Was It Really RBG That Katie Couric Was Protecting?

One of the stunning revelations to come out of Katie Couric’s new tell-all memoir is that in 2016, the media personality edited out what she deemed to be disparaging remarks from an interview she had conducted with Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Ginsburg’s comments revolved around NFL player Colin Kaepernick and other athletes who were kneeling during the national anthem, before games. They did so in protest against racial injustice, an issue the political left has long been sympathetic to. The kneeling was a big, controversial story at the time, and Couric apparently expected the famously liberal Supreme Court Justice to voice a different opinion on the topic than the one she put forth.

Ginsburg told Couric that she personally disapproved of what the players were doing, and that she believed they were demonstrating “contempt for the government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life.”

Ouch.

Couric, like many lefties, was a big fan of Ginsburg, and she says in her book that she was “conflicted” about the comments because she was worried they would stain Ginsburg’s legacy. Couric believed RBG’s stated view was “unworthy of a crusader for equality,” and also considered that Ginsburg may not have completely understood the question.

According to Couric, she wasn’t the only person with reservations. She says she soon received an email from the head of SCOTUS public affairs, saying that Ginsburg had “misspoken,” and asking that the justice’s thoughts on Kaepernick be removed from Couric’s story. (It’s unclear whether or not Couric initiated that exchange.)

After much deliberation and advice from colleagues, Couric ultimately omitted the sentence from the piece she submitted to Yahoo! News. The reason for the omission, says Couric, was to “protect” Ginsburg.

And some people wonder why so many Americans have a dirt-low opinion of the mainstream media.

A big part of the problem, of course, was Couric’s blatant disregard for journalistic ethics. This was a high-profile interview with a high-profile public servant, and Couric let her personal bias prevent her from publicly airing a highly compelling quote.

In response to the revelation, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman wasted no time in calling Couric out, tweeting “This is toxic on a lot of levels.”

Reporter Ben Jacobs took a more sarcastic approach, tweeting, “I too always like to omit the most newsworthy and interesting parts from all my interviews with important and powerful people.”

Many others in the profession, from both the liberal and conservative media, have since weighed in with similar thoughts. The broad journalistic consensus is that Couric really screwed up. And that, of course, is the correct consensus.

But the other important part of this story, that’s been largely overlooked, is something that former New York Times journalist Bari Weiss pointed out: “You can learn a lot about where the left has moved by looking at how they choose to edit or rewrite RBG.”

Bingo.

I can’t read Couric’s mind, of course, but I have a very hard time buying that she did what she did primarily for Ginsburg’s benefit. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is nothing short of a super-hero to the American left — a genuine cultural icon who had been (and still is) celebrated almost to the heights of folklore. If you don’t believe me, do a Google search on “Notorious RBG” or “RBG art”.

Ginsburg’s views on racial justice were quite clear, and she wasn’t one to be offended by peaceful protests aimed at advancing the cause. Would her public distaste for Kaepernick’s particular method of protest — a method she saw as disrespectful and unappreciative of the opportunities America grants its citizens — place her legacy in jeopardy? Of course not, and Couric is smart enough to have known that.

I think there’s a good chance that this was more about protecting progressives in the ever popular blame-America-first crowd… from RBG.

I mean, it’s one thing for Republicans and people in the right-wing media to carry on and on about how outrageous the left’s “America-bashing” has become. It’s entirely different when a prominent, life-long champion of liberal causes embarrassingly agrees with them. When something like that happens, a little ideological self-reflection might actually be in order.

And who wants that, right?

 


Sean Coleman is back in John A. Daly’s upcoming thriller novel, “Restitution.” Click here to pre-order.




The American People Are Rejecting a President Too Weak to Take On the Radicals in His Own Party

Attention readers: Dennis Prager is off this week. Please enjoy the following column by Neil Patel.

President Joe Biden’s poll numbers are tanking, especially among independent voters. The American people do not like weak leaders, and they do not like the craziness that’s infiltrating their daily lives.

Biden campaigned as someone who could bring the country together. Since taking office, he’s made no effort to do that. Instead, he has continually conceded to his party’s far-left wing, which is growing crazier by the day. It’s not clear if Biden is just too weak to take them on or if he is buying into their craziness, but either way, people are not happy. The Democrats are somehow making the Republicans seem appealing again to your average non-politically aligned voter. Given the current disarray in the Republican Party, this was a tall task. It’s almost as if the two parties are competing to see who can turn off the middle more. This week, the Democrats are in the lead. Their policies are so crazy not even their allies in the dominant corporate media can succeed in selling them.

First, the numbers: Quinnipiac University is a major polling outlet not known for a bias. In their latest poll, Biden’s overall job approval has plummeted down to 38% from highs in the mid-50s earlier in his presidency. Things look even worse for Biden when you look at the complete collapse of his support from political independents, who now disapprove of him by a 60%-to-32% margin.

It gets worse yet again when you look at key issues independent voters really care about. On the economy, Biden’s underwater by 28 points. On taxes, by 30. On immigration overall, Biden is down 48 points among independents with only 22% approving, versus 70% disapproving. On Mexican border matters, it’s even worse, with a net negative of 55%. Sixty-three percent of independents don’t think Biden is a good leader, versus only 34% who do. Finally, only 35% of independents think the Biden administration has been competent running the government, versus a whopping 62% who think they are incompetent.

It’s not a pretty picture.

How did Biden squander all his popularity? It’s not hard to see when you analyze each issue.

On immigration and border security, the hard left is in favor of open borders. Biden claims to disagree with this view, but the policy changes he’s put in place since coming to office have obliterated any semblance of security America had on the southern border. Millions of migrants are crossing illegally. The U.S. government doesn’t even know the real number, and it also does not know how many terrorists or criminals are crossing or how much deadly fentanyl is making it across with so little resistance. People don’t want this.

On economic issues, the socialist wing in the Democratic Party is firmly in charge of the agenda in Washington. The new policies they are trying to ram through Congress will add trillions of dollars in new spending and taxes. Somehow, Biden seems to have been convinced that ramming through this level of increased government involvement in our economy will make him a historic leader. Nobody voted for this. Certainly, the many independents who voted for Biden to help heal a broken country did not sign up for it. The hard left is harassing the two Democratic senators who stand in the way of the socialists, and Biden is passively watching it happen.

The situation in American schools is out of control. Radicals are instituting programs and curricula that are most accurately described as racist in school districts across the country. A school in Buffalo, New York, for example, prescribed a curriculum including Marxist teachings on “disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.” A private school in New York City even encouraged its students to stop using the terms “mom” and “dad.”

And racial segregation is back. Its advocates this time are so-called anti-racists, as opposed to the traditional brand of racist who used to advocate for such policies. The results are the same. A school in Madison, Wisconsin, for example, segregated students and parents by race into so-called affinity groups for class discussions. And in Wellesley, Massachusetts, the public school hosted an event pushing a so-called healing space available only to minority students. The school did not try to hide its overt racism: “Note: This is a safe space for our Asian/Asian-American and Students of Color, not for students who identify only as White.”

Parents are understandably up in arms over these attempts by radical educators to brainwash their children with Marxist thought or even overt racism. They have taken to school boards in record numbers to push back. The Biden administration’s response? This week, the attorney general sent a memorandum to the FBI and federal prosecutors asking them to work with local law enforcement to crack down on parents protesting school board actions. Nobody is in favor of parents threatening or committing violence against teachers, but the memorandum was worded so broadly as to be reasonably viewed as itself an attempt to intimidate parents away from questioning the radical ideologies being imposed on students across America.

Biden has earned his unpopularity through some combination of weakness and incompetence. The left wing of the Democratic Party has gone firmly out of the American mainstream in several policy areas. Instead of standing up to this fringe, Biden and the party have been catering to the socialists. It’s not clear if they do this because they agree with the insanity or they are too weak to oppose it, but either way, the good news is the American people are not buying it.

Neil Patel co-founded The Daily Caller, one of America’s fastest-growing online news outlets, which regularly breaks news and distributes it to over 15 million monthly readers. Patel also co-founded The Daily Caller News Foundation, a nonprofit news company that trains journalists, produces fact-checks and conducts longer-term investigative reporting. The Daily Caller News Foundation licenses its content free of charge to over 300 news outlets, reaching potentially hundreds of millions of people per month. To find out more about Neil Patel and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com

COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM

Last Updated: Monday, Oct 11, 2021 16:57:58 -0700




Eyes Wide Shut

Perhaps the most incompetent president in American history arrived in Chicago last week to encourage Windy City residents to vax up.  Joe Biden was on a mission to save lives, he said.  He was looking out for the folks.  He is the Covid slayer.

Long-time Chicago journalist John Kass was outraged as Biden met with Mayor Lori Lightfoot and Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker.  Obsessed with the vaccine, the President failed to address the slaughter of primarily black people on the streets of Chicago.  The violence has been going on for years and the Democratic machine that controls the city doesn’t care if young black children become homicide stats as 7-year-old Serenity Broughton did a few weeks ago.  Serenity and her six-year-old sister, Aubrey, were sitting in their parent’s car when the bullets suddenly came. Aubrey was shot in the chest but survived.

Joe Biden most likely doesn’t know about the little girls and, based upon his rhetoric and actions, couldn’t care less.  What he SHOULD know is that Democrat prosecutors in the nation’s three largest cities, New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, routinely drop felony charges against violent individuals.  Ask any cop in those towns. The law enforcement strategy embraced by the progressive movement is directly leading to thousands of violent deaths across this country.

So, where is President Biden on the issue? Nowhere, that’s where.  He’s too busy calling his own country a racist place to actually deal with real racism: the horrendous murder toll among African-Americans.

Joe Biden doesn’t have to think about that safe in his Rehoboth Beach enclave.  He can’t see the drug gangs wielding weapons from his cloister inside the White House. In fact, Mr. Biden is totally blind on just about every serious problem the nation faces.

He’s not alone.  Governor Pritzker, a corpulent poser with a bad dye job, has run Illinois into the ground.  This year alone, 185 people have been shot driving on Chicago Expressways.  But Pritzker is safe; he has a state police escort.

Biden and his band of progressive deconstructionists are gravely harming all Americans.  The collapse of public safety on the streets and at the border is obvious if you want to look.

But Joe Biden doesn’t want to look. He is too busy doing what his far-left handlers tell him to do – too befuddled to actually run the country in an effective way.

He is truly a man with his eyes wide shut.




Biden’s Advancement of Trump’s Worst Policies

President Biden doesn’t need help producing bad policies. The self-inflicted crisis at the border is daily proof of that. So is his inclination to blow up parts of his own agenda to try and appease the progressive wing of his party, like when he killed the bi-partisan infrastructure deal he brokered with the Senate (supported by 19 Republican senators) by suddenly making it contingent on another $3.5 trillion in “human infrastructure.”

But what gets me, beyond the expected bad outcomes of liberal governance and limitless spending, is Biden’s adoption and advancement of certain Trump policies — not the good ones, but the really bad ones. After all, in Biden, millions of Americans believed they were voting for the anti-Trump candidate, and they had good reason to think that because it was essentially the platform the guy ran on.

Yet, once in office, despite both men’s military advisors loudly advising against it, Biden took over the reins on Trump’s Afghanistan policy, made it his own, and carried it to fruition in what will assuredly be recognized as one the biggest U.S. foreign policy blunders in American history.

Biden apparently liked Trump’s eviction moratorium too — so much that he extended it, even after acknowledging that it was probably unconstitutional. In a break for small landlords across the country, who’d been devastated by the policy, the Supreme Court later agreed.

And just this week, the Biden administration outlined its approach to U.S.-China trade policy, revealing that it’s basically the same as Trump’s. Despite that policy proving to be a big net-loss for America, the U.S. will keep its existing tariffs on Chinese exports (with U.S. importers flipping the bill), while continuing to call on China to meet the terms of the Trump administration’s “Phase One” deal (which they weren’t doing, wasn’t really serious, and isn’t enforceable anyway).

Scott Lincicome of the CATO Institute recently revisited the results of the trade war:

“…several rigorous academic studies have conclusively demonstrated that the tariffs that the Trump administration imposed on Chinese imports harmed U.S. consumers and manufacturers, deterred investment (mainly due to uncertainty), lowered U.S. GDP growth, and hurt U.S. exporters (especially farmers but also U.S. manufacturers that used Chinese inputs). At the same time, they did little to promote the reshoring of ‘essential industries’ to the United States because global supply chains primarily shifted final assembly of covered goods to other foreign countries, not the USA.”

Lincicome also cites a 2021 report from the Atlantic Council that bluntly concludes what just about every statistic has: “After four years, the outcome of the trade war using tariffs is becoming clear: The United States seems to have suffered worse consequences than China.”

