Clinesmith Criminal Plea Hints More Hoax Conspirators Will Be Charged

John Durham and Attorney General William Barr deserve credit for finally penetrating the deep state wall of silence.

In June 2017, the New York production of Shakespeare in the Park modified its costuming for its production of “Julius Caesar” so that the title character resembled the new U.S. president. After the actor playing a Trump-resembling Caesar pretended to succumb to the many wounds inflicted by the conspiracy of assassins, the character Brutus implored his co-conspirators to, “Stoop, Romans, stoop, and let us bathe our hands in Caesar’s blood up to the elbows and besmear our swords.” In doing so, Brutus forced the other conspirators to become indivisibly responsible for the coup. Nobody could turn on the other plotters if everyone had Caesar’s blood on their sword.

In an irony almost lost to history, the play-acting coup against the image of Trump had an analogue in reality. At that same moment in June 2017, Kevin Clinesmith forwarded two emails to his fellow conspirators who lied to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to spy on Trump campaign figure Carter Page. 

One email reflected that Carter Page worked as a source for the CIA to gather information on the Russians. That email exposed the entire Carter Page FISA spying as completely unnecessary and therefore totally illegal. 

Page had previously used the Washington Post to offer an interview with FBI agents about his contacts with Russia. Page addressed a letter directly to FBI Director James Comey shortly before the FBI certified that intrusive spying was the only way to explore those contacts. The forwarded email documented that Page had a long history of providing reliable information to the CIA on the very subject about which the FBI sought to invade his privacy. 

To hide this fact, Clinesmith created a second email by doctoring the first to read “not a source.” Clinesmith’s lawyer, Justin Shur, contends his client “did not try to hide the C.I.A. email from other law enforcement officials as they sought the final renewal of the Page wiretap. Mr. Clinesmith had provided the unchanged C.I.A. email to Crossfire Hurricane agents and the Justice Department lawyer drafting the original wiretap application.”

Thus, if you believe Clinesmith’s attorney, each conspirator was forced, figuratively, to bathe his hands in blood. By sending both the doctored and undoctored version of the same email, Clinesmith made sure each of them knew that the conspiracy would involve filing a fraudulent document with the FISA court. This may explain why, more than three years later, the conspirators never turned on each other. Like a 2017 version of Brutus, Clinesmith made sure that if he went down, he would be able to take down the other conspirators as well. 

But Clinesmith now appears positioned to cash in on that insurance policy. In a stunning development on Friday, the New York Times reported that Clinesmith intends to plead guilty to a criminal charge of falsifying a court document and that Clinesmith has made a deal with prosecutors. 

It was previously reported that “in June of 2017, the CIA sent an email to the FBI restating that Mr. Page had been an asset.” While that’s true, the charging document against Clinesmith dropped this bombshell: 

On August 17, 2016, prior to the approval of FISA #1, the [CIA] provided certain members of the Crossfire Hurricane team a memorandum (“August 17 Memorandum”) indicating that [Carter Page] had been approved as an ‘operational contact for the [CIA] from 2008 to 2013 and detailing information that [Page] had provided to the [CIA] concerning [Page’s] prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers. The first three FISA applications did not include [Page’s] history or status with the [CIA].

While Clinesmith claims to have shared the two versions (the doctored email and the original) with some of the conspirators, he is also charged with lying to the supervisory special agent who was the affiant on the fourth FISA application. Nevertheless, the charging document makes clear that the CIA notified the FBI that Page was a source in 2016 before the first FISA warrant was even issued. Thus, the charging document strongly suggests that Durham is zeroing in on several other conspirators who participated in deceiving the FISA court.

Normally, former FBI Director James Comey fearlessly weighs in on developments in the Russia collusion hoax. He personally certified the necessity of the FISA warrant to spy on Page, even though Page wrote him an open letter offering to sit for an FBI interview about his Russian contacts. 

Had Comey disclosed Page’s offer to the court, it would have denied the warrant until the FBI tried the less-invasive method. The FBI ignored an offer of a voluntary interview because they were more interested in spying on Page than finding out what he knew. Why? Because Page wasn’t the real target. The FBI had a political agenda against Donald Trump and Page’s affiliation with the political campaign provided the bureau a potential source of dirt that it could use as ammunition.

All of this would have been very easy for Robert Mueller to know as he investigated the Russia collusion hoax. Why didn’t Mueller expose this criminal behavior? One reason might be that Clinesmith was part of the Mueller team

Clinesmith personally interrogated another Trump associate, George Papadopolous, helping Mueller notch the trophy conviction. As the Washington Examiner reported, Clinesmith is also the FBI lawyer who, on November 9, 2016, wrote, “My god damned name is all over the legal documents investigating his staff,” Clinesmith said, adding, “So, who knows if that breaks to him what he is going to do?” Clinesmith (or “FBI Attorney 2”) is referenced 56 times in the 2018 inspector general report criticizing the politicization of the Clinton email investigation. 

All of this leads back to current FBI Director Christopher Wray, who has been fighting a concerted rear-guard effort to protect dirty FBI agents and lawyers from the consequences of their meddling in the 2016 election. Although he did not take the leadership position of the FBI until shortly after Clinesmith’s FISA deception, Wray is known to have consistently slowed or obstructed both the FISA court and congressional efforts to get to the bottom of what happened. 

Most recently, the president criticized Wray for obstructing Congress. This raises the question of a constitutional crisis as the FBI appears also to be defying the chief executive’s wishes to cooperate with Congress. Legally, Wray, much like Wray’s boss, the attorney general, borrows all of his authority from the president himself. 

In another example, Wray allowed Clinesmith to quietly resign in late 2019 shortly before the inspector general’s report disclosed Clinesmith’s deception to the FISA court. John Durham and Attorney General William Barr deserve credit for finally penetrating the deep state wall of silence to hold somebody accountable for the criminal actions of the men and women charged with upholding the law. The fact that Wray still has a job is a troubling sign that the FBI has become more powerful than the constitutional forces that are supposed to control it.


A Kamala-led Coup Would Succeed Against Biden

Does anyone doubt that Kamala Harris might find herself thinking that she could do a better job than Joe Biden?

This should never happen to another president again, this hoax,” President Trump repeatedly says, referring to the Russia collusion hoax that very nearly destroyed his presidency. It’s unlikely that there are enough turncoats and Obama holdovers to mount another effort against a reelected President Trump. But how vulnerable would a new President Biden be to such an effort?

Kamala Harris, former prosecutor of innocent people with different priorities and allies than Joe Biden, is uniquely positioned to lead a reprise of the same playbook used against President Trump. Only this time, Joe Biden would be far more vulnerable to such an attack.

Last month marked the semi-official fourth anniversary of the beginning of the attempt to stymie or reverse the peaceful transfer of power from the Obama Administration. While the FBI, the CIA, and the Department of Justice all seemed confident that Hilary Clinton would win, the Clinton-financed Russia collusion hoax served as an insurance policy in case she didn’t. 

Months before Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would appoint Robert Mueller’s far-flung taxpayer-financed lawyer insurrection against the Trump administration, key figures such as Andrew Weisman, Bruce Ohr, Kevin Clinesmith, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, and FBI agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka had already begun the groundwork to remove the incoming president if Hillary Clinton failed to defeat him in the election. 

Many of the details remain hidden thanks to rearguard deep-staters like current FBI Director Christopher Wray, who obstructed and slowed accountability while the perpetrators transitioned to lucrative private-sector gigs. 

But we know enough to be concerned that a similar effort would succeed against a weaker president.

It’s worth remembering that in the spring of 2017, immediately after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein participated in the firing of James Comey, he met with Andrew McCabe, the acting director of the FBI, to discuss having Trump removed. According to the New York Times, Rosenstein proposed creating a secret audio recording of Trump saying something that could be used to persuade other cabinet members to participate in a removal process under the 25th Amendment of the Constitution. Everybody seemed to agree that Trump was crazy and he said enough crazy things that the plan might work. 

Rosenstein believed he already had Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly on board. The 25th Amendment provides, “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments . . . transmit to the . . . Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”

In the end, this plan to remove Trump stalled when either Rosenstein or McCabe (or both) realized that the risk of failure outweighed the chances of getting enough Cabinet members to betray Trump. The second problem with the plan was that Vice President Mike Pence was perceived as loyal to President Trump and he likely would not have willingly played along with the coup or submitted to the control of the plotters if it were successful. 

But how would an identical plan work against a President Joe Biden? Imagine cabinet members loyal to Kamala Harris taking audio of everything Joe Biden said when he thought he was off the record. He makes astonishing gaffes even when his handlers rehearse and script his short appearances. It would be child’s play to amass a montage of secretly-recorded remarks making it clear that Biden is not up to the task of running the country.

Plan B, against President Trump, was the Russia collusion hoax. If the plotters couldn’t get a quick kill with a “Trump-is-crazy” coup, then they would have to resort to the “Trump-is-a-Russian-stooge” coup.

Here again, Biden coup plotters would have far more raw material against a Biden presidency than they did against President Trump. The plotters could simply substitute “China” for “Russia” and they would be off to the races showing financial entanglements between China and the Biden family. 

Even the Left-leaning Politifact acknowledged that the China-Biden relationship looks highly suspicious, writing, “It would have been more prudent to avoid the perception of a conflict of interest. If Hunter Biden is providing some specific value to these companies other than the possibility of access to his father, it would be helpful to know exactly what that was, or is.” Add to that Biden’s history of mollycoddling China, and the public could be easily persuaded that Biden was using his office to do favors for China in return for financial rewards to the Biden family. 

Does anyone doubt that Kamala Harris might find herself thinking that she could do a better job than Joe Biden? She would think that on day one and so would many of the sycophants hitching their star to her. 

As for the permanent bureaucracy in Washington, they would love to be owed a favor by the new boss they helped install. The first run almost worked against President Trump. A similar attempt led by Harris against Biden would have far better chances. And if the attempt against Trump serves as an analogue for the new and improved effort against Biden, that planning has already started. Biden wouldn’t survive his first 100 days.


Obama the Jacobin

Obama’s remarks at the John Lewis funeral amount to an ultimatum. Coexistence is no longer possible: America must choose between the Republic of the past and a glorious progressive future.

Many people were quick to call Obama’s eulogy for John Lewis distasteful, and that it was. But there is a hazard of being too offended on Lewis’s behalf. Really, it is hard to imagine that a man who dedicated his life to revolutionary politics would object to the nation’s arch-progressive giving a fire-and-brimstone speech at his funeral. This is, after all, the man who skipped the president’s inauguration.

Of course, what people really found outrageous was not Obama’s audacity, per se, but the audacity of his ideas. Obama dropped every pretense of republican tolerance and laid his cards bare. The filibuster must go; Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. must become states. Politics has become totally uncompromising. Every possible measure to shore up majority rule must be taken at once, and the “bitter clingers” of old habits must be crushed—forever.

It was the most revolutionary speech Obama has ever given. Many reactions focused on the means Obama proposed, and understandably as they were so extreme. But all means have ends, and while rather transparent about his means, Obama was dicier about his ends.

Rightly so, as his speech was nothing short of a manifesto for regime change. Being Obama, he was careful to cover up this radical purpose in an exterior of sentimentality (and affected, folksy demeanor.) After 20 minutes of throat-clearing about the departed, Obama got to the heart of the matter, although you’d be forgiven for missing it. It came and went very quickly:

America was built by John Lewises. He, as much as anyone in our history, brought this country a little bit closer to our highest ideals. And someday when we do finish that long journey towards freedom, when we do form a more perfect union, whether it’s years from now, or decades, or even if it takes another two centuries, John Lewis will be a founding father of that fuller, fairer, better America.

In a time when the American Founders are being torn down, Obama uttered not a word in their defense. He mentioned the founding just four times, once by quoting Martin Luther King, Jr., and he never mentioned the Founders directly. The only time he used the term “Founding Father” was in reference to John Lewis. (Elsewhere, Lewis is “John the Baptist preparing the way.”)

Revolution Was His Subject

What’s going on here? Obama knows that America is in the midst of a violent upheaval. If it’s true that “silence is violence,” one can only assume that he isn’t bothered by the chaos. That isn’t to say that he skirted the topic. Far from it. Revolution was his subject. He simply affirmed that the revolution is good. However long it takes, whatever is necessary, nothing is off-limits. 

While Obama paints a rosy picture of this “fairer” and “fuller” society, the America of his dreams is a revolutionary tyranny, in which the minority is unable to dissent and in which political violence is justified, so long as it’s in pursuit of the cause. He might have proscribed violence at some point, given that this was a speech honoring a so-called icon of nonviolent resistance, but for Obama, rioters in Portland are “peaceful demonstrators” and months of lawlessness and looting are best characterized as “people trying to be better, truer versions of ourselves.” 

His meaning couldn’t be clearer: Lewis was a revolutionary “founder” whose work remains unfinished. That work continues in the current unrest, and it must continue for decades, even centuries, before utopia is even close to consummation. 

Centuries! How many Americans could imagine this chaos going on for one more year? 

For Obama, what’s happening right now is trivial compared to what is necessary, since what is necessary is nothing less than the re-founding of the country. Notice the passage, “when we do form a more perfect union.” The framers might have said the same thing while drafting the Constitution. “To form a more perfect Union” was their purpose! But for Obama, the Constitution might as well not exist. (Not that we needed more evidence.) The task of forming a more perfect union hasn’t even begun. 

What is this if not a call for regime change? 

The “Blessed Destination”

But Obama was careful to make his purpose sound more benign. So he told an old, awkward, progressive lie: although those “white male slavers” and the country they created must be torn down and replaced, this “better” America is nothing more than the fulfillment of what they started. 

This is a politically expedient misdirection, one that Obama apparently thinks is losing its usefulness, but one which it is still necessary to repeat, until the current revolution has progressed enough in changing public opinion that it is safe to ditch any pretense of attachment to the original founding. Although he gave the perfunctory minimum of lip service to the founding, the focus of his speech was on the civil rights movement and its continuation in our current revolution, which appears to Obama to be the true source of America’s identity and moral authority.

For Obama, like all progressives, the founding is nothing more than an idea, an abstraction to be written over at the soonest convenience. It is a rhetorical flash, a tool to be used against the founding itself. Every time it is mentioned in his speech, it is a mere justification for the present revolution until that “blessed destination” of perfect equality has been reached. 

His speech could be seen as a reply to Donald Trump’s Mt. Rushmore speech: one was a defense of America as a concrete nation with a tangible, lived heritage that must be preserved; the other was a Jacobin call for revolt against America, ostensibly in the name of American values.

Obama clearly didn’t find it inappropriate to discuss power politics at the funeral of a “founding father” who dedicated his life to changing the country. He found it natural and even necessary, and doubtless his supporters agree. One can hardly blame them for thinking that politics is so totalizing that even sacred (and what is “sacred” to the Left, but social justice?) occasions are fair game for such low ends. 

Every election now is of existential importance, even as the legitimacy of elections seems to be fading. A battle over voting this November points to a further breakdown in our ability to settle differences through political processes.

Amidst divisions that threaten to erupt into civil strife, all Obama did was stake out his position—with a stark, militant, partisan call to arms. Not only must the Left win this election, they must change the rules to make sure that they never lose power again. 

Obama’s remarks amount to an ultimatum. Coexistence is no longer possible: America must choose between the Republic of the past and a glorious progressive future. Those on the wrong side of history will be destroyed.

Let’s not rush to take offense on behalf of our enemies. While Obama’s remarks were tasteless, we might also wonder if they show a level of political commitment that is lacking on the Right, to our great detriment, and indeed our peril. 


Whatever Happens, Kamala Harris Wins

If the ticket is successful, her chances of being president are excellent. And if the Democrats lose, the ranks of defeated vice presidential candidates include many who went on to greater things.

The appointment of Senator Kamala Harris as Democratic candidate for vice president is a suitable final step in the increasingly goofy Joe Biden campaign, prior to next week’s virtual Democratic convention. She was a catastrophic candidate for the presidential nomination, starting out as a strong rival to Marxist Senator Bernie Sanders, and like Biden himself and all the others except Mayor Pete Buttigieg, her candidacy sank like a rock. Almost every policy question was answered with a pious assertion of the need for “a national conversation.”

If her proposals had been acted upon, the country would have been swept by a pandemic of logorrhea (the inability to stop talking). Harris favors open borders and compared the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) service to the Ku Klux Klan. 

She favors the entire Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Green Terror, including abolition of fracking and ultimately of fossil fuel consumption and use, and the now customary Democratic hare-brained nonsense about windmills and solar panels. (At the confirmation hearing for James Mattis as secretary of defense, she asked him how he would combat climate change.) 

She favors free full-service public healthcare for everyone, sharply increased taxes, and the confiscation of privately owned firearms—Beto O’Rourke could soon be on every doorstep in America.

Critics on the Left

Harris has many critics among the 98 percent of Democrats who did not support her candidacy for president. The Left is displeased with her performance as San Francisco’s district attorney and as attorney general of California: she always called for maximum sentences and condoned the widespread American practice of prosecutors extorting or suborning inculpatory false evidence by threats of indictment if that evidence is not forthcoming, and promises of immunity from prosecution for perjury if it is. 

Loyola Law Professor Lara Bazelon recently accused Harris in the New York Times of having “fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony, and the suppression of crucial information.” 

President Trump has made serious efforts at penal reform and sentence reduction for nonviolent offenders. By contrast, Harris sent over 1,000 marijuana users to prison but acknowledged having tried it herself. Harris’s performance as a prosecutor clashes with the general current Democratic enthusiasm for defunding and discouraging the police and turning a blind eye to urban vandalism, arson, and looting.

A Poor Field

Biden backed himself into a corner through his malapropistic aspersions of African Americans and the claims against him about molestation of women (claims Harris once endorsed), and pledged a black female candidate (or, as some have suggested, a dark-skinned person with a cervix). 

Those who met those criteria were a pretty job lot. Representative Val Demings of Georgia was promising but obscure; former National Security Advisor Susan Rice is tainted by the Benghazi fiasco and her role in the persecution of General Michael Flynn, and is sometimes unacceptably abrasive. Rep. Karen Bass of California is, on her record (including her public condolences to the people of Cuba over the hardly premature death of Fidel Castro), a Communist; and unsuccessful Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacy Abrams is a deluded fabulist and would have been a preposterous choice. 

In the valley of the bumbling or belligerent African-American Democratic female politicians, the half-Jamaican, half-East Indian, chronic “conversationalist,” Senator Harris wins. The Democratic National Committee and its media allies have already warned that any criticism will be portrayed as sexist and racist, but that charade has become tiresome.   

The vice presidential nominee’s prospects are clouded by the apparent expectation (according to a Rasmussen poll) of 59 percent of Americans that, if elected, Biden will not finish his term for medical reasons (despite his well-filmed weekend bicycle ride of 75 yards). So more than half the electorate thinks a vote for the Democrats will be for both Biden and Harris to be president. There is nothing in her performance in office or as a presidential candidate to indicate that Americans would greet a Harris presidency with equanimity. 

Whatever happens, she wins. If the ticket is successful, her chances of being president are excellent. If Biden completes his term, Harris is the principal candidate to follow him. And if the Democrats lose, the ranks of defeated vice presidential candidates include many who went on to greater things: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Earl Warren, Edmund Muskie, Robert Dole, Walter Mondale, and Lloyd Bentsen.                                                   

Democratic Incompetence on Parade

The Biden-Harris tandem kicked off with Biden’s monstrous lie that Trump demonstrated his support for Nazism at the violent demonstrations in Charlottesville in 2017, one of the opening guns in the Democratic media character assassination of the president. What he actually said was that there was merit to the arguments of both sides in the original controversy in Charlottesville over what to do with the statue of Robert E. Lee, and that in the violence that ensued both sides were equally odious. 

In the ensuing false controversy whipped up by the Trump-hating media, there were some hilarious acts of moral posturing, such as corporate raider Carl Icahn resigning from a White House cultural committee. (Trump abolished the committee as redundant.) This is where the Democrats have arrived: where they began, accusing Donald Trump of every conceivable permutation of bigotry and corruption. 

The Democratic media made no reference whatever to the shooting of 21 African Americans in Washington, D.C. in one incident last weekend, but the Democratic mayor,  the egregious Muriel Bowser, ignored the shooting and complained that her ban on assemblies of more than 50 people was sometimes not observed. World-famous Michigan Avenue in Chicago was smashed up which at least caused the hopeless mayor, Lori Lightfoot, to acknowledge for the first time that some of the peaceful protesters were committing crimes, but she publicly warned her police chief not to “bait” her. 

The Big Apple naturally has the most incompetent mayor of all: Bill de Blasio blamed his city’s skyrocketing violent crime rate on the summer and the coronavirus. His abrupt chopping of the entire crime prevention unit and of $1 billion from the city police budget, of course, had nothing to do with it. And New York’s governor, Andrew Cuomo, ducked his own responsibility in sending COVID-19 sufferers back to homes for the elderly and blamed unspecified Trump regulations and visitors and nurses for 19,000 deaths in those facilities, a number greater than the combined total of coronavirus fatalities of Germany and Canada, countries which have a total population of 120 million. 

And in Washington, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) returned to her script of four years ago and incanted: “With Trump, all roads lead to Putin.” She said that it didn’t matter that China favors Biden in the election because the United States has no problems with China.

For nearly four years the Democrats and the self-shamed legions of their national political media accomplices have had no narrative except constant, 360 degrees, stentorian defamation of the president. It is the most protracted and despicable performance of a major American party in opposition since the Democrats betrayed their own president (Lyndon Johnson), spuriously destroyed President Nixon, and completed the trifecta by withdrawing all aid to Indochina and consigning it to the tender mercies of the North Vietnamese Communists and Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge. Millions died.

In 12 weeks we will have the election result; I trust the people.


Unmasking Joe Biden’s Mental State

What impact will Biden’s mental faculties have on the election?

Sleepy Joe,” as Donald Trump likes to call him, will be the 46th president of the United States—assuming you trust CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times or the Washington Post. At 77, Joe Biden has a lifetime of dubious political experience, most notably as vice president to Barack Obama. Yet he was hardly the strongest candidate the Democrats had to offer this year.

Though not as insufferably entitled and tainted by sleaze as Hillary Clinton, Biden suffers from one additional, major flaw: his evidently waning mental faculties. Many believe that Biden’s lapses are not simply the slowing down of senility, but the beginnings of dementia.

Diagnosis at a distance is a dubious endeavor and one that psychiatrists normally eschew. All the rules have been broken, however, since Trump took office, with a constant stream of “expert” analyses of the president as a narcissist or psychopath. 

In Biden’s case, the signs of mental dysfunction are readily apparent to anyone who has an elderly relative with memory problems and failing concentration. Political rivals, commentators, and the general public should not jump to conclusions, but Biden certainly shows a serious degree of cognitive decline that would be worrying for anyone, let alone for someone seeking the keys to the White House.     

Is Biden in the early stage of dementia? The Alzheimer’s Society describes the following signs and symptoms of this disease: 

  • Failing memory for recent events and experiences; 
  • Difficulty in concentrating, planning or organizing (e.g. making decisions, solving problems or performing a sequence of tasks);
  • Communication problems, such as inability to follow a conversation or failing to find the right word; 
  • Impaired visuospatial skills: difficulty in judging distances (e.g. on stairs) and in seeing things three-dimensionally;
  • Loss of orientation to time and place.

