Monday, September 26, 2016

SJWs Have Always Lied. A Review of Soviet Civilization by Corliss Lamont

Today, the West is under heavy attack from a specific ideological group that has elevated flinging poo and screaming inanities to a fine art. The Social Justice Warriors, and their band of adherents will do anything, attack anyone, and trample all over badthink in order to advance their cause and crush opposition.

Facts mean nothing to an SJW, vitriolic rhetoric is their first and only line of attack and defense. They will attack ideological deviants with a fervor and ferocity that is unmatched by any but the adherents of Mao during the Chinese pogrom known as the Cultural Revolution.

In the West, the elevation of SJW fascists to high visibility and praise for their attacks on decency and freedom is a relatively new phenomena, but their adherents have been spewing falsehoods and attacking western thought and ideas for many decades. Until recently however, they generally masked their hatred of freedom and western civilization with a veneer of detachment of moderation.

Such a man was proto-SJW Corliss Lamont. Born in 1902, and passing away in 1995, his life spanned most of the twentieth century, a century that he spent writing against America and praising Communism. A man who glossed over the worst of Soviet atrocities, and never met a Communist thought or idea that he didn't like, Corliss Lamont was a true SJW before that expression had even been coined, and when the vast majority of today's SJWs were yet unborn(or unaborted, which is probably a more accurate summation of their attitudes toward prenatal homicide).

And in 1952, he published a book on the Soviet Union that lays bare the unbelievable credulity and duplicity of  SJWs when it comes to explaining away inconvenient facts and so cruelly mauling the truth that it is left bleeding and dying in the gutter. And its all done from behind the pretense of a moderate. His book? Soviet Civilization (1952, Second Edition 1955). Lets go over some "high" points of the book, by taking a quote or two from several of the most credulous chapters and looking at it and what the chapter says overall.

Keep in mind that Stalin was still ruling over Russia at this time, the KGB was under Beria, and violence and repression were the hallmarks of Russian society. People disappeared randomly, the slightest whiff of suspicion could ruin your life, and Khrushchev's "secret speech" to the Twentieth Congress was still several years away.

But don't you worry, Corliss Lamont is ready and willing to use his keen...something to fearlessly navigate the complex shoals of Russia and lay it bare to our searching eye.

Preface to Second Edition: 
(Page XXIII)"Since this volume is critical of many things in Soviet civilization, it will not please left-wing groups who consider the Soviet Union above all criticism. On the other hand, because the book is sympathetic to the true achievements of the Soviets, it is likely to be denounced by the dogmatic right as Communist propaganda or Utopian naivete. I am repelled by the dictatorial and repressive aspects of the Soviet regime, but am unwilling to join in wholesale condemnations of it based on a one-sided over-emphasis of its negative points."

This is a great example of Lamont's prose and double talk. He paints himself as a balanced observer, and claims that he is going to look at the bad and the good in the Soviet Union fairly. Surely such a fair minded man is going to present a balanced picture of the Soviet Union.

Well no, not even close. Lamont's idea of being "critical" of the Soviet Union is to mildly shake his finger in their general direction, before rushing to explain away the problem as being ultimately the problem of either a nebulous concept known as "Russia's developing democracy" or his favorite bugaboo of American insert-pejorative-here. Basically its all America's fault, and the Russians are the helpless victims.

Chapter 1: On Evaluating Soviet Russia

(Page 8) "Portraying the U.S.S.R. as a mystery is, like the Iron Curtain stereotype, a substitute for real thinking and an excuse for laziness in seeking out the facts."

A good chunk of this chapter involves Lamont complaining about how close minded Americans are and how they need to stop being so doggone suspicious of those friendly Soviets. He complains about the McCarran Act, an act that according to him, barred from the USA anyone who ever belonged to a Communist or Fascist party. And as we know, Communist parties in the USA absolutely love their country and would certainly never attempt to eat away at it from within.

This whining about American close mindedness towards Communists (something that we could use today) permeates the chapter. Apparently this attitude and legislative acts of this ilk are crippling scientific exchange on "economics, political science...race relations." Admittedly, the Soviet Union had a great deal to teach us about the first two subjects...largely what NOT to do of course, but such delicacies of thought are beyond the ken of Comrade Lamont.

Regarding the last...we see that an obsession with race and equality is not a new thing in the SJW world. Comrade Lamont would undoubtedly be marching in BLM rallies today, in between Occupying people's lawns. And he apparently strongly felt that the equality of poverty, deprivation, and servitude that the races had attained in the Soviet Union represented a massive lap ahead of the USA. Indeed.

Overall, Comrade Lamont thinks America sucks and is too close minded about learning from the Soviet Union. He also puts in a few swipes at Churchill for perpetrating the Iron Curtain analogy and bruising the feelings of caring Soviets and intellectuals such as Comrade Lamont and his band of merry Marxists. One wonders at times why he chose to live here, instead of over in Mother Russia.

Chapter 2: The Soviet Constitution

"The rapid development of Soviet Russia between 1924 and 1936 necessitated the framing of a new Constitution that would reflect the changed conditions. The first two Five-Year Plans, particularly, had brought about such progress in both industry and agriculture that Stalin was able to say 'The complete victory of the socialist system in all spheres of national economy is now a fact.' Hence the 1936 document, advancing beyond the Constitutions of 1918 and 1924, which had proclaimed socialism as an object of aspiration, formalized the new situation by treating socialism in the Soviet Union as an achieved actuality.""

This chapter is a real treat. According to Comrade Lamont, the Soviet Constitution is basically such an amazing piece of work that its creators should be elevated to sainthood. Or whatever the atheist variant of that is.  He is talking about the 1936 Soviet Constitution in this case, not the 1918 or 1924 Constitutions, which were completely different works.

The Soviets also had to change their Constitutions due to economic progress. Or something. You will remember how America had to do a completely new Constitution after the booming economic progress of the 1890s, and yet another one after the economic boom of the 1950s.

Note how the 1936 Soviet Constitution had to "advance beyond" the previous Constitutions. Clearly Comrade Lamont knew his Hegel. Comrade Lamont then proceeds to exculpate the Soviet Union for not following its own Constitution by claiming that it, like, totally will eventually, before veering off on a tangent regarding the American Constitution and how its Bill of Rights are frequently flagrantly violated "by government officials as well as non-governmental(?) groups."  Because the two are totally similar!

So while Comrade Lamont admits that at the present time the Soviet Union's Constitution is a "paper constitution"(Page 51), he says that's okay because the Bill of Rights is violated in America. He then backtracks and claims that after sixteen years in operation, the Soviet Constitution was more in effect than not.

Admittedly, under this Constitution millions of Soviets were arrested, tortured, murdered by the state, sent to gulags, had no due process, and lived under ever present surveillance...but Comrade Lamont acknowledges none of this things(well, he does acknowledge the gulags. Enough to attack people for falsely claiming that they exist. Apparently saying that is a base canard.) In Lamont-Land, all is quiet and democratic along the Volga.

The rest of that chapter lauds the Soviets for attaining a miraculous level of home ownership of sixty percent! Where this figure comes from, Comrade Lamont does not say. I personally suspect fairies, LSD, and an astounding level of credulity about Soviet pronouncements. He claims that credit was easy to come by to buy a house, and only carried a 2 percent interest. Clearly, Comrade Lamont's knowledge of basic economics was only equaled by his stupendous level of wisdom about a country that he admits he hadn't visited since the 1930s. Actual adults with reading skills and such, can easily find out that not only was private property difficult to come by in the Soviet Union, credit was almost nonexistent. And the currency was revalued multiple times throughout the Soviet Union's existence as it struggled to keep its tottering economy moving.

On Page 57 we find out that "In the Soviet Union the principle of performing useful work amounts to gospel. It naturally conduces, through ever-increasing production, to the general welfare and also to individual happiness, since the average Soviet citizen is absorbed in a socially significant job that brings meaning into his life." Additionally "there is no place for idlers in Soviet Russia." Apparently Comrade Lamont never heard the very common Soviet proverb "they pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work."

Furthermore, drunkenness and laziness were bywords of Soviet industry, one of the many reasons why the Soviet Union had to import so much food and steal so much technology just to try to keep going. Capable of producing an atomic bomb and launching men into orbit, the Soviet Union couldn't make a refrigerator that worked reliably, or a decent washing machine.

But don't tell Comrade Lamont that, it would hurt his feelings.

Comrade Lamont then spends a few pages defending that fact that elections in the Soviet Union involved one party: the Communist Party, and no others. This is apparently okay due to the fact that the Founding Fathers didn't envision a two-party system. No it doesn't make any sense to me either.
He claims that Soviet democracy is simply different than other democracies (and no, there is no recognizance of the fact that America was not set up as a democracy, but as a republic.)

On Page 71, he lauds the Soviet Union for all the "elective" positions that they have (Using the word "elective" very VERY loosely. A ballot with only one choice for a position is kind of a poor example of democracy by anyone's measure. Except for Comrade Lamont apparently.) Democracy in action folks! This is why the Chinese legislature, with almost three thousand members is such a bastion of freedom, free speech, and democracy. Soviet quantity equals democracy! In Soviet Union, Position elects YOU!

On Page 72 we have a brilliant example of SJW doublethinkplusgood. This sentence is a real gem, are you ready? "...there is in the Soviet Union a mixed governmental system in which dictatorship is conjoined with strong and growing elements of democracy." Dictatorship and democracy! A union made in...the Soviet Union apparently. Granted democracy usually leads to dictatorship, and a vicious circle of panem et circenses but I doubt that was Comrade Lamont's thought on this. No he actually just proclaimed that the Soviet Union, with Stalin at its helm, had a great mixture of democracy present. Under the repression, gulags, and terror I guess. Democracy is sneaky like that.

Lamont then casts his keen eagle bat eye onto the Soviet health system. Page 75 "I do not claim that every Soviet citizen is obtaining the best medical care; for Soviet medicine still lacks adequate supplies and a sufficient number of well-trained physicians. "I do claim however, that no one in Soviet Russia lacks proper medical service because he cannot afford it."(Underlines mine). The Soviets apparently had Obamacare sixty years before we did! With about the same level of success clearly.

Admittedly the Soviet health system lacked proper supplies (unless you had enough connections to illegally buy actual medicine from the decadent, imperialist West.), had poorly trained doctors in poorly equipped hospitals, patients frequently died from poor treatment and lack of proper equipment, and such(The Soviet version of Werner von Braun, Sergei Korolev died on the operating table during surgery, possibly due to the above factors, thus definitely denying the Soviets their brightest mind and their shot at the moon. And he was well off and well connected enough to have the best care that the Soviet health system could give. He also had permanent health problems due to injuries sustained during his brutal interrogation and six years in the gulag which contributed to his death...but of course that can't be true because Comrade Lamont says that those things never happened in Soviet Russia.)....but it was all free yep. What a great deal! Comrade Lamont apparently felt that the best thing that could be said about a health system was that it was free. Not that it, you know, worked or anything.

Comrade Lamont closes the chapter with a great clincher: "...the Soviet Constitution itself clearly belongs on the positive side of the ledger. It is a document that does great credit to its framers and that presents a grand design of human living of which the Soviet people can well be proud."

Indeed. Clearly it was utopia on earth. That's why the Soviet Union lasted so long and kept getting better and better and now is the dominant power in the world...oh wait.

Chapter 4: Soviet Russia and Religion

This must have been a hard chapter for Comrade Lamont to write. On the one hand, he clearly sneers from his intellectual tower down on the feeble minded peasants who believe in God and Christianity. On the other hand, he needs to present the Superior beings of the Soviet Union as benevolent towards such feeble minded individuals, while still showing that the Soviet Union was a Forward Thinking Nation With Science At Its Helm.

A hard task for even the best devoted propaganda expert. Goebbels himself would have blanched at the task. But Comrade Lamont is no ordinary wordsmith,. He was a Nietzschean man of words, an uber-mensch of twisting sentences and mauling the facts. He rose to the occasion like a dung beetle towards a cow patty. Let's see how he did.

He starts by painting the Orthodox church as massively backwards, harsh, and simpleminded. You see, it was necessary for  the scientific Communists to free men's minds from all religion! (Somewhat of a jump there.) Much of the first part of this chapter is focused on approvingly explaining Marxist theory on religion and how it is teh best thing EVAH to throw off its shackles.

Comrade Lamont then gets into the nitty-gritty of Soviet attitudes towards religious freedom. On Page 137 he beats the drum of the "separation of church and state" in the Soviet Union, with a healthy dose of praise for this development. Gosh, where have we heard that before? Then he approvingly quotes the 1918 government decree that supposedly allowed every Soviet citizen to practice any religion that they wanted to.

To quote Comrade Lamont on Page 139 "...there is complete freedom of conscience and worship in the Soviet Union..." clearly the issue is settled.

But of course, Corliss Lamont is lying through his SJW teeth with this statement, probably more so than any other statement above. Under Stalin (who I remind you, was still in power when this contemptible author published this paean to the Soviet Union), freedom of worship was non-existent. For an actual look at what conditions were like in the Soviet Union for believers, read  Sergei Kourdakov The Persecutor. As a KGB agent, he led raids on underground churches, took part in viciously beating believers, assisted in stripping girls found at underground services naked and taking them through the night to the police station in that condition. Pastors at these churches were beaten to death at times, and cudgels were freely applied to skulls. Admittedly without discrimination for gender or race, so a...laudable achievement?

This is the "freedom of religion" that this lying SJW (but I repeat myself) so approvingly cites. Corliss Lamont was a contemptible Communist apologetic, no matter how much he tried to hide it with a veneer of scientific detachment. His lies were influential in many circles of thought in his day, and he never backed down. Soviet Civilization shows the lengths to which an SJW will lie, obfuscate, and say anything to promote their beliefs.

The wreckage of millions of lives and the deaths of many millions of innocents are glossed over by Corliss Lamont's works and writings. We din't even touch on his defense of the notorious Stalinist show trials on the late 30s, where torture was used to force confessions, and men were shot for no crime other than running afoul of Stalin's paranoia. We didn't touch Lamont's complete obfuscation of Stalin's liquidation of the Kulak's in the Ukraine, and the planned famine that left millions dead on Stalin's orders.

SJWs always lie, and they always double down.  Show them no mercy.




Sunday, September 25, 2016

Presidential Race Update


Tomorrow on CNN, the sparks will fly. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton face off in what will be the most watched debate in election history.

Hillary has been steadily bleeding support for the last month. The email scandal continues to haunt her. The middle east is still a dumpster fire thanks to her State Department's mishandling of the Arab spring and the rise of ISIS. In poll after poll, the voters know affirm that she is corrupt and untrustworthy.

Most recently, Clinton made the mistake of picking a fight with the Alt-Right. This attack on a "basket of deplorables" as she called half of Trump's supports, backfired badly.  It exposed Clinton's bitterness at the opposition. Trump immediately pounced saying that he supported all American's, not just his supports. It energized the Alt-Right and they have boldly redoubled their efforts of attacking Clinton and demoralizing hr supporters.

On Monday Clinton needs to score a resounding win to pump some energy back into the campaign. This will be difficult as Hillary is uncomfortable in front of an audience and handling difficult questions. The press will certainly try to pitch softball questions to help her.

Meanwhile, Trump can push his growing momentum into the start of a landslide with a strong debate performance. He will face the challenges of a hostile press and that he could appear to be a bully if he beats on Hillary too roughly.

Tomorrow will be an exciting day for sure.

Monday, September 19, 2016

Shady Chinese Aquisitions

The New York Times reports that the most recent Chines acquisition of a high tech German firm raises some red flags.

"HONG KONG — After a customer canceled a large order at the last minute, shares in Aixtron, a German high-tech company, sank fast. Months later, with the stock still reeling, a Chinese investor agreed to buy the company.

If only it were as simple as smart deal-making.

Financial filings and public statements indicate a web of relationships among the customer, the buyer and the Chinese state. The links highlight the blurred lines between increasingly acquisitive Chinese companies and Beijing’s long-term industrial policy."

In the article the authors detail how a well timed order cancellation by a Chinese firm left Aixtron, a company that makes machines for the semiconductor industry, vulnerable to an unsolicited buyout by another Chinese firm. 
The Chinese are taking advantage of the German's relaxed trade agreements to manipulate the market and gain a technological edge through acquisition. These types of shady maneuvers undermine the free trade myth. China is indicting that they will exploit the the open global markets for financial gain.

Add this one to the many other reasons why I oppose "free trade". 




Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Trump Surge Continues

After a brutal media assault, trump emerged bloody but unbowed. Recently he has seen a surge in the key battleground states of Florida and Ohio. According to RCP, Trump now leads in those two key states. Trump's surge is due to several factors.

The first is that Hillary's email scandal still dogs her. This scandal has sapped the public's trust in her. What makes it worse is that even more of the leaked emails from Wikileaks loom on the horizon

More importantly as Scott Adams pointed out, Hillary's possible and/or seizure fainting spell is another disaster for Hillary. Leaders have to project a sense of strength and Hillary's "pneumonia" induced collapse has people questioning her medical fitness to be president. Add this to the toxic mix of lies and secrecy surrounding her campaign, and it is a recipe for another ongoing disaster.

Finally, Trump has done a good job of staying on message and relentlessly attacking Hillary Clinton on her dishonesty. He is also drawing the clear contrast between Clinton as a status quo, corrupt candidate and himself as an agent of change.

Trump still has a way to go but these polling results show the Trump train is on the rails.

Saturday, September 10, 2016

Killing Them Softly: Gun Control in America


Today in America we are constantly assailed from every side by individuals who decry the freedoms that Americans enjoy to own and use firearms, not only for hunting and target shooting but also for personal defense. We are told that this is barbarism, that we are backward, and that the freedom to own guns is a dangerous one that should be taken away from us, or at the very least heavily curtailed and regulated. Such individuals may cloak their designs in grandiose terms or with appeals to sympathy; but they are repeating and supporting the ideas that every single major and minor tin pot two bit dictator has put into effect.

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong; each of these three horrendous dictators of the last hundred years sought to disarm his populace, leaving them helpless to defend themselves against acts that included attempted genocide. Those who advocate gun control measures follow a well-trodden path, blazed by pioneers of mass murder and human depravity.

Not only do advocates of gun control follow in the paths of the genocidal dictators of the past, but they also frequently resort to half-truths, evasions, and outright lies in their pursuit of disarmament. When the recent tragic events of the shooting at the Washington Naval Yard happened, CNN, New York Daily News, and NBC all put out front page stories that claimed that the gunman had used an assault rifle in his brutal massacre of unarmed innocents.

Jumping to conclusions, these allegedly reliable news sources attempted to spin the story as more need for gun control generally and assault weapons control specifically. When it came out that their stories were completely fictional and that the gunman had not used an AR-15; they were forced to issue retractions, losing even more of their threadbare veneer of detachment and non-partisanship.

Not content with attempting to disarm the populace as a whole, the proponents of gun control willing accept the fact that if they get their way; millions of women will find themselves in violent situations with an assailant and may be raped or even murdered with no way to defend themselves. According to recent studies, females are almost four times more likely than men to be seriously injured when attempting to resist an assailant.

This is why the fastest growing segment of gun owners in America is Republican women living in rural areas.  The populace as a whole however benefits greatly from having the means to defend themselves; in 2002 alone, guns were used defensively over two million times. These are two million instances where if the gun control fanatics had their way; many of these individuals, especially the young, the old, and the female, would have been seriously injured or even killed.

Certainly there are accidents with guns. In the United States each year; roughly thirty people are accidently killed by armed citizens who mistake them for intruders. This is tragic, however every single year the police in the United States mistakenly kill 330 innocent people due to misunderstandings or other confusion. Just as one example; in California just recently, three innocent women were shot at and two were hit and injured by police looking for the accused murderer Christopher Dorner. According to the gun control argument; a good case could be made for completely disbanding the police forces.

A widely armed populace is not only an effective check against government aggrandizement; it promotes a culture of responsibility. The Founding Fathers considered the right to keep and bear arms so important that they enshrined that right into the Bill of Rights, second only to the freedom to worship and publish freely and without government tyranny. The United States has seen rising gun ownership in the last fifty years, especially in handgun ownership which has roughly doubled. As this has been happening the national murder rate has been decreasing. This is the national murder rate of course; areas where democrats and liberals hold sway such as Detroit and New York City, areas where gun control laws make it impossible for any but the lawless to own firearms; these areas have a markedly higher murder rate than others.

As a matter of fact, a recent Harvard study grudgingly conceded that the high rate of gun penetration in the United States has played a significant role in reducing violent crimes, including murder. The Harvard study also looked at Europe, finding that European countries with the most restrictive gun ownership had the dubious distinction of a murder rate three times the murder rate of European countries with the highest rates of gun ownership.

Ultimately, those who push for gun control and populace disarmament are peddling dangerous ideas; ideas that will only hurt the helpless and disarm the disabled; and due to the harm that females suffer when they are disarmed, it is liberals and the fools who follow them who are waging the real war on women. Every rape, murder, and violent assault of a female in a liberal gun (and logic) free zone can be laid at the feet of the hapless fools who think that following the gun policies of Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Stalin, and Lenin is a good idea. For anyone who can think logically, gun control is a foolish idea that will only hurt the helpless and weak.


Notes and Further Reading


Lott, John. More Guns Less Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010.
An excellent book that clearly shows the positive effects of gun ownership, both with statistics and carefully researched facts that combine together to make this book the ultimate bullet in the heart of gun control.


Lott, John. "Suiting Down." National Review. http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/lott_soltysik200510200913.asp
An article that among other things; examines some of positive benefits of female gun ownership.


Sowell, Thomas. "Invincible Ignorance." The American Spectator. http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/18/invincible-ignorance
Thomas Sowell examines some of the consequences of gun control in Britain, which effectively disarmed its populace in the 90s.


Sowell, Thomas. "Do Gun-Control Laws Control Guns? ." National Review. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338261/do-gun-control-laws-control-guns-thomas-sowell
Thomas Sowell goes over the fallacies of the liberal gun control crowd; who show their complete ignorance on the issue every time they speak.


Brumfield, Ben. "Navy Yard shooting: AR-15, back in the news -- briefly." CNN. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/17/us/ar-15-gun-debate/?hpt=hp_t1
See the article that still disingenuously claims that an AR15 was involved in the shootings. While it admits that the shooter did not have an AR15, it still tries to paint the AR15 in a dangerous light.


Friedman, Dan. "Washington Navy Yard shootings:.." New York Daily News. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/shots-fired-washington-navy-yard-person-injured-fbi-article-1.1457156
More coverage of the shooter’s alleged AR15, which must have been an amazing weapon with the power to vanish and never be found or seen on footage of the shooter.


Tata, Samantha. "Women Shot By Police in Case of Mistaken Identity in Ex-LAPD Officer's Manhunt." NBC Los Angeles. http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/2-Shot-in-Case-of-Mistaken-ID-in-Ex-Officers-Manhunt-190238221.html
Coverage of the innocent women shot mistakenly by police hunting for Christopher Dorner.


Stafko. "Real Reasons Liberals Hate Guns." Red State. http://www.redstate.com/stafko/2013/01/16/real-reasons-liberals-hate-guns
An article that looks at the reasons why there are hysterical calls for gun control after mass shootings, and why liberals hate the personal responsibility that gun ownership confers.


Kates, Don B., and Gary Mauser. "Would Banning Guns Reduce Murder and Suicide."Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 30.2 (2007): 671. Print

The Harvard published paper that reluctantly concedes the positive effects of gun ownership in America.

Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Blazing Burnout

According to Vox and Milo, Glenn Beck's The Blaze network is in serious trouble.

According to unnamed sources, Beck has financially over extended himself despite having one of the most popular radio talk shows in the country. The Blaze network, which was billed as a emerging conservative media powerhouse, is struggling with poor numbers with both its subscription TV service and its website.

Beck's struggling fortunes are most likely also due to his virulent anti- Trump stance which has predictably alienated a large portion of his audience. Beck tied himself to Cruz and was unwilling to move on after Trump crushed Cruz in the primaries. He also conspired with leftist Silicon valley moguls to stop Trump earlier this summer. This strange alliance across ideological lines left many including myself scratching our heads and wondering if Beck had gone off the deep end.

Time will tell if Beck can save his floundering media empire. However, his long term prospects will be dim if his relentless anti Trump attacks continue to fracture his already shrinking fan base.


Monday, August 29, 2016

Is Trump Surging?


A few weeks ago, Trump was dead and buried according to many in the media. As chronicled here, the DNC sprung an effective trap and the media piled on. However, Trump has gone back on the offensive. He has gone after Hillary on her crookedness and also on how the Democratic party has abandoned the blacks of the inner cities. This inner city assault in particular seems to have made Clinton nervous.

This push combined with Hillary's deepening email scandal has created a Trump surge. Several major polls show him closing the gap from double digits to medium or low single digits. This push has to worry the Clinton campaign who threw everything and the kitchen sink at Trump over the past month. They have to be wondering if their trump card of screaming racist is finally failing them. Trump still has ground to make up but it appears the momentum has swung his way once again.