Advertisement

Susan Rice is the latest to be cited in the media as the current frontrunner to be Joe Biden’s running mate. He has committed to choosing a woman, and he's pretty well obligated to choose a woman of color as well. Naturally, the leftist media are obsessed with who it will be.

Folks, it’s all theatrics. Kamala Harris won't be it; Val Demings won't be it. And neither will Susan Rice, though she does have suitable Obama connections. Precisely none of the women mentioned as candidates for the #2 spot in recent weeks can help Biden win, and, more importantly, given the circumstances, none of them can be envisioned as President of the United States, because we all know that Biden, if he's still even the candidate on Election Day and (shudder) wins, will be replaced practically on the spot. Rice, with her foreign policy credentials, might have a little more gravitas than the others –- it wouldn’t take much to stand out in that crowd –- but she still has way too many problems.

For one thing –- not that it would matter to hard-core Democrat party hacks and rabid anti-Trumpers –- she’s a liar of great repute. By that I don’t mean little lies here and there, tiny fibs that might be rationalized as necessary for national security, but huge politically-charged whoppers told repeatedly on national TV and even under oath. I’m still enough of an optimist to think that this would matter to the independent voters, the folks in the middle, the thoughtful “swing” voters that Biden or any challenger would need to sway.

Of course, we all know that Rice lied her head off about the cause of the 2012 attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were killed. She went on five different Sunday shows and told the same fake story about an anti-Islam YouTube video setting off protests that turned violent. Hillary told the same story. We all know it was fabricated to cover up the fact that it was a terrorist attack. American personnel were not given the protection they needed and deserved, help was not provided once the attack was underway, and our people ended up dead. But Rice did her political duty. From then on, we knew what she was made of.

That was just the first. Later on, we found out that Rice had written a curious “note to self” on the very last day of the Obama administration --- just as Trump was being sworn in, in fact. It was a “memo to the file” about the meeting she'd attended (aside: WITH JOE BIDEN) in the Oval Office on January 5, 2017, to say that Obama had told them everything having to do with the “Russia” investigation had to be done “by the book.” I think she mentioned that five times. This is what you call a “CYA” memo. She was “C”-ing Obama’s “A.”

Later, she covered her own “A,” too. She had her lawyer, Kathryn Ruemmler, who also happens to have been PRESIDENT OBAMA’S WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, write a letter to Sens. Grassley, Graham, Feinstein and Whitehouse, saying, “While serving as National Security Advisor, Ambassador Rice was not briefed on the existence of any FBI investigation into allegations of collusion between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia, and she later learned of the fact of this investigation from Director Comey’s subsequent testimony.”

Oh, really?? Comey didn’t testify until March 20, 2017, but Rice was present at the January 5 Oval Office meeting that dealt with exactly that –- in particular, with the investigation into Michael Flynn.

And it gets worse. She also denied this under oath. On September 8, 2017, she gave sworn testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (then chaired by Republican Devin Nunes) that she knew nothing about the FBI’s “Russia” investigation while she was at the White House. Apparently anticipating some difficult questioning from Republicans, she arrived with two attorneys from Latham & Watkins (Ruemmler’s firm). Ironically, it was a couple of questions from Democrats that tripped her up.

Adam Schiff: “Director Comey testified that, in July of last year [2016], he began a counterintelligence investigation into people associated with the Trump campaign and what contacts they may have had with Russia. That investigative responsibility, wasn’t part of your portfolio, I take it?”

Rice: “No, not at all.”

Schiff: “And would Director Comey brief you on the progress of his investigation?”

Rice: “No. I think it’s important for everybody to understand: We were not informed by Director Comey or the attorney general that there was an active investigation of anybody in the Trump orbit...In the Obama White House, we maintained scrupulously the firewall between the people in the White House and contacts with Justice about potential or actual criminal matters. The only communication that was sanctioned in that vein was between the White House counsel and the Justice Department or the FBI.”

She goes on: “And Director Comey did not volunteer to us, not only then but for the duration of his administration, that there was an active investigation of anybody in the Trump orbit...I learned about it formally in the public domain after I left office.”

And later…

Eric Swalwell: “Is it fair to say that, as the national security adviser, you were not read in on active, ongoing investigations that the Department of Justice or the FBI were conducting?”

Rice: “Absolutely, that’s the case. Those were law enforcement matters...”

EDITORIAL COMMENT: Who is she kidding?

According to the Horowitz report, testimony from Comey differs markedly from that of Rice. Comey said the Obama team knew about the FBI’s investigation in detail, almost from the start. He said Rice was one of the people he had told (along with Obama) about “Crossfire Hurricane” in the summer of 2016. And, of course, her presence at the January 5 meeting shows she had to have been aware of the Michael Flynn case.

So, it appears that Biden’s current frontrunner for the VP slot has lied quite brazenly under oath. She'd had plenty of practice before then, too. Leftists won’t care one bit, but I don’t think swing voters will want to put someone in office who more appropriately belongs in jail. We knew Hillary belonged in jail; notice she didn't win in 2016.

This excellent article from RealClear Investigations details all of Rice's lies.

READER COMMENT REPLY FROM THE GOVERNOR

Robert Berger

07/31/2020 03:45 PM

Governor Huckabee, with all due respect, look who's talking. President Trump did not even have the decency to attend the funeral of the late, great John Lewis. Of course, this is typical of him.

And yes, despite what he and his defenders say, Trump IS a vicious racist. And do you have to bring up the irrelevant fact that Bull Connor was a Democrat? Such racist bigots are no longer found in this party. However, the racism of the Republicans is now much more subtle. Republican social and economic policies have done nothing but grievous harm to blacks and other minorities in America for decades; for example, making it extremely difficult for them to vote and suppressing so many of their votes by failing to count them.

Constantly eviscerating and abolishing essential government programs to help the poor.

GOP refusal to raise the minimum wage, thus keeping millions of Americans helplessly mired poverty. Refusing to make health care, college, food, and housing affordable. And so on.

And on top of this, GOP politicians have the sheer unmitigated gall to accuse the struggling poor of being "lazy bums " who want to "sponge off the government " while it allegedly takes hard-earned money form honest Americans who do work.

John Wilson spent his life fighting these destructive GOP policies. Trump is only making them worse.

* * *

Robert, I want to thank you for listing so many false Democratic political narratives in one post. During an election year, we’re going to be hearing all of this repeated ad nauseam, so it’s helpful to be able to shoot them all down in one spot. Everyone, please bookmark this post so you can refer back to it and save me having to repeat myself.

I don’t know who John Wilson is, but I’m going to assume that’s just a typo and you meant John Lewis. Also, I can only imagine the media meltdown if Trump had attended that funeral. He would’ve been accused of hijacking the funeral to score cheap political points (“Cough! Obama! Cough!”) His choice was between “How dare he show up there?!” and “How dare he not show up there?!” All things considered, I think he made the most respectful choice.

As to your other points, I’ll go through and reply to them one-by-one…

1. You say, “Yes, despite what he and his defenders say, Trump IS a vicious racist.” I notice that you immediately moved on without offering a single scrap of proof. This is par for the course. I consider racism to be a grievous sin, and “racist” is one of the worst things you can call someone. That word should never be thrown around lightly, which unfortunately is happening today. The Trump narrative is based on viciously fake news stories, like claiming he called all Mexicans rapists and murderers (he was talking about MS-13 gang members) or that there were "fine people" on the side of white supremacists (he was referring to some people who oppose removing Confederate statues, and he said neo-Nazies and white nationalists "should be condemned totally.")

As we’ve reported here before, a tabloid reporter whose job was to cover Trump before he entered politics said that while he was desperate for any dirt, he never heard any claims of Trump being a racist until the day he announced he was running for President as a Republican, and then he suddenly became the BIGGEST RACIST EVER!! He revealed that he did get a number of stories about Trump performing secret acts of generosity, like paying the bills of unfortunate people he saw in the media. But the tabloids weren’t interested in positive stories, and Trump didn’t publicize them. However, here’s one that made the news.

Note that the same Democrats who tell you Trump is a racist also claimed throughout the 2016 Convention that he had never done anything to help anyone else, another lie that also became Democrat/media conventional “wisdom.”

Here’s a list of awards presented to the pre-political Trump for his support of black, Jewish and youth organizations.

And here’s the Rev. Jesse Jackson praising Trump for his support of the Rainbow Coalition’s project to help minority businesses:  Jackson called Trump a “friend” who embraced “the under-served communities.”

He’s continued to be their friend by signing sentencing reform that Democrats promised for years and never delivered; creating opportunity zones to encourage businesses to bring jobs, goods and services to poor minority communities; and building an economy that resulted in rising wages and record-low minority unemployment, until the Chinese unleashed a virus on the world that Democrats want to blame him for. As I've said before, if he's a racist, he's really bad at it.

2. “And do you have to bring up the irrelevant fact that Bull Connor was a Democrat?” I mentioned that Bull Connor was a Democrat (and not just a Democrat, but a delegate to the 1948 Convention, where he led a walkout of the Alabama delegation over a proposed civil rights plank) because the Democrats would like modern Americans not to know that. It’s for the same reason they demanded everyone stop saying “China virus” or “Wuhan virus” – so that Nancy Pelosi could eventually start calling it the “Trump virus.” It’s a cynical attempt to rewrite history so that the misled can be manipulated for political purposes. We don’t allow that around these parts.