Biden does not consistently display all of these anomalies. Problematically, though, basic factual errors and wrong words are becoming more and more frequent. Here are some examples of his tenuous grasp of pertinent detail:  

  • Campaigning in Iowa for the Democratic candidacy in August 2019, Biden asserted “we choose science over fiction,” followed by the punch-line: “we choose truth over fact”
  • At the Asian and Latino Coalition in Des Moines, “poor kids,” he exclaimed, are “just as talented as white kids.”
  • In September 2019 at the Workers’ Presidential Summit in Philadelphia, Biden claimed that tax credits “would put 720 million women back in the workforce.”
  • At a rally prior to Super Tuesday, he stumbled on the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women are created by the . . . you know, the thing!”
  • At the South Carolina Democratic primary debate, he told the audience of “150 million fatal shootings” since his opponent Bernie Sanders had voted for gun manufacturers’ exemption from liability.
  • In his home state of Delaware in July, he erroneously welcomed folks to “Kingswood Community Center” after an awkward pause he realized his mistake, but somehow made it worse: “Actually that’s the one I used to work. It’s a joke . . . You know where you were.”

These constant fumbles can all be veiwed on the unforgiving internet, and they are excruciating to watch. He also becomes irritable when challenged, another sign of faulty cognition. In Michigan, he told a man who had criticized him on gun control: “You’re full of shit.” At a New Hampshire rally in February, he reacted to a woman’s doubts about him standing up for workers, snapping “you’re a lying, dog-faced pony soldier.” Imagine the furor if Trump had abused a female voter like that. The other day, Biden called a black reporter a cocaine junkie after the latter had suggested cognitive testing.

Arguably, some of Biden’s apparent mistakes betray an underlying attitude towards race. In May he told a black radio host that if you are African American and considering voting for Donald Trump, “you ain’t black.” This suggested a sense of ownership of an entire racial group by their white saviors in the Democratic Party. 

Compounding this, last week in an interview held by the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and the National Association of Black Journalists, Biden said that there was great diversity of opinion among Latinos, unlike among African Americans. He tried to explain away both these remarks, but to some, they were revealing of a mind that has lost its political discipline. Candor comes with disinhibition. 

Some supporters attribute these gaffes to stress (although that is not very reassuring for a would-be president). In a recent Zogby poll, the majority of respondents believed that Biden has dementia, including one-third of all Democratic voters. It seems probable that he has mild cognitive impairment, a condition that tends to progress to dementia sooner or later.  If he were to take the Montreal Cognitive Function Test, the electorate would have a better idea of whether he is fit to lead.  

But the Democrats don’t want him tested, either by a neuropsychological instrument or by open political debate. 

The coronavirus lockdown, therefore, has been timely and beneficial for Biden. Locked away, he has been spared from addressing mass rallies, with the likelihood of underwhelmed audiences and far from full venues. He has not been aggressively questioned or faced the press. He refused an interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News. Now his people appear to want to cancel the three televised debates, a norm of U.S. presidential elections for decades.

Meanwhile, his grandstanding adversary has been deprived of his most effective means of campaigning—mass political rallies in towns and cities across the nation. By comparison, Biden has reached those who bother to listen by facing his computer camera in a windowless home basement. But even with a script to follow, Biden repeatedly blunders. He finds using Zoom confusing; at times he seems to even be wondering where he is. 

What impact will Biden’s mental faculties have on the election? Of course, the Democrats simply want to oust Trump at any cost, and Biden is merely an acceptable figurehead for the ascendant hard Left’s campaign, a kind of Trojan horse for an American experiment with totalitarian government. 

Much will be made of Kamala Harris, who will effectively succeed him from day one and govern the country as the White House goes woke. While reclined, sipping tea in the Oval Office, Biden will really have lasted less time than the ninth president, Willian Henry Harrison, who served just 31 days before he died of typhoid pneumonia. 

For the first time since broadcasting began, there may be no presidential debate. The Democrats know that Biden would be at risk of a catastrophic performance under pressure from Trump, who would pull no punches. Opinion polling shows that the American people like Biden more, the less they hear him speak. So he will be prevented from speaking at all. The New York Times has blatantly supported this tactic, leaving Trump to shout into the wind.  

Democrats think that they’ll win the election in November without any debates, without a convention, without public rallies, without a real campaign, and without voters visiting polling stations. To have any chance, Trump must unmask the man whose cognitive deficits surely make him unsuitable as commander-in-chief in a dangerous world.  

A President Biden could not ably govern or make cogent decisions. His misreading of an emerging conflict could cause rapid escalation and needless loss of life.

How can Trump best do that? Three ways. 

First, constantly query Biden’s condition and demand cognitive tests. Release his own test result and challenge him to do likewise.

Secondly, ensure that the debates are held, with or without Biden. In his absence, use a cut-out figure wearing the familiar black mask.  

Thirdly, counter every platform point, every comment, and every policy statement by Biden with clear, hard, undeniable facts. Demonstrate Biden’s subversive ideological bearing, his corrupt nature, his kowtowing to China, his shady dealings for the financial benefit of his son Hunter’s career (whose usurious credit card business imposed rates from 24 to well over 50 percent APR, making economic life perilous for the most marginalized people in society). A Trump War Room needs to work 24/7 doing nothing less.

In other words, unmask Biden. 


Fully Woke Joe

Not “sleepy” at all, Biden would distort the heart of American finance and transform the nation’s basic economic structure using the mantra of “civil rights” and equality.

On the identity politics that used to be known as “civil rights” Sleepy Joe is fully woke.

Just as he prioritized sex and race identity for his vice presidential pick, Joe Biden would racialize his monetary policy by remaking the Federal Reserve banking system. Biden is thereby the most identity-focused candidate in American history since the 19th century. And with the force of the Democratic Party behind him, he lacks any guard rails. 

Anyone troubled by arbitrary presidential power should beware of Biden’s ambitious plan to remake the Federal Reserve banking system, which would make the Fed even more independently powerful, but now on racial issues, and would compound the problems with both the Fed and the growth of racialized politics.

Already suspect because of its “independence” from politics—which means freedom from the fundamental principle of the consent of the governed—the Federal Reserve raises suspicions of favoring this or that special interest no matter what it does or fails to do. Trump is not the first president to heap criticism on even his own appointee as chairman. 

Biden’s radical change would channel the anger of racialized politics into the Fed’s mission of sober policymaking on interest rates and other concerns of a central bank.

Biden has proposed that Congress amend the Federal Reserve Act to “add to that responsibility and aggressively target persistent racial gaps in jobs, wages, and wealth.” To achieve this revolution, he would prioritize “diverse nominees for the Board of Governors and the regional Federal Reserve Banks.”

The economics of the Fed would become chiefly political. Its board of governors would no longer set interest rates for the common good but for particular factions in public life. The Biden proposal is a prime example of how a faction gets a hold of part of the government and bends its purpose to its own narrow good. There will be no Madisonian compromises of groups toward a common good.  

Dwarfing Affirmative Action

The radicalism of Biden’s proposal becomes clear from Senator Elizabeth Warren’s bill, introduced days after his speech. The ultra-progressive Massachusetts senator’s Federal Reserve Racial and Economic Equity Act, cosponsored by the likes of Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and, in the House, Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Al Green (D-Texas), Chuy Garcia (D-Ill.), and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.). This is predictable since Warren, as a Harvard Law professor, was the prime-mover the legislation establishing the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB), which supposedly protects the little people from avaricious banks, but which has grander ambitions about putting the economy under bureaucratic control

The latest Fauxcahontas-Biden bill includes three parts: first, a requirement that the Fed carry out its functions in a way that “minimizes and eliminates racial disparities in employment, wages, wealth, and access to affordable credit”; second, a requirement that the Federal Reserve chairman identify in his reports before Congress “disparities in employment, income and wealth across racial and ethnic groups”; third, a requirement that the Fed and the Open Market Committee work to foster “elimination of disparities across racial and ethnic groups with respect to employment, income, wealth, and access to affordable credit,” extending to monetary policy, bank regulation, and financial institutions.

This may sound like mere reporting of data but note the “shalls” and the requirements. This is a setup for mandated policy conclusions that dwarf affirmative action, quotas, and other old standbys. 

As Rush Limbaugh put it, “the Federal Reserve would be transformed into an all-powerful social-justice enforcement agency. Using racial fairness as a cover, Democrats want to give the Fed a new mission: force banks and financial markets to adopt the radical Left’s socialist agenda.” 

Ripe for Corruption

And of course, the Left will benefit themselves while professing to do good for others: co-sponsor Maxine Waters, Jacob Heilbrunn reminds us, was named “one of the most corrupt members of Congress,” for violating House conflict of interest rules concerning a bank in which she had a financial stake. It should come as no surprise that Warren was the genius behind the agency this new one would imitate.

Finally, the fiendishness of using the Fed for anti-democratic purposes becomes clearer in light of a Supreme Court decision from this past term, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Finance Protection Bureau

The 5-4 decision permitted the Trump Administration to fire the acting head of the agency but declined to declare the oddly constructed board to be unconstitutional. The law establishing it (known as Dodd-Frank, the Dodd being former Senator Christopher Dodd, who headed Biden’s vice-presidential selection committee) made the bureau so independent of political pressure that even its funding, from the Fed itself, could not be controlled by Congress. 

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his partial dissent, explained the issue well: 

The Constitution does not permit the creation of officers exercising “quasi-legislative” and “quasi-judicial powers” in “quasi-legislative” and “quasi-judicial agencies.”  No such powers or agencies exist. Congress lacks the authority to delegate its legislative power, and it cannot authorize the use of judicial power by officers acting outside of the bounds of Article III. Nor can Congress create agencies that straddle multiple branches of Government.

Unfortunately, Chief Justice Roberts would not join the conservatives in finding the CFPB unconstitutional. In it Congress has created an uncontrollable monster, wielding unchallengeable powers with funding that it cannot alter. This is the ultimate progressive government dream, a putatively reform-minded agency beyond all political pressures. 

Ultimately, Warren would create an entity similar to CFPB that would, unabated by political pressure (that is, by elected officials) bring about a world of economic equality for all. Thus the last few weeks have revealed who Joe Biden is—not “sleepy” at all, this most “woke” of candidates is in a vanguard ahead of Elizabeth Warren’s radical ideas and Kamala Harris’s opportunistic rhetoric. He would distort the heart of American finance and transform the nation’s basic economic structure using the mantra of “civil rights” and equality. This is socialism camouflaged in bureaucratic garb.


Biden’s Ukraine Problem Isn’t Going Away

Plenty of Biden bombshells could come to light through Senator Ron Johnson’s committee, the Justice Department, and conservative media over the next several weeks.

The public is mostly unaware that a key motive behind the Democrats’ impeachment effort was to criminalize any interest in the Biden family’s shady dealings with the persistently corrupt country of Ukraine. As damaging news coverage of Hunter Biden’s multimillion dollar gig with Burisma, the troubled Ukrainian energy company, escalated in the fall of 2019 and threatened to derail Joe Biden’s third run for the presidency, the Biden campaign declared open season on journalists.

A Biden spokeswoman lashed out at the New York Times for publishing “malicious claims” about her boss and his son; the campaign warned social media companies not to run ads featuring the infamous clip of Biden bragging about trading U.S. foreign aid in exchange for the firing of a prosecutor investigating Burisma. The fervor quickly died down after Democrats successfully changed the subject, building an impeachment case against President Trump that portrayed his brief mention of the Bidens during a phone call with the Ukrainian president as “election interference.”

The gambit has worked so far. Hunter Biden and Burisma effectively disappeared from the pages of the New York Times, the paper that first revealed in 2015 the younger Biden’s ties to Burisma; all major news outlets followed suit. Hidin’ Biden no longer faces even softball questions from the press or the public about his past activities in Kyiv, where he served as Barack Obama’s “point person” and doled out billions in U.S. tax dollars to a grateful regime.

But Team Biden seems worried again. Kate Bedingfield, Biden’s spokeswoman who consistently threatens the media not to publish “disinformation,” a.k.a. facts, about the Bidens and Ukraine, issued another decree last month. 

This time, Bedingfield is gunning for Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee; Johnson is pushing ahead with his investigation into Burisma and its influence during the final years of the Obama Administration.

“In the coming weeks, Johnson will attempt to relitigate comprehensively discredited accusations that Donald Trump drove himself into impeachment trying to force others to legitimize,” Bedingfield, copping to the impeachment head-fake, wrote on July 22. “Johnson will strain to provoke Democrats into responding to specific truncated and out of context snippets from documents and bad faith questioning of witnesses.”

To add some much-needed Russian collusion pack to her punch, as I wrote earlier this week, Bedingfield accused the two-term senator from Oshkosh of acting as a Kremlin stooge for allegedly relying on information from a member of the Ukrainian parliament. She claimed Andriy Derkach, who met with Trump lawyer and confidante Rudy Guiliani last December in Kyiv, is the “Ukrainian Putin” and allegedly sent materials to key Republican lawmakers, which makes Johnson part of a “foreign interference operation.”

Derkach, it seems, has the goods on Biden. In May, he released recordings of phone calls that appear to document Biden’s threat to withhold U.S. aid until the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Burisma was fired. The phone calls involve Biden, former Secretary of State John Kerry, and the Ukrainian president at the time. (Hunter Biden and Kerry’s son-in-law were business partners.) Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has opened up a criminal probe into his predecessor based on the tapes.

But perhaps Team Biden is rattled about more than just bad press right before election day. 

While all eyes are focused on U.S. Attorney John Durham’s probe into Crossfire Hurricane, Attorney General William Barr presumably is moving forward with various investigations into Ukraine. 

In a February letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the Justice Department confirmed that two U.S. attorneys are handling “several open matters . . . that in some way potentially relate to Ukraine.” 

A spokesman for the Eastern District of New York, one of the offices tasked with the Ukraine-related inquiry, declined to comment on the probe to American Greatness. As of press time late Thursday, neither the main Justice Department nor the U.S. attorney’s office in Pittsburgh responded to a request for comment.

Johnson, bruised after a rough interview this week with Hugh Hewitt (who roasted the senator for the GOP’s lack of action on Obamagate), later had to clarify his remarks, but he seems undeterred in pursuing his investigation. 

Johnson announced he would subpoena Jonathan Winer, a former top official in John Kerry’s State Department, which was heavily lobbied by Burisma-paid Democratic operatives in 2015 and 2016. (Winer also was a neighbor of Fusion GPS chief Glenn Simpson and a longtime pal of Christopher Steele; Winer helped circulate the Steele dossier.)

In a lengthy letter defending his work, Johnson posed several questions that both Bidens should be forced to answer. 

“Did Burisma, its owner, or representatives receive special access to, or treatment from, U.S. agencies or officials because of Hunter Biden’s role on the board of directors?” Johnson wrote August 10. “Exactly when, and for what reasons, did the U.S. government decide to condition a $1 billion loan guarantee for Ukraine on the termination of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin? What exactly had Shokin done that caused you to threaten to withhold $1 billion in desperately needed aid from Ukraine if President Poroshenko didn’t fire him?”

Investigative reporter John Solomon also is making inroads on his independent inquiry into the Bidens. State Department memos released under a Freedom of Information Act request confirm Burisma’s successful outreach and use of Biden’s name to gain access. 

“They show far more contact between Burisma and the U.S. embassy in [Kyiv] than was acknowledged by witnesses during President Trump’s impeachment proceedings earlier this year,” Solomon reported on August 12. “The memos show Burisma’s lobbying efforts were led by a Democratic firm called Blue Star Strategies and aided by the nonprofit Atlantic Council foreign policy think tank, stretching from the State Department’s executive suite in Washington at the start of the election to the U.S. embassy in [Kyiv] in the waning days of the Obama administration.”

The memos also acknowledge contact between Burisma representatives and key impeachment witnesses including Marie Yovanovitch, former ambassador to Ukraine, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent.

The media, of course, will continue to take its marching orders from Team Biden until Election Day. Johnson is the newest Russian collusion villain; Ukraine, American voters will be told, is old news and a liability for the president, not his Democratic opponent.

But plenty of Biden bombshells could come to light by Johnson’s committee, the Justice Department, and conservative media over the next several weeks; it will be too late for a rushed impeachment trial to save Biden again.


War Chief Republicans or Reservation Chief Republicans?

Will GOP leaders settle for the poor wages of compromise like Black Kettle? Or will they refuse to compromise with those who wish to destroy us and fight politically, even to the end, like Tecumseh?

I’ve been thinking a lot about the coming election and what people on the Right will do depending on the outcome. If President Trump wins, will they go back to the failed strategy of trying to compromise with the Left even though we would finally have the power to restore America? And if Trump loses, will they slide back into the role of playing lackeys—giving away the keys to the national house?

At the same time, I keep returning back to a single thought: which Republicans will be war chiefs and which will be reservation chiefs?

What is a war chief and what is a reservation chief? People who don’t live west of the Mississippi as I do may be unfamiliar with the distinction. As a rule, war chiefs were American Indians who refused to submit to displaced from their tribal lands—whether by other Amerindians or by Americans. The war chief chose war and its attendant ills over submission. 

The reservation chiefs, often without being prompted, sold off tribal lands that were not theirs to sell for cheap trinkets: beads, whiskey, and buttons rather than risking conflict.

When I think of the reservation chiefs, I think of those who sold Manhattan to the Dutch for $24 worth of beads, or men like John Ross or Elias Boudinot who just accepted the idea that their people, the Cherokee, should passively submit to being removed from the Southeast to Oklahoma. I think of the Chiefs Black Kettle and Little Raven who bowed their heads and passively submitted to being removed to reservations chosen not by them but for them. I’m sure many of these men thought that what they were doing on behalf of their people was necessary, even praiseworthy.

When I think of the war chiefs, I think of those proud American Indians who fought back against their displacement, who refused to give up their traditions, who attacked despite overwhelming odds. 

When I think of war chiefs, I think of Metacom, the Wampanoag chief who realized the folly of his father’s accommodation with the Puritans. Even though it was too late, he still fought the fight to retain his ancestral lands. I think of Tecumseh, the Shawnee Chief who spent his life trying to unite the tribes of the Old Northwest to eject the invasion of my equally courageous and brave ancestors who were displacing them in their lands. I think of Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse who, though they were ultimately doomed, resisted their dispossession and land loss rather than be a party to it.

What was the difference between the reservation and war chiefs? Maybe the former thought their lands were going to be taken anyway, right? Why not get the best deal possible if defeat is inevitable? Why submit to the indignity, the pain, the suffering, and loss if the material results are the same—or perhaps even worse? (And they often were.)

The answer is in the immaterial value of resistance.

There is a reason Crazy Horse, and not Elias Boudinot, is the subject of a massive stone monument dedicated to his memory. There is a reason children in the public schools, especially American Indian children, know who Tecumseh is; and it is the same reason they probably have never heard of Little Raven. Because what Crazy Horse and Tecumseh bequeathed was a gift to their descendants: the gift of knowing that the pride was unbroken, the gift of knowing that they knew how valuable their patrimony was and that they were willing to go to great lengths to defend it and pass that pride on to their descendants.

This immaterial principle of a psychological and emotional patrimony, an inheritance of pride is why Texans praise and know the names of the heroes of the Alamo like Davy Crockett and not the leader of the massacred prisoners of Goliad. It is why young Israelis know who Eleazar ben Ya’ir was and not the names of those who collaborated with the Romans in the destruction of Judea. I could go on, but these people, these other various examples like the Amerindian War Chiefs are the ones who—even in defeat—won a victory for their causes and their posterity.

How can we quantify the value of this gift to posterity? We can’t.

But I can tell you, how we speak of Republican leaders in decades to come—even if we are defeated and submerged by the globalist “march of history”—will in large part depend on whether or not they choose to be War Chief Republicans or Reservation Chief Republicans. On every issue.

The Left has made it very clear what they want to do with us and our patrimony. They want to abolish the family. They want to swamp our nation with third-world colonists regardless of our desires, making them citizens as soon as possible, so that they can rule this country permanently. They openly state their plan is to keep their governing coalition united by demonizing white men, describing them as super oppressors in terms of wealth, income, and status. They openly state it is their goal to target and destroy the history, monuments, and memories of these super oppressors and have been carrying it out with zeal. They want to continue the process of outsourcing our jobs. They will do nothing to stop the importation of drugs into this country because this would require them to secure the border; and so tens of thousands more Americans will die from drug overdoses—the progress of which has been halted for now by the Trump Administration.

Will Republicans be Reservation Chief Republicans, selling our patrimony cheaply—the patrimony that belongs to all American citizens: whether they be black, white, Asian, Hispanic, male, female, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or agnostic—for the cheap Chinese trinkets of globalization? Will they be Reservation Chief Republicans, allowing the MEET Complex—that body of leftist occupied institutions: Media, Entertainment, Education, and Tech—to continue to poison the American mind and soul in exchange for profit and sordid programming?

Or will they be War Chief Republicans? Will they tell the truth and fire back at their opponents—even if they are called sexists, or racists, or homophobes? Will they fight for the right of Americans to have decent paying work and dignity—even if their opponents call them nativists and bigots for it? Will they put American First, even though our illegitimate globalist elites bare their teeth at them?

Will they settle for the poor wages of compromise like Black Kettle? Or will they refuse to compromise with those who wish to destroy us and make us strangers in our own country and fight politically, even to the end, like Tecumseh? That’s the question of our day.


Kamala Harris, Mail-In Voting, and the Boomerang

The Senator from California’s career as an unexpurgated opportunist may be reaching its zenith.

At Monday’s news conference, Orange Man Bad brushed off a shooting on the White House perimeter, returned to the podium, and proceeded to shove his executive orders so far up Democrats’ agenda they could all taste Coppertone.

He hammered the Democrats’ mail-in voting initiative as election interference worse than anything from China, Russia, or Iran.

POTUS had a point. In New York’s 12th Congressional District primary, for example, mail-in voting has created a disaster that could only be topped by the cooperative brainstorming of Rube Goldberg and the Marquis de Sade on acid. After two months, New Yorkers still have no clear winner, and court cases are flying. 

What kind of chaos would ensue if mail-in voting happened nationwide in November, and there were no clear winners after weeks and weeks of struggle? 

What if mail-in voting created such obfuscation of reality that the popular vote could not be translated into the requisite minimum of 270 electoral votes needed for either candidate to win?

Under the Constitution’s 12th Amendment, the election of the president would be thrown to an immediate ballot vote in the House of Representatives. The vice president would be elected by ballot in the Senate.

Does anyone doubt that Nancy Pelosi’s House would elect Joe Biden?

The Senate surely would elect the Republican incumbent vice president, Mike Pence.

 But wait! There’s more!

Now that Kamala Harris has been named as Joe Biden’s vice-presidential running mate, her career as an unexpurgated opportunist may be reaching its zenith. After all, her first government job at age 29 was as an appointee to the California Medical Assistance Commission, a $72,000-a-year ($120,000 today) plum awarded for being Willie Brown’s bimbo. This, of course, reduces Kamala’s self-proclaimed and much-vaunted feminist stance to mere, well, lip service.

Yet Kamala-the-career-opportunist is now already being talked about on CNN as the replacement for Joe Biden before he gets to the White House. 

So the sequence goes like this: mail-in voting causes a tie in the Electoral College, Joe Biden resigns his candidacy, the Democratic National Committee substitutes Harris, and the former first bimbo of San Francisco becomes president of the United States.

Not so fast. There is always a Republican trump card: At the last moment, Donald Trump removes himself as a candidate for president and Mike Pence takes over as the nominee. He and the Republican National Committee then appoint Donald Trump as his vice-presidential running mate.

And then, the Senate confirms Donald Trump as vice president.

Imagine the fun when Kamala and The Donald are sworn in! 

And how long before President Harris is driven absolutely freaking bonkers by The-Donald-In-Overdrive, whereupon the 25th Amendment is mercifully invoked upon her? 

Donald Trump becomes President. And maybe runs again in 2024.

Advice to the Left bent on obfuscating reality with mail-in voting: Just pause for a moment, take a deep breath, and smell the Coppertone.


Biden’s Partner in Hypocrisy

Kamala Harris has proven herself willing to do anything to climb the ladder to greater power. As such, she makes a perfect match for Joe Biden.

Joe Biden’s historic choice of Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) as his running mate, the first African American and Asian woman to run as the vice presidential candidate of a major U.S. political party, is neither bold nor shrewd.

In fact, it’s the safest choice he could have made while bringing him nothing he already doesn’t have.

When New York City Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, the first African American woman ever elected to Congress, ran for president in 1972, she paved the way for many women of color to seek and win elected office. Chisholm was a trailblazer.

Harris, on the other hand, is a political phony whose quest for power has guided her entire career. Identity politics progressives may be taken in by her race and gender, but an examination of her record reveals a ruthless opportunist who is acceptable to the corporate overlords who have destroyed the middle class.

In the primary debates, Harris promised to scrap President Trump’s tariffs on China just as Beijing has been asking. In doing so, Harris made herself acceptable to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as well as General Secretary Xi Jinping.

Throughout her short-lived presidential campaign, Harris mislabeled China’s economic aggression as “Trump’s trade war.” This is a phrase the Biden campaign uses repeatedly. It puts her right in line with the empty suit at the top of the ticket. 

But it does not bode well for the ticket’s prospects in the general election. Blue-collar Americans in the Rust Belt states—crucial to victory in November—know three things: it’s China’s trade war, not Trump’s; it began a long time ago; and, until Donald Trump came along, Washington never lifted a finger to do anything about China’s wholesale destruction of American jobs, farms, and industries.

But Harris sure knows how to play the race card. In the first Democratic debate of the 2020 presidential cycle, she painted her running mate as a racist. Her hit on Biden was well-rehearsed and well-timed with t-shirts for sale on her campaign website as soon as the debate concluded.

But this is all hokum, another example of how Harris will use identity politics to obscure her record as a prosecutor locking up black people, in order to appease the anti-police extremists controlling her party.

As San Francisco’s district attorney, Harris prosecuted more marijuana smokers than any of her predecessors, and over 1,000 of those cases had to be dismissed. Then, as a presidential candidate, she joked about smoking pot in college. Prison for thee, not for me, sayeth Kamala. 

“Say anything to get elected” is in Harris’s DNA. She opposed additional DNA testing to make certain a death row inmate was not wrongfully convicted. Later, when it was convenient for her presidential ambitions, she reversed herself.

Harris dutifully fell in line with the radical open borders crowd calling for unlimited immigration and unlimited taxpayer-provided benefits for anyone who shows up on our doorstep. That’s fine with the cheap labor-loving corporate cartel. She doesn’t care that the jobs illegal immigrants take were once filled by native born black Americans. 

Urban voters are well aware of the competition poorly paid illegal immigrants pose, but Harris is blissfully unaware. She has lived a privileged life. Her parents were a Stanford University economist and a medical doctor, and she has spent her entire adult life on the government payroll. 

In her failed presidential run, Harris gleefully embraced the new Democratic Marxists’ radical manifesto, calling for trillions of dollars in new taxes and backing Bernie Sanders’ government takeover of healthcare. 

She also signed on to Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-N.Y.) “Green New Deal.” The joke has it that the Green New Deal is a watermelon: green on the outside, red on the inside. This power grab would raise taxes and install government economic planners, especially but not only in the energy sector. 

Harris made clear the Green New Deal is about more than “climate change” to her, it’s about social change. Harris declared, “We need a Green New Deal based in climate and environmental justice, which means building a clean economy that protects communities that have been neglected by policymakers for far too long.” 

She makes it clear that to her this means racial quotas in all federal hiring, promotion, education, housing, transportation, grants, investments, and regulations. Such quotas would soon become the norm—and later mandates—in all of society.

The rest of the Biden-Harris agenda includes cutting police funding, taking away law-abiding Americans’ guns, closing schools, and appeasing the Chinese Communist Party.

Harris has proven herself willing to do anything to climb the ladder to greater power. As such, she makes a perfect match for Biden, another empty vessel waiting to be filled by people we will never vote for and whose names we may never know.

In choosing Harris, who brings nothing to the table, Joe Biden has now completely ceded his candidacy and his campaign to the cancel culture mobs who roam Twitter, run the streets of Seattle and Portland, and camp in the corridors of the Democratic National Committee. 


Wisconsin Poll Shows Biden With Lead

New polling from Rasmussen/Pulse Opinion commissioned by the Center for American Greatness shows Biden with a lead in Wisconsin. The poll was conducted from August 5-6 and shows Biden leading Trump 55-43, a larger margin than other recent polls. The toplines are here and the crosstabs are here.


Has Joe Biden ‘Forgotten’ His Record on Social Security?

Biden’s decision to attack the president’s recent executive order is yet another example of hypocrisy by a candidate who just can’t seem to get his stories straight.

By now, many people have learned to seriously question most of what presidential hopeful Joe Biden has to say. His recent conduct demonstrates that his words are either not true or so nonsensical that they deserve no serious consideration. On Saturday, Biden once again fortified that perception when he criticized one of President Trump’s recent executive order(s) regarding the suspension of the payroll tax and its potential impact on Social Security. Not only was Biden’s criticism unwarranted, it was also nonsensical and hypocritical in light of his long and sketchy record on this very issue.

On Saturday, Trump signed four executive orders that were meant to help Americans who were suffering financially as a result of the coronavirus. Trump’s executive orders provided for the following

Under his EO, unemployment benefits are extended. The amount, however, has dropped to $400 a week. 

Payroll tax cuts will go into effect on Sept. 1 for those making $100,000 or less. Trump vowed to make this permanent if he’s re-elected. 

Student loan payments are suspended through the end of the year. Interest rates will remain at zero percent. 

The housing moratorium has also been extended, protecting renters from being evicted.

Immediately after the president took this decisive action, Biden moved into critical mode, attacking the president’s decision to cut payroll taxes. Specifically, according to the Hill, Biden called it a “reckless war on Social Security”:

He is laying out his roadmap to cutting Social Security,” Biden said. “Our seniors and millions of Americans with disabilities are under enough stress without Trump putting their hard-earned Social Security benefits in doubt.

Unfortunately for Biden, his own record once again discredits his alleged concern regarding social security. While it is possible, and quite likely that Biden simply “forgot,” he has consistently called for cuts to Social Security. As reported by the Intercept, in a 1984 Senate floor speech, Biden was quoted as saying: 

So, when those of my friends in the Democratic and Republican Party say to me, “How do you expect me to vote for your proposal? Does it not freeze Social Security COLAs for one year? Are we not saying there will be no cost-of-living increases for one year?” The answer to that is “Yes, that is what I am saying.”

In 1995, Biden told the Senate: 

When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well. I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the government. And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time.

Additionally, at a Brookings Institute event in 2018, Biden stated: 

Paul Ryan was correct when he did the tax code. What’s the first thing he decided we had to go after? Social Security and Medicare. Now, we need to do something about Social Security and Medicare. That’s the only way you can find room to pay for it.

There are many other instances where Biden has pushed for cutting Social Security which can be found here.

Let’s not deceive ourselves: Trump’s decision to cut payroll taxes was done to help Americans who are suffering due to the impacts of the coronavirus shutdowns. It is also limited to those individuals earning $100,000 or less. According to Fox News, citing White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow, “The payroll tax deferral President Trump enacted via executive order on Saturday would save the average person about $1,200 over four months beginning in September.”

In addition, Trump’s recent executive order only suspends payroll taxes—it doesn’t eliminate them entirely. While some are concerned with the president’s decision to eliminate payroll taxes because such taxes are the “lifeline” of Social Security benefits funding, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin disagrees that this should be a concern As reported by Kiplinger, Mnuchin advised that Social Security and Medicare funding won’t drop and that “[m]oney will be transferred from the federal government’s general fund to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds to cover any payroll tax amounts not collected.”

Of course, the president and Congress ultimately will have to decide how to handle the deferred taxes when they become due. The payroll tax cuts and the other benefits provided by Trump’s recent executive orders, however, will provide a much-needed boost to small businesses, those who are unemployed, and many Americans who are in need right now because of government-ordered shutdowns. As has always been the case with President Trump, he puts the well-being of Americans above everything else. These executive orders are no different.    

Despite Biden’s long and irrefutable record of calling for cuts to Social Security, he now appears miraculously to have reversed his stance. Now, he allegedly supports making Social Security more generous, not less. Of course, as the cliché goes, talk is cheap, and at the end of the day, Biden’s record speaks for itself.

Despite what Biden says, which seems to change like the wind, there is no reason to believe that he has changed his position now. Rather, his decision to attack the president’s recent executive order is yet another example of hypocrisy by a candidate who just can’t seem to get his stories straight.           


Mike Pence Is Right to Campaign in Wisconsin During the Democratic Convention

The vice president’s duty is to remain in the arena, to campaign responsibly and with due deference to local, state, and national public health guidance, but above all to continue to engage with the American people.

Recently, Sleepy Joe Biden made the allegedly “responsible” choice to remain in Delaware throughout the Democratic National Convention, to be held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, August 17-20. That’s right—Biden will be the first presidential nominee since Franklin Roosevelt in 1944 (who was at death’s door) to skip his own party’s convention. He will instead hide in his basement, as is his wont.

Vice President Mike Pence, however, sensing an opportunity, will campaign in Wisconsin on August 19, the same day that Kamala Harris, Biden’s running mate, will accept the vice presidential nomination.

The Democrats’ reaction to Pence’s announcement was as swift as it was predictable. They called Pence’s decision “disgraceful,” insofar as he will be going to Wisconsin despite the fact that COVID-19 infections in the state are, according to them, rising. 

Never mind that the actual numbers, according to the seven-day moving average reported by the state’s Department of Health Services, are trending slightly downward. And never mind that the Democrats themselves have not canceled their convention in Milwaukee, which, despite being slimmed down, will still draw hundreds of people to the state’s biggest “hot zone.” 

In fact, recently several workers helping to prepare for the DNC tested positive for COVID-19. Did the Democrats scrap their plans and opt for a virtual convention instead? No, but they expect Mike Pence to hole up in his basement, all the same.

The truth, of course, is that Joe Biden is staying put in Delaware, and making only a perfunctory appearance via satellite at his own nominating convention because his handlers fear the awful consequences of allowing the public near the ticking time bomb that is Sleepy Joe. 

Next to the presidential debates—which more and more Biden allies are advising him to skip—the national convention represents the biggest test the candidate will face on the road to the White House. That Biden and his inner circle do not believe their man is up to the challenge, even if he made his acceptance speech from a Milwaukee television studio or hotel suite, tells us everything we need to know about Biden’s fitness for office. It also tells us just how much confidence his key advisers place, or don’t place, in the “man who would be king.”

Pence, on the other hand, is traveling the nation, doing his utmost to convince the American people that four more years of conservative, God-fearing, liberty-affirming, “America First,” and constitutionalist leadership is infinitely preferable to turning the country over to socialists, anarchists, moral relativists, apologists for criminals and rioters, and “woke” authoritarians. 

Even if the Democrats weren’t preparing to nominate a ticket featuring a babbling, skeletal has-been, and an unqualified upstart chosen to put a fresh and agreeably non-white face on a party actually run by warmed-over hippies and special interests, it would still be utter madness to vote for the Democrats. 

Pence knows this better than anyone, and thus he owes it to America and to every one of us to exert himself to ensure that he and Donald Trump succeed in November. His duty, in other words, is to remain in the arena, to campaign responsibly and with due deference to local, state, and national public health guidance, but above all to continue to engage with the American people.

The Democrats appear to believe that the way to win the presidency is to hide from the voters and to rely on the media to do their dirty work for them. Given their stumbling, fumbling candidate and the undisguised Trump-hatred of most journalists, they may be right.

Republicans, though, cannot afford to hide from anyone. We must work harder than ever to persuade the electorate to do the right thing, which is to defeat the Left’s brand of America-hating Marxism once and for all. 

If it takes a trip to Wisconsin to seal the deal, then Mike Pence would be foolish not to go.


Russian Collusion Perps Target Johnson

With Republicans at risk of losing control of the Senate in November, Senator Ron Johnson (R.-Wisc.) needs to work fast. Fortunately, it appears for now that Johnson is undeterred by the Democrats’ attempted character assassination of him.

