- The Washington Times - Tuesday, August 13, 2019

A timely new book has just landed: “Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency” by Andrew McCarthy meticulously proves that President Trump has faced some unprecedented partisan hostility. The author parses the “collusion fable” and revisits details almost too numerous to mention.

“This is a story about what happens when those we trust to be the guardians of our system anoint themselves the masters of our system. For our own good, of course,” says Mr. McCarthy — a former federal prosecutor and a contributor to Fox News, National Review and Commentary, among other news organizations.

“The real collusion in the 2016 election was not between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. It was between the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Obama administration. The media-Democrat ‘collusion narrative,’ which paints Donald Trump as cat’s paw of Russia, is a studiously crafted illusion,” he says.

“This book contends that the Obama administration, abetted by Washington’s politically progressive order, exploited its control of law-enforcement and intelligence agencies to help Clinton and undermine Trump. This was a scandalous abuse of power,” the author writes.

Mr. McCarthy remains vexed at the very idea that collusion even occurred.

“Nobody elected the federal government and its sprawling administrative state to decide whom to place at the top of the federal government and its sprawling administrative state. That is a decision for the sovereign, the American people exercising the franchise, not the administrators of the government they elect,” Mr. McCarthy declares.

The book is published by Encounter Books, which counts such notables as National Security Adviser John R. Bolton, Victor Davis Hanson, Thomas Sowell and Bill Gertz among its many authors.


In case you were wondering, college and university presidents have earned as much as $2,578,609 a year, according to a hair-raising study of salaries conducted by the Chronicle for Higher Education. Many of these academic elites make more than a certain well-known political figure.

“Dozens of public university presidents make more money in a single year than does the president of the United States,” notes Campus Reform analyst Ethan Cai, who pored over the salary analysis.

“The report gathered salary data from more than 1,400 university chief executives from both private and public institutions, and ultimately determined that 179 public university presidents make as much or more each year than the leader of the free world, who makes $400,000 annually, although President Trump has not taken a salary during his tenure,” Mr. Cai writes.

“Of these 179 public university presidents, 40 of them make more than double the amount the commander-in-chief earns in a single calendar year. Seventeen public university presidents make more than $1 million annually,” he advises.


The Republican Party often gets panned as the party of “big money and big donors” — but donation patterns have changed measurably under President Trump says an analysis compiled for Fox News by Maxim Lott, executive producer of Stossel TV. He found that 61% of money raised directly by the Trump campaign this election cycle came from small donors who gave under $200, according to the Federal Election Commission.

“This is dramatically higher than previous Republican nominees. Mitt Romney raised 26% of his direct contributions from small donations in 2012, and John McCain raised 25% from small donations in 2008,” the analysis noted.

“Democrats have traditionally been the party that has benefited the most from cultivating a small donor base. It’s pretty clear from the numbers that Trump has done a lot to change that dynamic — the populist edge he’s brought to campaigning is clearly something that is resonating with small donors on the right,” Alex Baumgart, individual contributions researcher at the Center for Responsive Politics, told Mr. Lott.


There is considerable “outrage” over the Trump administration’s regulation regarding legal immigrants’ access to public welfare programs such as Medicare and food stamps.

“The outrage about this rule, which is set to go into effect in 60 days, is overblown. Even in the era of mass immigration in the 19th and early 20th centuries, those who came here had to promise not to become a ‘public charge’ upon the United States. That meant immigrants pledged to work and/or could look to sponsors who would guarantee their support,” writes Jonathan Tobin in a New York Post op-ed, declaring that it’s not “racist” to screen out migrants who could be a burden.

“The idea of restricting immigration to those who could work is an old one. The federal Immigration Act of 1882 was the first U.S. law to specifically insist that immigrants who couldn’t take care of themselves would be excluded,” he notes.

“That ‘public-charge’ principle has been part of every subsequent federal statute on the subject. The landmark 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act liberalized the system, but it nevertheless allowed for the deportation of immigrants who became public charges within five years,” Mr. Tobin continues.

“To maintain America’s pro-immigration consensus, immigration must be seen as about opportunity — not welfarism,” he later advised.


Fox News Channel remains the most-watched cable network of all according to Nielsen Media Research, drawing 2.4 million prime-time viewers, compared to 1.5 million from MSNBC, 1.2 million for HGTV and 1 million for TLC. CNN was ranked eighth with 920,000 viewers.

The big audience winners continue to be “Tucker Carlson Tonight” with 3.4 million viewers and “Hannity,” with 3.3 million viewers, which trounced such competition as MSNBC host Rachel Maddow’s interview last week with Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke, which garnered 2.5 million viewers.


90% of Republicans say it’s “important” to reduce the number of people coming to the U.S. to seek asylum; 61% of Democrats agree.

83% of Republicans say it’s important to increase the number of judges handling asylum cases; 89% of Democrats agree.

77% of Republicans say it’s important to make it harder for asylum seekers to obtain legal status in the U.S.; 32% of Democrats agree.

73% of Republicans say it’s important to provide safe and sanitary conditions for asylum seekers; 91% of Democrats agree.

37% of Republicans say it should be easier for asylum seekers to obtain legal status; 79% of Democrats agree.


• Kindly follow Jennifer Harper on Twitter @HarperBulletin

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide