[NOTE: Please see my 2009 post on the phenomenon of the leftist revision of history.]
It’s not okay to remember when the left would have you forget:
On Wednesday, Axios released an article about how Harris’s failure at the border is weighing her campaign down. In the article, Axios defends Harris, stating that she was never actually the “border czar” despite Republicans calling her that on multiple occasions. It ends the article by saying that Biden took harsher actions recently to cut off asylum access for illegal aliens, and his actions have worked temporarily as June saw the lowest number of illegal border crossings since January 2021.
“This administration’s executive actions have brought unauthorized crossings to a lower level than when Trump left office. President Biden and Vice President Harris are leading on border security, while congressional Republicans sabotage it,” White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said, according to Axios.
Axios posted a tweet to X repeating the claim that Harris was never given the title of “border czar,” doubling down on the point. …
Oh, but she was, and to prove that we’ll refer to… Axios.
As The Federalist’s Sean Davis pointed out, Axios itself reported that Biden had appointed Harris as the border czar in 2021.
This is classic stuff for the left, as the post I linked in my “NOTE” makes clear. They are relying on low information voters and the fog of forgetfulness, as well as party loyalists who will parrot whatever benefits the party at the moment and change on a dime when and if necessary.
Some details: Senator Fetterman wore a suit, rescued hostage Noa Argamani was present as well as some IDF soldiers, and Squad member Tlaib didn’t boycott but decided to attend and hold up a “war criminal” sign and wear a keffiyah.
The boycotters numbered about eighty, and included our newly crowned Democratic leader Kamala Harris (who is being touted by the MSM as a great friend of Israel), Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and the rest of the Squad, as well as many others. This is more than the number of Democrats who boycotted Netanyahu’s Congressional speech in 2015, representing the further leftward and anti-Israel movement of the Democrats.
The sole Republican who boycotted was House member Thomas Massie, who stated:
“The purpose of having Netanyahu address Congress is to bolster his political standing in Israel and to quell int’l opposition to his war.”
“I don’t feel like being a prop so I won’t be attending.”
I hate to clue you, Massie, but by not attending you’re a “prop” for those who would destroy Israel, Jews, the US, and Western civilization.
Nor was this a one-off by Massie. He has a history:
Massie joined eight Democratic representatives in 2021 in voting against $1 billion in funding for Israel’s Iron Dome air defense system, saying that he opposed all foreign aid out of concern about the national debt. In 2019, he was the only Republican House member to vote against condemning the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Among other reasons that he cited for voting against the resolution, Massie stated that he does not support “federal efforts to condemn any type of private boycott, regardless of whether or not a boycott is based upon bad motives” and that “these are matters that Congress should properly leave to the States and to the people to decide”. In October 2023, Massie was the only Republican to vote against a House resolution guaranteeing U.S. support for Israel’s military actions in Gaza. The resolution passed 412–10. In November 2023, he was the only member of Congress to oppose a resolution affirming Israel’s right to exist and equating anti-Zionism to antisemitism.
Massie has been outspoken against the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and its influence on American politics, and in December 2023 tweeted out a meme appearing to contrast Zionism with American patriotism. In May 2024, AIPAC and allied groups announced a $300,000 ad campaign targeting Massie for perceived “anti-Israel views” while not officially endorsing any primary challenger. Massie responded by posting a poll on X asking his followers whether AIPAC should be forced to register as a foreign agent. In a June 2024 interview, he claimed that each Republican member of Congress besides himself has an “AIPAC person” that directs them to vote in line with the positions of the organization. …
Massie voted “present” on the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, the only member of the House to do so and the only Republican not to vote against it. Massie was the only member of the House to vote against extending sanctions on Iran in 2016. He was also one of only three House members to vote against a 2017 bill to impose new sanctions on Iran, Russia, and North Korea.
Joe Biden was nobody’s favorite candidate (except maybe Jill’s and Hunter’s). He was chosen in 2020 not by popular demand, but by the powers that be convincing all the other candidates to drop out and leave Biden as the last man standing. This was because he was considered the best candidate to beat Donald Trump, not for any other reason.