Still unpunished for the first go-around, Russian collusion perpetrators are taking aim at a new target this time: Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

The news media and Democratic lawmakers are accusing the two-term senator of acting as an agent of Russia for continuing to pursue his investigation into the Biden family’s shady ties to Burisma, the troubled Ukranian energy company that paid Hunter Biden millions of dollars while his father was vice president and Obama’s designated “point person” in Ukraine.

The onslaught began last month when Politico reported Johnson planned to subpoena Biden associates after they refused to voluntarily testify. 

“A Senate committee is eyeing subpoenas for current and former advisers to Joe Biden as part of an investigation into the former vice president’s son, an escalation of GOP scrutiny of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and his family,” wrote Natasha Betrand and Andrew Desiderio on July 16. The pair accused Johnson of doing “just what Trump wants.”

Johnson and Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) reportedly started closed-door depositions last month; the Senate’s probe had been delayed first by impeachment then the coronavirus crisis. Johnson, however, is moving ahead and promised to issue a report in September that details how the Bidens and a Democratic-tied public relations firm leveraged their connections during the final few years of the Obama administration to lobby on Burisma’s behalf.

Since impeachment failed to permanently closet the Bidens’ Ukrainian skeletons, Democrats are calling their Hail Mary play—Russian collusion!—to thwart Republican efforts to expose the presidential candidate’s dirty dealings before election day.

In July, at the same time Johnson ramped up his inquiry, top Democratic lawmakers including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi requested an FBI briefing over alleged fears that “Congress appears to be the target of a concerted foreign interference campaign, which seeks to launder and amplify disinformation in order to influence congressional activity.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) who has yet to be censured for misleading the American public for more than three years about evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, ironically warned that “we all learned that we need to call out foreign interference early and often [and] if it continues, there needs to be repercussions for it.”

The Biden campaign, in what is actually election interference in order to protect the Democratic candidate and his son from appropriate congressional government oversight, also is assailing Johnson. In a July 22 primer intended to sway media coverage and intimidate journalists who dare to cover the committee’s investigation fairly—a tactic often used by Team Biden that reporters dutifully heed—deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield accused Johnson of chasing “a long-debunked, hardcore, right-wing conspiracy theory” about then-Vice President Biden’s efforts to remove a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Burisma.

Bedingfield further hinted that Johnson is part of a “foreign influence operation” intended to reelect the president.

Hyperbolic headlines and breathless coverage on cable news now have the smear on repeat. “Russia is actively working to quote ‘denigrate’ Joe Biden. Ron Johnson, senator from Wisconsin, is actively working to denigrate Joe Biden. Are they in cahoots?” asked Nicolle Wallace, one of MSNBC’s many hopeless collusion queens, during a panel discussion last week.

Thus the newest “Russian stooge”—Johnson—has been born.

Unfortunately, Johnson’s Democratic hit squad received a boost last week after a top intelligence official issued a vague statement that claims foreign actors, including Russia, are plotting to meddle in the 2020 elections. Like so many highly-touted documents in Russian collusion history—the October 2016 statement on Russian meddling, the January 2017 intelligence community assessment, the Steele dossier—the one-pager was long on speculation and short on details, with a detectable political bent.

“We assess that Russia is using a range of measures to primarily denigrate former Vice President Biden and what it sees as an anti-Russia ‘establishment,’” concluded William Evanina, director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, part of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, on August 7. 

“This is consistent with Moscow’s public criticism of him when he was Vice President for his role in the Obama Administration’s policies on Ukraine and its support for the anti-Putin opposition inside Russia. Some Kremlin-linked actors are also seeking to boost President Trump’s candidacy on social media and Russian television.”

Before I go further, let me say this: Evanina, once a top aide to both former National Intelligence Director James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan, should not be in any position of power in Donald Trump’s intelligence community. Not only did Evanina also work directly with Andrew McCabe at the Washington FBI field office prior to his promotion to Brennan’s CIA in 2013, his name appears in text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, which is one reason why Grassley held up Evanina’s full Senate confirmation for two years. (He finally was confirmed by the full Senate in May.)

No one with close ties to the chief Russian collusion architects, no matter how sterling his or her credentials, should have a place in the Trump administration.

Further, Evanina’s claim is silly on its face. Putin’s criticism of Joe Biden when he was vice president years ago is evidence of election interference in 2020? That’s the sort of lame excuse Jim Comey used to justify his suspicions that Putin wanted Hillary Clinton to lose. And the notion that pro-Trump commentary on social media or Russia Today is straight out of Brennan’s bogus “intelligence community assessment” on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

But no matter: Evanina’s dubious warning is fueling the outlandish notion that the accountant-turned-senator from Oshkosh is acting as an agent of the Kremlin.

“The warning lights are flashing red. America’s elections are under attack,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), citing Evanina’s statement, claimed in an op-ed over the weekend. “Sen. Ron Johnson, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, is moving ahead with an investigation into presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s family using documents provided to the senator by the son of a former KGB officer.”

Blumenthal is referring to Andriy Derkach, a member of the Ukrainian parliament who apparently has the goods on the Bidens. Derkash has released what he insists are phone call recordings between Biden and the former Ukrainian president that confirm Biden’s quid pro quo to release U.S. aid on the condition a prosecutor investigating Burisma was fired.

Derkach’s name—coincidentally or not—appears in the Biden campaign memo, a “classified” addendum to Pelosi’s July letter, Evanina’s election meddling statement, and in several news articles blasting Senator Johnson. (More on Derkach in a follow-up piece this week.)

Johnson, to his credit, is not backing down. In a lengthy letter posted August 10, Johnson articulated the history of his committee’s investigation into the Biden-Burisma scandal, listing several questions that both Bidens should be compelled to answer.

“In their current attempt to circle the wagons around Biden, they have once again decided to weaponize a false ‘Russian disinformation’ narrative as a tool for attacking their political opponents,” Johnson wrote. “We didn’t target Joe and Hunter Biden for investigation; their previous actions had put them in the middle of it.” Johnson also subpoenaed FBI Director Christopher Wray to appear before the committee on August 20 and produce all documents related to his agency’s investigation into the Trump campaign.

With Republicans at risk of losing control of the Senate in November, Johnson needs to work fast. Fortunately, it appears for now that Johnson is undeterred by the Democrats’ attempted character assassination of him.

As for Joe Biden, as I will explain later this week, his Ukrainain problems are far from over.


A Blueprint for a Pacifist, Socialist Republic

The Democratic Party is now committed to a far more radical socialist platform than has ever been remotely hinted at by a serious American national party.

This has been a year of such astonishing and unforeseeable events that it seems to be taking some time for the full impact of what has tumbled onto the daily and political life of the United States to be assimilated. The year has been building steadily towards its November 3 climax like a Wagnerian opera, through the worst medical pandemic in 100 years, which is playing a role in the fierce combat zone of American politics.

As the primary season unfolded, the Democrats were faced with the selection of an outright Marxist, though a sincere Democrat, and the powers that be in that party intervened to assure the nomination of a presidential candidate who is unique for other reasons.

Former Vice President Joe Biden, a venerable wheel-horse of 50 years of elective service who has never demonstrated any vote-winning ability outside his little state of Delaware (400,000 voters), bombed badly in the early primaries—placing fourth in Iowa and fifth in New Hampshire, behind the Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders, the only slightly less socialistic pseudo-Native American Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a fluent gay young mayor of a city of about 100,000 people, Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana, and the un-frightening but somewhat plodding and Mondalean Senator from Minnesota, Amy Klobuchar. 

Democratic Party elders were so disconcerted at the prospect of Sanders as the nominee, they performed the Lazarene feat of resurrecting Biden, who in his long career has generally been thought a centrist. But his political precepts had never been tested outside Delaware, and he went with the party leadership in the Senate through six terms. 

In these circumstances—that is, in order to reconcile with the Sandersites, who had been questionably deprived of the nomination for the second time in four years—Biden has effectively signed on to the Sanders program. He rightly proclaims himself the most leftist candidate in the party’s history (“progressive” in the current jargon, but that misconceives progress). 

Sanders and Biden sully the great name of Franklin D. Roosevelt as a statesman role model; FDR was a well-educated man who believed that without contented working and agrarian classes, which were, in any case, an equitable ambition in a rich country, the system would be unstable and possibly even unsafe for those who lived in 40-room houses in thousand-acre estates as he did.

The Democratic Party is now committed to a far more radical socialist platform than has ever been remotely hinted at by a serious American national party. This includes open borders, and effectively the full right of undocumented residents to the benefits of the American welfare and education systems as well as the right to vote. They are also intent on the seizure of firearms in private hands. All those without comprehensive health insurance will be offered a “platinum” federal government health plan covering all contingencies which will soon be “free” healthcare for up to 150 million people. Minimum wages and taxes on anyone earning above the average income will be sharply increased. Most of the liberalizations of business and corporate regulations enacted by the Trump regime will be reversed, and unionization of the workforce heavily favored. The Democratic socialist caucus’ Green New Deal will be enacted, banning as quickly as possible (or even more swiftly than that) fossil fuel production and use, the internal combustion engine on land and in the air, and discouraging the consumption of beef to spare the environment the challenge of bovine flatulence with which it has coexisted for all of known history.

More than $1 trillion of student loans gradually will be forgiven over 20 years, university education will be guaranteed to be available and free to all families with incomes below $150,000 a year, and private, chartered, separate, and home schooling will all be discouraged to promote the monopoly of the underperforming, heavily unionized state school systems. 

Abortion, including the disposal of newly born children, will be available without cost to everyone. The military will be substantially downsized; the agreement assuring Iran its right to deploy nuclear weapons in five years will be reaffirmed, and there is no indication that this administration’s activities to protect American jobs and industry from unreasonable competition and trade arrangements will be continued. 

The Democrats are also pledged to look seriously and positively at a program of trillions of dollars of reparations to descendants of emancipated American slaves and to native people.

This is a blueprint for a pacifist, socialist republic presented by a party that, as Attorney General William Barr remarked at the House Judiciary Committee on July 28, does not condemn mob violence, approves the reduction of police forces in the country’s cities, accepts that those who attempt to burn down federal buildings, churches, and police precincts, and to destroy monuments of traditional American heroes including Christopher Columbus, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and Frederick Douglass are “peaceful protesters” whose rights to do so are apparently protected by the First Amendment.

This absurd political program is now widely supposed by the 90 percent anti-Trump media to be on the verge of electoral approval. 

When confronted with the obvious total unacceptability of this fact, the standard response is that Biden is a reliable moderate and has generally avoided comment on the more controversial measures, which in the normal course will simply not be enacted. Biden does appear at the moment to be a narrow favorite in the polls, largely because the Biden-Sanders program has not really been examined and because of the success of the anti-Trump media in panning Trump’s anti-COVID-19 performance as inadequate. That is a harsh judgment. He acted early to close off direct travel from China and Europe (to a chorus of criticism from the Democrats), and showed great executive ability in swiftly producing ventilators, hospital beds, and other medical requirements, but the public relations could have been better handled at times.

Crime—especially violent crime—is rising sharply in most cities and the mainly Democratic city governments are hopeless and inert (e.g. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Minneapolis, Portland, and Seattle). The president outmaneuvered the Democrats by reverting to executive order to continue assistance to the economically afflicted, but at levels that incentivize their return to work. 

Trump faces the challenge of selling a two-track recovery: epidemiological and economic, concurrently. It is the only way to avoid either a terrible depression or hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths, and in the meantime, it should sink in on the country that a vote for Biden is a vote for hardcore authoritarian socialism, strengthened by mailed-out ballot-harvesting, unrestricted voting by illegal immigrants, and an assault on the Electoral College with spreading state legislation delivering all electoral votes to the leading overall vote-winning candidate regardless of the vote-breakout in each state. 

The pell-mell descent of events has made it possible for the Democrats to represent Trump as President Chaos, but if COVID-19 fatalities continue to decline alongside receding unemployment, it will be impossible for the American public to elect the Sanders proletarian revolution with the amiable stumblebum from Delaware as its Judas Goat. 


