Tuesday, July 2, 2019

HOW BIDEN BOOKED MILLIONS

Who needs to write a book when you’ve got access?

 
7
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
In the final years of the Obama administration, Joe Biden’s net worth was estimated at -$947,987. The minus sign was the most important part of that figure. The negative numbers weren’t implausible. After Obama won, Biden disclosed that he was carrying as much as a staggering $465,000 in debt.
But despite being a million in the hole, after his administration was done, he moved into a 12,000 foot estate that looks like a poor man’s replica of the White House with 5 bedrooms, 9 bathrooms, a wet bar, 2 kitchens, a sauna, 8 fireplaces, parking for 20 cars and a master bedroom on an entire floor.
The estimated rent is $20,000 a month.
That’s in addition to buying a $2.7 million vacation home in Delaware and his original lakeside home.
Where did all that money come from? As with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, part of the answer lies with some very lucrative book deals. The same year that Biden moved into his miniature White House, Macmillan offered Biden and his wife a multi-book contract worth unknown millions. That was quite a lot of money for a retired veep who hadn’t even announced that he was running for again.
Biden’s previous literary adventures hadn’t exactly set the publishing world on fire. On taking office, Random House had paid him a $9,563 advance to record an audio version of Promises to Keep. The campaign book sold some 49,000 copies and netted under $200 in royalties in 2009.
No, there are no missing zeroes there.
Promise Me, Dad, the first of the Macmillan haul, debuted in 2017. On Amazon, it sits at #39,101 in Books, far below Buttigieg's book at #1,387, Kamala Harris' at #12,556 or Elizabeth Warren's at #22,40.
(Though doing far better than Cory Booker's disastrous book, down in the basement at #205,437.)
Even Stacey Abrams is doing better than Biden at #14,018.
Biden’s book did debut at the top of the bestseller list. It may be performing badly on Amazon because people aren’t really buying the book to read it. They’re buying access to Joe Biden.
Joe had gotten better at selling books. Not because of what was inside them. But by selling himself.
When Marty Walsh, a good friend of Biden, won the election to run Boston, his 1,500 inaguration guests all got copies of Biden’s book. Mayor Walsh claimed that helping prop up Biden’s multi-million book contract so he could afford a 12,000 foot estate with 9 bathrooms was a way of spreading his message about “the importance of the middle class and bringing people together”.
The University of Utah hosted Biden as its keynote speaker. Instead of paying him, it bought 1,000 copies of his book to give out to students. Biden’s people pushed this story in the media as if it were a charitable act. The book purchase was funded by a grant from the O.C. Tanner Company.
O.C. Tanner spent $160,000 on lobbying in 2018.
Biden’s books hadn’t become more interesting a decade later. Promises to Keep had faltered because he had been a longshot candidate. Promise Me, Dad copies were moving, not so much because people were reading them, but because they were a vehicle for gaining access to the 2020 Dem nominee.
His book tour consisted of selling tickets to hear him discuss his book and get an autographed copy.
His American Promise tour included a copy of Promise Me with every ticket sold. At a D.C. bookstore, a VIP package of $448 got you a chance to meet Biden and a signed copy of the book. A VIP package in Austin, Texas, got you a signed copy and only went for $325.
Meanwhile, actually hosting Biden was a nightmare. The University of Buffalo paid Biden $200,000 to give a speech. CAA, one of Hollywood’s biggest talent agencies, which represents the likes of Robert Downey Jr, Sandra Bullock, and Johnny Depp, had the university sign a contract in which “the Artist” was to receive a “full-length mirror”, a meal of angel hair pomodoro, a fridge with 3 different kinds of sodas, and a ban on any “projectiles that can be thrown”. Excepting, apparently, copies of his book.
Because, booksellers would be selling copies of Promise Me, Dad on site.
Speakers using book giveaways as part of, or in place of, their honorarium, is nothing new. But Biden, like Hillary, appeared to be blurring the line between public speaking and monetizing a future candidacy.
Biden’s book sales promoted his candidacy, put millions in his pocket and allowed individuals, organizations and special interests to potentially trade access in exchange for buying his book. When a company with lobbying interests sponsors a 1,000 book buy, it’s indirectly providing a benefit to Biden. Would it be doing so if Biden hadn’t been a serious presidential prospect in 2020?
And would Macmillan have signed Biden to such a generous contract any other way?
Promise Me, Dad had sold 302,000 copies by the spring of 2019. The list price was $28 a book, but Walsh had only paid $12 a copy for his 1,500 copies. Bulk discounts probably applied to other sales.
Jill Biden’s follow-up, the second book in the multi-million contract series, Where the Light Enters: Building a Family, Discovering Myself, came out in May and sold some 7,000 copies.
It currently ranks at #1747 in memoirs.
Numbers like these are a long way from hits. Michelle Obama’s memoir, Becomingsold over 10 million copies. What Happened, Hillary Clinton’s conspiracy theory post-election response, debuted with 300,000 copies. Multi-million-dollar deals can be justified with sales figures like these.
That’s a lot better than Biden is doing.
Biden’s third and final book is, in theory, still ahead, but election campaign books tend to flop. Hillary’s Stronger Together tanked. Nobody remembers Obama’s, Change We Can Believe In. We can guess two things about Biden’s campaign book. It’ll have the word “promise” in it and no one will actually buy it.
And, several memoirs in, what does Biden even have to write about?
Joe Biden has been around for 76 years. We’ve heard all his stories. Including the ones he made up. Especially those. Two memoirs seem like more than enough for a hack who spent his career in politics.
The real story isn’t in the words that, likely some ghostwriter, put together for Biden. Considering his history of plagiarism, that’s for the best. If Joe wrote a book, it would have begun with, “Call me, Ishmael”, “It was a dark and stormy night” or “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”
Biden’s true memoir is not in what he says, but what he does and how he does it.
The way he sold his memoir tells us far more about him than the words between the covers. How he made millions and turned a million in the hole into a multi-million vacation home and a miniature White House tells Biden’s story more evocatively than all the anecdotes meant to appeal to the working class.
Joe Biden isn’t working class or middle class. He’s part of a political class that works the system.
The real story of Promise Me, Dad, is how he once again made millions working the system and has gone from more debt than most Americans can imagine to a luxurious lifestyle they can’t even dream of.


