Why Democrats Should Fear a Senate Trial

lindsey-graham-kavanaugh-protester-via-benny-johnson-cropped-e1538952820625-620x435

In the next few weeks, the U.S. House of Representatives may vote to approve articles of impeachment.

The governmental activity that the public has been witnessing over the past few weeks regarding the potential impeachment of the 45th president would be transferred over to the U.S. Senate, which unlike the House of Representatives is under Republican control.

If the Democrats actually pull off a vote to impeach the president, they just may find themselves ruing the day. The politically charged impeachment drama could play out in the following manner:

Republicans in the Senate would make the case that the House articles of impeachment are the product of a highly flawed process. They would point out that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff kicked off the hearings in a shroud of secrecy. Curiously, only information favorable to the Democrats was allowed to leak out.

Senate Republicans would also note that the chairman ran a series of closed-door depositions, a.k.a. “auditions,” followed by open televised testimony sessions that posed as committee hearings.

Much of the above mentioned was in flagrant violation of constitutional norms and is easily recognizable as an assault on due process.

GOP senators would highlight that Schiff’s rabidly partisan proceedings were devoid of fairness. Ranking Republican members on the committee were blocked from calling witnesses. Ukraine interference in the 2016 election was off the table, as were former Vice President Joe Biden, the business dealings of Biden’s son, the corrupt Ukraine energy company Biden’s son worked for, and of course, the identity and origin of the so-called whistleblower.

With the above described sham circumstances in mind, the Senate could reasonably dismiss the articles of impeachment and skip the trial altogether. But interestingly, the president and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have both weighed in, indicating their preferences to have a full Senate trial.

A Senate impeachment trial would involve each side having the right to call witnesses and perform cross-examinations. The House members, known as impeachment managers during the course of the trial, would present the prosecution case. The president would have the right to mount a defense with his own attorneys. The Constitution requires a two-thirds super majority to convict and remove a sitting president.

Should a Senate trial take place, it would have some unfortunate fallout for Democratic presidential candidates in that it would pull a number of them off the campaign trail at a most inopportune time. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Michael Bennet would be compelled to stop campaigning mere weeks before the Iowa caucuses.

McConnell recently alluded to this aspect of an impeachment trial, saying, “How long it goes on really just depends on how long the Senate wants to spend on it. I will say I’m pretty sure how it’s likely to end. If it were today, I don’t think there’s any question it would not lead to a removal. So the question is how long the Senate wants to take. How long do the presidential candidates want to be here on the floor of the Senate instead of Iowa and New Hampshire?”

When the Senate starts its impeachment preparation, not only do the proceedings occur in a forum in which the GOP holds a majority, key committees are also chaired by supporters of the president. The Senate Republicans will be able to bring forth evidence on issues and topics that the left and the mainstream media have routinely dismissed out of hand.

Democrats may already be experiencing high anxiety over the recent communications of GOP Senate leaders. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, requesting documents related to communications between former Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko and Biden.

Graham also sought documents pertaining to a meeting between Biden’s son’s business partner and former Secretary of State John Kerry. Additionally, Graham has said he will insist that the Senate call the so-called whistleblower to testify.

It is legitimate as well as relevant for the Senate to explore, as they likely would, the former vice president’s apparent role in placing pressure on the Ukrainian government to fire a prosecutor by the name of Viktor Shokin, who had been investigating the natural gas company, Burisma. Burisma paid huge amounts of money to Biden’s son, who by all appearances was an energy neophyte, for his membership on the company’s board of directors.

The telephone conversation between President Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, which ostensibly prompted the impeachment inquiry, involved a reference to prosecutor Shokin, making the facts concerning Burisma and Biden highly relevant to legitimate U.S. concerns over corruption in the Ukraine.

Additionally, the Senate would likely look into Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election by calling as a witness former DNC consultant Alexandra Chalupa to determine whether, with the assistance of Ukrainian officials, she was improperly engaging in opposition research on the Trump campaign.

Homeland Security Committee Chairman Sen. Ron Johnson and Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley have already written a letter to the head of the National Archives and Records Administration, seeking to obtain records of meetings between Obama administration officials, Ukrainian government representatives, and DNC officials.

The Johnson-Grassley letter specifically references a meeting in 2016 in which U.S. officials “brought up investigations relating to Burisma Holdings.” The letter also makes reference to officials in that meeting who asked that the Ukraine government “drop the Burisma probe and allow the FBI to take it over.”

According to the letter, White House records will indicate that Chalupa was present in “numerous meetings at the White House, including one event with then President Obama.”

Senators Johnson and Grassley have also sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray, seeking information on Chalupa. The letter states, based on reports, that “it appears that the DOJ and FBI have in their possession material relevant to our Committees’ ongoing investigation into collusive actions Chalupa and the DNC took to use foreign government sources to undermine the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.”

Should an impeachment trial take place, President Trump has indicated that he intends to bring in to testify both Schiff and the so-called whistleblower. Findings from U.S. Attorney John Durham’s probe into election-related controversies of 2016 would also likely become available should a Senate trial occur.

A witness list that includes Schiff, Biden, Biden’s son, Burisma board member Devon Archer, Chalupa, Fusion GPS researcher Nellie Ohr, and the so-called whistleblower, among myriad others, is the stuff of Democrat nightmares.

A little something for Dems to ponder before they take that all-important vote: Be careful what you wish for.

The Real Jane Fonda

fonda_vietnam_3171436b

In an apparent attempt to garner some ego-boosting attention and high praise from Hollywood peers, actress Jane Fonda recently headed to Washington, D.C., where she participated in some climate-related protests. In trademark dramatic fashion, she also got herself arrested.

The octogenarian Oscar winner had tipped off the press with an Internet post, which read in part, “Moved to Washington, D.C. to be closer to the epicenter of the fight for our climate.”

In what had the feel of an ace Hollywood PR plan, Fonda let the world know, “Every Friday through January, I will be leading weekly demonstrations on Capitol Hill to demand that action by our political leaders be taken to address the climate emergency we are in. We can’t afford to wait.”

Aligning herself with the lunatic fringe of the Democrat Party, the activist-hero wanna-be warned that the clock was ticking on the current world. Eleven years was supposedly all that the third rock from the sun had left.

Fonda somehow got some co-stars to adopt her radical left-wing ideology as well. One of the things that seemed suspiciously staged were the photo ops in which she wore a vivid red trench coat while gently being detained by the police.

Her first arrest took place alongside actor Sam Waterston, followed by another with actor Ted Danson. She was arrested yet again with fellow actress-activists Rosanna Arquette and Catherine Keener.

Upon her fourth arrest, Fonda struck publicity gold. She spent the night in a D.C. jail.

“In my cell it was just me and the cockroaches,” Fonda said, recounting her “ordeal” to The Hollywood Reporter.

Interestingly, at last Friday’s protest there was no arrest for Fonda, or for anyone else for that matter. The police refused to detain protestors.

One thing’s for certain, the whole Fonda show has ended up taking valuable law enforcement resources away from the actual crimes that are being perpetrated in the nation’s capital.

Typical of Hollywood celebs, Fonda got what she was after – fawning press coverage from the establishment news media, the same media that for decades has ignored and/or whitewashed her own questionable past.

As Fonda panders to the woke generation, many of the younger left-leaners think that she is just another run-of-the-mill hate America socialist. But they really need to get to know the real Jane Fonda better. As painful as it is, those of us who have been around a while can assist the process.

Years ago, in a shameless so-called protest of the Vietnam War, Fonda earned the name “Hanoi Jane.”

It was 1972, a time when America was still very much engaged in battle overseas, with so many of our hero soldiers serving on the front lines. Fonda did an infamous photo-shoot with the enemy. She slid into the seat of a communist North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun vehicle and struck a pose. It was a horrifying sight, hurtful to our fighting men and women, our nation’s morale, and America’s heart.

Astounding that Fonda would be reliving her protest un-glory days this beautiful month of November, the month when the patriotic and grateful among us are pouring our hearts out to our beloved Veterans here and in heaven. We will never forget their love, honor, and sacrifice.

But likewise, we will never forget that 1972 photo. Not that we don’t appreciate the times when Fonda expressed some regret and even apologized for ill-conceived and hurtful actions over the years. But oh how those words ring hollow in light of her recent stagecraft.

Our Vietnam Vets are still waiting for the parade that would have welcomed them sweetly back home. They received nothing of the sort. For those of you who were not yet born or those who were too young to remember, read about it in a history book that pre-dates the liberal revisionism that passes for history today.

Truly tragically, Fonda’s current rhetoric reveals her disdain for a country that provided her with a level of success and abundance that few attain. A recent statement that she made to the New York Times captures the inexplicable sentiment.

“The same toxic ideology that … cut down the forests and exhausted the natural world just as it did the people — this foundational ideology is the same one that has brought us the human-driven climate change that we’re facing today,” Fonda said.

Maybe it’s just a case of misplaced priorities or perhaps she believes it is a way of making amends for past mistakes.

Whatever the case, in this enormously forgiving country of ours, it’s never too late to say “I’m sorry.”

Never too late for that “Welcome Home” parade either.

China Attempts to Censor the World

south_park_banned_china_-828x435

The People’s Republic of China has been busy stopping its own people from seeing, listening to, and otherwise engaging in informational and entertainment media of all sorts, including movies, television, books, newspapers, magazines, music, video games, and the Internet.

The Communist Party of China, the nation’s single ruling party, heavy-handedly mandates so. Notably, since 2012, when Xi Jinping became the General Secretary of the Communist Party, censorship has increased significantly.

A Hollywood case in point. Richard Gere, by all measures, had in the past been considered to be a bona-fide superstar. But something curious happened after he made a pro-Dalai Lama speech at the 1993 Academy Awards.

In what he likely assumed was a free speech prerogative, the actor went about sharing with others that he was a follower and even a defender of someone the Chinese government abhors. He soon found himself being shunned by the major studios, and he has been noticeably absent from Oscar ceremonies ever since.

“There are definitely movies that I can’t be in because the Chinese will say, ‘Not with him,’” Gere told the Hollywood Reporter.

Apparently, tech giants Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Yahoo have been voluntarily self-censoring their content for Chinese markets in order to continue conducting business with the country. Other companies and individuals have not been afforded the same opportunity.

China has banned a host of musical artists over time including Maroon 5, Lady Gaga, Guns N’ Roses, and Kylie Minogue.

Zedd, the international Grammy-winning DJ, found himself permanently banished from China. The mistake he made was that he “liked” a tweet posted on the “South Park” Twitter account. The tweet in question referred to the 300th episode of the successful animated television program. Perhaps surprisingly for Zedd, the government of China had just banned “South Park” over an episode that lampooned China along with the NBA.

The Chinese state broadcaster CCTV made the decision to ban NBA pre-season games after a tweet was posted by Daryl Morey, general manager of the Houston Rockets, which lent support to the anti-government demonstrations in Hong Kong.

Using their show to poke China, “South Park” creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone aired an episode titled “Band in China,” which sent a delightfully satiric message to tech, entertainment, and sports institutions about some of the current practices of dutifully complying with China’s censors.

In the episode, one of the “South Park” characters is arrested in China and subsequently observes the brutal treatment that some of the Chinese prisoners are forced to endure.

Which prisoners suffer the abuse? Two banned characters from one of the world’s most beloved literary faves – Winnie the Pooh and his best friend Piglet, who were eliminated because Chinese dictator Xi was said to resemble Pooh in online memes.

A cartoon version of an entertainment executive who appears in the episode states that Pooh cannot be the subject of a film because the literary and Disney character is “illegal,” due to the fact that “some Chinese students said he looked like the Chinese president.”

Real life entertainment executives have been bending to China’s will for years. Disney’s movie “Christopher Robin” was not shown in the communist nation because Winnie the Pooh had a starring role in the film.

Brad Pitt’s “World War Z” had to be altered because the plot originally had the zombie outbreak originating in China and subsequently spreading throughout the world.

The remake of “Red Dawn” was re-shot and digitally altered to switch the ancestral heritage of the invaders of the U.S. from Chinese to North Korean. Despite the modifications, it still ended up not being released in China.

The James Bond movie “Skyfall” could only be shown in China after scenes were edited out, ones that depicted the existence of prostitutes in a part of China known as Macau. Additionally, references to torture that was being carried out by Chinese police had to be eliminated.

The film “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” had footage taken out, which featured Hong Kong actor Chow Yun-fat’s character, in order to please the Chinese powers that be.

“Mission Impossible III” edited out a car chase that took place in Shanghai because underwear could be seen hanging on clotheslines.

“The Departed” was banned because of an implication that the Chinese communists planned to use nuclear weapons on Taiwan.

The Bond film “Casino Royale” could only be screened after references to the Cold War were removed.

Parker and Stone issued a biting “official apology” panning China’s ban of “South Park” and jabbing the NBA while they were at it.

“Like the NBA, we welcome the Chinese censors into our homes and into our hearts. We too love money more than freedom and democracy. Xi doesn’t look just like Winnie the Pooh at all. Tune into our 300th episode this Wednesday at 10! Long live the Great Communist Party of China! May this autumn’s sorghum harvest be bountiful! We good now China?”

As slippery slopes would have it, the stifling of free speech is not being confined within China’s borders. Rather, it looks as if the freedom-denying activity has become one of China’s biggest exports.

Bernie Sanders Turns into Bernie Sanger

bernie-sanders-california-democrats

It was an eerie telling moment for Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders.

During CNN’s recent 7-hour climate change commercial, Sanders made it clear in a response to a question that if he’s the one who snags a White House seat in 2020, he will support the funding of population control measures in poverty stricken countries, measures that include the performing of abortions.

An audience member at the televised CNN event asked Sanders the following: “Human population growth has more than doubled in the past 50 years. The planet cannot sustain this growth. I realize this is a poisonous topic for politicians, but it’s crucial to face. Empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact. Would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?”

Sanders responded by saying, “[T]he answer has everything to do with the fact that women — in the United States of America, by the way — have a right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions. And the Mexico City agreement, which denies American aid to those organizations around the world that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control, to me is totally absurd.”

In the above portion of his answer, Sanders appears to equate abortion with any other birth control option that is available. This stands in stark contrast to the way in which many Americans, millions of life-affirming people in other countries, and advocates of the Mexico City policy, among others, view the ending of the life of a pre-born human being.

Sanders continued with another line of ethically challenged reasoning in his response, saying, “So I think especially in poor countries around the world, where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies and where they can have the opportunity through birth control to limit the number of kids they have — something I very, very strongly support.”

Essentially, after re-labeling abortion as just another birth control method, Sanders talked about reducing the number of poor people that exist, so that we can ostensibly save the planet.

The thought of promoting population control measures for a people, whether it be your own or another nation’s, is repugnant. But Sanders’ remarks reveal something even more egregious, something that should be deeply disturbing to anyone who cares about equality, God-given rights, and self-determination.

Residents of all nations, be they rich or poor, developed or still in the process, have the right to determine their own destinies, and inextricably bound to this premise is a fundamental freedom to procreate, to be the vehicle through which new life can enter this world, to enjoy all the promise that it holds here and, as many believe, on into eternity.

I believe Sanders is an aberration, as was Margaret Sanger, a like-minded figure from the past, who was very much in support of controlling certain demographics of the world’s population. Sanger was the founder of a parent organization that would eventually come to be known as Planned Parenthood.

Population reduction as a means to an end was also embraced by Sanger, a real-life purveyor of eugenics-based policies. In her 1932 speech titled “My Way to Peace,” Sanger advocated compulsory sterilization for those whom she determined to be undesirable.

“The first step would be to control the intake and output on … mental defectives …,” Sanger said.

“The second step would be to take an inventory of … illiterates, paupers, unemployables … classify them in special departments under government medical protection and segregate them on farms and open spaces.”

According to Sanger, those who were placed in government camps would be freed only if they underwent sterilization.

In an earlier 1921 speech, “The Morality of Birth Control,” Sanger spoke of the “irresponsible and reckless people” whose religious scruples “prevent their exercising control over their numbers.”

She added, “There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.”

The dictates of the central planning of population to which Sanders and Sanger adhere ultimately require coercive force.

As Sanger stated, “Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupidly cruel sentimentalism.”

Sanger’s goal was to supposedly create a world in which poverty and illness cease to exist. Sander’s goal is to supposedly rescue the planet from the ravages of man-made climate change. In both sinister proposals, neither goals nor outcomes are what they appear to be.

True Lies about Socialism

190322-2020-dems-kamala-harris-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-cory-booker-4up-2x1-diagonal-ac-643p_66134c31b80c41a8d5687cfc61f879aa.fit-1240w

The truth is socialism is a sham.

It is a system of government that has never worked and never will.

Dig deep and what you find at its core is a state sanctioned bully, the nature of whom may differ in size, shape, and matter but the character of whom always remains the same.

In the world of socialism, intimidation is the tool of preference, oppression the end game, and insecurity the most valuable weapon. Operating under the guise of official authority, the bully determines what is best for a people and what will be imposed, be it gently or vigorously, upon the lives of those who have been swept up in its initial allure.

History is the truth teller who relays the story to anyone that cares to listen of how socialism has been tried time and time again and how time and time again the sham system has failed. The victims of the former Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, and countless other countries across time bear the battle scars of souls who silently suffered and bore the weight.

Socialism sucks the lifeblood from a nation and its individuals. It confiscates property, finances, and resources and offers the promise of security in exchange for personal freedom. The first true lie in a series of many to come.

Above is a mere sampling of the deception by which socialism secures its prey. The good news is that, in the presence of freedom’s light, socialism’s darkness doesn’t stand a chance. This July 4 some people will be gathering to celebrate liberty. Others will be gathering to herald a system that is antithetical to all that is good about America.

Actor Jon Voight recently revealed on the Fox News Channel that he will appear at an event on Independence Day titled the “Rally for Freedom.”

In part as a response to the Democrat Party’s acceptance of so-called democratic socialism, the Oscar-winner plans to stand alongside Gold Star families at a rally, which will be held on the U.S. Capitol lawn to celebrate freedom and reject socialism.

The group “Moms for America” is bringing Gold Star wives and mothers to Washington, D.C. to attend the rally.

As the Moms for America website states, the term Gold Star is “a recognition given to an immediate family member who has lost a loved one in military service. Gold Star wives have lost their husband in the line of duty, Gold Star mothers have lost their son or daughter. Gold Star children have lost a parent.”

While appearing alongside Gold Star mom Karen Vaughn, Voight explained, “There’s no greater honor than to stand with these moms who have lost their loved ones who sacrificed for our country, for our freedoms, and who love and honor and respect our nation.”

Vaughn’s son, Navy SEAL Aaron Carson, gave his life for our country in 2011. During his appearance, Voight remarked on the anti-socialist purpose of the rally.

“If they knew anything about the Second World War, they’d know that socialism is a disaster. It’s never produced anything anywhere in the world. It’s an economic sinkhole, but it also produces nothing but misery and violence,” the actor said.

A primary purpose of the rally is to take a solid position against socialism, as the Moms for America website states in the following:

“We are watching in shock as our culture increasingly embraces socialist ideology and our nation rapidly moves toward a socialist state. But Moms for America is taking a bold stand to counter this dangerous movement and send a powerful message to those who think they can change our form our government—Not on Our Watch!”

Ironically, on the very same day in Chicago at the Hyatt Regency McCormick Place hotel, the Socialism 2019 Conference is set to begin. According to the event website, the multi-day conference will bring together “socialists and radical activists from around the country to take part in discussions about Marxism, working-class history, and the debates and strategies for organizing today.”

The event is described by organizers in the following manner:

“In a moment of rising class struggle, resurgent social movements, and the growing popular appeal of socialism, the Socialism 2019 Conference is an important gathering space for today’s left.”

Senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders popularized a re-branded label for the failed system, by using the phrase “democratic socialism.” It has a number of Americans, particularly younger voters, hoodwinked into thinking that socialism is somehow an acceptable alternative to our longstanding form of government. Unfortunately, many of the other candidates currently running in the Democrat presidential primary have also embraced Sanders’s ideas.

Socialism will always carry with it the stench of its history.

But on this July 4, and on each day and place in America where freedom boldly rings, the air is fragrant and sweet, and the gratitude to those who paid the highest price is beyond measure.

The Scene Stealer Wins

14-dems-debate.w700.h467

Democratic candidates who are vying to win the top spot as their Party’s 2020 presidential nominee are set to take the debate stage on Wednesday and Thursday of this week.

Twenty out of the twenty-three candidates who are currently running have made the cut, which means they will be participating in the debates on one of the two days listed above. They will, of course, be appearing on national television and several will likely be introducing themselves to the public at large for the very first time.

The political face-off is going to take place in Miami, Florida, with telecasts airing on NBC, MSNBC, and Telemundo. Lester Holt, Savannah Guthrie, Chuck Todd, Rachel Maddow, and José Díaz-Balart will be the moderators.

The rhetoric of many who are chasing the Democratic primary plum has been both confusing and unappealing to a sizable segment of the voting population. Candidates that fall within this category have, for the most part, been speaking to their far-left constituents, especially those who tend to be clustered in East and West Coast urban enclaves.

The candidates’ positions on the most crucial issues that our country presently faces appear to be pretty much the same in content and substance. They seem to be relatively distant from the views held by a major segment of the population as well, with the sometimes exception of former Vice President Joe Biden. When not flip-flopping or dodging questions, the former veep does his best to appear above the fray and create an air of inevitability.

The two-day debate drama will feature an unlikely cast of characters that includes the mayor of the nation’s largest city, the mayor of one of the nation’s smallest cities, certain individuals with no previous political experience, one individual with fifty years experience, and even a New Age guru who is a spiritual soul mate of none other than Oprah Winfrey.

The stakes are quite high for the largest primary campaign field ever assembled. As a result of the sheer number of candidates who are participating in the debate, the DNC has resorted to a lottery in order to assign the candidates’ dates and places across the two-day event.

Wednesday’s grouping includes only one of the current five top Democratic contenders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Consequently, Thursday is looking as if it will be a red carpet event, politically speaking. It will feature the four remaining highest placing candidates, which includes the front-runner, Biden.

A recent Quinnipiac poll showed that only 45 percent of Democrats are paying “a lot” of attention to the campaign. The candidates will vie for their share of attention during the two-hour broadcast, while at the same time trying to distinguish themselves from one another. They will no doubt have to make their points in a condensed period of time, because despite being limited to 10 participants the estimated duration that each will be able to speak is only about seven minutes.

For those in the political arena who have not yet achieved the degree of name recognition and fame that is required, particularly when compared with Biden’s levels, the dream of setting themselves apart in an age of social media depends on their wherewithal to generate a “viral” moment.

Before social media came into existence I would characterize a moment such as this as a “magic” one. The impact on the momentum of a candidate’s campaign had the same effect – shooting star.

In 1984 former President Ronald Reagan deftly dealt with his then-age of 73, when questioned on the matter during his debate with Democrat opponent Walter Mondale. Reagan famously responded, “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”

In 2000, during the third presidential debate with then-GOP candidate George W. Bush, former Vice President Al Gore, after sighing audibly through most of the proceedings, left his podium and entered his opponent’s space in an apparent attempt at intimidation. Bush merely nodded at Gore and in wry trademark fashion said a single word, “Hello,” continuing to make his point without skipping a beat.

Back in the day magic moments spread the old fashioned way, via television broadcasts, radio, and print publications. Moving like lighting, today a viral moment is fueled by 24/7 cable coverage and social media platforms.

As the intersection of Hollywood and politics grows ever wider and stardust makes its way from west coast to east and back again, analogies between the world of entertainment and of politics become ever more pronounced. What I see as a potentiality of the upcoming debates is what has frequently been observed on the Hollywood front. An actor who plays a secondary role in a film unexpectedly captures the audience’s attention and “steals the scene.” When this occurs, an unknown supporting actor may suddenly be catapulted on to a new trajectory aimed straight toward stardom.

In 1950, appearing in a mere two scenes of the film “The Asphalt Jungle,” little known actress Marilyn Monroe experienced the propelling of her career, which placed her on a path that ultimately led to cinematic icon status.

In 1969, like Monroe actor Jack Nicholson did much the same in the film “Easy Rider.” So, too, did Viola Davis in 2008 with her role in the film “Doubt.”

With today’s vast social media landscape, the type of moment that will thrust a candidate into the political stratosphere must be one that breaks through the Internet noise barrier. Like it or not, when “Action!” is called on the night of the debates, he or she who steals the scene wins.

The Biden Masquerade

121118-Biden-at-UDel-SS-195-768x512

Joe Biden is currently the frontrunner in an ever growing Democratic presidential primary pack.

However, the time honored maxim of history repeating itself may apply when it comes to the former vice president’s third bid for the Oval Office.

Biden’s campaign speechwriters have been tasked with keeping his stump speeches as lofty and broad as possible. One of the clearest examples of this can be found in Biden’s frequently repeated campaign promise to “restore the soul of this country.”

In his rhetoric, he carefully avoids making mention of any specific policy position. Instead he mouths hack political phrases, conveying ideas regarding a supposed return to “unity” and “bipartisanship.” Lost in his words is any semblance of truth about the administration in which he played a major role, an administration that, among other things, left a legacy of having severely polarized the nation along race, class, and cultural lines.

Biden’s latest campaign has come up with a fictional crisis, one of a “soulless” nation that is in need of fixing. His campaign is doing everything it can to avoid the simple fact that the Biden candidacy carries with it an enormous amount of baggage. The former senator and vice president happens to be the embodiment of establishment politics. In addition, he is an apologist for a massive federal bureaucracy.

The third-time presidential hopeful has been in the political business for an astounding fifty years. He apparently believes that he is just the guy who will be able fix things, even things that over the last half century he helped to break in the first place.

Not only does Biden represent to the Democrat electorate the old ways of doing things, his age is a relevant issue. If he were to be elected, he would be kicking off his presidency at the seasoned age of 78. While there is a lot to be said for senior power, at some point a reality check becomes a prudent option.

The Democratic Party’s energy currently resides in its left wing, and many of its activist members are feeling tepid about Biden’s entry into the race, due to his long record as a politician. The titular leader of the Democrat left, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D – N.Y., has already dismissed the notion of a Biden nomination,

“This idea that we can go back to the good old days with Obama, with Obama’s vice president I think, you know, there is an emotional element to that. But I don’t want to go back. I want to go forward.”

Ocasio-Cortez and her likeminded allies do not like that Biden opposed busing to end segregated public schools, voted for the Iraq war, supported the job-killing trade agreements, supported a draconian crime bill, and displayed a prosecutorial attitude toward Anita Hill during the 1991 Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.

Two important issues with which Biden must contend that continue to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of primary voters are as follows: 1) a pattern of inappropriate behavior toward women and girls, much of which has been captured on video recordings; 2) a penchant for making serious gaffes.

Biden has a history of failed presidential campaigns. His first one came to an end due to a plagiarism scandal. His second one ended as the result of his having finished in fifth place in the Iowa caucuses.

Still, the Dem frontrunner’s biggest problems may be the serious scandals that are swirling around him. These would typically be ignored by the mainstream media. However, because of the more than twenty Democratic opponents in the field, many of whom are well liked by the media, press coverage of the scandals is likely to ensue.

Two stories that have already been publicly exposed involve transactions with the Ukraine and China. The China scandal has received coverage in two mainstream media organizations that would not typically be revealing stories that might be harmful to a Democrat candidate.

The New York Times and Vanity Fair both reported on Biden, when he was vice president, as having conducted high-level diplomacy with Beijing days before a $1.5 billion deal was made with his son Hunter Biden’s private equity firm, secured from the state-owned Bank of China. This may explain why Biden recently brushed aside the idea that China poses a danger to the U.S.

“China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man…. They can’t even figure out how to deal with the fact that they have this great division between the China Sea and the mountains in the east, I mean in the west,” Biden said.

During his term as vice president, Biden’s son Hunter was being investigated in the Ukraine after landing a high-paying job at a major Ukrainian energy company. Biden reportedly used taxpayer money and the power of his office to have the lead prosecutor on the case fired.

Known for speaking before thinking, Biden boasted about the misuse of power.

“We’re not going to give you the billion dollars,” he said. “They said, ‘You have no authority. You’re not the president.’ I said, ‘Call him.’ I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting a billion dollars.’ I said, ‘You are not getting a billion. I will be leaving here,’ and I think it was, what, six hours. I looked and I said, ‘Leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a b—h got fired.”