to return them to the United States.

Meanwhile, the prospect of Democrat unity going into the November election fades with every passing hour. Hatred, discord, and disgust are everywhere. The Bernie Sanders people don’t trust the Hillary Clinton people. The Hillary Clinton people are growing increasingly angry at a good chunk of the Bernie Sanders people for not falling in line and backing the nominee. Just as internal dissent is roiling the Republican Party, a civil war is brewing among Democrats. In the end most Democrats will probably support their nominee. The question is what fraction of the party will sit the election out, defect to Trump, or embrace the Green or Libertarian parties. The burning hatred of Hillary is still palpable in many state delegations.

All the convention talking points about how brilliant, kind, compassionate, visionary, selfless, humble, and tough Clinton is are wearing thin as the delegates keep clapping their hands like trained seals in the Wells Fargo Center. Democrats want to take the focus off Hillary, who is both a terrible candidate and a terrible person and throw the spotlight on the sometimes erratic Donald Trump.

That is the current state of the party that invented the politics of personal destruction and that during the Obama years has been laser-focused on fundamentally transforming, that is, destroying, what’s left of America.

Amidst the continuing heatwave, delegates were still deeply divided, caught up in factional fights during Day Three of the Democratic National Convention here. Disgruntled Bernie Sanders supporters were still protesting and booing during speeches Wednesday.

And on the way out the door Sanders stuck it to the party with which he briefly aligned himself. After getting what he wanted from Democrats, the self-described socialist abruptly announced he is leaving the party. Despite his pleas from the convention floor for party unity and an impassioned endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, Sanders said at a Bloomberg News-hosted breakfast that he will return to the U.S. Senate as an Independent.

“I was elected an Independent,” he told reporters.

So that apparently closes the book on Bernie’s adventures in the Democratic Party.

The Trump-bashing fest was long and loud.