3. “Such racist bigots are no longer found in the Party.” The modern Democratic Party is all about dividing and judging people by skin color, a complete repudiation of the Rev. Martin Luther King’s dream. And I don’t just mean reverse racism against white people. Watch some of the videos online of those white “peaceful protesters” supported by Democrat Mayors, screaming disgusting racist insults into the faces of black police officers and any black people who dare to express different opinions, and even physically assaulting them. Take a look at what this black Marine vet encountered in Portland and tell me how it differs from the angry bigots civil rights activists dealt with in the ‘60s.

4. “Republican social and economic policies have done nothing but grievous harm to blacks and other minorities in America for decades.” Odd, I thought that cities where the black and minority communities were suffering from crime, gangs, filthy and decaying neighborhoods and terrible schools, like Chicago, Detroit and Baltimore, have been run entirely by Democrats for decades. Chicago hasn’t had a Republican Mayor since 1931. In Minneapolis, where George Floyd’s death kicked off all the protests, both the city and state are solidly Democrat. There’s not a single Republican even on the city council.

5. “…making it extremely difficult for them to vote and suppressing so many of their votes by failing to count them.” Again, an assertion with no proof. Republicans believe in voter ID because we want all elections to be honest and trustworthy. I’m all for everyone voting who is legally eligible. But every fake vote cast isn’t just a score in a political game. It cancels out a legitimate vote, denying that voter his or her most fundamental right to have a say in determining our government. When I see stories like this

…I don’t care what party the miscreants represent, I want the book thrown at them.

For the record, surveys show majorities of all demographics back voter ID laws (a 2016 Gallup poll found 80% support overall, including 77% of non-whites and even 63% of Democrats.) Where such laws have been instituted, measures have been taken to make it as easy as possible to comply, including offering free state IDs. The argument that black people are somehow incapable of obtaining a simple ID is one of the most condescendingly racist narratives in circulation today.

As for voter suppression, that’s a convenient excuse for barring even the most rudimentary efforts to insure a clean election, from voter to ID to purging dead people off the voting rolls. The queen of the narrative is Stacey Abrams, who’s claimed for the past two years that she’s the rightful Governor of Georgia, deprived of office by voter suppression. Yet 1.3 million more Georgians voted in that midterm election than in the previous midterm election. If Republicans suppressed the vote, they sure did a lousy job of it.

6. “Constantly eviscerating and abolishing essential government programs to help the poor.” Like what? As Ronald Reagan said, there’s nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. Democrats love to accuse Republicans of slashing one program or another (Social Security the prime example), yet spending always increases. Merely suggesting a reduction in the rate of increase gets you accused of “slashing” the budget, even if it would still rise more than the rate of inflation.

If you mean things like requiring able-bodied people with no family obligations to work in exchange for welfare, then “guilty.” The government shouldn’t make it easier and more lucrative to be on the dole than to work. Even the Scandinavian nations Bernie Sanders wants to emulate began cutting their cushy safety nets after they realized people had started feeling entitled, using them as hammocks and losing their work ethic.

7. “GOP refusal to raise the minimum wage, this keeping millions of Americans helplessly mired (in) poverty.” As someone who grew up poor, if I thought simply raising the minimum wage would end poverty, I’d be on the front lines demanding it. But it’s the sort of simplistic idea that comes from people who have never run a business, just studied “economics” from a liberal professor (Here’s how well that works: https://youtu.be/uSLscJ2cY04 ).

Simply ordering businesses that pay the minimum wage to raise or even double it violates the most basic law of supply and demand: forcibly pricing labor at more than it’s worth. Many of these employers are small businesses with tiny profit margins whose owners might put in 60 or 70 hours a week and make less than minimum wage themselves. If they raise prices enough to cover the new labor costs, they drive away their customers. Their only choice is to cut staff (thanks, Democrats!), and those who do keep their jobs soon discover the raise doesn’t help because prices go up all over to cover the new labor costs. Many businesses don’t survive at all.

After San Francisco voted to double the minimum wage, there was a story about a longtime liberal bookstore that went out of business. The patrons were shocked to learn there was a connection between their vote to raise the minimum wage and losing their favorite hangout. Liberal Seattle restaurant critics were baffled at why all the little bistros they loved were closing down. In New York, the place where AOC used to bartend went out of business because of the minimum wage hike she advocated and all her former co-workers lost their jobs. Too bad, I was hoping she’d return to work there soon.

