RUTHFULLY YOURS

Many Clinton scandals ago, when Hillary Clinton was trying to explain how she’d parlayed a $1,000 stake in cattle futures into $100,000 in 10 months (by talking to other people and reading The Wall Street Journal) folks were skeptical. How, they asked, could a novice make so much money in so short a time in such a risky market?

Turns out Mrs. Clinton is a better learner than she’s given credit for, and the Clinton emails released by Judicial Watch on Monday prove it. The emails were pried out of the system by Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, and they suggest why the Clinton Foundation could be so attractive to the rich and mighty. When a donor had a problem that required the secretary of state’s attention, there was Doug Band—a Clinton Foundation exec—emailing Hillary’s top staffers at the State Department to ask a favor.

Take a June 23, 2009, email from Doug Band to Huma Abedin. In his email Mr. Band noted that the Crown Prince of Bahrain (a “good friend of ours”) was asking to see Mrs. Clinton. There are, of course, many ways to be a “good friend,” but one sure way would be to contribute between $50,000 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, as the kingdom of Bahrain had done. Not to mention that the prince had also spent $32 million on a scholarship launched through the Clinton Global Initiative.

Ms. Abedin responded that the prince had sought a meeting through “normal” channels but had been shot down. Less than 48 hours after Mr. Band had asked her, Ms. Abedin reported that “we have reached out through official channels.” The meeting was on.

It isn’t the only favor Mr. Band requested. A month earlier, he had emailed Ms. Abedin to ask her help in getting an English soccer player a visa to the U.S. The player was supposed to come to Las Vegas for a team celebration, but he needed a special interview with the visa section at the American Embassy in London due to a “criminal charge” against him.

Because of this, the office of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) had refused to intervene. Mr. Band’s email made clear the request was on behalf of Casey Wasserman, a sports and entertainment exec who had contributed between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation via the Wasserman Foundation.CONTINUE AT SIT

Standing tall in Youngstown.

Pundits had a blast this past week ripping apart Trump’s Youngstown national security address. And then there is Trump’s perspective, which calls to mind the “Simple Son” Jews read about each year in our Passover Haggadah.

This simplicity, scorned by college-educated voters, enables Trump to speak about radical Islam in vastly more direct terms than anything we have yet heard on either side of the aisle. Democrats vehemently reject the strategic imperative of connecting the words “radical” and “Islam.” Republicans have appropriately embraced the terminology but failed to call out radical Islam as a political movement.

Where others have tiptoed gingerly, Trump strikes boldly at the notion that radical Islam deserves protection under the First Amendment, defining it unequivocally as a totalitarian political movement. He underscores this point by equating radical Islamic terrorism with Fascism, Communism, and Nazism.

In referencing “networks in America that support radicalization,” Trump cites Gold Star dad Khizr Khan’s professional advocacy for implementing Sharia law and his facilitation of the immigration of Wahhabist extremists from Saudi Arabia. Trump defends our most cherished democratic principles as embodied in the U.S. Constitution, in contrast to grotesquely un-American Sharia law, in his insistence that “foreign nationals and would-be immigrants to this country must share our values to gain admission.”

Most significant is Trump’s grasp of the organic nature of radical Islam. Contrary to the prevailing narrative that puts ISIS body counts front and center, Trump sees radical Islam as much higher up on the food-chain — a well-oiled machine designed to operate innocuously on a global ideological platform from within the folds of all open and pluralistic societies. It is this modus operandi that has enabled the explosive growth of a legion of Islamist butchers that since 9/11 have been responsible for over 28,796 acts of terror worldwide. “Violent jihadists rely upon and exploit the infrastructure (including mosques, cultural centers, front groups, etc.) that has been systematically put into place in the West over the past fifty years by Islamic supremacists.”

While many have urged a more vigorous pursuit of ISIS and have accurately pointed to the connection between terrorist acts and radical Islamist ideology, none have taken the critical step of arguing for the demolition of the institutional firewalls between Islamist militarism and Islamist ideological institutions. Islamist ideology is actually the beating heart of today’s wave of Islamist terror but has been institutionally disconnected from its barbarous 1,400-year-old track record.

The political world is all atwitter following Donald Trump’s statement last Thursday in Charlotte, North Carolina that, “believe it or not,” he regrets having said “the wrong thing” in the past, “particularly where it may have caused personal pain,” a list which might include Heidi Cruz, Megyn Kelly, and Ghazala Khan.

I was less astonished than most, however, because I noticed a substantial and important change in Mr. Trump’s campaigning more than week earlier. Although I mentioned it during my radio show, it seemed to go mostly unnoticed in the broader media, perhaps because of justifiable initial skepticism.