And Kamala Harris was markedly unpopular also and has remained so. She was chosen for her demographics.
But ultimately it became clear that Joe couldn’t win in 2024, so he had to go. Kamala has become the replacement for the simple reason that getting rid of her would require alienating much of the Democrats’ base, as well as for financial/legal reasons. She also seems to be polling somewhat better than Joe right now.
So here we are and Kamala Harris is the anointed successor.
The Democrats and the MSM have figured out a way to handle all of this. It involves three steps. The first is to re-invent Kamala as the ENERGIZED! EXCITING! FRESH! candidate, as though she just dropped in from planet Xenon and has no history. Her remarkably undistinguished record (and that’s being kind) as part of the Biden administration’s failures will be ignored, in hopes of Kamala 2.0 catching on with the public. Step 2 will be to hammer home the idea that Republicans threaten women’s “reproductive rights” and Kamala and the Democrats will protect them. Step 3 involves choosing a more moderate running mate in order to preserve the fiction that Kamala will not govern from the far left.
Bob Menendez is resigning from the Senate. So now we know there is an upper threshold for how much brazen venality a powerful Democrat politician is permitted, but it involves literal bars of gold being found.
That seem reasonable on the surface, but I don’t think it’s the case. Menendez was targeted, IMHO, because he strongly opposed the administration’s foreign policy – and by “the administration,” I mean both the Obama administration and the Biden administration. Otherwise I believe he would have gotten away with whatever he was doing.
I first noticed that the Obama DOJ was out to get Menendez in 2015 when Menendez opposed the Iran deal – see this, this, and this. They tried to convict him back then, unsuccessfully, but now they’ve caught their prey.
I just now noticed that Alan Dershowitz was in agreement with me back in 2015. It seems that Dershowitz also has had some questions about the current case:
Many Democrats are claiming that the recent indictment of Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., proves that the current Justice Department provides equal justice to Democrats and Republicans.
Although it’s necessary to wait for the evidence to emerge before judgment is passed on this most recent indictment, what appears so far may be closer to equal injustice.
In both the Menendez and Trump cases, prosecutors are engaging in the questionable tactic of seeking to influence the jury before trial.
The photographic display of gold bars and cash in the Menendez case is an image that will remain with everyone who saw it.
The same is true of the contrived photographic display by the Justice Department (DOJ) of allegedly classified documents spread on the floor.
This “show and tell “was produced by the DOJ and published in virtually every media outlet in the country.
Both show and tells are wrong.
Both are intended to prejudice potential jurors and witnesses and to try the case in the court of public opinion before it is subject to the adversarial process to the courts of law.
Both come close to ethically impermissible lines. And both should be opposed by all Americans who care about impartial justice for all defendants.
I haven’t followed the Menendez trial closely enough to have an opinion on his guilt or innocence. But I strongly believe that had he not been in opposition to the Democrats on foreign policy, he’d still be an unindicted senator. He will be replaced by someone more tractable, so the Democrats will lose nothing, and they get to pretend they care about ethics. Win/win for the Democrats.
Cheatle dodged questions yesterday as she was attacked by both sides. The dodging was irrelevant to the question of whether she would be allowed to stay in her position; plenty of our public servants on the left have done exactly that and kept their jobs. However, the bipartisan nature of the attacks made it clear that her days as head of the Secret Service were already numbered, because the Democrats wanted her to go. I strongly suspect that was decided before her testimony.
And so she has resigned. What took her so long? Was it just a question of the time it took for the Democrats to decide she had to go?
More importantly, will anything really change? And we will ever find out the truth about what happened in Pennsylvania on July 13, 2024, and how purposeful the Secret Service’s neglect of Trump’s security was?
I think the answer to both of those questions is “no.”
After all, it’s not as though Joe was ever the popular choice; he just become the only choice in 2020 because of decisions made by unnamed Democrats on high. The reason was that he was thought to be the most electable of the candidates running.
And until he was forced to drop out now, he was pretty much the only choice in 2024 as well, for the same reason and because he clearly wanted to run and was difficult to push out. RFK and the relatively unknown and unheralded Dean Phillips weren’t really contenders for the Democrats’ nomination.
I know plenty of people who voted for Biden in 2020 and it was always a vote against Trump rather than a vote for Biden, and the same was true in the 2024 primaries. There was no enthusiasm whatsoever for the man, but lots of enthusiasm for the anti-Trump candidate.
Plus, by the time Biden dropped out, the majority of Democrat voters wanted him to do so. Therefore the primaries were mostly irrelevant in the emotional (not the legal) sense. Trouble is, Kamala isn’t exactly Ms. Popularity either. When Biden picked her as his VP, he was upfront about the fact that it was for her gender and race; she’d done very poorly in the primaries.
If Kamala Harris survives the Democrats’ convention as the nominee – which is not a foregone conclusion – the vast vast majority of Democrat voters will vote for her with no hesitation whatsoever. She will be the new anti-Trump candidate and that will be enough. On the other hand, if she’s replaced, the same will be true of whomever becomes the eventual nominee. I still tend to think it will be Kamala, for practical reasons: money and demographics. But behind the scenes there’s a lot of fighting going on.
[NOTE: “Crooks and Cheatle” – doesn’t it sound like a law firm in a Dickens novel?]
The Secret Service lapses were so egregious, and Cheatle’s answers so awful, that both sides are getting into the act of criticizing her pretty harshly. I think that Republican rage is real; not so sure about the Democrats, though.
And don’t forget that just three months ago some Democrats proposed a bill to strip Trump of Secret Service protection as a convicted felon. I think the Trump campaign should point this out over and over. The bill was never voted on because Republicans control the House:
House Democrats have introduced a bill that would strip Secret Service protection from convicted felons sentenced to prison, a move directly targeting former President Trump who is currently on criminal trial in New York City for alleged hush money payments made during the 2016 election campaign and faces several other cases which could land him behind bars.
Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the former chair of the now disbanded Jan. 6 congressional committee, introduced legislation that would automatically nix Secret Service protection for those who have been convicted of a federal or state felony that carries a minimum one-year prison term.
The proposed bill is provocatively called the “Denying Infinite Security and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely Dishonorable (DISGRACED) Former Protectees Act.
It wasn’t just Thompson supporting this bill; nine other Democrats in the House were part of the effort.
Cheatle is in the hot seat and acquitting herself very poorly. You can read details here, here, and here. In addition, Raskin and Comer (that’s bipartisan again) will be sending a letter demanding that Cheatle resign.
Is Cheatle a knave or a fool? I’d say “both.” And yet she’s been the head of the Secret Service for nearly two years.
I read today that, in the midst of all the brouhaha, Netanyahu left for Washington DC. I immediately wondered whether he’d really be meeting with Biden or someone else – say, Kamala? Who is the acting president right now? Why is Kamala making public statements from the White House?
For that matter, we know that there has been a person – or more likely persons – at least partially directing and dictating to Biden for a long time. Will they now dictate to Kamala?
And of course there’s also the very valid question as to whether Biden should continue to be allowed to be president, and whether the 25th Amendment should be formally invoked.
Which leads us to the demands for “proof of life” regarding Biden – meaning, was he really the person who made the decision to drop out of the 2024 race? He’s been awfully silent and invisible. I happen to think that, although he succumbed to major pressure, he probably did make the decision – for the simple reason that his family hasn’t objected to the reports.
The pressure on Joe must have been phenomenal. Or the promised payoff great. Or both.
He’s not resigning from the presidency, although of course to be consistent he should. He doesn’t mention illness, though; just says his dropping out is for the good of the country.
Oh, and he’s endorsed Kamala. So she’s the one. The Democrats realized it would be too costly and difficult to replace her, and it’s not as though anyone else would necessarily do better. Plus, now she gets to pick a VP.
