About that Democrat debate

February 20, 2020

Mike Bloomberg’s deliberately vague campaign slogan is “Mike Can Get It Done,” and give him credit: last night, he did. He managed to finally make a Democratic debate entertaining just by showing up. (Also, to get this out of the way up front,: no, Bloomberg did not stand on a box. Lucky for him; if he had, Elizabeth Warren probably would have set it on fire.)

That’s not to say that it did his presidential aspirations much good. In fact, you could argue that his appearance in the debate was the most disastrous strategic misstep since Michael Dukakis said, “I’d love to ride in a tank, but do you have a helmet that’s 10 sizes too big?”

Bloomberg has been trying to sell himself like an “As Seen On TV” product, by blanketing the airwaves and Internet with wall-to-wall commercials. But by avoiding the essential steps of debating and campaigning (which teach candidates to listen to voters and assert and defend their positions), he made what his first big national appearance as a Presidential candidate hopelessly unprepared. Voters who’d been swayed by his ad onslaught must’ve felt like consumers who were considering paying $99.95 for a “miracle anti-aging cream” only to learn it’s just a can of Crisco.

Bloomberg proved that you can buy up all the airtime, consultants, social media “influencers” and zinger writers in the world, and it’s still no substitute for political experience, empathy or personal contact with working Americans. Campaign events and townhalls are where bubble-dwelling politicians (and billionaire wannabe politicians) who think they know how to run your life better than you do discover that, say, farmers, actually know more about a lot more important things than they do.

But Bloomberg didn’t just self-immolate his own campaign. He may have helped burn down whatever crumbling walls of the Democratic Party were still standing. Viewers, many of whom I assume were Democrats hoping to see any reason to convince them to stick to their party, instead saw a shoutfest in which all the candidates savaged each other when they weren’t attacking Bloomberg. Here are just a few of the things we now know about the candidates, and bear in mind, this is what they said about each other:

Amy Klobuchar prosecutes possibly innocent black youths, doesn’t know who the President of Mexico is, and her health care plan is a “Post-it Note.” Pete Buttigieg has billionaire contributors and is an unqualified small town mayor who’s memorized a lot of talking points and has a health care plan that’s a Powerpoint presentation. Bernie Sanders has scary crazy followers and is a famous socialist with three houses, as well as ruinous, commie economic and health care plans. Mike Bloomberg is a sexist who calls women "fat broads and horse-faced lesbians” and makes them sign non-disclosure agreements (he claimed that’s just because they didn’t like jokes he told, not realizing he was addressing a crowd who routinely destroy people’s lives for having told a politically incorrect joke a decade ago.)

There was much more, but that’s enough. You can see why Stephen Green at PJ Media compared this debate to the “food fight” scene in “Animal House.” Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit observed, “Everyone on the Dem debate stage seems unbalanced — they look so angry that they’re about to either hit someone or burst into tears. It’s bizarre.” (Actually, that sounds to me like the entire Democratic Party ever since Election Night 2016.)

The only thing they seem to be able to agree on is that Donald Trump must go, even though they also claim to want to help the poor and minorities, who are finally getting good jobs and raises under Trump. Also, Gallup recently found that 90% of Americans are happy with their lives, but don’t worry, these Democrats have a plethora of plans to reverse that.

As for Joe Biden, he started out strong but slipped into word salad mode as the evening wore on, but the relative lack of attacks on him to focus on Bloomberg was a sad, unspoken verdict on how far he’s fallen in the other candidates’ eyes, from frontrunner to “candidate not worth attacking.” Elizabeth Warren probably “won” the debate, but only because she did so much damage to Bloomberg, the political equivalent of cleaning your house by burning it down. Also, she seems to be locked into a single attitude: “righteous fury.” She claims to have posed for over 100,000 “selfies,” but I wonder if she’s scowling in all of them.

Even worse for the Party was when Bloomberg actually scored a few points, and they only illustrated how far off the rails the Democrats have gone. Like when he asked if he was the only one on stage who’d ever started a business, and the others could only stand there in silence. But easily the most cringeworthy moment came when Bloomberg slammed the other candidates for attacking capitalism, saying, “We're not going to throw out capitalism. We tried that, other countries tried that. It was called communism, and it just didn't work."

And the crowd audibly groaned and booed!

Imagine being a moderate Democrat voter and actually hearing your fellow party members boo someone criticizing communism. Is Donald Trump starting to look good yet?