In Abingdon, Virginia on Wednesday, August 10, Donald Trump gave nearly an hour of remarks in a tone entirely different from what he had offered in public before. No yelling, no venomous rasping in the back of his throat, and, although he was as strong as ever in his positions on issues (several of which, most particularly trade and NAFTA, I strongly disagree with him on), the seething anger and divisiveness which had characterized so much of his campaign to date was simply gone.

It was the first Trump speech I could watch, again putting aside my policy disagreements with him, without his tone and shouting and demeanor and sheer disagreeableness making my teeth itch. Until then, he had been almost as hard to listen to as Hillary is, and that’s saying something.

While Trump had been on good behavior briefly in the past only to return to “Trump being Trump” mere hours later, the Abingdon speech felt different. It felt as if someone — at this point I suspect it was Kellyanne Conway — had gotten him to realize that the path he was on was doomed to fail and that a possible road to victory did not involve forsaking policy positions but simply abandoning a poisonous rhetorical style.

I thought to myself — and said to my wife — “If Trump had been doing this for the past couple of months, he’d be beating Hillary right now.”

The race tribunes are constantly scolding Americans for avoiding the “conversation” about race we have to have before we can heal our racial divisions. Eric Holder in 2009 laid out this argument in a speech calling on America to “examine its racial soul.” We are “essentially a nation of cowards,” Holder said, for we “simply do not talk enough with each other about race.” What we need is “to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us.”

Of course, coming from a lieutenant in the most racially divisive administration since World War II, this advice is preposterous. Since all we do is talk about race and rehash repeatedly racial crimes from the past, what Holder really meant is not that we have a “frank conversation,” but that white people hear a mendacious lecture in which their racism, irrational prejudice, and “white privilege” are laid out, after which they accept their guilt for the dysfunctions and misery afflicting the black underclass and even snowflake Ivy League undergrads.

Now Donald Trump, in two speeches last week, indicated what the “conversation” should really be about––the destructive effects of progressive Democrat policies on too many black citizens: “No group in America has been more harmed by Hillary Clinton’s policies than African Americans. No group. No group. If Hillary Clinton’s goal was to inflict pain to the African American community, she could not have done a better job. It is a disgrace.” Referring to the toll violent crime takes on blacks in “blue” cities, Trump said, “Detroit tops the list of most dangerous cities in terms of violent crime, number one. This is the legacy of the Democratic politicians who have run this city. This is the result of the policy agenda embraced by crooked Hillary Clinton.”

These policies started with Democrat Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs that gave people handouts rather than fostering self-reliance, hard work, and all the other virtues indispensable for success. Such largesse without responsibility or accountability can damage the character of any person of any race. Read J.D. Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy for a moving account of how this malign dynamic has ravaged the Appalachian white underclass and their descendants. But it was especially damaging for black people, who had to overcome the lingering legacies of legal segregation and endemic racism. It is a tragic irony of history that a year after Jim Crow was dismantled by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Great Society legislation began its destructive influence.

Also at that time the cultural revolution attacked traditional virtue in the name of “liberation” and individual “self-fulfillment.” Instead of impulse control, the queen of the virtues since the ancient Greeks, “if it feels good do it” became the highest good. All authority came under assault, all rules and laws transformed into instruments of “oppression.” Today this hedonistic ethic dominates popular culture, and disguised as “liberation” and “freedom” has infiltrated school curricula and government policy. Meanwhile churches, once the defender of traditional virtues, have lost their authority in the public square.

This special edition of The Glazov Gang was joined by DanielGreenfield, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center who writes the blog The Point at Frontpagemag.com.

Daniel discusses Hillary vs. Rape Victims and wonders why, in Hillary’s world, rape victims don’t have the right to be believed.

Don’t miss it!

And make sure to watch the new Jamie Glazov Moment in which Jamie announces: We Love You Guillermo Fariñas, shining a light on the heroic Cuban dissident who is in “critical” condition because of his hunger strike for Cuban freedom. (See Frances Martel’scoverage at Breitbart.com, HERE).

Much of the media are already declaring the election an all-but-certain win for Hillary Clinton. Today, the political forecasting site FiveThirtyEight, using polls plus historical and economic data, gives Hillary a 74.7 percent chance of being elected. But smart Democrats are resisting overconfidence; they know a lot can happen before the election. “American politics is freaky and can turn on a dime and in the other direction in one news cycle,” Democratic strategist Brad Bannon admitted last week,

Forecasts like the one from FiveThirtyEight are often based on a combination of polls, economic conditions, and factors such as the popularity of the incumbent president. They clearly don’t include the inevitable “x factors” in a campaign, such as the performances in presidential debates, possible terrorist attacks, and mega gaffes by one or more of the candidates. They also ignore the impact a late-breaking scandal can have on a race. Donald Trump has to worry about a potential leak from his IRS tax returns (it happened to Mitt Romney in 2012). Hillary Clinton has known since the Democratic convention in Philadelphia just how disruptive a WikiLeaks revelations can be — the leaks of e-mails from the Democratic National Committee cost chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz her job.