Especially in light of the Chinese government’s gross negligence that led to the COVID-19 pandemic, it would seem inexplicable that if the U.S. is going to have a trade relationship with China, we would continue to pursue what was billed as a punitive trade strategy that weakens our own country more than it does them. Yet, Biden is doubling down on the initiative, and saddling himself with the continued self-defeating outcome.

Now, to be fair, when Biden ran as the “anti-Trump” candidate, he wasn’t as focused on Trump’s policies as much as he was the former president’s toxicity, dishonesty, violations of presidential norms, and reckless incompetence (of which the electorate had grown even wearier during the pandemic). But ironically, as Bernard Goldberg has been doing a good job of documenting on this very website, Biden’s been having some serious trouble distinguishing himself from those leadership failures as well (even to those of us who never had high hopes for him to begin with).

Heck, Biden’s now even sitting at the same approval rating Trump had pretty much throughout his entire presidency.

But let’s get back to those policies…

When you think about it, it perhaps shouldn’t be all that surprising that Biden followed in Trump’s footsteps. After all, we’re talking about initiatives that were always much more in line with liberal sensibilities than they were conservative ones. President Obama and the anti-war left wanted out of Afghanistan long before Trump did, costly government overreach like the eviction moratorium is a traditional liberal precept, and Trump’s trade war was strikingly similar to the trade policies Bernie Sanders had long advocated for. Not to mention that after $8 trillion was added to the national debt under a Republican administration, it was a safe bet that the next Democratic administration would casually try to top even that number.

In that sense, one could argue that this is more about populist pandering — the notion that the path of least resistance (or the one most prone to demagoguery) is the best path. And maybe that’s true purely in political terms, being that so many elected leaders on both sides of the aisle have come to rely almost exclusively on it. The problem is that these paths have led, in large part, to baseline capitulation to big-government liberalism, as well as astonishingly neglectful approaches on matters of dire national importance. In other words, the antithesis of conservatism.

As Chris Stirewalt wrote a few months back (in a piece I keep going back to), “The best way to gauge the success of American political movements is not by the depth to which they shape their native party, but the breadth to which they extend into the opposing side.”

By that measure, Stirewalt argues that the conservative movement in this country has “hit its lowest ebb in generations…” and that its defeat is “now is so abject that not only has a new Democratic president repudiated those concepts in his first address to Congress, but the Republican Party that for decades made itself synonymous with the conservative movement also increasingly rejects its core tenets.”

It’s difficult to argue that he’s wrong.

Yet, where has the supposedly superior populist-pandering approach gotten our leaders? It certainly didn’t save Donald Trump from being defeated by a weak opponent in Joe Biden — a fellow populist-panderer whose job-approval is now just as low as Trump’s.

And has the country benefited from it? Even when you ask the most enthusiastic Trump supporters what their guy’s biggest accomplishments in office were, the answers they give tend to be traditional conservative things that any Republican president would have signed off on: conservative judges and tax reform. Rarely do you hear them hail things that were unique to his administration (whether it be his foreign policy, his trade war, or even his rhetorical diatribes and insults) as actual victories. How about Biden supporters? What do they consider their guy’s greatest success in his first nine months in office? I’m sure many would simply answer, “Not being Donald Trump,” but as I’ve been arguing, he’s actually a lot more like Trump than either side is comfortable admitting.

We as a people have been conditioned in many ways to view every presidential election as a choice between our nation’s salvation and its implosion, and there was a time when I might have even bought into the notion. But when both major political parties have effectively resigned to ignoring our most serious threats, and are content with nominating unfit and unserious individuals who are more focused on tossing out boob-bait to their respective bases than responsible governance, it’s hard to understand how anyone still buys into the phony ultimatum.

I know I sound like a broken record, but the problem is the parties themselves. These institutions were originally created to shape their members to espouse and promote certain principles and qualities that advance a set of interests. Their goal was persuasion, where institutional strength comes from; not capitulation. Today, however, the parties are primarily soapboxes from which to pander to voters’ most shallow partisan instincts. These institutions are following rather than leading, even as more and more people drop their party affiliation in disgust.

What America’s left with are two sides of the same ugly coin — that and hair-on-fire promises that if that coin lands wrong, it’s game over, man.

I’ve got news for those who subscribe to that narrative: if you genuinely believe that the fate of America rests on the flip of that coin (and with today’s major political parties), the game is already over.

 


Sean Coleman is back in John A. Daly’s upcoming thriller novel, “Restitution.” Click here to pre-order.