Minimum wage jobs aren’t meant to support a family, they’re for young people just starting out who need experience more than pay or people who need a little extra part time income, or a starting job you’ll soon be promoted out of. If an experienced adult can’t find anything other than a minimum wage job, that’s a symptom of bad anti-business, low-growth policies, like high taxes, overregulation and illegal immigrant labor undercutting wages. The kind of Obama policies that Trump reversed, leading to record low unemployment and naturally rising wages for the first time in years. Biden wants to take us back to the days when the government thought it was helping you by destroying your job with a mandatory minimum wage hike. Again to quote Reagan, the nine scariest words in the English language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

8. “Refusing to make health care, college, food and housing affordable.” The major reason most of those things cost what they do is government subsidies, mandates, taxes, regulations and interference in the marketplace, all Democratic hallmarks. Do you have any idea how much complying with Medicare costs doctors and how much time they spend dealing with paperwork instead of seeing patients? Before all the government, insurance and Medicare involvement, doctors never charged $50 for a Band-Aid.

The more money the government is willing to spend to subsidize college costs, (surprise!) the higher those costs go. And try comparing the prices of food, housing or fuel in California or New York to those in Texas or Florida. Liberal policies make everything more expensive, and then the politicians raise taxes to help people pay for the things they made more expensive that will now get even more expensive because of the high taxes and on and on in a never-ending vicious circle.

9. “GOP politicians have the sheer unmitigated gall to accuse the struggling poor of being ‘lazy bums’ who want to ‘sponge off the government.’” I don’t do that, and I don’t know anyone who does, but if anyone actually does, they’re wrong. I’ve been the “struggling poor,” and I know better. That sounds like the kind of creaky, old fake stereotype of Republicans you get from only watching liberal media outlets or reruns of "All In The Family." I suggest you broaden your news sources. I do believe, though, because I actually read and watch liberal news sources, that this sort of canard is repeated because the left hopes to fool the poor into voting against policies that would help lift them out of poverty and in favor of policies that will keep them struggling and dependent on government.

I might as well make it a hat trick and finish this off with a third Reagan quote: Republicans don’t measure compassion by how many people are getting a government handout. We measure it by how many people no longer need a government handout.

AN OPEN LETTER TO MISS MANNERS (Judith Martin)

Dear Miss Manners,

Please let me preface this letter by saying I am a longtime fan of your column, as I am distressed by the lack of courtesy in today’s society and always appreciate your witty replies. You may or may not be aware that I have even affectionately parodied your column with “Miss Mannerly,” here on this very website. That said, here is the original, very thoughtful letter you received and your answer ("Clarifying racism for a white man") that has prompted my missive to you:

I do agree with you that talking about what racism is (or is not) is a semantic discussion. We currently have two “working” definitions of racism being used simultaneously, and we also have many people far too willing to throw around the “r-word.” Under one (the “classic”) definition, anyone of any race can be racist; it means the notion that people of another race are inferior to you and don’t deserve the same treatment as people of your own race. Under the other (the “evolved”) definition, only a white person can be racist, and, in part because he has lived his entire life with racial privilege by virtue of being white, he cannot be considered the victim of racism, either. Add nuance to taste, and stir.

The man who wrote to you, a self-described white male, told you he’d been informed that he would be viewed as racist for bringing up examples of how he personally was abused, targeted with racial epithets, and even lightly hit by a car while living in a mostly non-white country where he was in a racial minority.

The man was obviously trying to show empathy for others who have been treated badly because of their race. But because he is white, his view was considered unwelcome. They told him that the treatment he received was not out of racism, but “rather out of resentment for white people’s history of cruelty and injustice towards others.”

In your answer, you essentially agreed with his friends, saying that even though the treatment he had experienced had been “horrid and unfair,” it was not the same as “the experience of most marginalized groups” because it never took away his basic rights and equality. (Not having been in whatever country this was and experienced what he went through, I don’t know if that is necessarily true. As a woman, I could easily name countries that would take away MY basic rights and equality.)

You made what you called the "key" distinction between “retaliatory” bias and “inherent” bias. With all due respect, being on the receiving end of “retaliatory” bias for something one’s ancestors, as opposed to oneself, did is, to me, as unacceptable as any other kind of bias. I would make the case that it is also extremely racist.

You said his argument makes this gentleman look naive. I am hardly naive, and I agree with him.

If the treatment this man received was “...out of resentment for white people’s history of cruelty and injustice towards others,” I’m sorry, but that was still racism. The man himself had done nothing to anyone; he was being judged –- judged –- by the color of his skin. The argument being used to defend that, which you helped further, is a rationalization for racist behavior. One may agree with that rationalization or disagree as I do, but a rationalization it is.

One problem we have right now is that we’re all encouraged to be having “conversations” about race, but these “conversations” all have to be very carefully articulated in certain ways in order to avoid charges of racism. The man who wrote you obviously is not a racist, but he must speak in exactly the "right" way in order to avoid a minefield. The slightest deviation is heresy. I’m sorry, but that is not real conversation, Miss Manners. It is control. A real conversation is a two-way street, with give and take, and people try to understand each other. I don’t see that happening with this subject. To create a “safe space” for others --- even his own partner --- this person’s thoughtful view is being shut down.

Thank you, Miss Manners, for your attention. Though you are correct in saying this gentleman risks alienating some people –- that they might challenge his point and perhaps call him naive and even racist –- simply telling him to “stop” is to inhibit honest, heartfelt conversation. I, for one, am willing to (very politely) have that conversation, and if someone wants to wrongly accuse me of racism, that is the person who needs to learn some common courtesy –- and some common sense.

There’s this small little gang of people who once made lots of money in DC as Republican political consultants, pollsters, party insiders and commentators who really hate President Trump. They have always been tied to the establishment of DC, or the swamp as some like to call it. They once were the toast of the town because they were joined at the hip with the well-established elites who really didn’t have deep convictions about issues, but rather just enjoyed playing for the Republican team because the pay was good and they got invited to all the cool parties in Georgetown, Manhattan and Hollywood. They were also the reason nothing ever changed or was even challenged in Washington. They worked for candidates and elected officials who pretended to care about issues like the sanctity of life, our alliance with Israel, the middle class, jobs leaving the US for China or Mexico, and health care. In reality, neither they nor the candidates or elected officials they worked for really cared at all. We voted for them, because our alternatives were candidates with far-left positions that threatened free enterprise, the lives of unborn babies, small businesses, factory jobs, important court appointments and more. But the election of Donald Trump messed up their legalized looting of the political donor class. Donald Trump didn’t become President because he was bought and owned by the political class. He mostly used his own money to become President and hasn’t had to do the bidding of the typical political hacks and they aren’t happy! In fact, he’s called on very few of them for anything and they aren’t going away quietly. They don’t hate him because he failed to do what he said-they hate him because he did exactly what he said he would do. The so-called Lincoln Project is about as true to Abraham Lincoln as I am to Weight Watchers. They loved the power and money and when Donald Trump became President, they just didn’t matter that much.

I do have friends who claim to be conservative but say they will vote for Joe Biden because they think President Trump is vain and vulgar. The same Joe Biden caught on a hot microphone uttering a truly vulgar term when talking to President Obama about signing Obamacare and who has cursed at the very people who attended his lightly attended events? But are elections even about a candidate’s tone, Tweets, or temperance? Sure, I’d love for all the people I vote for to be near perfect in personality, piety, and personal manners. But I care even more about whether the performance matches the promises on issues that really matter.

Believing in the intrinsic worth and value of every human life from conception is sacred to me. A candidate right about everything else and wrong in respecting the God-given worth of every human life is a candidate I can’t support. No candidate—not even Ronald Reagan, has taken the number of bold concrete steps to protect innocent human life as has President Trump. Donald Trump has done more for preserving religious liberty than ANY President in my lifetime. I believe strongly in the 1st amendment and with it, untouchable religious liberty. Other Presidents have claimed to be champions for churches, synagogues, and mosques to be free from government control, but President Trump has delivered. Most all Presidents promise to create jobs, and preserve middle class jobs, but until the shut-down of the economy because of the Chinese Virus, President Trump had delivered, marking record jobs for blacks, Hispanics, women and youth with record pay increases. And while the previous administration said our manufacturing jobs would never return, they actually have come back under President Trump. He has unflinchingly stood for the 2nd amendment. He’s insisted that America stop being the chump for China and its cheating. He’s stood for our border security while his opponent believes in open borders. Instead of folding like a cheap ten in a windstorm in the face of violent riots and mass looting, he’s called for protection of private and public property and the arrests of anarchists who have turned streets of major cities into war zones. And he has cut 7 regulations from the backs of Americans for every new one enacted.

So I understand why the ruling class of elitist snobs who run the DC Swamp would vote for Biden to restore their control. But it means the not-so-connected American being abandoned, so I don’t understand those who call themselves conservatives or even moderates voting for Biden, a candidate 180 degrees from what they claim they believe, and 100% a return to a government for the elites and the swells. Donald Trump went to Washington to shake things up. His problem wasn’t that he failed at that. It was that he succeeded.