Tag Archives: The Hill

Poetic Justice Can Be Fun

Posted on by

There are a lot of people, including myself, who believe that former President Obama is orchestrating a lot of what goes on in the Biden administration. I am sure he is well aware of the corruption that seems to be part of the Biden family, but there is an aspect of that corruption that he might not have foreseen.

On Saturday, Jonathan Turley posted an article at The Hill that details a problem that the Biden corruption scandal has created for former President Obama.

The article reports:

Obama is now being asked to bail Biden out from another debacle of his own making, going back to his time in Obama’s administration. Various committees and private groups are seeking more than 5,000 emails from Biden in which he used an array of aliases during the Obama administration.

Under the Presidential Records Act, Obama has 30 days to bar the release of the emails and to help shield his former vice president in a growing corruption scandal over the influence-peddling operation run by Biden’s son, Hunter.

Recently, it was learned that Joe Biden went by a variety of code names and false names, including Robin Ware. Robert L. Peters, JRB Ware, Celtic and “The Big Guy.” House investigators believe that may only be a partial list. For many Americans, it is understandably unnerving to learn that their president has more aliases than Anthony Weiner. However, while the number seems unusual, the practice is not unprecedented.

Top officials have used such aliases in the past for emails, including former Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch. During the Obama administration, the practice was defended by then-White House press secretary Jay Carney, who assured the public that any such emails would still be subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and congressional inquiries. He added, “We do not use and should not use private email accounts for work.”

The problem is that there was “work” being discussed on some of these emails, including official foreign travel plans and the hiring of associates of Hunter for high-level positions. More importantly, some emails are relevant to the clients of Biden’s son. Biden has previously lied that he knew nothing of these dealings, but these emails could reveal even more about his knowledge and involvement.

Congress is investigating more than $20 million that was transferred to members of the Biden family from foreign sources through a labyrinth of shell companies and accounts. Even the Washington Post has been forced to admit that the president has lied in the past about aspects of Hunter’s dealings.  Devon Archer recently confirmed that Joe Biden’s long-standing denial of any knowledge of their business dealings is “categorically false.”

Stay tuned.

How To Tell When Election Season Starts

Posted on by

I hate to be cynical, but I have become good at it. When Senators start criticizing bills that they have passed, you know that an election is near (even if it’s a year away).

On Wednesday, The Hill reported:

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on Wednesday said he will keep up his battle against the Biden administration and officials who seek to “undermine” the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) as part of their “radical climate agenda” on the first anniversary of it being signed into law.

The West Virginia moderate, in a lengthy statement on the anniversary of the IRA being signed into law, praised parts of the legislation, which he helped author.

The article quotes Senator Manchin:

“With respect to energy security, and contrary to those in the Biden Administration who seek to undermine this goal, this law re-established an all-of-the-above energy policy and empowered the growth of fossil fuels and renewables,” Manchin said. “If implemented as designed the IRA will ensure that all Americans have more reliable and more affordable power for years to come.”

“Make no mistake, the IRA is exactly the kind of legislation that in normal political times both political parties would proudly embrace because it is about putting the interests of Americans and West Virginians first,” Manchin continued. “Going forward I will push back on those who seek to undermine this significant legislation for their respective political agenda, and that begins with my unrelenting fight against the Biden Administration’s efforts to implement the IRA as a radical climate agenda instead of implementing the IRA that was passed into law.”

The bill that was passed into law was a green energy bill. Senator Manchin would have had to incredibly naive not to know that. His current comments are nothing more than the result of having a viable opponent in his next campaign for the Senate. The IRA has been more the cause of inflation than a solution. It has increased the energy costs for Americans and resulted in less reliable energy for many Americans. The quest for green energy in North Carolina resulted in the first brownouts in the history of the state last December. If the Biden administration continues to implement its energy policies, we can expect more brownouts in the future. Remember, Senator Manchin voted FOR the IRA.

Come, Mister Tally Man, Tally Me Banana

Posted on by

We have officially reached banana republic status.

Townhall reported the following today:

According to The Washington Post’s reporting on court papers filed Tuesday morning, Hunter Biden has reached a “tentative agreement” to “plead guilty to two minor tax crimes and admit to the facts of a gun charge under terms that would likely keep him out of jail.”

This sweetheart deal for Hunter Biden would still require validation by a federal judge at such time Hunter appears in court to enter his plea.

According to the Washington Post:

The court papers indicate the younger Biden has tentatively agreed to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges of failure to pay in 2017 and 2018. The combined tax liability is roughly $1.2 million over those years, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe details of the agreement that are not yet public. Prosecutors plan to recommend a sentence of probation for those counts, these people said. Biden’s representatives have said he previously paid back the IRS what he owed.

Additionally, Biden plans to admit to illegally possessing a weapon following his 2018 purchase of a handgun. As part of that admission, he expects to be entered in a diversion program, a less punitive form of sentence typically applied to people with substance abuse problems. In all, prosecutors would recommend two years of probation and diversion conditions. If Biden successfully meets the conditions of the diversion program, the gun charge would be removed from his record at the end of that period, the people said.

Has anyone questioned where Hunter Biden got the money that the $1.2 million taxes were owed on? Does anyone doubt that they money would never have been paid were it not for the public pressure surrounding this case?

The Hill reported today:

House Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) vowed on Tuesday to continue investigating Hunter Biden, despite his “sweetheart plea deal” reached with federal prosecutors.

“These charges against Hunter Biden and sweetheart plea deal have no impact on the Oversight Committee’s investigation,” Comer said in a statement. “We will not rest until the full extent of President Biden’s involvement in the family’s schemes are revealed.”

 

Tying The Hands Of President Trump’s Legal Team

Posted on by

Based on everything I am seeing, I am convinced that the threat President Trump represents to the Washington establishment must be monumental. The political establishment has thrown everything but the kitchen sink at him since he came down the escalator and announced that he was running for President. I will admit that I did not take him seriously as a candidate. I was also not sold on his ability to make necessary changes to our government. I was wrong. We need to bring him back to finish what he started–understanding that he now has a much better understanding of who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.