And Jews Will Still Vote Democrat

There is almost nothing Democrats can do to damage America, or Israel, that would change most American Jews’ political leanings.

The latest example took place just last week. A college student speaking to the vice president of the United States, a Democrat, condemned America for supporting Israel, and charged Israel with committing “ethnic genocide” against Palestinians.

Harris’s response?

“Your voice, your perspective, your experience, your truth cannot be suppressed, and it must be heard.”

It was indeed the student’s truth — which means it was a lie. “Your truth” always means “a lie.” When a person says something that is true, people don’t say, “that is your truth.” They say, “that’s true.”

And indeed, what the girl said to the vice president was a complete lie. Not a partial lie, a complete lie. As a rule — except on the Left with regard to Israel — groups that are victims of genocide decrease in number. Yet the Palestinians have had one of the highest population growth rates in the world. According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, in 1991, there were 2,783,084 Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza. In 2021, there were 5,227,193. This number does not include another 2 million Palestinians who are citizens of Israel. How many other national or ethnic groups have doubled in size in the last 30 years?

Yet, despite this revealing incident, it is hard to imagine that one American Jew will in any way rethink his or her commitment to Biden-Harris.

One reason is that few Jewish Democrats even know it occurred. I Googled “new york times kamala harris george mason university” and the following results came up (in this order): New York Post, Politico, Times of Israel, JTA (Jewish Telegraphic Agency). Next came the New York Times — an article from 2020: “Kamala Harris Makes History as First Woman and Woman of Color as Vice President.”

I could find nothing about the incident in the news sections of the Washington Post or Los Angeles Times either.

Some of the most powerful forces in the Democratic Party (the reason for the $3.5 trillion spending bill) are indistinguishable in their hatred for Israel from Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian regime. Does this disturb American Jewish Democrats?

Not nearly as much as Donald Trump disturbed them. Most American Jews loathed Trump despite the facts that he was the most pro-Israel president since Harry Truman; that his daughter and grandchildren are religious Jews; and that he engineered the Abraham Accords, a peace agreement between the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain and Israel, which was followed by normalization of relations between Sudan and Israel and between Morocco and Israel.

Most American Jews believe the Democratic Party is a good and moral party and that the Republican Party is immoral and perhaps even evil.

This view is entirely emotional, which is why it is difficult to imagine it changing.

Most American Jews identify Republicans with the right and they assume “the right” means “fascist” or even “Nazi.”

Most American Jews identify Republicans with the rich and powerful and the Democratic Party with the poor and downtrodden, even though the rich and powerful are overwhelmingly Democrats.

Most American Jews identify the Democratic Party with secularism and the Republican Party with religion (religious Christians and Orthodox Jews). And they are as committed to secularism as Christians are to Christ.

Most American Jews have signed on to just about every secular substitute for Judeo-Christian religions: feminism, environmentalism, “anti-racism,” humanism, socialism. Jews, I have often noted, may well be the most religious people in the world — but for the great majority of them, Judaism is not their religion. And the Democratic Party is the party of all these secular religions.

This is all a great tragedy — not just for America but especially for American Jews.

America has always been the best country Jews have ever lived in outside of Israel. That is why a Jew wrote “God Bless America” (and did so at a time when antisemitism was much more prevalent and accepted in American society than it is today). That is why the most influential religious Jew of the 20th century, the Chabad leader, Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, described America as a medina shel chesed , a “country of kindness.” Coming from Europe, he did not compare America to Utopia but to all the other countries Jews lived in.

Yet, something happened to American Jews after World War II. They veered more and more left — becoming able to support America-hating movements (like the Black Panthers, for whom Leonard Bernstein and other prominent Jews in music and Broadway threw an infamous fundraiser).

And why did that happen? Because Jews became less and less committed to Judaism, substituted the New York Times for the Torah and went to college in greater proportions than any other ethnic or religious group in America. Colleges corrupt most students’ values. Jews are no exception.

That helps explain why a Democratic vice president could praise a student who just told her that Israel commits ethnic genocide — and have it mean nothing to most American Jews.

Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His latest book, published by Regnery in May 2019, is “The Rational Bible,” a commentary on the book of Genesis. His film, “No Safe Spaces,” was released to home entertainment nationwide on September 15, 2020. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com.

COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM

Last Updated: Monday, Oct 04, 2021 18:30:33 -0700