Advertisement

The Uncle Scrooge of News

August 13, 2020

Slate.com is to news websites what Disney’s “Uncle Scrooge” comic books are to financial news, so I normally ignore it completely. But this week, they posted a lengthy article by William Saletan on how Trump made every wrong decision about the COVID-19 (Chinese) coronavirus and is personally responsible for it spreading (contagious viruses never spread until Trump was elected) and every American death from it (deadly viruses never killed anyone until Trump, etc.) In other words, the usual Slate horse flop.

But this one is getting shared and “liked” a lot in the Twittersphere, so the BookwormRoom blog decided to go through it with a lice comb and give it a thorough refutation, complete with many links to back up the facts. It’s well worth a read, even if you haven’t read the Saletan original (which I wouldn’t recommend.) You might find yourself having to answer some of the same false assertions that are in it, from friends, co-workers or social media contacts who think they’re well-informed because they read Slate, so you might as well be ready.

Also, it’s fun to read. Here’s the second paragraph:

“So is Saletan right? Or is he an intellectually dishonest piece of human garbage whose work is just par for the course in the progressive sewer of ‘fake news?’”

Read the rest and it will become obvious which of those two possibilities the author eventually chooses.

There are two new books out about the Trump Administration, one by a former White House insider and the other co-written by a black political activist. But before you brace yourself for whatever mud the authors have agreed to peddle for a fat advance, you should know these are not the kind of back-stabbing books we’ve come to expect.

The first is by former Trump Director of Oval Office Operations, Madeleine Westerhout, and it’s called “Off the Record: My Dream Job at the White House, How I Lost It, and What I Learned.” She has some harsh words, but not for Trump. Westerhout saves her criticism for the media, and with good cause. After a dinner at Trump’s golf resort in New Jersey, she had a few drinks with some reporters she thought were her friends and who assured her their conversation was off-the-record. She made some catty jokes about Trump’s daughter Tiffany’s weight and his relationship with his daughters. Of course, the “off the record” comments were immediately reported, and she was quickly invited to resign. She now believes they reported those stories just because they hate Trump so much and want to hurt him in any way they can. She learned the hard way not to trust the media.

Westerhout says her comments weren’t true and it “broke her heart” to hurt Trump and his family. But she has talked to him on the phone twice since and he forgave her, which she says “just goes to show how gracious he is.” In fact, she was surprised to discover that he was nothing like what she expected. And she was hardly a Trump sycophant.

Until she went to work for him, all she knew about him was the horrible things she’d heard in the media, so she hadn’t even voted for him in 2016 (although she stresses that she did not vote for Hillary.) She was surprised to discover that he was nothing like how he had been painted. She says he’s actually a kind and friendly boss, he reads constantly, works very hard, relies heavily on female aides and is very warm toward friends, family and staffers.

Westerhout said one of her goals with her book is to counter the relentless false negative stories about Trump. I wish her luck, although I suspect that’s like trying to put out the Chicago Fire with a flyswatter.

The other new book is called “Coming Home: How Black Americans Will Re-elect Trump.” It’s by African-American conservative political activist Vernon Robinson III and Bruce Eberle of the Eberle Associates political fundraising firm.

They tell a similar story of not supporting Trump at first and only voting for him because he had to be better than Hillary Clinton (Note: he is also much better than Joe Biden.) But they came around after seeing him keep his promises about governing like a real conservative with his judicial appointments, peace through strength, cutting of regulations and more, as well as forcing new trade deals, making our allies pay more for their defense, strengthening border security and other measures that put Americans first.

But the thing that’s unusual about this book is its theory that Trump will win reelection because he’ll get a higher percentage of the black vote than any Republican in a century. Two reasons: he’s actually doing things to help black Americans (sentencing reform, job creation, rising wages, opportunity zones, protecting their churches) and unlike most Republicans, he’s actively appealing to them for their votes and not just letting the Democrats’ false claims that he’s a “racist” define him.

I don’t know if that will win him enough black votes to tip the election, although the Democrats wouldn’t have to lose that many for it to sink them. That’s why they viciously attack any black person who dares to oppose them (i.e., if you don’t vote for Biden, “you ain’t black.”) I know it can be done because when I was Governor of Arkansas, I reached out to the black community, listened to their concerns and worked with them to try to solve some problems. They were skeptical at first (they’d grown up hearing a lot of anti-Republican propaganda), but they eventually realized I was sincere. I’m proud to say that I won reelection with the highest percentage of the black vote of any Arkansas Governor since Reconstruction. But of course, I didn’t have a national media churning out a 24/7/365 river of poison accusing me of being a racist. That’s a lot to have to overcome.

November’s election will present a stark choice for African-Americans. Republicans offer proven policies that make them safer, freer and more prosperous. Democrats offer policies that have failed black communities for decades and are currently making life exponentially worse for them. But they’ve resorted to tokenism by adding a black VP candidate and they’re ramping up the false accusations of racism. I think that the choice is pretty clear. I hope enough black voters agree.

Election Recap

August 13, 2020

Here's a wrap-up and analysis of Tuesday’s primary election results by Democratic pollster and Fox News contributor Doug Schoen.

As he notes, the big story is the wins by anti-establishment candidates on both the left and right, a problem for leaders of both parties, but worse for the Democrats. This widens even further the great divide between the shell-shocked voters whom Biden will have to feed "moderate" baloney to convince them the party hasn’t gone crazy and the wild-eyed leftist nutjobs who are actually getting elected in blue cities and states and turning them into Third World countries (he’ll also need to win over the voters who actually voted for that!)

Also, deeply depressing but hardly unexpected, voters in Minnesota gave a big win to Rep. Ilhan Omar over her better-funded, equally “progressive” but not stunningly corrupt, anti-American and anti-Semitic challenger. It’s further proof that once Democrats get into a seat of power, no matter how awful they may be, removing them from it is like trying to pry off a deer tick.

As if the mainstream media needed any help deciding how to treat Democrats with kid gloves, party operatives have actually sent a memo to media organizations telling them how and how not to cover Kamala Harris. As Tammy Bruce says in a must-read op-ed in the WASHINGTON TIMES, “the fact that they expected this partisan missive to be accepted and adhered to by media entities tells you all you need to know about the problem with today’s legacy media.”

The Democrats are wrapping their demands in identity politics. “The implication of the memo,” Bruce writes, “is that any critical coverage of her deemed unfair (and all would be deemed so) will be declared racist and/or sexist.” For extra emphasis, it even manages to work in the name of George Floyd.

Oh, and they just want to be “helpful.” It’s “challenging” this year to cover “a Black or Brown woman candidate.” (THEY capitalized those words; I’m sticking with the old stylebook, thank you.) So to “help” journalists, they say, “we intend to collectively and individually monitor coverage and we will call out those we believe take the country backwards with sexist and/or racist coverage. As we enter another historic moment, WE WILL BE WATCHING YOU.” (Emphasis mine.)

Among the women signing on to this travesty are Obama and Clinton operatives such as Valerie Jarrett.

Quite masterfully, Bruce makes the case that it’s this very letter and the assumptions behind it that are sexist, as they presume that a woman needs special treatment. It’s that idea that is disgusting. I don’t know if they plan to “monitor” opinion sites such as this one, but if they do, I’ll tell them right now that their warnings and demands will have precisely no effect on anything we say or don’t say about Kamala Harris, who essentially is running for the office of President, not VP, right now. As a candidate, she will be treated like anyone else of any race or gender running for such high office. And that means no kid gloves.

Though it’s generally not my style to put things this way, in this case I will: they can take their memo filled with implicit threats and shove it.

I’ve made it pretty clear what I think about Joe Biden’s presidential candidacy and, now, the choice of Kamala Harris for the #2 slot. In case there’s any doubt, check out my monologue as guest host on Wednesday’s INGRAHAM ANGLE.

In fact, keep watching after that, for an examination of her candidacy with guests Sara Carter and former California Rep. Darrell Issa, who shared with Harris quite a number of years of service in the California delegation.”

Sara Carter pointed out that Biden himself has intimated that, considering his age, Harris would be the one to end up running the country. And she would do it by bringing a radical agenda, Carter rightly said, pointing out what a “chameleon” she is. “She transforms herself whenever she wants, into whatever she wants.”

Just one example: Harris has actually brought up, with Don Lemon on CNN, the issue of prison inmates being able to vote. Well, I guess some would consider that fair to all the small-time dope smokers (I think about 1500) she put in prison for breaking minor drug laws when she herself has admittedly smoked marijuana.

The Green New Deal, open borders, everything on the radical left’s extensive wish list: she’s for it.

Since Issa had worked with her so long, even back when she was attorney general of California, I asked him what, specifically, about a Kamala Harris vice presidency would keep him up at night. “The fact that the President might need to be replaced,” he said. She made great speeches as the attorney general, he said, but then was “completely hopeless” in that role.

She was so bad, he went on to say, that when she ran “as a progressive” for the Senate, he endorsed and campaigned for her DEMOCRAT opponent. That was “not an easy thing to do for a seated Republican congressman,” he said, “but the fact was, we had a moderate Democrat in Loretta Sanchez by comparison.” The far-left Democrats prevailed, though, and Harris went on to the Senate.

"She will change what she says she stands for,” he said, “at the drop of a coin. But at the end of the day, this is somebody owned by the ‘progressive’ left.” He pointed out that right now, she’s backing away from some of her actions that might be perceived as pro-law and order, but “if that’s gone, she has nothing.”

We also talked about what House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn said Wednesday on CNN, that the country really is moving to the left and is exactly where Biden and Harris are. Consensus: OH, NO IT ISN’T.

We really are at a crossroads, and I believe most Americans understand this.

Issa cited a statistic we’ve mentioned here: that surveys show at least 80 percent of Americans want law and order; they want to restore the law and have the same or greater police presence in their neighborhoods. That includes black neighborhoods. (Of course, this is where Harris will play “chameleon” and tout her so-called law-and-order credentials. It’s bunko.)

Be sure and watch the rest of the show if you haven’t seen it, for a great segment with Democrat pollster Doug Schoen about “warning signs” within the Democrat Party concerning the success of “The Squad” in their primary vote. The far left –- the activist, “progressive” wing –- has been quite successful, he says. But they support “policies that are out of step with the broader American electorate.” He would advise Democrats not to campaign so hard on confiscation of weapons, etc. (I didn't have time to ask him, but would that really fool anyone? I think at this point we're all wise to them and know they’d do just that, given half a chance.)

Later I discussed something with Rudy Giuliani that you might not have heard: Harris’s claim, in June of 2019, that if she were in the White House, the Justice Department would pursue “criminal charges” against President Trump. She told NPR, “I believe that they would have no choice and that they should, yes.”

Recall that Attorney General Bill Barr has made it clear he’s against using the DOJ as a political weapon and has refrained from going after Obama and Biden personally. Obviously, that would be out the window if Harris came to power. “We would be a banana republic,” Rudy told me Wednesday night. He proceeded to go into her record as a prosecutor; it’s shocking to see the extent to which she selectively applied justice and screwed up big cases. She went after “the little people,” he said. “...She is mean, and she is an incompetent lawyer, and she was an incompetent DA.”

As I said later in the show, Harris “comes into this with more baggage than Delta Airlines on Thanksgiving weekend.” Open those bags, expose her radical views on the issues and her past incompetence, and it’s clear: we do not want this person anywhere NEAR the seat of power.

Reaction to Kamala Harris

August 13, 2020

Here’s a handy list of four things to know about Sen. Kamala Harris, the VP running mate picked by Joe Biden, or whoever picks Joe Biden’s running mates for him these days.

And just to be helpful, here is my pick for the best serious social media comment on Harris.

David Daleiden, who was charged with felonies in California for exposing Planned Parenthood’s body parts business, tweeted, “Kamala Harris is the greatest threat to civil rights our country has ever seen. I know because she had my home raided for speaking the truth about her political patrons at Planned Parenthood.”

…And the second best

…My pick for the most surprising criticism of Harris: some African-American activists are furious that she’s being called “African-American” when she’s actually of Indian and Jamaican heritage:

…And for the funniest, this uncredited Facebook post that claims Stacey Abrams has declared herself Biden’s real running mate and wants to know the procedure for demanding a VP nomination recount.

In the Washington Examiner, Hannah Cox writes that she would love to celebrate a woman of color being picked for a veep running mate, but...

“Kamala Harris’s career ascension was built with the bricks of injustice, misfortune, and the corruption of the prison industrial complex...In between advocating for harsher penalties (including some truly bonkers repercussions for truancy), privacy violations like familial DNA searches, and civil asset forfeiture, Harris even found time to block new DNA evidence from being tested for a potentially innocent death-row inmate, Kevin Cooper. It should not go without comment that California’s justice system is one of the biggest hot messes in the country, highlighting the fact that Harris’s policies were both punitive and unsuccessful at producing better public safety outcomes. They also greatly harmed communities of color.”

On the other hand, one of the liberal news sites hailed Harris as the “most progressive” Attorney General California ever had.

If you’re wondering how someone can be that “progressive” and yet turn her state into a “hot mess” of injustice with policies that punished innocent people, violated civil rights, reduced safety and “greatly harmed communities of color,” then you haven’t been paying much attention to what “progressivism” really means these days.

Must Read: Why Choose Trump

August 12, 2020

I am often challenged as to how a practicing Christian believer and former pastor can support Donald Trump with his many character flaws. First of all, it’s not my place to judge someone else’s character. I’ve also never made it a secret that I find some of the President's language, tweets and behavior to be less reverent than I would like. But God has not sent us any perfect people in the past 2,000 years. When choosing a President, you have to consider more than whether you approve of someone’s personality and temperament. You have to consider what that person will do for (or to) America and the world.

When I look at how President Trump has defended life, religious liberty and Israel, and how he has worked so hard to restore American strength, protect the innocent, end terrorism, and create jobs and rising wages for all Americans – and I compare that to the far-left, job-killing, tax-raising, government-bloating, free speech-destroying, student-indoctrinating, religion-crushing, gender-confusing, crime-condoning, border-erasing, abortion-at-all-stages agenda of the Democrats – it is simply no contest.

Wayne Grudem is a Distinguished Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary in Arizona, and it’s obvious that he's heard similar arguments about how he can reconcile being an Evangelical Christian with supporting Trump. He’s written a response that is lengthy, but it’s incredibly thoughtful, well-reasoned and persuasive.

I strongly urge you to read it, bookmark it and share it with everyone you can. There are enough Christians in American that if we would just go to the polls and vote for candidates who support our values, there would be a permanent end to the government’s war on people of faith.

There’s only one change I would suggest to Prof. Grudem’s case. When he says today’s Democratic Party would “allow abortion up to the moment of birth,” I would add, “and well beyond.”