On Saturday, The Conservative Treehouse posted an article detailing the deep state’s latest effort to stop President Trump from becoming President again. I am posting a lot from the article because much of it is legalese that I do not fully understand.

The article reports:

One of the ways you can immediately detect federal Lawfare deployment is to look at how media articles are written when they outline court filings without direct citation for review.  The Hill began SEE HERE. The New York Times is similar, SEE HERE.

Notice both national publications talk about a DOJ court filing, presumably made under seal, that limits President Trump’s defense access to materials and documents used in the case against him.  Notice the media do not say how they gained insight into the details of the sealed filing itself; nor do they provide any source context for how their reporting is structured.  Nothing like, “according to sources with familiar with the matter” or anything similar. Just nothing; no attribution at all.

That media context is a BIG red flag indicating the need to ‘create a narrative’ is more important than the actual substance of the evidence material underpinning it.

Notice that the media seems to have access that is being denied to President Trump’s defense. Are we supposed to think that is fair?

The article also notes:

Both stories hit on the issue of the DOJ filing a (presumably sealed) motion with the Florida court, to place limits, rules and restrictions on evidence against President Trump, that limits his ability to review it, talk about it and/or provide context for it.  THIS IS A LAWFARE MOVE.  This is what happens in the prosecutorial star-chambers where they hide information in order to create the appearance of something nefarious, where nothing nefarious exists.

When we see this legal approach, we can be assured the case that uses the evidence is built upon fraud and pretense.  Do not be afraid to tell your family, friends and others about this dynamic.  President Trump is being accused of the crime of violating 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, a violation of the espionage act, and the DOJ is requesting that President Trump must not permitted to defend himself by discussing the evidence against him.

The DOJ wants to limit public knowledge of the material evidence, not because it would harm national security – but rather because the nature of the evidence itself would highlight to the nation how fraudulent the targeting is.  This is the guaranteed DOJ motive, that’s why everything is under seal and even the media will not talk about how they are gaining their leak knowledge.  This is LAWFARE narrative engineering at its apex deployment.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. We are definitely descending into a banana republic scenario here.

The Overall Impact Of The Witch-hunt

Posted on by

The government bureaucracy has been after President Trump since he came down the escalator in June 2015. The government has broken its own laws to manufacture false evidence, people in the Department of Justice have lied under oath, and generally speaking, many in our government have compromised the principles that have made this country great. On Saturday, The Hill posted an article about the negative impact the indictment of President Trump has on America.

The article reports:

First, it reinforces the view, shared by many conservatives, that our government delivers a two-tiered system of justice — one for people on the right and another for those on the left. Donald Trump, after all, is not the only public official found to have mishandled secret documents. Special Counsel Jack Smith claimed, as he brought the indictment: “We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone.”

History suggests otherwise.

Former President Bill Clinton was found to have taken audio recordings of his discussions while in the White House and kept them in his sock drawer after his term was up. Judicial Watch sued to access the tapes, claiming they should be considered part of the presidential archive. But a judge ruled against the conservative group, claiming she had no jurisdiction and that such demands could only be made by the National Archives and Records Administration. NARA declined to seek the tapes.

The article also cites Hillary Clinton and President Biden’s mishandling of classified information.

The article continues:

Second, the announcement of Trump’s indictment just happened to occur on the very day that members of Congress were shown an FBI document containing credible allegations that Biden accepted a $5 million bribe from a Ukrainian company. Instead of burrowing in on claims from a trusted whistleblower that our president, as vice president, accepted payment from Burisma in return for helping to oust Ukraine’s top prosecutor, Biden’s Justice Department created a powerful distraction. 

This is unacceptable. The allegations against Biden are not far-fetched. We know for a fact that Biden pushed Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 to fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, threatening to pull $1 billion in U.S. aid unless he did so. We know that because Biden actually boasted about it to a meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations.

…Third, Biden has talked a great deal about protecting our democracy and the sanctity of open and fair elections. Call me crazy, but Biden’s DOJ indicting his most likely 2024 campaign rival on charges that, as in the case of Hillary Clinton, might or might not justify prosecution, seems to qualify as election interference. The president is running for another term; polls show his prospects are poor.

When a sitting president is struggling to get his approval ratings above 40 percent, he is in trouble. An NBC News survey from last month showed that 70 percent of voters, and more than half of Democrats, do not want Biden to run.

Unfortunately, many Americans who get their news from the mainstream media have not idea how politically weaponized our Justice Department has become. Unfortunately, by the time they wake up to reality, equal justice under the law may be a thing of the past in America.

Cloward-Piven At Work

Posted on by

Study.com defines the Cloward-Piven theory as follows:

The Cloward-Piven Theory is a strategy devised in the 1960s to successfully provide welfare and attempt to solve political problems. The main steps of this strategy are to:

    1. Overload a system
    2. Create mass panic and hysteria as the system is overloaded
    3. Oversee the destruction of the system
    4. Replace the former system with a new system

This is the basic outline for The Great Reset.

In a June 2020 article, The Hill describes The Great Reset as follows:

At a virtual meeting earlier in June hosted by the World Economic Forum, some of the planet’s most powerful business leaders, government officials and activists announced a proposal to “reset” the global economy. Instead of traditional capitalism, the high-profile group said the world should adopt more socialistic policies, such as wealth taxes, additional regulations and massive Green New Deal-like government programs. 

The biggest obstacle to The Great Reset is America. We like our freedom and we like our prosperity. On Thursday, Breitbart posted an article that might illustrate how the Biden administration can easily overload the welfare system.

The article reports:

President Joe Biden’s United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has officially reopened legal immigration to foreign nationals with a history of using American taxpayer-funded welfare benefits.

In early 2020, the Trump administration finalized a federal regulation known as the “public charge” rule that made it less likely for foreign nationals to secure green cards to permanently reside in the United States if they had previously used welfare programs like food stamps, Medicaid, or taxpayer-funded housing programs.

Almost immediately after taking office, Biden threw out the finalized public charge rule imposed by the Trump administration, blowing open the door for welfare-dependent legal immigration to the United States, for which American taxpayers will ultimately foot the bill.

First of all, why are laws being made by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats instead of Congress? Until we correct that, we are not really the representative republic that our Founding Fathers established. Secondly, why do we want to bring more people into America who will be welfare-dependent when we can’t even help the people who are already here. Until we find a way to get homeless veterans off the streets, we need to stop allowing people to come here simply to access America’s welfare system.

This Is Not Good For America

Posted on by

On Monday, Breitbart posted an article about the signing ceremony for the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act,” which enshrines gay marriage and mixed-race marriage into federal law. The only reason mixed-race marriage was added to the bill was to make it look like a civil rights bill–it’s not. One of the people invited to the signing was a non binary drag artist named Jean-Pierre. How does that illustrate respect for marriage?

According to an article posted in The Hill:

The Republicans in the upper chamber who backed the bill were Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio), Thom Tillis (N.C.), Mitt Romney (Utah), Roy Blunt (Mo.), Cynthia Lummis (Wyo.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Dan Sullivan (Alaska), Joni Ernst (Iowa) and Todd Young (Ind.).

Breitbart notes:

The White House previewed a massive signing celebration at the White House on Tuesday for a bill making gay marriage federally legal.

“Tomorrow is going to be a really important day for many Americans, millions of Americans across the country,” Karine Jean-Pierre said at the daily briefing on Monday. “And I think we cannot forget that.”

She said that the White House expected “thousands” of invited guests for President Joe Biden’s signing ceremony of the bill, including prominent gay and lesbian couples and “musical guests.”

“There will be musical guests and performances to celebrate this historic bill,” she said.

Marriage between one man and one woman has been the foundation of our society since Colonial times. This bill tears away at that foundation. The Republicans who voted for this bill need to face primary challenges in their next elections.

Big Brother Is In Control Of Most Social Media

Posted on by

It may be years before we fully appreciate what Elon Musk has done by buying Twitter. He may have put a stake in the ground to protect Americans from government-controlled media.

On Monday, The Daily Caller reported the following:

The Department of Homeland Security has left open a special feature that allows government officials to flag Facebook posts for misinformation after scrapping a controversial advisory board tasked with developing guidelines for social media censorship, the Intercept reported Monday.

DHS announced plans for a Disinformation Governance Board to “develop guidelines, standards, guardrails to ensure that the work that has been ongoing for nearly 10 years does not infringe on people’s free speech rights, rights of privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties,” DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in May, according to The Hill. While DHS shuttered the initiative after an onslaught of bipartisan opposition decrying the potential censorship, the Intercept found through an analysis of public and leaked documents that government efforts to police tech companies goes on.

On Tuesday, The Western Journal reported:

Twitter and other social media platforms have been cozy with the Department of Homeland Security to squelch what DHS calls “misinformation,” “disinformation” and “malinformation,” or “MDM,” according to an investigative report published Monday by The Intercept.

But you knew that.

And maybe Elon Musk did in his purchase of Twitter last week.

Job one for Musk was to not only fire CEO Parag Agrawal but also Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s top lawyer and the individual responsible for booting former President Donald Trump off the platform and for censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story in the run-up to the 2020 election.

You probably remember a few months ago when DHS rolled out what it called its Disinformation Governance Board, designed to go after “MDM” on social media. A firestorm of bad publicity meant the Biden administration had to quickly yank it offstage.

But the concept is still around and Gadde has been part of it.

Please follow the links above to read both articles. It is obvious that the government has interfered in the free speech rights of Americans. America has had a biased media for a long time, but social media should have been a neutral platform. For further information on the relationship between our government and Twitter, please go to The Conservative Treehouse and read the articles about Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop.

The Democrats Claim A Successful Two Years Of The Biden Presidency

Posted on by

On Friday, Issues & Insights posted an article listing the accomplishments of the Biden administration that Democrats are planning to highlight in the mid-term elections.

The article includes the list:

So, will they try to run on their record of “accomplishment”? Brent Budowsky, a columnist for The Hill, says they should. In a piece headlined: “A closing message for Democrats to win,” he says they just need to ask voters: “Do you want to build on, or reverse, the achievements of Biden and the Democratic Congress?”

What achievements? Budowsky lists them. Democrats, he says:

    • lowered prescription drug costs,
    • created tens of millions of high-wage jobs,
    • made “dramatic” improvements in veterans’ health care,
    • “important” progress to combat gun violence, and
    • “historic” progress climate change,
    • strengthened the Violence Against Women Act,
    • passed the American Rescue Plan,
    • expanded Child Care Tax Credit,
    • and got a bipartisan infrastructure law passed.

Wow. The article explains how each of these so-called accomplishment has not only had a negative impact on the majority of Americans, most of them have not actually been accomplished.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. It is an illustration of how media consultants can spin failure so that it sounds like success.

The Classic Definition Of Chutzpah

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Hill reported the following:

The group of Venezuelan migrants flown from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard, Mass., last week by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) filed a class-action suit against the governor and the state’s transportation secretary on Tuesday.

The suit provides a detailed account of how the migrants came to board the two planes allegedly under false pretenses, arguing the relocations violated their Fourth and 14th Amendment rights and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

People who broke the law to get here and are here illegally have rights? Wow. Does America have the right to arrest them for breaking into our country?

The article continues:

The suit, filed in a federal trial court in Massachusetts, asks a judge to declare DeSantis’s relocations illegal under the Constitution as well as federal and state laws. It also asks the judge to prevent Florida from inducing immigrants to travel across state laws by fraud and misrepresentation.

Did Martha’s Vineyard have the right to move them to another part of Massachusetts?

The article reports:

Alianza Americas, a network of groups supporting immigrants, filed the class action suit with three unnamed migrants DeSantis relocated, claiming the scheme also constituted intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment and fraud.

Boston-based group Lawyers for Civil Rights said its attorneys, who have been on the island since last week, are representing the plaintiffs.

Are any of those lawyers offering to house any of the illegal immigrants?

The article concludes:

The plaintiffs said the migrants boarded the flights with the belief they would land in Washington, D.C. or Boston, but they were told while in the air they would instead be arriving in Martha’s Vineyard.

They were also allegedly given a brochure that outlined support services in Massachusetts, but the programs referenced had “highly specific eligibility requirements” that the migrants did not meet, the suit said.

“Once the individual Plaintiffs and class members landed, it became clear that the promises made to induce them on the planes were in fact bold-faced lies,” it stated.

The migrants have since been relocated to a military base elsewhere in Massachusetts. 

DeSantis has said the flights were “just the beginning” of relocation efforts.          

I believe it is noteworthy that the migrants were removed from Martha’s Vineyard less than two days after they arrived. It is off season on the Vineyard, and it would have been very easy to put 50 people up in hotel rooms. However, that was not allowed to happen. I wonder if the year-round residents of the Vineyard will now take down their yard signs that say everyone is welcome here and hate has no place here. It’s very easy to welcome everyone when you are an island only accessible by plane or boat.

Promises Made, Promises Broken

Posted on by

On Friday, The Hill posted an article about more than 70 House of Representatives Democrats reneging on the promise they made to Senator Joe Manchin in order to persuade him to vote for the Inflation Reduction Act.

The article reports:

More than 70 House Democrats are signing on to a letter pressing Democratic leaders to not include a side deal with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on reforming the permit process for energy projects in a bill funding the government.

The permitting reform language was offered to Manchin to win his vote on the massive climate, tax and health care bill known as the Inflation Reduction Act that was signed into law by President Biden last month.

Manchin provided the critical support to get that bill through the evenly divided Senate after winning concessions from Democratic leaders.

But in the new letter, the Democratic lawmakers are asking Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) not to include the permitting reforms championed by Manchin into a stopgap funding measure that Congress is expected to take up this month.

Without a stopgap funding measure, the government will shut down on Oct. 1.

“The inclusion of these provisions in a continuing resolution, or any other must-pass legislation, would silence the voices of frontline and environmental justice communities by insulating them from scrutiny,” they lawmakers wrote. 

“We urge you to ensure that these provisions are kept out of a continuing resolution or any other must-pass legislation this year,” they added in the letter that was spearheaded by Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.).

The opposition from Democrats is a significant problem. If the group follows through on the letter, Democrats might not have the votes to pass a government funding bill if it includes the language backed by Manchin. 

Budget by continuing resolution is garbage. Between 1975, when the current budget process took effect, and 1998 Congress never failed to pass a budget. Since then, Congress has failed to pass a budget in 7 of the last 15 fiscal years. It’s time to go back to each governmental department having a budget passed individually. The reason that is not currently happening is that in Washington, money is power. The more money you control, the more powerful you are considered to be. Continuing resolutions take away accountability and have pretty much eliminated budget cuts. The threat of a government shutdown if a continuing resolution is not passed can be used to justify almost anything, and it will be this month.

The Need For American Energy Independence

Posted on by

The Hill reported Monday that OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) will be decreasing its production in October in response to declining oil prices.

The article reports:

Oil-producing alliance OPEC+ announced on Monday it will slightly lower oil production in October, eliminating the 100,000 barrel per day increase that began this month.

OPEC leaders made the decision after gathering for a meeting, where they noted the 100,000 barrel per day increase was only intended for September. OPEC produces around 28 million barrels per day.

In researching this article, I came across the following chart from oilprice.com:

Two of the reasons for the increase under President Obama were the use of fracking and the fact that the drilling was occurring on private land. President Trump was still dealing with a Congress that blocked some of his plans to increase American energy production (despite the fact that under President Trump we did achieve energy independence).

Note that the chart reflects changes–not total barrels. Under President Trump, crude oil production hit 10.038 million barrels per day (per The Western Journal). Do you think that level of production would help alleviate the price hikes that are coming because of the OPEC move to decrease oil production?

The article at The Hill continues:

The price for a crude barrel of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil climbed 3 percent after the announcement, reaching $90 per barrel, while Brent crude was also up 3 percent to $96 per barrel.

President Biden traveled to Saudi Arabia, the second largest OPEC member nation, over the summer as high gas prices beleaguered Americans and sunk his approval ratings.

After Biden met with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and fist-bumped the Saudi leader, OPEC announced a mostly symbolic increase of 100,000 barrels per day for September.

Energy independence would stabilize oil prices for Americans and the ability to export oil would also fight inflation and improve the American economy.

Where Is The Transparency?

Posted on by

On Monday, The Hill reported the following:

The Justice Department on Monday told a federal judge that releasing the law enforcement affidavit used to obtain a search warrant for former President Trump’s home would jeopardize an ongoing investigation.

Federal prosecutors submitted a court filing opposing any efforts to unseal the document laying out probable cause for the search. The filing came just days after they agreed to release a copy of the warrant itself as well as a receipt listing the materials that were seized during the search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

“The affidavit supporting the search warrant presents a very different set of considerations,” the filing reads. “There remain compelling reasons, including to protect the integrity of an ongoing law enforcement investigation that implicates national security, that support keeping the affidavit sealed.”

Prosecutors typically submit affidavits from law enforcement officials when seeking a judge’s authorization for a search warrant. These documents are meant to provide an overview of evidence collected during an investigation that would support the probable cause needed to obtain a warrant under the Fourth Amendment.

The court filing submitted Monday — which was signed by Jay Bratt, the head of the DOJ’s counterintelligence office, and Juan Antonio Gonzalez, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida — argued that disclosing the affidavit used to secure the Mar-a-Lago warrant would cause “significant and irreparable damage to this ongoing criminal investigation.”

I hate to be cynical (but I am getting good at it), but I translated that as ‘give us more time–we are trying to invent some evidence.’ The term ‘ongoing investigation’ is always used when the Justice Department is avoiding transparency.

The article notes:

They argued that revealing sensitive information about the investigation could also affect law enforcement’s ability to secure cooperation from potential witnesses and risk revealing identifying details about any witnesses who are already working with investigators.

This is not the Justice Department of a free country.

Has This Lady Read The U.S. Constitution?

Posted on by

On Friday, The Hill posted an article about a recent comment by Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan.

The article reports:

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said on Thursday at a conference that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court is tied to its conformity to public opinion, Reuters first reported.

“I’m not talking about any particular decision or even any particular series of decisions, but if over time the court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that’s a dangerous thing for a democracy,” Kagan said at a judicial conference in Montana.

…Kagan said at the conference that the court earns its legitimacy by remaining impartial and nonpartisan.

“Overall, the way the court retains its legitimacy and fosters public confidence is by acting like a court, is by doing the kinds of things that do not seem to people political or partisan,” she said.

Kagan referenced times in history when Supreme Court justices failed to discipline themselves and instead “attempted to basically enact their own policy or political or social preferences,” saying that this puts court legitimacy at risk.

This is an amazing statement. The only thing the Supreme Court is required to be tied to is the U.S. Constitution.

On Saturday, Ed Morrissey posted the following at Hot Air:

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan said on Thursday that it would be a “dangerous thing for a democracy” if the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court loses the confidence of the American public.

Speaking in public for the first time since the court’s momentous ruling last month that overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide, Kagan stressed the importance of the justices staying in their proper roles as judges and not dictating public policy.

The problem with Roe v. Wade actually had very little to do with abortion. The problem with Roe v. Wade was the Tenth Amendment.

The Tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Abortion is an issue that needs to be determined by every state–by legislators voted in by the people of that state and answerable to the people of that state. The Supreme Court simply overturned a decision that was unconstitutional. They did not end abortion–they simply left it up to each state to make the laws that the people in that state want.

Promises Made, Promises Broken

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Financial Post reported that the Biden administration had failed to deliver the proposed five-year offshore oil and gas development plan that had been promised by the end of the month, according to sources.

The article reports:

Interior Department Secretary Deb Haaland in May had vowed to unveil the draft proposal ahead of the June 30 expiration of the current plan. The department will not be able to hold any offshore oil and gas lease sales until a new plan is finalized.

Briefings with officials meant to take place Thursday ahead of a public announcement were unexpectedly delayed, according to sources. The reason and length of the delay were unclear.

I will be honest, I am not a big fan of offshore drilling, but it is a fact of life, and it needs to be planned and controlled. The Biden administration’s dragging their feet on this is not helping anyone.

The article notes:

Interior had recommended to the White House that all federal offshore oil and gas drilling auctions over the next five years be located in the Gulf of Mexico, where the drilling industry has already been focused for decades, according to two sources familiar with the matter. The White House could make changes to include other regions.

The expected proposal comes as U.S. President Joe Biden seeks to balance his goal to transition the country away from fossil fuels against a Congressional requirement to hold regular drilling auctions, and intense political pressure to boost energy supplies to ease soaring inflation.

In recent years, the Interior Department has leased areas off the coast of Alaska. And former President Donald Trump had proposed a vast expansion of drilling sales to cover more than 90% of coastal waters, including areas off California that had not been offered since the 1980s and new zones in the Atlantic and Arctic. Those plans were blocked by legal challenges.

Just for the record, we do not currently have the technology to transition from fossil fuels to green energy. If the government would get out of the energy business, the free market would probably develop the technology, but we do not currently have it. Currently, the quest for green energy resembles the historic quest for a perpetual motion machine. The laws of physics make that an impossible dream. In 2021 more than 200 people lost their lives in Texas due to a cold snap that stopped the windmills they depended on for power from providing electricity. In 2014 I posted an article about what happened when Spain tried to transition to green energy. It wasn’t pretty. We don’t need to repeat their mistake.

UPDATE:  On July 1st, The Hill reported:

The Biden administration is punting a decision on whether to open up more lease sales for offshore drilling.

    • In a statement issued Friday, the administration said it is still working on a plan, and that when issued it could include as many as 11 specific lease sales for offshore oil and gas drilling or as few as zero.
    • An Interior Department official said equal weight is being given to scenarios with zero sales, some sales or all 11 sales.

The statement and department’s proposal for the program’s future was issued one day after a previous five-year offshore drilling plan expired. That plan had been launched by the Obama administration.

The Gun Bill Has Passed The Senate

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The Daily Wire posted an article about the gun bill that was rammed through the Senate on late Tuesday.

This is the list of the Republicans who voted to end the filibuster (from The Hill):

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) 

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) 

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) 

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) 

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) 

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) 

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) 

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) 

Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) 

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) 

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) 

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) 

It should be noted that most of these Republicans are not running for re-election. I suspect the polling on restricting gun rights shows that voting to move forward with this bill does not reflect popular opinion. All of these people should be voted out of office for not protecting the U.S. Constitution.

The Daily Wire posted a list of problems with the current bill as detailed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC):

Red Flag Laws

  • Incentivizes local disarmament proceedings, of which many states currently employ secret ex-parte hearings.
  • Calls only for standards equivalent only to civil court.
  • For all the bluster in the measure about protecting due process and the constitutional rights of the subjects of the hearings during the “appropriate phase,” it implies that states will still be able to hold secret ex-parte hearings to deprive the People of their rights.
  • Entitles the subject to an attorney “at the appropriate phase,” but it must be at the subject’s expense.

Private Sales

  • Expands the definition of “engaged in the business” by striking “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” in the current definition and replacing it with “to predominantly earn a profit.”
  • This confusion could lead to new and successful prosecutions of private sellers who may fall under the broad and vague definition of “engaged in business” and therefore the need to be licensed.

New Misdemeanor Firearms Prohibitions

  • By expanding the definition of a prohibiting misdemeanor domestic violence in such a vague, broad, and subjective way it invites confusion, and potential firearms prohibitions.

Transfers and Straw Purchases

  • Prohibits the government from arming drug cartels, unless the government exercises more oversight on said drug cartels, thus allowing the free flow of arms to these cartels to continue in perpetuity.

Employer Background Checks

  • Allows all employers to ask for a firearms background check prior to employment or during current employment, regardless of its connection to job duties.

Americans need to wake up and realize that this bill is an infringement on our rights as Americans.