Clinton must also remember what happened exactly 20 years ago during her husband’s campaign for reelection. That campaign has so far been recalled this year mostly for the skillful decision by Haley Barbour’s Republican National Committee to put some distance between GOP congressional incumbents and presidential nominee Bob Dole. The RNC urged voters not to “hand Clinton a blank check,” in the event he won reelection, by turning control of Congress over to the Democrats. It worked: Democrats actually lost two seats in the Senate and gained only two seats in the House.

But another story emerged from the 1996 election, centering around how Bill Clinton had to run out the clock on a growing campaign-finance scandal that in the last month of the campaign changed the dynamics of what had been a complete cakewalk of a race. Clinton ended up winning by eight points over Bob Dole (49 percent to 41 percent, with Ross Perot taking 9 percent of the vote). But that loss was not nearly as bad as Republicans had feared. Six final pre-election polls had Clinton winning by anywhere from eleven to 16 points. The New York Times/CBS poll was the most off-base, showing Clinton beating Dole 53 to 35 percent. CNN’s final tracking poll had Clinton ahead by 16 points. The respected Pew Research Center issued a final poll showing Clinton ahead 52 percent to 38 percent, a 14-point lead almost double the actual results on Election Day.

ad one of Donald Trump’s Republican opponents during the campaign for the GOP nomination given the same speech on combating global terrorism he gave last week, it would have raised few eyebrows. Naturally, competing candidates would have disputed particular points—some vigorously—but the speech’s overall analysis fits well within mainstream conservative and Republican thinking.

Some Trump opponents and supporters alike will be distressed by this news, but the speech visibly sharpens the contradictions with Hillary Clinton, who clearly would continue President Obama’s nonstrategy concerning radical Islam—now confirmed to include paying ransom for hostages. More broadly, the speech underlines why terrorism and other grave national-security threats should take center stage in the presidential race.

Mr. Trump rightly sees an ideological war being waged against the West by a hateful, millenarian obsession targeting core American constitutional and philosophical principles. From that assessment flow several policy consequences, most important the imperative to destroy the terrorist threat rapidly and comprehensively before it kills and maims more innocent people. Mr. Trump correctly argues that, in combating Islamic State, al Qaeda and others, “we must use ideological warfare” as well as stronger military and intelligence operations, and be “a friend to all moderate Muslim reformers.” This strategy is entirely consistent with what Jordan’s King Abdullah II and other Arab leaders characterize as a civil war within Islam.

In contrast, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton still believe terrorism is a law-enforcement issue. They fail to grasp the ideological war we are in and therefore refuse to combat the enemy effectively. There were once those who did not see Communism as an ideological threat. They played down their views publicly because U.S. public opinion was overwhelmingly contrary, as Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are doing now regarding terrorism. Mr. Trump should emphatically move the debate about radical Islam into the campaign spotlight. Let’s see who stands where.

Mr. Trump’s speech also demonstrated his willingness to face the hand dealt an incoming president, rather than following ideological abstractions, as Mr. Obama has consistently done. Although Mr. Trump restated his opposition to President George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq and overthrow of the dictator Saddam Hussein, he nonetheless argues correctly that Mr. Obama’s “reckless” withdrawal of U.S. forces in 2011 rested on an “election-driven timetable” that “surrendered our gains in that country and led directly to the rise of ISIS,” thereby constituting “a catastrophic mistake.” CONTINUE AT SITE

After years of claiming that the Clinton Foundation poses no ethical conflicts for Bill and Hillary or the U.S. government, Bill Clinton now admits the truth—sort of. If his wife becomes President, he says the Super PAC masquerading as a charity won’t accept foreign or corporate contributions. Bill will also resign from the foundation board, and Chelsea will stop raising money for it.

Now they tell us.

If such fund-raising poses a problem when she’s President, why didn’t it when she was Secretary of State or while she is running for President? The answer is that it did and does, and they know it, but the foundation was too important to their political futures to give it up until the dynastic couple were headed back to the Oval Office. Now that Hillary is running ahead of Donald Trump, Bill can graciously accept new restrictions on their pay-to-play politics.

Bill must be having a good laugh over this one. The foundation served for years as a conduit for corporate and foreign cash to burnish the Clinton image, pay for their travel expenses for speeches and foreign trips, and employ their coterie in between campaigns or government gigs. Donors could give as much as they wanted because the foundation is a “charity.”

President Obama may have banished Sidney Blumenthal from the State Department, but Bill could stash his conspiratorial pal at the foundation, keeping him on the family payroll while Sid flooded Hillary with foreign-policy advice. Her private email server was supposed to hide their email traffic—until that gambit was exposed last year. But FBI Director James Comey let Hillary off the hook on the emails, and he declined to investigate the foundation, so it looks like they’re home free.