The latest polls for Biden

September 22, 2021

For years, I’ve warned my readers not to put much stock in polls, and especially not polls taken months or even years in advance of elections. Of course, that never stops the media from ignoring actual news to obsess over them. Congressional polls can be misleading because national opinion may not carry much sway in a heavily partisan (gerrymandered) district. And they don’t take into account That-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named (vote fraud.)

All that said, it’s understandable why Congressional Democrats in swing states and districts would be sweating like a Canadian in Haiti over the latest polls on President Biden. If the midterm is the typical referendum on how the President is doing, then a new Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll shows that Democrats in the battleground state of Iowa may be facing a battle that makes like Custer’s odds at Little Big Horn look like a good bet.

It’s true that Iowa has been trending Republican with Trump winning by 8 points in 2016. But Biden’s approval among Iowans has plunged 12 points since June to a paltry 31% (62% disapprove.) His disapproval among Republicans is overwhelming, but he’s also down at 29% among Independents. On key issues, approval of Biden’s handling of the coronavirus has cratered by 17 points to 36%, and only 22% approve of his handling of the Afghanistan pullout. Frankly, I’m amazed it’s that high. Those must be people who wanted out of Afghanistan in the worst way and at all costs, and that’s precisely how Biden did it.

Meanwhile, a new national McLaughlin & Associates survey suggests that many Biden voters are suffering from a terminal case of buyers’ remorse. It found that if Trump were running against Biden today, Trump would win by 50-47%. In retrospect, “mean tweets” are starting to look like a pretty minor complaint. 52% of respondents agreed with this statement:

“I used to dislike Trump’s aggressive, confrontational style, but now that I see how weak Biden was in dealing with the Taliban in Afghanistan, I’m thinking maybe Trump wasn’t so bad.”

By 56 to 40%, they agreed that it “takes a tough man to be President,” and after seeing Biden’s weakness, they’re starting to appreciate Trump’s toughness and think we need more of that now.

It gets worse for the Democrats: 58% agree that Biden surrendered Afghanistan to the same Taliban that aided the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11; and 60% agree that under Trump, inflation, illegal immigration, gas prices and crime were all lower. Admittedly, those statements are less opinion based than a test of people’s memories.

Of course, all media stories about Biden’s abysmal polling have to end by reminding us that he could always turn this around. Except all of this is a result of his deliberate policies and decisions that he adamantly stands by. I also suspect these are the results of those policies, such as open borders, that the Democrats actually want, and they don’t care if Americans hate them. So if the first step to solving a problem is recognizing that you have a problem, I don’t see Biden doing anything in the immediate future but making matters worse until his approval rating is almost as low as that of Congress.

A vaccine for young children

September 22, 2021

Monday, Pfizer reported that its COVID vaccine is safe for 5-11-year-olds. This was taken as a likely sign that the FDA will approve it and the Biden Administration might mandate it, since the Delta variant is more transmissible and has infected more children. But that was a bridge too far for many parents who think it should be their decision whether the risks of COVID to their children outweigh the risks of possible side effects from a vaccine with no longterm studies.

That hesitancy caused some media figures like columnist David Frum to slam reluctant parents as “Anti-vaxxers,” which has become a kneejerk pejorative hurled at anyone who has questions about the vaccines, no matter how reasonable. Megyn Kelly took Frum to the woodshed over that.

As I’ve said repeatedly, I’ve been vaccinated, and like the vast majority of people, I’ve had no negative side effects. But that doesn’t mean that other people who might be particularly susceptible, or especially parents concerned about their children, should be attacked, ridiculed or told to just shut up when they have legitimate concerns that deserve to be addressed.

It’s likely that the questions are going to multiply in light of the latest undercover video release by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas. It came from a whistleblower who’s a registered nurse at a Health and Human Services-affiliated medical center. She recorded conversations with doctors and other nurses about the high number of patients with serious vaccine side effects and their concern that these reactions weren’t getting reported by the government. One doctor complained that they want “to shove it under the mat.”

