Advertisement

Political Books

August 14, 2020

One of the hallmarks of the Trump era has been the muckraking, back-stabbing “tell-all” book. I hate even to sully my eyeballs with this garbage, but I have no choice: I “read the news so you won’t have to,” even if it means having to research opportunistic, money-grubbing dreck that’s completely at odds with known facts.

For instance, I told you what was in Mary Trump’s recent book trashing her Uncle, the President, even though it was mostly debunked rumors (the SAT story) or second-hand hearsay from relatives who held a grudge over not inheriting enough money and who hadn’t seen The Donald in years. Naturally, that didn’t dissuade the media from giving the author tons of free publicity.

Well, this fall, we’re reportedly going to see a book that’s unflattering to Joe Biden – not a political book critiquing his policies, but a dirt-digging expose book that promises some stunning personal revelations. I don’t like even talking about stuff like this, but I have to tell you it’s coming because the media is likely to bury it deeper than nuclear waste. This book is by someone who potentially has an ax to grind, but unquestionably does know things that few other people would. The author is Jill Biden’s ex-husband, Bill Stephenson.

The National File has an exclusive preview. The splashiest and most unsavory claim is that the entire story of how Joe and Jill met on a blind date was fabricated, and they actually had known each other far longer. Stephenson alleges that he divorced Jill when he discovered she and Joe were having an affair after Joe backed into another car while driving the Corvette that Bill had given his wife (and Biden even welched on paying the $650 in damages he caused.)

But there are stunning non-personal claims as well. Stephenson was an early supporter of Biden’s political career, and he alleges that before Joe’s first Senate run, he gave $3,000 to Joe’s brother Frank to bribe a local Teamsters’ boss to make sure a newspaper that endorsed his opponent wasn’t delivered for three days, until after the polls closed. He also claims that shortly after the divorce, “Frank Biden approached Stevenson and suggested that he get out of town because he was now a liability to Joe Biden’s political career.”

Is all of this true? I have no idea. I do know that if it were about Trump, it would be front-page news, true or not. The National File has reporters already working on verifying some of the claims. But it is coming out -- unless someone manages to kill it. If so, then that will be a story in its own right. If nothing else, when you consider it alongside Joe’s long, known history of plagiarism, self-aggrandizement and outright whoppers

…it renders even more laughable the excuse by rabid anti-Trumpers like Bill Kristol that Joe Biden shouldn’t lower himself to debate someone who’s told so many lies.

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.

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.

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.

Who Hires Who

August 13, 2020

Among the many dusty political clichés that no longer apply is the idea that the Republicans are the party of “the rich” and Democrats are for “the common man” (or woman or whichever one of the 57+ genders you identify with.) That should have been set to rest long ago by all the big bucks pouring into Dem coffers from Wall Street, Hollywood and Silicon Valley; the Party’s efforts to continue letting illegal immigration destroy the jobs and wages of low-skilled workers; their laws that crush small businesses and independent contractors; and Party leaders like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi with their Marie Antoinette-like attitudes toward all the lower class “deplorables.”

But here’s yet another scientifically-verified example, and thanks to Instapundit for finding this on Twitter. The study was from last year, but it’s even more timely now.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill researchers discovered that when hiring top campaign workers, Democratic Presidential campaigns disproportionately hire people from the same small handful of elite private and Ivy League Schools, while Republicans tend to hire people who attended state public universities all across America.

The top three schools for Republican campaign hires are UT-Austin, Ohio State and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Others in the top 20 include the University of Alabama, Brigham Young in Utah and Missouri State. Overall, 20% of Democrat hires come from just seven schools: Harvard, Stanford, NYU, UC Berkeley, Georgetown, Columbia and Yale. Sixteen percent of Hillary Clinton's 2016 staffers came from just four of those schools. So we can also add "The Democrats represent diversity" to the outdated cliche list.

I’m sure the Dems would say that just shows that they hire the “best and the brightest.” But that’s only because they define “best and brightest” as “people who went to the same expensive schools I did in the same parts of the country and got indoctrinated with the same lefist dogma by the same liberal professors.” It could help explain why they seem to be so out of touch with most Americans, and as Hillary and Mike Bloomberg let slip, look down with scorn and condescension on anyone who doesn’t have an Ivy League degree and a white collar job. It doesn't take a degree from Hah-vahd to know how well that goes over with blue collar voters.

Moral: this is not your father’s Democratic Party anymore, even if they are running your grandfather for President.

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.

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.

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.