Right-Wing Populism Is the Way Forward

The times are changing and it is past time the Republican Party unapologetically declares itself the party of normal people and governs like it wants their support.

For too long, the Republican Party has squandered its political power. Although no one would know it from watching primetime news, enjoying professional sporting events, or opening social media, America remains a generally “center-right” country. Popular culture spews progressive values and liberal thought. As recently as 2019, however, Gallup found that a combined 72 percent of Americans would classify themselves as “conservative” or “moderate.” Along with that, the middle class continues to shrink as incomes at the top continue to rise.

Pew Research found that the middle class does not make a majority of the American population for the first time in over 50 years. The share of middle-class income has fallen from around 60 percent to nearly 40 percent during the same period. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, manufacturing made up nearly 30 percent of the nominal GDP in the 1950s, but now teeters around 10-15 percent. This is important because it suggests a significant part of the country among the working- and middle-class hold moderate to conservative views with no real representation. 

Both parties have neglected these Americans. Democrats have abandoned their pitch to working people in exchange for an appeal to identity politics and elites in Hollywood, academia, and Silicon Valley. Republicans have wasted decades drafting “free trade” deals and rebuilding countries around the globe while many in middle America lost their jobs and watched their communities crumble. Capitalism is a fantastic thing but why on earth should CEOs make millions of dollars in a single day while U.S. taxpayers subsidize their employees through food stamps and other social safety-net programs?

Moreover, why should a Chinese company, running on child labor, be able to sell goods in America with no tax while the small business down the street pays a third of its revenue in taxes? Why is it deemed righteous to send tens of billions of dollars to other countries but it is “liberal” to invest that same money in American education, health care, or public transit? Why do those at the top profit during a pandemic while those at the bottom have to choose between groceries and rent? These questions are simply not being addressed. 

The Republican Party should address these concerns by recommitting to the values of right-wing populism. It should emphasize being “America First” through policies such as securing the border, limiting annual immigration, keeping resources at home instead of sending them overseas, and promoting American industry. It should acknowledge that industrial jobs provide stability for the economic and social fabric of the country.

Politicians tout their “experience” and “accomplishments” as reasons for reelection. But anyone who has lived in working-class America knows that the leadership of the last 30 years has failed.

The Republican Party should protect the American way of life by creating safe neighborhoods through supporting the military, law enforcement, and the exercise of the Second Amendment while promoting Judeo-Christian values of being pro-life and pro-family. Liberty is crucial for the republic’s survival, but it is just as important for children to grow up in stable homes and be taught the difference between right and wrong. Republicans should reject corruption and refuse to be influenced by big tech companies and Wall Street. They must stop trying to satisfy social media giants, multinational companies, and pharmaceutical companies and rather fight to protect the free speech rights of American citizens on their platforms, ensure their constituents continue to have quality jobs in their neighborhoods, and address the over-prescribed drugs that are addicting their constituents.

Common people are the ones who put Republicans in office, not the elite, and their policies should reflect that. “Joe Smith,” who has an opioid-addicted wife and recently lost his job, couldn’t care less that a school was rebuilt in a country around the world that he can’t even pronounce. He does not even have the basic internet capability to watch the Netflix documentary where the American elite are lecturing him on identity politics and his “privilege.” He is just focused on having enough money to feed his little girl and figuring out why the closest rehab facility is an hour away and at full capacity for the next three months. This is an all-too-familiar story for many. 

It is as if the ruling class is completely deaf to the cries of normal people. Politicians tout their “experience” and “accomplishments” as reasons for reelection. But anyone who has lived in working-class America knows that the leadership of the last 30 years has failed.

Republicans want to play by the old rule book that the Democrats have long abandoned. As Republicans worry about “procedure,” Democrats plan to abolish the filibuster, get rid of the Electoral College, and pack the court system while lecturing us about the Constitution as they shove their radical agenda down the throats of everyday Americans. It is no longer acceptable for Republicans to be “Democrat-Lite” and slowly cede ground to the Left. That is why now, more than ever, a new right-wing must rise and keep the liberal mob from running this country into the ground. America is worth defending and it is time for a new generation of patriots to fight the progressive movement that is attempting to take over the country.

President Trump has significantly changed the direction of the Republican Party but he will not always be in office. If the next phase of the party returns to free trade and wasteful regime change wars, the party will die forever—and deserve it. In decades past, before Trump, working people would have blindly thrown their support to Democrats and Republicans would never bother addressing many of these issues. The times are changing and it is past time the Republican Party unapologetically declares itself the party of normal people and governs like it wants their support. 


Who or What Exactly Is Running Against Trump?

The inner-Biden at 77 is turning out to be an unabashed bigot in the age of “cancel culture” and thought crimes that has apparently declared him immune from the opprobrium reserved for any such speech.

As we enter the final 90 days of the November presidential campaign, a few truths are crystalizing about the “Biden problem,” or the inability of a 77-year-old Joe Biden to conduct a “normal” campaign.

Biden’s cognitive challenges are increasing geometrically, whether as a result of months of relative inactivity and lack of stimulation or just consistent with the medical trajectory of his affliction. His lot is increasingly similar to historical figures such as 67-year-old President William Henry Harrison, William Gladstone’s last tenure as prime minister, Chancellor Hindenburg, or Franklin Roosevelt in late 1944—age and physical infirmities signaling to the concerned that a subordinate might assume power sooner than later.

In the past, it was to Biden’s advantage to postpone his selection of his female-mandated vice presidential running mate, given the lose-lose choice of either picking a woke young African American female who may polarize swing voters while spending the next three months being vetted in the fashion of California Representative Karen Bass’s Scientology and Fidel Castro issues, or selecting a vetted, but off-putting former National Security Advisor Susan Rice or Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), who does not especially like Biden and would be seen as hovering and rummaging about as an impatient president-in-waiting.

Biden, remember, is one of the few primary candidates in history who promised in advance to pick a running mate on the basis of gender and, as events would dictate, and by inference, race as well.

But now there seems an additional urgency to select a running mate, given the Democratic ticket is a construct, with no visible or viable presidential candidate. While traditional polls show a sizable Biden lead, at some point voters will want more than the current contest of Trump alone versus the media, the virus, the lockdown, the economy, and the rioting. But so far, it remains a one-person race, in the fashion of Clint Eastwood’s weird 2012 Republican National Convention appearance speaking to an empty chair.

Perceiving the Inner Biden

So we are witnessing a campaign never before experienced in American history and not entirely attributable to the plague and quarantine. After all, the fellow septuagenarian Trump, with his own array of medical challenges, insists upon frenetic and near-constant public appearances. His opponent is a noncandidate conducting a noncampaign that demands we ask the question, who exactly is drafting the Biden agenda and strategy? Or, rather, who or what is Biden, if not a composite cat’s paw of an anonymous left-wing central committee?

When Biden speaks for more than a few minutes without a script or a minder in his basement, the results are often racist of the sort in the Black Lives Matter era that otherwise would be rightly damned and called out as disqualifying. If his inner racialist persona continues to surface, Biden’s insensitivities threaten to expose a muzzled BLM as a mere transparent effort to grab power rather than to address “systemic racism” of the sort the exempt Biden seems to exude.

Biden needs the minority vote in overwhelming numbers, as he realized in his late comeback in the primaries. But the continuance of his often angry, unapologetic racialist nonsense suggests that his cognitive issues trump his political sense of self-control.

The inner Biden at 77 is turning out to be an unabashed bigot in the age of “cancel culture” and thought crimes that has apparently declared him immune from the opprobrium reserved for any such speech.

For Biden, if any African American doesn’t vote for him, then “you ain’t black”—a charge fired back at black podcaster with near venom. Biden more calmly assures us, in his all-knowing Bideneque wisdom, that Americans can’t tell Asians in general apart—channeling the ancient racist trope that “they all look alike.”

In his scrambled sociology, blacks are unimaginatively monolithic politically, while Latinos are diverse and more flexible. Biden seems to have no notion that “Latino” is a sort of construct to encompass everyone from a Brazilian aristocrat to an immigrant from the state of Oaxaca, and not comparable to the more inclusive and precise term “African American.” Moreover, while the black leadership in Congress may be politically monolithic, there are millions of blacks who oppose abortion, defunding the police, and illegal immigration. The best minds of the conservative intellectual and political movement so often are African Americans.

When asked questions, Biden’s answers so often reveal racist subtexts. A few days ago, CBS reporter Errol Barnett, who is black, asked Biden whether he would take a cognitive assessment exam. Biden fired back to him that such an unfair question would be as if he had asked Barnett whether he was getting tested for cocaine before going live. “That’s like saying,” a perturbed Biden exclaimed to Barnett, “before you got on this program, you’re taking a test whether you’re taking cocaine or not . . . What do you think, huh? Are you a junkie?” Note the tell-tale Biden trademark of racist insinuation delivered with punk-like braggadocio.

Note, too, Biden’s racist assumption that an African American professional journalist might be likely to be defensive about being a cocaine addict. Yet Biden should know—from the drug struggles of Hunter Biden—that cocaine is in fact the favorite drug of the white elite.

Mental Lapses as Force Multipliers

The problem is that in the past, a cognizant Biden was already racially edgy with his various earlier-career riffs about inner-city criminals, blue-collar chest-thumping about busing, and his more recent ideas about donut shops, accomplished black professionals on the verge of returning to slave status (“put y’all back in chains”), his racist descriptions of candidate Obama’s supposedly exceptional personal hygiene and ability to speak well, his corn-pop braggadocio, and on and on.

His mental lapses now serve as force multipliers and accelerants of the old Biden’s foot-in-mouth disease and render him often a caricature of a racist.

Politically, the point is not that he will not win the majority of minority voters, but rather that he won’t win enough of them at a margin necessary that carrying large swing-state cities such as Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland, and others, will make up for the likely loss of rural areas and working-class whites, supposedly the “clingers” that “good ’ole Joe from Scranton” was supposed to own.

Even more disturbing, the media simply is unconcerned about Biden’s racial putdowns, stereotyping, and uncomfortableness with the proverbial “other.” And the more the inner-Biden racialist sounds off, the more ridiculous such contextualizing becomes and the less people listen when journalists and activists spout off about a systemically racist America.

Recently, when Biden has attempted to speak without prompts, indeed to clear up “rumors” of his cognitive problems, he simply loses his train of thought and utters a series of unstructured and unsettled thoughts that refute the very premise of his interview. The understandable Democratic strategy is to run out the clock and to choreograph a few post-Labor Day public appearances, to outsource campaigning to his running mate and future cabinet secretaries, and then to hope, in the manner of a 2016 Hillary Clinton, that he has amassed a large enough September lead to outlast a closing October Trump campaign.

There are problems with such a strategy, as we saw in 2016. If Biden late in the campaign stumbles in the debates, there is no post-convention remedy to reassure the public he is compos mentis or otherwise can be replaced by a majority consensus. Then the country would be entering something eerily similar to, but far graver than, the McGovern debacle of desperately looking for a new running mate after it was disclosed that an apparently perfectly cognizant Tom Eagleton—his running-mate for 18 days—had undergone two electric shock treatments in his past as well as undisclosed prior hospitalizations for bipolar disorder.

Biden’s Race Against Time

Right now, the Democrats have a virtual campaign and a virtual candidate and a strategy of running against the Trump news cycle. That may work, but it assumes Americans under quarantine don’t mind that they do not really know who is the Democratic challenger, or that Biden is, in fact, not physically or mentally able to function as either a candidate or president. It also assumes that the Trump-owned news cycle will remain as dismal over the next three months as it has the last five or six weeks, and that the virus will spike in late October again, rather than slowly burn out as it seems to be doing in Sweden and elsewhere in Europe.

Add it all up and the question is no longer whether Biden could fulfill the duties of the presidency but whether he can finish a traditional campaign over the next three months—without outsourcing his duties to a committee, or serially saying something blatantly racist, or simply disappearing to the nether world of his basement where saying nothing beats saying anything.


The Man Who Wasn’t There

Joe Biden doesn’t make gaffes. He is a gaffe.

Those things with which we are most familiar are often hardest to see. This is perhaps particularly true of such fraught subjects as politics. There we are every day staring at the same people, reading news stories that are virtually indistinguishable from one another, and what do we know?

Our situation is similar to Alice’s in Through the Looking Glass when she finds herself in a shop that seemed full of curious things. “[T]he oddest part of it all was, that whenever she looked hard at any shelf, to make out exactly what it had on it, that particular shelf was always quite empty: though the others round it were crowded as full as they could hold.” 

I feel that way about Joe Biden. Gertrude Stein once quipped of her native Oakland, California, “there is no there there.” Isn’t that how it is with Joe Biden? He doesn’t make gaffes; he is a gaffe, poor thing. (I’ve expatiated on this elsewhere.) 

I suspect that most Americans, whatever side of the political aisle they occupy, do not really see Joe Biden—especially when, like Alice, they are looking directly at him. They need to manage a sidelong glance, a sudden shift of perspective to catch his drift (and I employ the word “drift” advisedly). 

This was brought home to me by an article that appeared a few days ago in Le Figaro, the biggest newspaper in France. The headline summed up its burden: “La stupéfiante indulgence des grands médias américains envers Joe Biden”—“The stupefying indulgence of big American media towards Joe Biden.”

The author evinced no pro-Trump sympathies. On the contrary. Yet he wrote in amazement at the seamless media distortion that worked to disparage Trump while excusing Biden—a process that “va jusqu’à l’occultation des faits”—goes so far (add an expression of amazement) as to conceal the facts. 

Imagine that!

Back in 1987, the revelation that Biden had plagiarized a speech by the British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock destroyed his first foray into presidential politics. I think of Gertrude Stein again: it’s critical, she said, to “know how far to go in going too far.” Biden didn’t. Not only did he appropriate whole passages of Kinnock’s speech, he even repeated the boast-bid-for-sympathy-declaration-of-authenticity that came with the claim of being a miner’s son. Kinnock was. Joe’s dad ran a car dealership. (Joe revisited the miner meme a few years later when he said that he was “a hard coal miner,” a ridiculous claim his campaign explained away as a joke. 

Detractors of President Trump like to say he is an inveterate liar. Usually, what they have called lies are what the rest of us would call exaggerations. But with Joe, the mendacity is something else entirely. 

Back in 2019, before it became clear that Joe was to be the Democratic nominee, even the Washington Post went to town on some of Joe’s whoppers. For example, at a political rally in New Hampshire, Joe said that a four-star general had once asked the then-vice president to travel to Kunar province in Afghanistan to recognize the remarkable heroism of a Navy captain. “We can lose a vice president,” said Joe, bravely. “We can’t lose many more of these kids. Not a joke.” 

It was a good story: the Navy captain had rappelled down a ravine “under fire” and retrieved the body of an American comrade, “carrying him on his back.” Biden was there to pin a Silver Star on the American hero, who demurred.

He said, ‘Sir, I don’t want the damn thing!’ Biden said, his jaw clenched and his voice rising to a shout. ‘Do not pin it on me, Sir! Please, Sir. Do not do that! He died. He died!’

The room was silent.

This is the God’s truth, Biden had said as he told the story. My word as a Biden.

“My word as a Biden,” indeed. Every single detail of the story is wrong. Biden went to Kunar in 2008, as a senator, not later as vice-president. The chap who made the rescue was a 20-year-old Army specialist, not a captain. And Biden never pinned any sort of medal on him.

The article in Le Figaro notes that the American media has generally covered for Democrats while castigating Republicans. Just think of their worshipful treatment of JFK and demonization of Richard Nixon. (And the love affair with all things Kennedy reached back to JFK’s father—Hitler’s favorite U.S. ambassador—and forward to Teddy “Chappaquiddick” “waitress sandwich” Kennedy and beyond. And of course, the media positively fawned over Barack Obama while snarling endlessly at George W. Bush. 

But there is something different and more extreme about the indulgence lavished upon Joe Biden and the obloquy heaped upon President Trump. Le Figaro quotes Joel Kotkin, an outspoken opponent of Trump’s, who nevertheless acknowledges he has “never seen a president treated the way he was. The effort to remove him was already being considered before he even set foot in the White House!”

Meanwhile, Joe Biden, endeavoring to ingratiate himself with black voters, claims that he was arrested by South African police while attempting to visit Nelson Mandela. But he wasn’t and he didn’t. “Invention,” Figaro notes, “du début à la fin.” 

In brief, the difference in the treatment accorded to Trump and Biden is the difference between a bright daytime and a black night. . . . It amounts to a democratic scandal that is essentially Orwellian.

In one sense, the article in Le Figaro tells us nothing we didn’t already know. And yet it reveals a rift or fissure in The Narrative that is obvious to everyone outside the bubble, outside the echo chamber of American punditocracy. Joe Biden is toast. Already the polls, rigged though most of them are, are tightening. President Trump is calmly stealing the Democrats’ thunder, issuing executive orders on everything from payroll tax cuts to instituting a moratorium on evictions. 

Coronavirus hysteria has, at least for now, prevented the president from deploying his biggest vote-getter, the huge rally. But he has adapted and is outflanking poor Biden on every front. 

The curious thing is that the Democrats do not seem to have twigged to this reality. They are like Alice in that shop of curiosities. They look straight ahead but cannot see what is staring them in the face. They should give CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post a rest. Their “news” comes from the same mendacious cloaca maxima. A glance abroad, even at some Trump-skeptic publications, would disabuse them of their fantasy.


The Left’s ‘Trump Won’t Split’ Riff

Come November, voters will punish a Democratic Party that refuses to condemn rioters who believe violence is the answer.

The Left projects more than a drive-in movie theater. The latest case in point is the febrile effort to stoke the “Trump won’t split” riff.

The Hill on Monday offered a prime example of this regressive riff, this time emanating from MSNBC columnist Mike Barnicle during an appearance on “Morning Joe.” Fraught with intimations of a prospective civil war, Barnicle’s analysis proffered both an electoral dilemma and his solution for it:

One thing we all learned in the year 2000 is that Republicans are good at fixing the way we count ballots in the country. Now, with this furor over mail-in votes, we could be sitting down for Thanksgiving dinner not really knowing specifically who the president-elect of the United States is. So we all have to pray that there’s going to be a landslide for Joe Biden in order to avoid this conflict.

Of course, in 2000 it was the United States Supreme Court that ultimately resolved the Florida recount, which Democrats had hoped to drag out until they could somehow show Al Gore as the winner. But let us not quibble over the past, when it is Barnicle’s proposed solution that gives away the Left’s game.

The Left usually has a method to its madness—at least the Democratic establishment does. The “Trump won’t split” riff has been pushed to accomplish practical political objectives, all of which stem from one elemental problem.

For all the collusion media’s cheerleading and intensifying gaslighting, the Left has an enthusiasm gap. One of the few benefits of the intensity behind the Left’s Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is that it allows the Left finally to glean, albeit negatively, the ardor Trump’s base has for him. Yet despite all the TDS in its ranks, the Left also is acutely aware their nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden, has nothing like that ardor among his supporters—including regressives and the centrist voters his campaign is courting. Even a TDS-enthralled vegan would find it hard to get enthused about electing a turnip president. 

In consequence, the Democrats have a turnout problem. After all, polls mean squat if your voters don’t vote. Cue up the “Trump won’t split” riff.

Following its modus operandi of ascribing its own sins to its opponents, the Left’s resistance to Trump’s 2016 victory is projected onto Trump and the GOP regarding the 2020 election. The Left’s aims are twofold: First, to undermine any attempt by Trump and the GOP to verify any questionable election results, especially given the potential for irregularities with mail-in voting (as distinguished from traditional absentee voting). And second, to maximize Democratic voter engagement, participation, and turnout.

These two aims are concomitant and complimentary. They are not solely about electing Joe Biden president. If a voter is unenthused about the top of the ticket, he or she is far less likely to vote, volunteer, or donate to any campaign. As a result, the Democratic Party is concerned the lack of enthusiasm for Biden will also hinder its efforts to retain the U.S. House, seize the U.S. Senate, and take a host of state and local offices. 

This is why the Left is resorting to its same old cynical song and dance of motivating voters through “fear and/or greed.” Just as it has tried to do with its “systemic racism” trope, the Left remains in full fearmonger mode with the “Trump won’t split” riff and its accompanying threat of a constitutional crisis and then . . . well, who can really say? 

Fortunately, the polls also show the majority of the public believes the media is biased; and that any post-election violence will come from the Left. Come November, despite the obstreperous Left’s strenuous projecting, the majority of the electorate will tune out the “Trump won’t split” riff and punish a Democratic Party that refuses to condemn—let alone penalize—rioters who believe violence is the answer.

This outcome is good news in general for our free republic and in particular for Barnicle, who can eat his Thanksgiving meal in peace thanks to the coming Trump landslide.


Bring on the Trump-Kanye Debates!

If Joe Biden opts out of the debates and President Trump says the American people deserve to hear a serious discussion of the issues, then which network exactly would not broadcast it?

Given the synergy, shall we say, between the legacy media and the Democratic Party, the idea that the pundit voices all clamoring to derail the debates between Joe Biden and President Trump are somehow doing so in opposition to the closely held wishes of the Biden campaign is difficult to believe.

Explaining why Biden ducking the debates is good for the American people and sound campaigning as well has become the topic of the month on the Left. Among the leading voices—former Clinton mouthpiece Joe Lockhart (CNN), journalist Elizabeth Drew (New York Times), Alex Shephard (The New Republic)—none are saying that Biden is not up to the task, of course.

No. All kinds of anti-debate equivocations are being churned out:

The trouble is, they’re boring.

The trouble is, Trump lies.

The trouble is, they’re a circus,

Which Democrats despise (or complete your own rhyme).

Well, to a lot of people, pace Brian Stelter’s protests at CNN, it looks like wiggling.

It looks, in fact, like a trial balloon attempting to ascertain whether, if Biden wimps out, the American people will conclude simply that Biden’s synapses are growing falteringly few in number. If Joe is a no-show, will Americans leap in one bound to the S-word (senility)?

Indeed, possibly the Biden campaign has already concluded that wheeling Joe out to face Trump—three times!—is out of the question, whereupon—in the mushy parlance that passes for critical thought in liberal circles—what is needed is a narrative . . . and a good one. Several, please.

Which brings us to the logical Trump response if and when Joe’s white flag goes up. If Biden won’t stand up like a person and discourse with his opponent on the pressing, serious problems facing America and the world, then Trump’s only recourse is to engage in a debate with the other presidential candidate (no, not Howie Hawkins): Kanye West, Birthday Party.

Now that would be television!

Trump should not only propose that he and Kanye debate. Trump should demand it! Tweet: “If @ye is serious about running for president then let him show some of that #DragonEnergy and walk out on the stage with @realDonaldTrump!” You can come up with Trump tweets all day long on how to taunt a supposedly reluctant Kanye into picking up the gauntlet.

(And, to make it interesting, Kanye could in fact be reluctant and demur with a sneer toward the president. They could then engage in a series of tweets-for-tats before the Battle Royale. It will be like a remake of Foreman-Ali, or Trump-O’Donnell.)

The beautiful point is that if Biden opts out of the debate and Trump says the American people deserve to hear a serious discussion of the issues (and even invites the Greens and the Libertarians along) then which network exactly would not broadcast it? And think of the great sport it will be watching the liberal media try to convey, without exactly saying so, that Kanye West (who is a black person) is somehow not really capable of having a serious discussion of the issues. (This is the same Kanye West, by the way, who is worth about $1.3 billion).

Joe Biden’s wife, Jill, has said quite recently that her husband will indeed show up to three debates with the president. Perhaps so. Biden famously orated in his vice-presidential acceptance speech that his father implored his son: “when you get knocked down, get up. Get up, Joe!” So maybe Joe will hear the bell one last time.

On the other hand, many on the Left who see a train wreck looming on the horizon might opt for George Kennedy’s advice for Paul Newman after pummeling him to the ground in “Cool Hand Luke”: Stay down, Joe.

Well, if Joe stays down, bring on Yeezy!