 

A Bridge Too Far

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Hill reported that Senator Joe Manchin has stated that he does not support President Biden’s plan to tax the unrealized gains of billionaires, which would set a new precedent by taxing the value an asset accrues in theory before it is actually sold and converted into cash.

The article quotes Senator Manchin:

“You can’t tax something that’s not earned. Earned income is what we’re based on,” he told The Hill. “There’s other ways to do it. Everybody has to pay their fair share.”

“Everybody has to pay their fair share, that’s for sure. But unrealized gains is not the way to do it, as far as I’m concerned,” he added.

Manchin’s opposition means Biden’s proposal is likely dead only a day after the White House unveiled it.

It could be significantly restructured to avoid taxing unrealized gains, which would pose the big challenge of trying to make up the lost revenues.

The article notes:

The problem with taxing just the regular income of billionaires is that many of the nation’s richest individuals, such as Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, have been able to pay little or nothing in income tax by not declaring income.

Instead, the ultra-rich often can take out loans secured by the value of their assets to finance their lavish lifestyles.

“Here’s what they do. They go to their accountant. They tell their accountant, ‘Make sure I don’t make any income, any salary.’ And then they say, ‘Make sure I can buy, borrow and die.’ And nobody knew anything about that years ago, and now people are pretty up on it,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who has announced his own proposal to tax the unrealized gains of billionaires.

Wyden says that imposing a minimum 20 percent tax on billionaires is about making sure they pay a similar percentage of their wealth in taxes as middle-class Americans.

Raising taxes does not generate revenue–lowering taxes generates revenue. All that raising taxes does is give Washington bureaucrats more money and thus more power. The Democrats need to study the Laffer Curve.

Avoiding A Possible Solution

Posted on by

When America cut her energy production, the price of oil and gas soared. When the price of oil and gas soared, the amount of money going into Russia increased dramatically. Russian gas and oil money are now being used to fund the invasion of Ukraine. So what is the best way to end that invasion? Cut off the money.

On Friday, One America News reported:

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson urged NATO leaders to take immediate action using the SWIFT international payments system to impact Russia’s President Putin and his regime, his office said following a call with NATO leaders on Friday.

Johnson urged leaders to take immediate action with SWIFT “to inflict maximum pain on President Putin and his regime,” his office said on Friday.

Not allowing Russia to use SWIFT would definitely stop the flow of money into Russia.

On Thursday, The Hill reported:

President Biden on Thursday defended maintaining Russia’s access to an international messaging system for banks despite pressure from Ukrainian leaders.

The U.S., United Kingdom and European Union on Thursday announced strict new penalties on the Russian economy, financial institutions and influential elites close to Russian President Vladimir Putin. But the Western allies did not bar Moscow from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), even after Ukrainian government officials urged them to do so Thursday morning.

“It is always an option, but right now that’s not the position that the rest of Europe wishes to take,” Biden told reporters after announcing new sanctions Thursday.

…The Biden administration also announced plans to impose sanctions on individuals and entities in Belarus, accusing the nation of supporting and facilitating Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Banks across the world use SWIFT to finalize transactions and transfers. Cutting Russia off from SWIFT would make it incredibly difficult for its banks to operate efficiently, but could also wreak economic havoc for European nations who depend on Russian oil and natural gas exports.

I would like to note that the European nations would not be dependent on Russian oil if the Biden administration had continued President Trump’s policy of American energy independence. There were a lot of bad decisions made by the Biden administration that led to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Some Early Speculation

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The Hill posted a list of the ten Republicans most likely to run for President in 2024. It’s an interesting list.

Here is the list:

Donald Trump

Ron DeSantis

Mike Pence

Chris Christie

Nikki Haley

Ted Cruz

Mike Pompeo

Kristi Noem

Tom Cotton

Larry Hogan

Please follow the link to read the entire article. Each candidate has his/her own list of strong and weak points. The problem with choosing a candidate (in either party) is trying to sort out who is a member of the Washington swamp and who isn’t. The swamp includes both parties, and we need to nominate and elect someone who will drain the swamp rather than be part of it.

This May Be A Problem For The NATO Alliance

Posted on by

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed in 1949. The alliance was originally formed to stave off the possibility of the Soviet Union annexing more of Europe. In 1952, Turkey and Greece were added to NATO. Greece left NATO in 1974 when Turkey invaded Cyprus and NATO did not react (Cyprus was not a member of NATO, so no response was triggered). Greece rejoined NATO in 1980. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan became President of Turkey in 2014 and has been moving Turkey toward an Islamic dictatorship since he took power.

Yesterday The Hill reported that President Erdogan has called on his foreign minister to banish 10 ambassadors from Western countries, including the United States, after they called for the “urgent release” of a Turkish philanthropist, Reuters reported.

The article reports:

Earlier this week, ambassadors from the embassies of 10 countries called on a resolution for the case of Osman Kavala, who has been in prison for several years after facing charges both in 2013 and 2016 for allegedly financially backing the 2013 protests and for his supposed involvement in a 2016 attempted coup.  

Those charges have been disputed by Kavala, and he was originally absolved of his 2013-related charges; however, earlier this year, the 2013-charges were reinstated along with charges from the 2016 incident, according to Reuters. 

“Today marks four years since the ongoing detention of Osman Kavala began. The continuing delays in his trial, including by merging different cases and creating new ones after a previous acquittal, cast a shadow over respect for democracy, the rule of law and transparency in the Turkish judiciary system,” according to a statement issued on Monday through the U.S. Embassy in Turkey.

“Together, the embassies of Canada, France, Finland, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and the United States of America believe a just and speedy resolution to his case must be in line with Turkey’s international obligations and domestic laws,” the statement continued. “Noting the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights on the matter, we call for Turkey to secure his urgent release.”

Erdoğan claimed in his speech Saturday that the countries will “know and understand Turkey,” adding that “the day they do not know and understand Turkey, they will leave,” according to Reuters.

This is something to watch to see if President Erdogan’s actions have an impact on Turkey’s relationship with NATO. Since becoming President, Erdogan has drawn closer to the Muslim world and pretty much cut his friendly ties to Israel. I truly believe that it is President Erdogan’s intent to reestablish the caliphate that was the Ottoman Empire (with Turkey at the head). That will be interesting as Iran also plans to reestablish that caliphate with Iran at the head. Stay tuned.

How Does This Make Sense?

Posted on by

On Friday, The Hill reported the following:

The Biden administration on Friday lifted sanctions on two Iranian entities involved in military missile programs.

The sanctions, targeting the Mammut Industrial Group (Mammut Industries) and its subsidiary Mammut Diesel, were originally imposed by the Trump administration in September 2020 as part of efforts to increase a maximum pressure campaign of sanctions on Tehran over its nuclear activity and actions in the region criticized as malign and destabilizing.

The delisting appears to be related to legal proceedings on behalf of the law firm Ferrari & Associates.

“Happy for the delisting of our clients today, and proud of all our team who worked on this. Don’t listen to the hype from any purported “experts.” This is not a political action, its one that followed established legal processes and norms,” tweeted Erich Ferrari, founder and principal attorney of Ferrari & Associates.

Ferrari did not immediately respond to a request for comment by The Hill.

Ferrari’s bio on the firm’s website lists Mammut Industrial Group and related parties as a client and that the firm has removed three of the five designees targeted under the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control.

The entities were identified as being “key producers and suppliers of military-grade, dual-use goods for Iran’s missile programs.”

The article notes:

The Biden administration is seeking to restart indirect talks with Iran in Vienna over efforts to bring both parties back to the JCPOA. 

The Biden administration says that the JCPOA is the best chance at putting a ceiling on Iran’s nuclear ambitions and preventing it from building a nuclear bomb. Iran maintains its nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes but have exceeded limitations on uranium enrichment and research and development put in place by the deal in opposition to the U.S. sanctions. 

The New York Times reported last month that Iran may be within a month’s timeline of creating enough material to power a nuclear weapon. 

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the international nuclear watchdog, also reported last month that restrictions on its ability to inspect Iranian nuclear facilities was “seriously compromising” its ability to monitor Iran’s adherence to the JCPOA limitations. 

The U.S. and Iran last engaged in discussions in Vienna in June but have yet to resume talks over a host of disagreements and delays. This includes Iran’s insistence that the U.S. lift all sanctions imposed by the Trump administration and delays over the transition to a new government headed by Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi. 

Iranian officials in recent days have said they would return to Vienna “soon,” but the ongoing delays have frustrated Biden officials.

Based on what I am seeing, I don’t think I would let the Biden administration negotiate a deal on anything for me. I don’t think they understand the idea of negotiations–they have confused bargaining with giving away the store.

Learning From The Chinese Social Credits System

Posted on by

China became a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. American supported the move. There were a few reasons for admitting them to the organization. The first was the belief that there would be an economic gain for America when Chinese markets were fully open to Americans and vice versa. The other reason was the hope that through trade China would become more free under the influence of commerce with America. The economic gain was limited due to the manipulation of the Chinese currency by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and freedom has consistently been squelched in China by the CCP. Obviously, we had good intentions, but we were wrong. Instead of exporting freedom, we may be on the verge of importing their social credits system.

Yesterday The Hill posted an article with the following headline, “Coming soon: America’s own social credit system.”

The article reports:

The new domestic “War on Terror,” kicked off by the riot on Jan. 6, has prompted several web giants to unveil predecessors to what effectively could become a soft social credit system by the end of this decade. Relying on an indirect hand from D.C., our social betters in corporate America will attempt to force the most profound changes our society has seen during the internet era.

China’s social credit system is a combination of government and business surveillance that gives citizens a “score” that can restrict the ability of individuals to take actions — such as purchasing plane tickets, acquiring property or taking loans — because of behaviors. Given the position of several major American companies, a similar system may be coming here sooner than you think.

Last week, PayPal announced a partnership with the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center to “investigate” the role of “white supremacists” and propagators of “anti-government” rhetoric, subjective labels that potentially could impact a large number of groups or people using their service. PayPal says the collected information will be shared with other financial firms and politicians. Facebook is taking similar measures, recently introducing messages that ask users to snitch on their potentially “extremist” friends, which considering the platform’s bias seems mainly to target the political right. At the same time, Facebook and Microsoft are working with several other web giants and the United Nations on a database to block potential extremist content.

The article notes:

The potential scope of the soft social credit system under construction is enormous. The same companies that can track your activities and give you corporate rewards for compliant behavior could utilize their powers to block transactions, add surcharges or restrict your use of products. At what point does free speech — be it against biological males playing in girls’ sports, questioning vaccine side effects, or advocating for gun rights — make someone a target in this new system? When does your debit card get canceled over old tweets, your home loan denied for homeschooling your kids, or your eBay account invalidated because a friend flagged you for posting a Gadsden flag?

The article concludes:

Until and unless there is an organized pushback, our future could track with those of increasingly illiberal societies. Just last week, the British government announced its own version of a health social credit system. China’s system was announced only seven years ago. Considering the growth of algorithms and dependence on tech giants, the ability to track, censor and eventually punish ordinary citizens will be mindboggling by 2030. America’s descent into a 21st century Gilded Age directed by tech titans isn’t an inevitability. However, do you know anyone who would take a 5 percent Amazon coupon in exchange for a “call to action”? Or someone who would replace their Facebook profile picture to avoid being locked out? 

Peer pressure, trendy movements, and the ability to comply with the new system with the click of a mouse combine all of the worst elements of dopamine-chasing Americans. As it grows in breadth and power, what may be most surprising about our new social credit system won’t be collective fear of it, but rather how quickly most people will fall in line.

There are several problems with this other than the fact that it totally ignores the freedom and rights of Americans protected under the U.S. Constitution. Who defines extremism? Is extremism the belief in principles that were considered the norm only fifteen years ago–men in men’s sports, women in women’s sports, marriage between one man and one woman, etc.? We are heading down a dangerous path. I am personally aware of someone’s PayPal account being closed because the company became aware that she was in Washington, D.C. on January 6th. She was nowhere near the Capitol Building, but she was in the city. That is what we have to look forward to if we don’t stand up for our Constitutional rights.

 

Have You Seen This Anywhere On The News?

Posted on by

Yesterday The Hill reported that the legal limit on how much debt the U.S. government can owe was reimposed Sunday.

The article reports:

A two-year deal to suspend the debt ceiling lapsed at midnight following inaction from Congress and President Biden to give the U.S. more borrowing authority. The Treasury Department will now begin taking what it refers to as “extraordinary measures” to prevent the U.S. from defaulting on its debt.

Those steps are likely to avert a default until October or even November before Biden will need to sign a bill to raise or suspend the limit again.

Think about this in terms of your personal finances. You have reached the top of your borrowing authority and have to cut back on expenses for the moment. However, you plan on expanding the amount of money you can borrow in the fall (or suspending any limit on your borrowing for some length of time). Meanwhile you are considering trillion dollar spending bills. In what universe does this make any sense?

The article continues:

The expiration of the debt limit has triggered numerous partisan standoffs over the past decade, most recently in 2019. Each time, Congress has raised or suspended the debt limit. But the weeks before a potential default have often been the most tense, both for financial markets and administration officials.

“I respectfully urge Congress to protect the full faith and credit of the United States by acting as soon as possible,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen wrote in a letter to congressional leaders last week, warning that they risked “irreparable harm to the U.S. economy and the livelihoods of all Americans” by delaying action.

There is no clear path to a bipartisan agreement as Republicans hold out for spending cuts that Democrats refuse to consider.

While Democrats have slim majorities in both the House and Senate, they will still need the support of 10 GOP senators to avoid a filibuster on legislation to raise or suspend the debt ceiling.

Republican leaders have told Democrats that there can be no bipartisan debt ceiling agreement without a slate of debt reduction measures targeting the roughly $28 trillion national debt. Several GOP lawmakers have floated a deal similar to the 2011 Budget Control Act, which ended a debt ceiling standoff shortly before the U.S. suffered its first ever credit downgrade.

We simply cannot continue our current rate of government spending. At some point the dollar will collapse. It is interesting that none of the news shows I watched this morning mentioned the debt ceiling.

Twisting The Concept Of Voting Rights

Posted on by

I would like to go on the record to say that my definition of voting rights is that every American who is legally entitled to vote would be able to cast their vote without government interference and that every person in America who is not legally entitled to vote would be prevented from voting. Every illegal vote cast cancels out a legal vote. Most Americans want their votes to count. Unfortunately there are those in power in America who do not share my definition.

On Friday, The Hill posted an article about the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act which is currently proposed in Congress (it seems that HR1 is not receiving the support needed to pass it).

The article reports:

Beware the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act — a backdoor way of implementing some of the worst provisions of H.R. 1 and stopping commonsense election reforms like voter ID.  

This legislation summons the ghost of Eric Holder, the former attorney general who abused federal power under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to badger states such as Texas, South Carolina, Florida and North Carolina over election integrity laws. 

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is a permanent, nationwide provision that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. Section 5 was a temporary measure that required the worst states — places like Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi — to get pre-approval (or preclearance) of any changes in their voting laws from the U.S. Justice Department. The conditions prevailing there in 1965 justified this impingement on state sovereignty, but those conditions no longer exist.  Eight years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court tossed out Section 5, ruling in Shelby County v. Holder that 40-year old data did not justify continued federal oversight.  

The newly introduced act would resurrect the Section 5 preclearance process and give control over state elections to leftwing lawyers in the Biden Justice Department. Lawyers in the voting section of the civil rights division — where both of us once worked — would have the power to approve or reject the smallest change in state election procedures, from polling locations to redistricting to voter ID laws. 

We witnessed this power being abused while we were at Justice. But, the Holder Justice Department took abuse of preclearance power to a whole new level, blocking states from implementing citizenship verification and voter ID requirements. 

Please follow the link to the article to see exactly how this power would be used.

The article concludes:

In the entire history of the Justice Department, it has never interfered with, nor investigated, a single election audit. That’s because it has no legal authority to do so. Karlan (Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Pam Karlan) even made the claim that auditors can somehow retroactively “intimidate” voters whose ballots were already cast.  

The DOJ’s actions in the Arizona case exemplify the dangers to come under any Voting Rights Advancement Act scenario that would give partisan political appointees in the civil rights division the power to veto any state election law or rule they don’t like — without having to go to court to prove that it is actually discriminatory.   

Leftist voting groups may be willing to trade H.R. 1 in the short run for the Voting Rights Advancement Act today. Doing so would return the center of gravity back to D.C. on voting process issues and remove power further from the people, which is exactly what they want.  

Unfortunately under the Biden administration, our elections and our freedoms are at risk.

Figures Don’t Lie, But Liars Figure

Posted on by

On Friday, The Hill posted an article headlined, “Biden hits 59 percent approval rating in Pew poll.” Considering the crisis at the border, the diplomatic flubs, the end of energy independence, etc., that strikes me as amazing. This is the link to the methodology used in the poll.

This is a screenshot of the group polled:

That’s almost 2 to 1 Democrats polled. Isn’t it interesting that President Biden’s approval rating in the poll was roughly 2 to 1. Frankly, I think that all this poll shows is a nation divided on party lines.

The article at The Hill, of course, has a bit of a spin:

A majority of Americans — 59 percent — approve of President Biden‘s handling of his job as he approaches 100 days in office, according to a Pew Research Center poll released Friday.

The poll found Biden’s job approval is up 5 percentage points from 54 percent in March, while 39 percent of those surveyed said they disapprove of his work thus far.

Biden’s 59 percent approval rating is 20 percentage points higher than that of former President Trump‘s in a Pew poll from April 2017 and is similar to the approval ratings of former Presidents Obama and George W. Bush in April of their first terms.

The article concludes:

The Pew poll surveyed 5,109 adults from April 5 to 11, which was days before the Biden administration recommended pausing the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The poll has a margin of error of 2.1 percentage points.

Public polling in Biden’s first months in office has generally shown the public gives him high marks on his handling of the pandemic and his overall approval rating.

I wonder what President Trump’s approval ratings would have been had the media covered him fairly.