If the CDC and other government health agencies want Americans to trust them, then they need to openly address people’s concerns and stop trying to bully them into submission. That only makes them more suspicious. If they’re ever going to win back the public’s trust, the first step would be to start acting trustworthy.

The fact that Special Counsel John Durham would release 27 pages of detailed narrative to indict one measly person on one count of making a false statement to the FBI got us wondering immediately what his purpose might have been. We’re not attorneys, but over the next couple of days, some of our favorite legal minds noticed the same thing.

Over the years, you and I have learned not to expect much in the way of justice from the “Justice” Department --- especially now, with an obvious political hack like Merrick Garland running it --- but the indictment of this Clinton attorney might be the harbinger of bigger things to come. It is likely that Hillary will escape jail once again, as she did even after using a private server to circumvent FOIA requests and destroying evidence with BleachBit and hammers, but remember: even though Nixon escaped legal accountability in the Watergate scandal, the whole story did come out. What we’re looking at is probably another situation like that.

For now, many thanks to Dan Bongino for pointing us to a superb analysis of Sussmann’s indictment on SUBSTACK by Shipwreckedcrew’s Port-O-Call. This is long but important to read.

“The Sussmann indictment reads like overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy,” he writes, “because that’s what it is.”

He explains that the indictment on that one charge is contained in just one paragraph, Paragraph 46, which reads, “On or about September 19, 2016, within the District of Columbia, MICHAEL A. SUSSMANN, the defendant, did willingly and knowingly make a materially false, fictitious and false statement or representation in a matter before the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, to wit, on or about September 19, 2016, the defendant stated to the General Counsel of the FBI that he was not acting on behalf of any client in conveying particular allegations concerning a Presidential candidate, when in truth, and in fact, and as the defendant well knew, he was acting on behalf of specific clients, namely – Tech Executive 1 and the Clinton campaign.”

That’s it. That’s what he stands accused of. What are all those other pages for? A “false statement” charge doesn’t require all that narrative. What Durham filed is called a “speaking indictment,” which “discloses information in a public document that would not otherwise be known if the indictment set forth only facts needed to meet the requirements of due process.”

“Shipwrecked” says, “In over 30 years of practice as both a federal prosecutor and a defense attorney specializing in federal cases, I’ve never before seen anything remotely resembling the Sussmann indictment in a single ‘false statement’ case.”

He writes that the facts Durham has alleged probably have at least a dozen “strings” hanging off them. Some of these are legal and others are “more in the ‘court of public opinion.’” (See Nixon, above.)

Those who are understandably cynical about the process as it typically applies to Hillary & Co. and dismayed at the length of time Durham has taken to come up with this one indictment should definitely read this analysis. “Shipwrecked” explains why it has taken as long as it has, notably regarding Durham’s search for source materials. Some materials he needed to look at could only be sought by grand jury subpoena if they were over six months old. Anything more recent needed “probable cause.”

So, what materials was Durham waiting on? At least some of them must have been billing records for Perkins Coie, some of which showed Sussmann billing Hillary’s campaign for his work relating to the phony Alfa Bank story. These were absolutely key to the indictment on the false statement. One might imagine that even after being hit with the grand jury subpoena, Perkins Coie put up a huge fight over turning over that information, as it involves attorney-client communications and attorney work product information, both of which would typically be shielded from disclosure to a grand jury.

Perhaps Durham made it clear to Perkins Coie that they themselves could be held criminally liable for their attorney’s misconduct, and that they’d better darn well cooperate.

But even if they did, attorney-client privilege applies to clients as well, which in this case include the DNC, the Clinton campaign and “Tech Executive 1.” They would have had to waive THEIR privilege for some reason. What might that reason be? This situation suggests to me that they might face some pretty fierce legal jeopardy themselves --- that they knew it could be even worse for them if they didn’t cooperate. This is one area that I hope legal experts like "Shipwrecked" will explore in detail.

He does note something called “the crime-fraud exception,” which applies when the normally privileged communications relate to a fraud that is currently occurring or might be contemplated by THE CLIENT (as opposed to the law firm) in the future. That would make sense to me, since clients like the DNC and Hillary can’t go one day without contemplating more fraud. Perhaps it had something to do with their ongoing anti-Trump activities after he was in office.

But, anyway, if you’ve been wondering, “Why is Durham taking SO LONG?,” this legal fight is one reason why.

Something else of interest: we recently reported that Marc Elias had left Perkins Coie to open his own separate firm dedicated to the Dark Art of getting more Democrats elected to office and furthering the progressive agenda. Sussmann was gone, too, on leave until resigning the day of his indictment. As “Shipwrecked” explains, catapulting these two partners might have been one way that Perkins Coie showed its willingness to cooperate with investigators to save its own sorry hide.

The reason we haven’t known about this legal fight is that Durham apparently didn’t take it before a DC grand jury. He could keep it quiet by going to any district where he had a grand jury convened. As “Shipwrecked” points out, disputes over the production of documents to a federal grand jury typically take place behind closed doors –- or, in the age of COVID, on a private Zoom call; no travel required –- and are not part of the public docket. All references to the dispute would be sealed,

I highly recommend this article, as it’s very clearly written for the non-lawyer and brings up a number of considerations we haven’t seen anywhere else. This apparently is the first installment of a series; we’re grateful for the insight and eagerly anticipate the next one. The writer mentions as a tease that another “scene of the crime” (that’s my phraseology) mentioned in the indictment as being outside the District of Columbia, is likely the CIA (“Agency -2”), headquartered in Langley, Virginia. So this gets more interesting all the time.

As the illegal immigration crisis on the Texas border grows worse with each day while the Biden Administration that caused it tries to ignore it or change the subject, many people are asking how such a thing could keep going on and on if the Administration didn’t want it going on and on? In other words, is this by incompetence or intention?

One person in a position to know believes it’s the latter. Rodney S. Scott is a 29-year law enforcement veteran and the recently-retired head of the US Border Patrol. He wrote a letter to Senate leaders of both parties that was obtained by, and it makes some stunning allegations. Scott writes:

“Common sense border security recommendations from experienced career professionals are being ignored and stymied by inexperienced political appointees. The Biden administration’s team at DHS is laser-focused on expediting the flow of migrants into the U.S. and downplaying the significant vulnerability this creates for terrorists, narcotics smugglers, human traffickers, and even hostile nations to gain access to our homeland.”

Scott also asserts that every option for reducing illegal entries and restoring order that has been offered to the White House has been “summarily rejected.” Meanwhile, he says that the DHS Secretary “and other political appointees within DHS have provided factually incorrect information to Congressional Representatives and to the American public. Furthermore, they have directed USBP personnel to allow otherwise ineligible aliens to remain in the U.S. inconsistent with the…established legal processes and law.”

That’s a serious charge by someone in a position to know, of aiding in the violation of federal law and lying to Congress about it. But what are the odds that we’ll see a Congressional investigation before the 2022 midterm elections? Let’s hope we see one immediately afterward.

In the meantime, I was on “Hannity” last night on Fox News and was asked why Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who’s doing all he can to protect his citizens from the dangers of the Biden-created border disaster (disease, crime, drugs, etc. etc. etc.), didn’t call out the State Guard to secure the border.

As a former Governor myself, I knew the answer: because as soon as he does, the President (or whoever’s really giving the orders) would nationalize the Guard and override him. Abbott already has enough on his hands dealing with the horrific repercussions of Biden’s deliberate border fiasco. He has to rely on the tools he can use without handing even more power to the White House to wield against Texas, and by extension, all Americans who care about stopping this unfettered invasion.

Public schools are off track

September 22, 2021

It’s not just the leftist racist brainwashing and the crushing COVID rules that are driving Americans to take their kids out of public schools. While many schools do a good job, some aren’t even worthy of the name “school.” Or maybe I should spell that “Skool.”

In Baltimore, during the 2020-2021 school year, 41% of public school students averaged less than a 1.0 GPA. At one school, a student with a 0.13 GPA was ranked near the top half of his class. This despite Baltimore spending $18,000 per student, 40% higher than the national average. Also worth mentioning: Baltimore is run solidly by Democrats and hasn’t had a Republican mayor since 1967.

And then there’s Maspeth High School, a public school in Queens, New York, where a special investigation turned up so much shocking corruption that one city council member said it was run more like a crime ring than a school. Among the many accusations: fake classes, counting students as present even if they didn’t show up, passing kids with no credits, and handing out diplomas that weren’t worth the paper they were printed on. The principal is quoted as saying about one uneducated student who was graduated anyway that he can “have fun working at Taco Bell.”

It sounds as if there are a lot of people in our current education system who should be working at Taco Bell, and I don’t mean the students. I think the idea of public schools is great, but somehow, we’ve allowed it to go off track. Too often these days, the public school system is being used for anti-American indoctrination, a jobs program for incompetent teachers, and political staff and slush funds for Democrat politicians. It desperately needs reforming, to put the focus back where it belongs: on giving our children a real educational foundation for life.

Until we can overcome the entrenched resistance and turn our schools back into schools again, I predict that home-schooling will continue to grow in popularity.

In a move that infuriated both Republicans and moderate Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi caved in to the anti-Semitic socialists of “The Squad” and cut $1 billion in funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system from a short-term government funding bill. Pelosi can lose only a few votes or the bill won’t pass, since Republicans unanimously oppose the bill because they’re fighting over raising the federal debt limit.

I can understand why someone might oppose the entire bill on general principle, but why would anyone publicly hold it hostage over just one provision: not funding Israel’s defense from terrorist missiles? Note that this wasn’t new or increased spending. It was standard support for our closest ally for a purely defensive weapons system that stops missiles fired by Hamas terrorists (4400 just last spring) from killing innocent Israeli men, women and children. Why would US Congress members choose to take a hard stand on the side of terrorists who are trying to kill Jews? Well, read some of their previous comments, and I think you’ll figure it out.

Other Democrats say the funding will be added to a larger defense bill or introduced as a stand-alone measure, and it should pass with bipartisan support. But the Squad’s opposition to that one issue tells us a lot about what we’re dealing with from them. Michigan Democrat Rep. Elissa Slotkin said the removal of the funding was “devoid of substance and irresponsible.” That’s a pretty good description of the entire Squad.

Tuesday, President Biden addressed the UN General Assembly, but his speech was so detached from reality that he might as well have been speaking to the United Federation of Planets. has a good recap complete with video clips.

Biden didn’t mention the border crisis at all. His mention of Afghanistan was to congratulate himself for America no longer being at war (thanks to his supercharging the Taliban, it’s likely to be just a pause before the storm.) He talked about “accountability” over COVID, but didn’t mention China. He announced his intention to rejoin the UN Human Rights Council, which Trump pulled out of because it’s filled with nations that spit on human rights, like China, Cuba, Russia, Somalia, Venezuela and Pakistan. He claimed he’d spent the past months “rebuilding our alliances” (our allies are so furious at him that Britain’s Parliament voted to censure him and France recalled its ambassador.)

He also cited the importance of the UN Declaration of Human Rights in protecting rights from being “trampled and twisted in the pursuit of naked political power,” which is a pretty good description of what he’s been doing to Americans’ Constitutional rights from the moment he took office. And at one point, he mistakenly referred to the United Nations as the “United States.” I suspect that he’d like to turn the USA into the UN, but this is the first time he’s let it slip out loud.

Here’s a complete transcript if you’re so inclined:

Considering President Biden’s performance at the UN, and frankly, any appearances recently, it’s no surprise that White House staff are frantic to keep him from answering any questions from the press. But they’re taking it so far that even the normally sycophantic White House Press Corps lodged a formal complaint Tuesday after Biden’s “press conference” with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

After Johnson took a few questions from British reporters, White House staffers suddenly interrupted as reporters tried to question Biden and started shouting at reporters to clear the room. A reporter who shouted a question about the border said he thought Biden said something in reply, but with all the noise, Biden’s facemask and his being led away, whatever he said was indecipherable. I have a feeling it would have been equally indecipherable if he’d been standing at a podium at the UN. His staffers know that, hence the panicked room-clearing.