Commentary continues below advertisement

Other Voices:

Naturally, President Trump weighed in on the Democrats’ debate…

And if you think I’m biased in my assessment of the debate, here are a few comments from the Democratic side. At the New York Times website, Times readers said this:

“I am finding this unbelievably troubling. The worst debate I have ever seen”…“I turned it off after 10 minutes, horrified”...“Too hyperbolic, too inaccurate, too gratuitously damaging, too much intentional misrepresentation, too much waffling when the opposite was called for”… “Horrid, debate tonight. This food-fight format is just awful. All the candidates should be forced to watch this in its entirety, so they don't repeat this ugly debacle”…“This is sickening, a real slug fest with everyone shouting at the top of their lungs as if the world needed a hearing aid. I almost wish I needed one so I could remove it. If these are the survivors of 9 debates, we're in worse trouble than I thought.”

Democratic political analyst Mary Anne Marsh ranked the winners and losers and finds only one winner, Warren. I think she forgot the big winner: Donald Trump.

My friend Van Jones, with whom I have very little in common politically, compared Bloomberg’s performance to the Titanic, with Warren as the iceberg. He astutely noted that “he just wasn’t ready. He was tone-deaf on issue after issue, and the reason why: he’s not been in those living rooms, he hasn’t been doing those town halls.”

And Justin Baragona of the Daily Beast may have had the best line on Twitter: “Bloomberg brought a wallet to a gun fight tonight.” Well, he is Mike Bloomberg; you can’t expect him to bring a gun to a gun fight.

On Tuesday night, the WASHINGTON POST reported that Attorney General Bill Barr “has told people close to President Trump --- both outside and inside the White House --- that he is considering quitting over Trump’s tweets about Justice Department investigations, three administration officials said...”

The spokesperson for the DOJ, Kerri Kupec, tweeted this in response: “Addressing Beltway rumors: The Attorney General has no plans to resign.”

We don’t know what’s really going on, as WAPO has often gotten stories wrong –- especially when they involve Trump –- and this is another one of those “anonymously sourced” stories. But no matter what the stresses are, Barr has got to hang in there. He is the Last Great Hope for reform in our justice system. If he goes, for whatever reason, I think we may as well pack it in and say goodbye to America as we once knew her. The two-tier justice system is still very much alive and well and must be leveled.

As Constitutional scholar John Eastman said on Tuesday’s THE INGRAHAM ANGLE, “The tensions may be high, but...the WASHINGTON POST is a bit of a propaganda tool, trying to create a wedge or [throw] gasoline on the fire of what might have been a minor tension, and trying to blow it into a major tension. I don’t think it’s a major tension, [judging from] President Trump’s comments today and Attorney General Barr’s spokesman as well. Look, the President is extremely frustrated with what’s gone on, and the unequal treatment under the law --- you know, the President’s friends ought not to get special favorable treatment, but neither [should] they be targeted for special UN-favorable treatment, merely because they’re the President’s friends. And that seems to be what was going on out of the Mueller investigation [and] the indictment of Roger Stone, [with its] grossly excessive sentencing recommendation...”

Eastman thinks Stone’s sentence recommendation “quite frankly, was a set-up,” citing a report that the night before they filed it, prosecutors falsely told their DOJ superiors that it was going to be relatively modest. So what happened? Seven to nine years in prison for a 69-year-old nonviolent offender is not even close to modest. Naturally, Trump was going to Tweet about this. Eastman suspects WAPO is trying to “fuel the fire” on this story.

He described the line a President has to walk: “The President is right; he has the Article II power. He is the head of the Executive Branch. But there’s a reason every President normally stays out of individual cases, because of concerns about interjecting politics in the normal functions of justice. And speaking of “interjecting politics,” he pointed out that “twenty to one, the Department of Justice lawyers backed Hillary Clinton over President Trump with their [campaign] contributions.” He also pointed out that the DC jury pool is “90 percent hostile to Trump.” Yes, there’s good reason for the President to be frustrated, but according to Eastman, “the President needs to redirect that frustration away from Twitter tweets in particular cases.”

In other words, if the President’s running commentary really is causing problems for Barr, he’s got to rein himself in a bit. There's too much at stake, and Barr needs some space to do his job. On the other hand, the media are surely blowing this up into much more than it might actually be. President Trump has acknowledged that his commentary has made Barr’s job harder, and he seems to support Barr one hundred percent.

But the Swamp and its accomplices would like nothing more than for the rumors that Barr might leave his job to be true. That’s the story they want to tell, so it’s the story they WILL tell. Barr is their worst nightmare. We don’t know if there will be accountability for those who abused their power, but if Barr goes, chances of that are slim-to-none.

Just look at what we have going on at the moment. In the Roger Stone case, even though the jury foreman at his trial has revealed herself as an outspoken anti-Trump zealot, presiding Judge Amy Berman Jackson has announced that he will still be sentenced on Thursday as scheduled. That is stunning; Roger Stone absolutely deserves a new trial, as there is just no valid argument that his conviction resulted from a fair trial. It’s hard to believe the judge didn't dismiss the case entirely or at least order a new trial for Stone. Unless she’s planning to offer him probation --- which seems very unlikely --- this is a travesty of justice that Stone’s lawyers surely will appeal.

Then there’s the Michael Flynn case. As we reported yesterday, Barr has appointed federal prosecutor Jeffrey Jensen to review it, and on the heels of that, Flynn attorney Sidney Powell has just filed a new brief to dismiss the case “for egregious government misconduct.” Here are the details of this breaking story.

We also had the story yesterday about Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz’ claim that he has evidence President Obama personally directed the FBI to open an investigation at the request of leftist/globalist billionaire megadonor George Soros. (In his Tuesday podcast, Dan Bongino speculated that the “someone” was a Ukrainian oligarch named Dmitry Firtash, a business rival of Soros.) So it seems some investigators are finally sniffing around the Top Dog (Obama, of course --- or is that Soros?).

Barr has noted that the intelligence agencies have come to identify “the national interest with their own political preferences.” No kidding. We knew that for years they were wary of Michael Flynn because he wanted to limit and downsize them (and we’ve seen what happened to HIM). The problems are bad enough that some are even recommending abolishing the CIA and the FISA court entirely. Here’s one very detailed article about that, for when you have some time…

Abolish CIA & FISA

Going through the letters I get, it’s dismaying to see readers giving up on ever seeing accountability. I think we’re going to see it eventually, and possibly some tremendous changes in the system. YES, it takes a long time; the wheels of justice have to slog through vat after vat of molasses. Resistance will never let up. And along the way, it’s hard to see things like Judge Jackson’s latest decision on Roger Stone and the ruthless pursuit of Michael Flynn when serious liars and abusers of power go unpunished. It’s maddening and discouraging.

But as responsible citizens of a republic, we have to make ourselves look. The biggest take-away for all of us has to be this: “Elections have consequences.” The judge in Stone’s case was appointed by Obama. Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder were appointed by...Obama. Most of the State Department holdovers worked under Hillary. Congress is majority Democrat and will NEVER stop its insanity and compulsive impeaching until they are drop-kicked out of the Capitol building and down all those steps. Most importantly, if President Trump doesn’t get a second term, things will go right back to the way they were in the summer of 2016 when Hillary Clinton was the “anointed one.” Business as usual.

We can’t let that happen.

Trump uses his pardon power

February 19, 2020

Unlike other Presidents, President Trump isn’t waiting until his last day in office to issue pardons so he can avoid the political heat. Instead, he’s taking advantage of his boost in approval ratings from the failed “impeachment” stab at him to issue several pardons seemingly designed to make his opponents have a meltdown (but since they have a meltdown every day, who cares anymore?)

Trump commuted the 14-year sentence of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat who’d served seven years already for trying to obtain favors in exchange for appointing someone to fill Barack Obama’s vacated Senate seat (Corruption in Illinois politics?! Say it ain’t so!) He also pardoned former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, who pleaded guilty to tax crimes and lying to the White House; financier Michael Milken, who spent two years in jail in the early 90s after prosecutors alleged his tactics were "criminal schemes," and who has since devoted himself to philanthropy and medical research; and former San Francisco 49ers owner Edward DeBartolo Jr., who pleaded guilty in a gambling scandal. More details are here…

Here’s a story about the former NFL greats who came to the White House to thank Trump for pardoning DeBartolo…

(FYI: Elsewhere in San Francisco sports, former Giants pitcher Aubrey Huff claims he was banned from a 10-year reunion of the World Series team for supporting Trump. They’d better hope their team owner never needs a pardon.)

And here are some comments from Andrew McCarthy about why Trump might have chosen to pardon some of these people, and the message it sends. One message: it’s a perfect way to spotlight the stunning disparity in justice between the way people like Blagojevich, Kerik and Milken were pursued without mercy by the DOJ, while DOJ insiders like Andrew McCabe and James Comey (who actually pressed their prosecutions) were allowed to walk away scot-free from their dishonest actions.

If Comey and McCabe ever do face justice, I wouldn’t count on Trump for a pardon, so that means they won’t be out until at least 2025. As for all the liberal talking heads screaming about Trump’s OUTRAGEOUS abuse of Presidential pardon power, I suggest they Google the name “Marc Rich.”

At this link, a California CPA and lifelong Democrat writes an open letter to her state government about AB5, the new law that’s putting up to 2 million contract workers out of business (for their own good, of course) and forcing businesses to send those jobs out of state. She lays out the problems and asked incredulously, “WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?” This is based on the groundless assumption that California's current political leaders are capable of thinking. Since she seems to believe this will be resolved in a one-party state, and she gives no hint of ever considering any other way of voting than reelecting Democrats, I have to ask, “What are YOU thinking?”

Meanwhile, across the nation in that other blue paradise, New York, the recent legalization of crime by abolishing bail continues to yield completely predictable consequences. This idiotic law has a new poster child, Charles Barry, who’s served six terms in state prison but now knows all the cops can do is hold him for 36 hours, then let him go. So he’s allegedly gone on a one-man subway crime wave, including charges of snatching cash from people trying to use Metrocard machines.

Barry is up to 139 arrests (at this writing) and is completely unfazed. As he was recently led away by cops, he shouted at a New York Daily News reporter, “I’m famous! I take $200, $300 a day of your money, cracker! You can’t stop me!...Bail reform, it’s lit! It’s the Democrats! The Democrats know me and the Republicans fear me. You can’t touch me! I can’t be stopped!”

Of course, he could be stopped, just as California’s government could be stopped from passing insane laws that destroy people’s jobs and strip them of their rights. But that would take the people who are writing these stories and suffering these horrible consequences to make the mental connection between the awful policies that are making their lives miserable and their habit of voting for anyone a (D) after their name. What do you think the odds are of that?

Double Standards Department

February 19, 2020

From the “If It Weren’t For Double Standards, They’d Have No Standards at All” Dept: Byron York at writes about all the people who demanded, promoted, cheered on and participated in constant investigations of Donald Trump and all his associates, claiming that was a vital function of protecting our precious democracy. But now that those investigations have been exposed as politically-motivated, illegally-conducted and shadily-sourced, and the people who launched them are themselves under investigation, suddenly, investigations are a horrible partisan assault on our precious democracy.

The very same people who put other people and their families through an expensive ordeal are also now complaining about how unfair it is that they’re being put through an expensive ordeal. As Rhett told Scarlett in “Gone With The Wind,” “You’re like the thief who isn’t the least bit sorry he stole, but he’s terribly, terribly sorry he’s going to jail."

The Potomac River is in danger of being flooded with crocodile tears over AG Barr’s legitimate and justified investigations, but as York points out, none of the people doing the crying were the least bit concerned when the DOJ was targeting their political opponents with frivolous, partisan and unfounded investigations for the past three years.

And why go back only three years? Does anyone seriously think that the political weaponizing of the federal bureaucracies only started when Trump was nominated? At The Federalist, House Oversight Committee member Rep. Chip Roy gives us a little history lesson on the politicizing of the Justice Department, and reminds us of eight major examples of it under Obama alone.

Joining the transparently self-serving calls for Attorney General Barr to resign was Joe Biden, who calls Barr’s recommendation (not an order, just a recommendation that the judge is apparently going to ignore) for a lighter sentence for Roger Stone “the greatest abuse of power I have ever seen.”

I think we’ve all noticed that Joe has a very hard time keeping historical events straight in his memory, so maybe he should read the article by Chip Roy for a refresher course on what real abuse of power looks like, as exercised by the Administration he was recently a part of.

It’s also recommended reading for the editorial board of the Washington Post, which recently denounced Barr by describing him as Trump’s “wing man,” apparently forgetting that former Attorney General Eric Holder once proudly described himself as Obama’s “wing man,” and they apparently thought that was pretty cool.

Since Holder has also recently been denouncing Barr over false accusations that he’s doing what Holder bragged about actually doing himself, maybe he should read that Chip Roy article, too.

I think we need an investigation to see if someone dumped some sort of amnesia tonic in the DC water supply.

Mike Bloomberg is learning every day that no matter how much money you have, you can’t hide behind a barrage of commercials and dodge the ritual vivisection of your past. That just comes with the territory of being a Presidential candidate. His latest verbal landmines to bob to the surface:

In 2011, while promoting an initiative to help minorities in the workplace, Bloomberg opined that there’s “this enormous cohort of black and Latino males” who “don’t know how to behave in the workplace” and “don’t have any prospects.” Also, if you’re elderly and get cancer or some other bad disease, he thinks you should just die instead of expecting any expensive medicine.

Lucky for him that blacks, Latinos and seniors aren’t important parts of the Democrats’ voter coalition.


Least Surprising News of the Day! A Pew Research Center study found that Democrats who use Twitter are far to the left of Democrats who don’t use Twitter. Gee, what was their first clue? Was it when Democrats on Twitter called them racist, homophobic, transphobic, white supremacist Nazis for conducting the study?


In a hopeful sign for Virginia, a Senate committee voted to spend a year studying a so-called “assault weapons ban” passed by the House rather than advance it. Maybe the Democratic state government is finally sensing, from the giant angry mob outside the door, that they’re pushing their radical agenda too far too fast. Naturally, this didn’t stop the bill’s sponsor from declaring that without the ban, he fears “mass murder” with these weapons, despite the following facts: 1. Weapons such as AR-15s account for a small fraction of all gun deaths…2. A national assault weapons ban was allowed to expire because there was no evidence that it made any difference in crime rates…3. This bill would have done nothing but make law-abiding legal gun owners into felons.

At the link is more on this story, along with some comments that offer similar responses to the bill’s sponsor in even more colorful ways.


I know that socialists think everyone’s property belongs to them, but Bernie Sanders’ campaign is putting a new twist on it. They’re urging people to join “the largest grassroots campaign in the country — Operation Win at the Door,” to help elect Bernie. One problem: the reason “Operation Win at the Door” is such a large grassroots campaign is because it’s already been around since 2018. It was started by Young Americans for Liberty, a nonprofit student Libertarian group, which says it’s knocked on over 1.5 million doors and helped secure 56 election victories, and I’ll bet none of them were for socialists.

The YAL sent Sanders’ campaign a cease-and-desist letter threatening a lawsuit. Hey, don’t think of it as intellectual property theft, think of it as redistributing your intellectual property to them. If that excuse doesn’t work, the Bernie people will need a new name for their door-to-door campaign effort. I’d suggest “All Your Stuff Belongs To Us,” but feel free to offer your own suggestions in the comments.


In a good sign for civil discourse, rock singer/songwriter Chrissie Hynde of the Pretenders wrote an open letter to President Trump, asking him to stop the extradition of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to the US. Surprisingly, it was a respectful letter that mentioned her father’s love of Rush Limbaugh for her letting him use “My City Was Gone” as his show theme for years, citing that as an example of how it’s the American way for people who don’t see eye-to-eye to disagree “without having your head chopped off.”

Whether you agree with her defense of Assange or not, she deserves applause for the respectful and civil way in which she stated it. Her fellow liberal celebrities could certainly take a lesson from her, as could her angry fans on social media who probably want to chop her head off for opposing chopping your political opponents’ heads off.

Here’s my open letter to Chrissie Hynde: if you really believe in having civil discussions with people of different political views, you have an open invitation to be my guest anytime on “Huckabee” on TBN. I promise you a friendly welcome and a courteous conversation about whatever issues are important to you. Of course, you’ll also have to sing “My City Is Gone” and let me play the bass part. Deal?

“I’m gonna try to make sure that the public knows that ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ was not designed to help protect the Trump campaign, as it should have been. It was designed to destroy it.”

So said Lindsay Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Sean Hannity’s Monday night show. “It reeked of political bias,” he added.

“[As for] the four front-line Mueller prosecutors who are asking for a seven-to-nine-year sentence [on Roger Stone] that was totally unjustified, there was no threat to a witness that would justify increasing the three-and-a-half to four-and-a-half-year recommendation from the guidelines. So the four prosecutors were the ones who were overzealous, and [Attorney General] Bill Barr rightly corrected that.” He said Barr stepped in and stopped what he thought was “unjust sentence enhancement.” (So that’s what it’s called!)

Graham noted that Barr also has a separate outside person looking at Trump’s original national security adviser Michael Flynn, who “was abused here.” (We’ve followed his case from the start and agree wholeheartedly.) Graham hopes the judge will void Flynn’s guilty plea. But now Andrew Weissmann, former lead investigator on the Mueller special counsel team, is muddying the waters, reportedly claiming that the Flynn review being undertaken by Barr is really a cover to look into Comey, McCabe and Strzok as well. Of course, this was blown up into a big negative story on MSNBC, but if it’s true it’s fine with me –- the review SHOULD cover them. These people are all part of Flynn’s story.

“I want to find out how far up the chain it went,” Graham said. “I want to make sure that no FISA warrant is ever issued again like it was against Carter Page. That system will have more checks and balances.” He considers “Crossfire Hurricane” to have been a danger to democracy and said Weissmann needs to explain why it took two years to complete the Mueller investigation when “he should have figured it out in the first week. There was nothing there.”

“To the people who want Barr to resign,” he said, “we know your agenda. You’re not trying to uphold the rule of law. You’re trying to take a good man down because you hate Trump.”

Precisely. Sen. Graham has started the probe he promised into the “Russia” investigation, requesting interviews with pertinent DOJ and FBI officials. He says he trusts Barr “as much as anybody I’ve ever met” to get to the bottom of what was done, and he doesn’t want to interfere with the process. And Graham knows enough about “Crossfire Hurricane” to want to make sure nothing like it ever occurs again.

The outside attorney Barr has named to look into the Flynn case is Jeffrey Jensen, the top federal prosecutor in St. Louis --- ah, good to get out of the DC swamp --- and he’ll be working alongside the lead prosecutor in the case, Brandon Van Grack. According to an official at the Justice Department, Jensen has been brought in “to get a complete and thorough understanding of the facts and the record in a complicated case.” It was just one month ago that Flynn, through his powerhouse attorney Sidney Powell, told the judge he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, and if anyone had good reason to do that, it’s Flynn.

But now, the ruthless Weissmann, who is almost certainly the real author of the “Mueller” report, is using his current position of (surprise) NBC legal analyst to defend the FBI and raise concerns about the appointment of Jensen as a “ploy” by Barr. This appears to be part of a concerted effort to discredit Jensen –- and continue the push to get rid of Barr –- before they get too close to proving what actually happened with Flynn and others who were spied on.

Weissmann noted that the judge in the Flynn case rejected claims that Flynn was set up by the FBI after seeing the facts in the underlying investigation. Judging from what we know about the underlying investigation, which certainly does seem set up, I think there must be much more to it than that.

As for Andrew McCabe, being part of The Swamp, he’s been notified through his attorney that he won’t face charges on the leaking and related lying we all know he did. Former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker told Tucker Carlson on Monday night that the IG’s report “lays out the factual basis” for a case against McCabe; in fact, the IG even referred him for criminal prosecution to the U.S. attorney in Washington, DC.

But that was then and this is now. Roger Stone and Andrew McCabe represent the two tiers of the justice system. While McCabe avoided prosecution for clear violations, Barr had to step in (before the President tweeted, I should add) and modify the DOJ’s ungodly recommended sentence for Stone.

Knowing how hard it is to bring cases and charge people with crimes, Whitaker trusts Barr and knows “that these difficult decisions are being well considered and being made for the right reasons.” Still, while he doesn’t want to second-guess Barr, he finds it difficult to understand why McCabe hasn’t been charged.

And he hears the same thing from Americans wherever he goes. It just doesn’t make sense. It’s getting hard for Americans to have confidence in the system, which I would add is a side benefit for “progressives” who want to tear that down along with Trump and those who support him.

Speaking of Trump supporters, Alan Dershowitz isn’t exactly one of those, but he’s objective enough and loves the Constitution enough that he can see the horrendous damage being done by “his” side, the Democrats. He gives Trump credit for being out-in-the-open about any contact he makes with the Justice Department. And, in a move that will absolutely get him banned from the guest list for every high-tone cocktail party on the Upper West Side, he gets to the subject of Obama, contrasting him negatively with Trump. (Oh, my.)  To paraphrase: “Trump tweets about the DOJ; Obama whispers about it.”

And now, Dershowitz claims that he’s in possession of documents that will show President Obama asked the FBI to investigate an unnamed person on behalf of --- yikes --- George Soros. He’s planning to disclose it down the road as part of a lawsuit. The material is “about how President Obama personally asked the FBI to investigate somebody on behalf of George Soros, who was a close ally of his.”

I’m reminded that Barr has reportedly set up a process for vetting information from Rudy Giuliani; perhaps he’s doing the same for Alan Dershowitz. Neither of them get invited to those cocktail parties, anyway –- not anymore –- but something tells me they don’t much care.


President's Day

February 17, 2020

Happy Presidents’ Day! This is a day when Americans celebrate all Presidents, but in a larger sense, we celebrate the system by which we pick our national leader. The Founders devised a brilliant system that gave a say to all the individual states, with their vastly different cultures and interests. We also celebrate our unprecedented history of respecting the vote of the people and the peaceful transfer of power. It’s too bad that many people now are so eager to trash the Electoral system, disrespect the voters’ choice and resist the peaceful transfer of power in the name of preserving their own political power. But they can at least pretend to respect those traditions for one day, then go back to observing “NOT My President Day” the other 364 days of the year (or 365 in leap years like this.)

I wrote an essay about Presidents’ Day in 2018, and I think it bears repeating, since nothing really has changed since it first appeared…

Monday was Presidents Day, and this year brought sobering new evidence that not only are Americans sadly ignorant of US history, but our historians aren’t exactly setting the woods on fire in that department, either.

A number of polls were released, asking the public to rank the greatest Presidents of all time. Overall, the highest vote-getters were John Kennedy, Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan. JFK had some major accomplishments, like the space program, but his term was tragically cut short after less than three years. Obama’s #1 ranking is similar to those Internet lists of the “all-time greatest movies” that include nothing made before 1995 (“Wow, ‘The Last Jedi’ is #1!”) They’re more a testament to the youthful ignorance of the rankers than the quality of the films. And while I take a back seat to nobody in my admiration for Reagan’s accomplishments, even he would likely protest that Washington and Lincoln should have been on top.

I don’t think most people these days appreciate the unprecedented service Washington performed by refusing to rule as a king and voluntarily stepping down from power to rejoin the people. Without his example, the presidency might not even be recognizable today. Well, at least George and Abe made the top 10 in most polls, but I suspect it’s less because of their historical significance than the fact that young people know them from the money. We’re lucky they didn’t name Alexander Hamilton as the best President, because he’s on the $10 bill and he starred in that rap musical.

But it’s easy to pick on the choices of the general public, who will naturally name things that are most recent and fresh in their minds. But what excuses do alleged experts have for their biased and uninformed choices? For instance, the 2018 Presidents & Executive Politics Presidential Greatness Survey is based on responses from current and recent members of the Presidents & Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association. They ranked Lincoln #1 and Washington #2. Their top 10 also includes Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and FDR. But LBJ at #10? (I get it: they love big government). Reagan only made it to #9, and at #8: Barack Obama (it goes without saying that they ranked Trump dead last, despite him presiding over the destruction of ISIS, a tax cut that’s firing up the economy and the rollback of executive overreach, all in his first year -- yet he’s ranked lower than William Henry Harrison, who died of pneumonia 31 days after being sworn in. He must’ve had one heck of a month.)

I think all you need to know about the “expertise” (or the bias) of these particular Presidential experts is that their top 10 includes Obama but not, say, James K. Polk. Polk oversaw the winning of the Mexican-American War; the reestablishing of the independent Treasury system; the annexation of Texas; the Oregon Treaty that set the border with Canada and won more of Oregon from the British than anyone expected; and the Mexican Cession, which added territory that included the current states of California, Nevada and Utah, most of Arizona, half of New Mexico, and some pretty sizable chunks of Colorado and Wyoming. He even tried to buy Cuba, which would have prevented a lot of grief down the road, but Spain wouldn’t sell. And Polk did all that and more in just four years because he kept his promise to serve only one term. For that alone, he deserves to be in the top 10 (They rank Polk at #20, seven places below Bill Clinton).

In comparison, Obama’s eight years gave us…Obamacare? A record stretch of low GDP growth? The spread of ISIS? Michelle’s school lunch program?

I can’t help wondering how many of these alleged “presidential history experts” who lionize Obama live in states that wouldn’t even be part of America if it weren’t for James K. Polk.