STRAINING TO DEFEND RASHIDA TLAIB AT THE JEWISH TELEGRAPHIC AGENCY

Why the leftist Jewish media leaped to the defense of a Jew-hater in Congress.

 
Attacks on Israel that distort the reality of the Jewish state’s past and present in the service of undermining its well-being and its very survival have become ever more widely disseminated in bastions of the Left in America. This is occurring most strikingly in academia, among both students and faculty, but also in prominent mainstream media and even within the Democrat party. At the same time, those Jews who align themselves with the Left often resort to the most contrived of contortions to mitigate the message of such attacks.
 
A representative example of this phenomenon was recently provided by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA)’s editor-in-chief, Andrew Silow-Carroll. The context was his contribution to the storm of comment in response to Rashida Tlaib’s remarks in a May interview on the podcast Skullduggery. Silow-Carroll’s article was entitled, “What did Rashida Tlaib say about the Holocaust? It’s probably not what you think.” What makes the piece particularly noteworthy is that the JTA is a news service whose stories are picked up by Jewish papers around the world and the rhetoric of its articles, not least that of pieces by its editor-in-chief, is shaped to have a desired impact on the service’s Jewish readership. In Silow-Carroll’s gloss on the Tlaib interview - as in many other articles put out by the JTA having to do with Israel and its critics on the Left - the rhetoric is clearly intended to reassure readers that attacks on Israel from the Left, in this case the Democrat Congresswoman’s statements, were not so problematic and that reactions to the contrary are overwrought.
 
Tlaib had been asked in the Skullduggery interview about her support for a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and how she envisioned a single state that would meet both Palestinian and Israeli-Jewish national aspirations. She never answered the question. Instead, she remarked, as transcribed by Silow-Carroll in his piece, "...two weeks ago we celebrated, or took a moment I think in our country to remember, the Holocaust. And there's a kind of a calming feeling, I always tell folks, when I think of the Holocaust and the tragedy of the Holocaust in the fact that it was my ancestors - Palestinians - who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence in many ways had been wiped out, and some people's passports - I mean, just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that, right? In many ways. But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away, right, and it was forced on them."
 
In his column, Silow-Carroll first goes after Republicans who attacked Tlaib for saying she gets a "calming feeling" when she thinks about the genocide. Well, she did say that. But Silow-Carroll insists all she meant was, as she states, "...it was my ancestors... in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews... I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that..."  Silow-Carroll next goes after those who pointed out that, far from welcoming Jewish refugees during the Nazi era, Palestinian leaders worked against their immigration to British Mandate Palestine and collaborated with the Nazis during the war. (He does note Palestinian collaboration in the war against the Allies; he could also have noted collaboration in the murder of the Jews.) Silow-Carroll particularly cites Benny Morris as erroneously accusing Tlaib of crediting Palestinians with welcoming Jewish refugees. She did say they "provided" the haven but acknowledged "it was forced on them."
 
But what is Silow-Carroll's point? With regard to Tlaib's "calming feeling" on thinking of the Holocaust, he writes, "she is saying that even if the Jews did come and take [her people's] land and rights away, at least it was for the alleviation of another people's suffering." But she clearly hates Israel, feels its creation was a great injustice to her people, and wants to undo it with her one state solution that would ultimately make Jews a minority in a Palestinian Arab state.. 
 
Even the descendants of people who genuinely did help the Jews during and after the Holocaust, descendants of people who often put their lives at risk to extend that help, are unlikely to have - in response to their forebearers' heroism - a "calming feeling" on thinking of the Holocaust. They are much more likely to be pained, saddened, appalled by the scale of the atrocities whenever they think of it. "Calming feeling" is a bizarre statement whose meaning, for those trying to fathom it, is no less plausibly closer to that inferred by Tlaib's critics than to the gloss Silow-Carroll struggles to put on it.
 
And what is his point in his retort to Benny Morris for noting what Palestinian attitudes and actions towards the Jews actually were before and during World War II? Yes, Tlaib did not say that the Palestinians welcomed the Jews but she certainly doesn't acknowledge the murderous violence with which they opposed both Jews in the Mandate and those trying to survive in the Arab world and in Europe.
 
In addition, Tlaib insists it was the Palestinians' land to which Jewish survivors came after the war. In fact, it had been Ottoman Turkish land and, in the wake of the First World War, had been given by the League of Nations as a homeland to the Jews, both those already living there - including those who had been either a plurality or majority in Jerusalem for more than a century - and those who would immigrate there. The League of Nations did so in the context of creating or recreating many nations from the lands of the German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman empires. These nations included Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Syria and Iraq, with Syria, Iraq and the Jewish national home all being held as mandates by Britain or France to foster nation-building. In every instance, there were ethnic and religious groups within the new nations that were not happy with the new situation, but nowhere else was this seen as delegitimizing the nation-building project.
 
Silow-Carroll never directly addresses Tlaib's false characterization of the land on which Israel was established as appropriated Palestinian land. Nor does he note that it was in defiance of League of Nations objections and in the service of what it construed as its imperial interests that Britain severely restricted Jewish admission to the Mandate in the years before and during World War II while allowing in large numbers of Arabs from neighboring states, people who then became “Palestinians.” Nor does he address the fact that it was not Israel's establishment that led to, in Tlaib’s words, "my ancestors - Palestinians - [losing] their land and some their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence in many ways..." In fact, they would have suffered none of that if they had accepted the United Nations' 1947 division of the Mandate - all of which had been intended by the League of Nations for the Jewish homeland - into two states, one Jewish and one Arab.  It was the Palestinians' rejection of the UN plan and their going to war to prevent its implementation and to destroy the Jewish community that led to the losses she laments.
 
Even as he is silent on these truths and tries to put the best possible gloss he can contrive on Tlaib's remarks, Silow-Carroll ultimately acknowledges that that gloss still reflects her echoing the false "...anti-Zionist refrain that the Jews escaped the window of a burning house only to land on someone else's head."
 
Still he is determined to put a positive spin on Tlaib's rhetoric and to take to task her critics among  Republicans, the "Jewish commentariat and media," the Israeli press and many other voices in the Jewish world, as well as some Democrats who want "to separate themselves from the increasingly diverse insurgency on their left."  
 
But, again, what is Silow-Carroll’s point? What drives his strained arguments? In trying to discern the answer, it is worth noting once more that a central recurrent theme in left-leaning Jewish media, including the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, is insistence on downplaying the extremism of anti-Israel voices on the Left, to rationalize their rhetoric and arguments and even to cast them in positive terms. They do so to oppose an Israeli government and Israeli policies with which they disagree. They do so to counter Israel's supporters on the American Right and in the mainstream American Jewish community and even in the American Center-Left, and often as well to make common cause with more radical elements of the American Left even as those elements embrace increasingly strident anti-Israel positions. And they do so not least to sway a worldwide Jewish readership to be less critical of, and more receptive to, Israel’s attackers on the Left. 
 
These ideologically driven stances by a significant segment of Jewish outlets and Jewish commentators do a gross disservice to the reality of Israel's history, current situation and challenges. In prioritizing promoting their leftist allegiances over informing and educating their Jewish readership, they routinely obscure the truth-telling that is at once the most ethical and most effective response to those such as Tlaib who seek to undermine Israel and ultimately to see it destroyed.


7 arrested in vandalism of popular Chicago 'Bean' sculpture

7 arrested in vandalism of popular Chicago 'Bean' sculpture

CHICAGO (AP) — Police in Chicago have arrested seven people suspected of spray-painting graffiti on two downtown landmarks, including the popular giant metallic sculpture known as "The Bean."
Authorities say the Millennium Park sculpture was vandalized late Monday and that the suspects were detained a short time later. Charges were pending Tuesday morning.
The sculpture's stainless-steel reflective surface was marked with "35th Crew" in silver lettering near the bottom. The Cancer Survivor Wall in nearby Maggie Daley Park also was vandalized.
AdChoices
Sign up for Breaking News by AOL to get the latest breaking news alerts and updates delivered straight to your inbox.
Emails may offer personalized content or ads. Learn more. You may unsubscribe any time.
The sculpture by artist Anish Kapoor is formally known as "Cloud Gate" and weighs 110 tons (99.8 metric tons). It is 66-feet (20.1-meters) long and sits in a plaza just off of Michigan Avenue.
Slideshow preview image
 
32 PHOTOS
Life on the South Side of Chicago in the 1940s
SEE GALLERY

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *