The Left Is Chaos Incarnate

In power or out, the Left produces division and discord not only as a tactic, but also as a product of its spiteful, envious, and hateful ideology.

by Thaddeus G. McCotter for American Greatness

In our celebrity-crazed culture, too often a person’s capacity to garner attention exceeds his talent in his chosen field. This applies to politics, too. A politician’s well-manicured image obfuscates the policies he espouses, especially during a campaign. Consequently, if elected, the ramifications of a politician’s policies that were neglected, amidst the consultant-crafted images our campaigns have become, suddenly manifest themselves in the most unpleasant ways.

In the 2020 presidential campaign between Joe Biden and the incumbent Donald Trump, the juxtaposition of their images couldn’t have been more Manichean. Coddled by the media, Biden was portrayed as an empathetic, avuncular individual bent upon bringing “the adults” back into the room so as to restore calm to a nation ravaged by the volatile policies of the incumbent. Reviled by the institutional Left and some legacy GOP, President Trump was portrayed as the chief reason for the chaos wracking the nation—and, yes, he hurt himself by issuing sundry intemperate remarks on a host of subjects.

Upon further examination, Trump’s policies weren’t the cause of the turbulent times wracking the nation. From the time he was duly elected, the chaos was deliberately stoked by the Left. 

The Left called upon electors to ignore the popular votes of their states and instead choose Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College. 

The Left falsely accused Trump of having colluded with Russia to steal the election and hamstrung his fledgling administration. 

The Left called themselves #TheResistance—an insult to the truly heroic French resistance of occupied France—to insinuate (and sometimes declare) despicably that Trump and his supporters were literal Nazis.

The Left demanded the 25th Amendment be used to remove Trump and, failing that, unsuccessfully tried to impeach and remove him twice.

At the height of the 2020 campaign, the Left took to the streets for the less-than-peaceful protests (and with the insane sanction of public health experts) to establish a narrative of chaos in “Donald Trump’s America.”

The above is not an exhaustive list. But the purpose here is not to provide a litany of recriminations from the past. It is to begin the process of looking past the personalities projected by both the Left and the Right in order to divine the root cause of the chaos roiling our country that, far from abating, has accelerated under the Biden Administration.

The Left is chaos incarnate. Be it in power or out of power, the Left produces division and discord not only as a tactic, but as a product of its spiteful, envious, and hateful ideology. 

The Left seeks to “fundamentally transform” America. People don’t try to fundamentally transform things they love. The Left fundamentally despises America as currently constituted. Convincing themselves they are morally superior for being purblind to the inherent goodness of their fellow citizens, they feel morally justified in doing whatever they wish to get their way. 

In power, then, you get Joe Biden celebrating how high energy prices are spurring our “incredible transition” to a governmentally dictated “green energy” future that will devastate our economy and damage our nation’s ability to defend itself. This is the deliberate use of economic pain and misery to “fundamentally transform America.”

Out of power, we see the Left vowing a “summer of rage” and to be “ungovernable” in the wake of the leaked draft Supreme Court opinion in the Dobbs case. Both the Left’s response and the leak itself, constitute more acts of chaos that will continue to incite societal turbulence and wrack our citizenry.

Thus, whether one resists or submits to their ideological dictates, the Left’s policies will cause chaos—as the intended or the unintended consequence of their aim. For instance, they believe big government will stem the chaos. But big government is chaos, and we see the dire consequences of it from the illegal immigration over the porous southern border to the inflated prices of food on the family dinner table.

Yes, the lunatic right-wing fringe is also a source of chaos. But it is infinitesimally small and is not institutionalized as is the chaotic Left. Importantly, unlike left-wing extremism that is never acknowledged but rather normalized—indeed, it is lionized by its fellow-traveling media cronies—everyone has rightly and repeatedly denounced the lunatic right-wing fringe.

It is wise to remember that America is a revolutionary experiment in self-government. This chafes the Left, as they seek to expand paranoia and dependence among the populace in order to concentrate power in a highly centralized, elitist, and omnipotent government. Thus, the entire thrust of the leftist agenda is to ensure that America’s revolutionary experiment in self-government fails. Since the Left is hellbent on doing this, chaos ensues. 

Knowing this, the conservative author Russell Kirk’s famous trilogy for the survival of our free republic was “order, justice, freedom.” Above all, he sagely observed, for a self-governing republic the primary need was for order—not imposed by the state; but rather imposed by the self to order one’s own soul. Surrounded by citizens and systems they purportedly despise, is it any wonder so many on the Left have such difficulty ordering their own souls and affairs? Perhaps, the fear and arduousness of doing so explain why they squander so much of their lives trying to coercively manipulate the souls of others?

During last week’s Mass, the Gospel reading included the passage from John 27: “Jesus said to his disciples: ‘Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give it to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid.’”

Is there any better instruction for a self-governing republic? 

Christian Patriot News, On the Fringe, and more- May 28

 

Enjoy tonight's WY rally! Here's tonight's news:

After Uvalde, What Kind of Police Do Americans Really Want?

The average police officer is not the elite and dangerous warrior who can rush an armed assailant—and maybe should not be.

by Kyle Shideler for American Greatness

In the aftermath of the tragic active shooter incident in Uvalde, Texas, where 19 children and two teachers were murdered, many are raising questions about police response following video footage of distraught parents pleading with police to charge into the elementary school. Reports indicate that the shooter was present in the school for at least 40 minutes before responding police shot and killed him. 

Research on active shooters shows that Immediate Action/Rapid Deployment (IA/RD), a tactic by which law enforcement officers enter the area to engage and stop the threat before establishing a perimeter or reaching a critical mass, reduces (but by no means eliminates) casualties from mass shootings. This doctrine typically calls for the first arriving officers (the contact officer or team) to make an immediate solo entry and actively begin hunting the perpetrator.

In early reports, police officials said that the first officer on the scene did “immediately” follow the suspect, Salvador Ramos, into the school at which time gunfire was exchanged, but the perpetrator reportedly barricaded himself inside a classroom. An incident timeline provided by police suggests that the first responding officers were effectively suppressed by gunfire from the perpetrator, and fell back, at which point the gunman was able to enter the classroom, and “the carnage began.” 

Police then had difficulty breaching the classroom door, which further delayed their response. Border Patrol BORTAC agents, an elite federal law enforcement unit that previously made news for its role in the defense of the Mark O. Hatfield federal building against violent rioters in Portland, eventually breached the classroom and killed the suspect. 

As we wait for more information about the specifics of this attack to emerge, everyone can agree the frustration and anger of the parents are completely understandable. 

But stepping back from the specifics of this incident, we are reminded of Americans’ deep ambivalence and internal contradictions about policing. 

Americans often say they want community policing, emphasizing de-escalation and outreach over proactive crime reduction and assertive policing. Many also oppose what they see as the “militarization” of police, rejecting the notion that American law enforcement should procure and train with tools such as sniper rifles and bullet-proof vests, let alone other more specialized equipment. 

America in recent years has suffered a wave of anti-policing rhetoric, with the “Ferguson effect” beginning in 2014 and reaching a crescendo in the riots of 2020. Some radicals seek to defund them altogether. 

But when an incident like Uvalde occurs, the public expects members of law enforcement to conduct what even America’s most elite special operations forces consider among the most challenging tactical tasks: a solo dynamic entry, room clearance, and structure search against a heavily armed perpetrator or perpetrators. 

And the public is right to ask for this.

But few agencies select officers based on ability and willingness to perform this extremely high-impact/low-probability mission. Few agencies train officers to the high levels of proficiency required. The reality is that most law enforcement agencies require only the minimally mandated firearms qualifications, and at standards that are insufficient to meet the level of the challenge, in the event the worst should happen. Only a select few officers seek outside training and acquire the right tools, often at their own expense, to make themselves ready, lest they be called and found wanting.

Beyond bureaucratic training requirements, the task requires a certain mindset, a comfort with aggression, and a drive not doled out to all people in equal measure.

There are around 700,000 sworn law enforcement officers in the United States. As much as it may pain us to admit it, not all of them will be warriors, a word that is overused in certain circles but nevertheless remains apt. And, of course, police work requires many other interpersonal skills and training, some of which are 180-degree opposite from the psychological traits required to storm into a room alone against a determined and heavily armed gunman.

As historian Victor Davis Hanson eloquently writes, America possesses a deep discomfort with those who truly epitomize the combat virtues. While America loves the action hero, we breathe a sigh of relief at the movie’s end not only because the villain has been dispatched, but also because the hero rides away. 

If we are honest with ourselves, most Americans don’t want this type of highly capable and dangerous man (and most of them will be men) doing our policing. Not on the good days, when the sun is shining and the birds are chirping.

Presumably, there will be an investigation into the Uvalde shooting, as is appropriate. We should absolutely study what the officers there did right or wrong and see what can be learned. But there are no studies of doctrine or training requirements that will give us the kinds of men we need to perform these tasks. One of the earliest axioms of political philosophy is that a society’s guardians will be a reflection of that society and what honors. 

America will ultimately produce the kind of police it truly wants, one way or another.

House Republicans Subpoenaed By J6 Committee After Having Nothing To Do With Jan. 6 Blast ‘Banana Republic’ Probe

Tristan Justice reporting for The Federalist

A pair of top House Republicans subpoenaed by the Select Committee on Jan. 6 in an extraordinary escalation of the probe’s witch-hunt proceedings slammed the investigation as illegitimate in a joint op-ed on Thursday.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan told of the drawn-out battle with the committee over compelled cooperation after J6 panel members subpoenaed the pair plus three Republican colleagues earlier this month.

“While Americans are struggling to put gas in the tank and food on the table, Democrats are busy weaponizing government to attack Republicans,” McCarthy and Jordan wrote. “With no effective check on its power, the Select Committee is trampling on fundamental Constitutional rights. It is investigating the political speech of private citizens and demanding access to their personal records and private communications.”

The pair railed against the committee for being illegitimate after Speaker Nancy Pelosi barred Republican appointments. Her deputies have continued to operate in secrecy, refusing to share documents with colleagues across the aisle.

“Rather than operating openly, the Select Committee is working behind closed doors and selectively leaking cherry-picked information,” they wrote. In recent weeks, the committee has repeatedly leaked personal exchanges between private citizens to smear political dissidents.

“When it has presented some evidence in public, the committee’s been caught deliberately altering documents—including a text message pertaining to one of us—to malign conservatives,” they added, referring to Federalist reporting when the probe was caught manipulating texts between Jordan and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. “One would expect this sort of inquiry from a banana republic, not from the U.S. House of Representatives.”

The joint op-ed previews a refusal from Republican lawmakers to offer sworn testimony to the committee after denying voluntary participation, which was requested earlier this year. Conflicts of interest were raised when the members received subpoenas two weeks ago, as the House counsel responsible for representing lawmakers simultaneously signed off on their authorization.

“This attempt to coerce information from members of Congress about their official duties is a dangerous abuse of power, serves no legitimate legislative purpose, and eviscerates constitutional norms,” McCarthy and Jordan wrote. “Even if the Jan. 6 Select Committee was acting in good faith, we have no relevant information that would assist in advancing its legislative purpose. Democrats know this because we told them in January.”

The five Republicans in the lower chamber are among the hundreds of others who have been subpoenaed even though they have no connection to the Capitol riot; they’re simply political dissidents Democrats seek to punish. One subpoena even targeted a political operative working to unseat Committee Vice-Chair Liz Cheney in Wyoming and was not involved in any capital events on Jan. 6 whatsoever.

The committee is now in the process of moving to the “public phase” ahead of the November midterms, an election cycle that is traditionally hostile to the party in the White House. Democrats on the probe conceded to The Washington Post that the committee’s work was all about the midterms, as they hope to revive interest in the 17-month-old riot with televised hearings. The first major hearing of the summer is scheduled for June 9.

Why The Jury Should Convict Michael Sussmann Of Lying To The FBI, But Probably Won’t

The evidence prosecutors elicited from witnesses over the last two weeks provides overwhelming proof of Sussmann’s guilt.

Margot Cleveland reporting for The Federalist

Closing arguments will began yesterday in Special Counsel John Durham’s false statement case against former Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann, after Sussmann made a last-minute decision on Thursday not to testify in his own defense. The evidence prosecutors elicited from witnesses over the last two weeks provides overwhelming proof of Sussmann’s guilt and destroys the many defense theories Sussmann’s legal team floated throughout the trial. Yet a conviction of a fellow D.C.-swamp dweller may be unattainable.

Last fall, the special counsel indicted Sussmann on one count of making a false statement in violation of Section 1001 of the federal criminal code. The special counsel alleged Sussmann lied to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker during a September 19, 2016 meeting.

In the meeting, Sussmann presented Baker with data and whitepapers that supposedly showed the existence of a secret communications network between the Russian-based Alfa Bank and the Trump organization. According to the indictment, Sussmann was acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign and tech executive Rodney Joffe when he met with Baker, but falsely told his friend that he was coming on his own behalf to help the FBI.

Before adjourning for the day on Thursday, presiding Judge Christopher Cooper provided instructions to the jury. Jurors will use those to decide whether to convict or acquit Sussmann following deliberations, which will begin either Friday afternoon or Tuesday following the long Memorial Day weekend.

“The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt” five facts, Judge Cooper explained, namely that (1) “on September 19, 2016, the defendant made a statement or representation;” (2) “the statement or representation was false, fictitious or fraudulent;” (3) “that this statement or representation was material;” (4) “the false, fictitious or fraudulent statement was made knowingly and willfully;” and (5) “the statement or representation was made in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the government of the United States.”

The government previously requested the court take “judicial notice” of the fact that the FBI is within the executive branch of the government, meaning the fact is conclusively established for the jury. While the parties disagree about what Sussmann said to Baker, Sussmann clearly “made a statement or representation” to the then-general counsel of the FBI, leaving jurors to focus on the other three elements.

Overwhelming Evidence to Convict

During today’s closing arguments, the government will remind the jury of the detailed evidence prosecutors presented over the course of the trial, including through nearly 20 witnesses. That evidence overwhelmingly established the three remaining facts prosecutors must prove.

First, the prosecution must prove Sussmann denied acting on behalf of any particular client when he met with Baker. Here, the government will stress Baker’s testimony. That had the former general counsel telling the jury he was “100% percent confident” Sussmann said during their September 19, 2016 meeting that he was not representing a client. “My memory on this point, sitting here today, is clear,” Baker told the jury.

While the defense took issue with Baker’s memory, those efforts should fail for two reasons. First, Baker’s testimony made clear he was a reluctant witness, not out to get Sussmann and feeling responsible for dragging his friend “into a maelstrom.” Second, prosecutors presented evidence that Sussmann texted Baker the night before their September 19, 2016 meeting, writing, “I’m coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company. [W]ant to help the Bureau.”

Given that Sussmann denied representing a client the night before the meeting, a reasonable jury would find Baker’s testimony that he was “100 percent confident” Sussmann repeated the claim at the start of their meeting conclusive.

In addition to that evidence, the jury also heard from two of Baker’s colleagues in the FBI, who testified that the notes they took shortly after Baker met with Sussmann indicated Sussmann had told Baker he was not working on behalf of any client.

Even More Evidence He Lied

The evidence also overwhelmingly established that Sussmann’s claim that he was not working on behalf of any client was “false.” Specifically, the government elicited testimony from Sussmann’s former Perkins and Coie partner, Marc Elias, who served as the lead lawyer for the Clinton campaign, that Elias had hired the investigative firm Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research against Trump. Elias also told jurors he learned of the supposed Alfa Bank-Trump secret communication channel from Sussmann.

Elias also provided a detailed explanation of how law firm billing records work. Prosecutors admitted records showing Sussmann reported time spent on the Alfa Bank project to the Clinton campaign, and specifically billed the Clinton campaign for a project he worked on on September 19, 2016, the same day he met with Baker.

Elias had previously testified that he believed Sussmann’s only work on behalf of the Clinton campaign concerned Alfa Bank. Then on Wednesday, the government presented evidence Sussmann charged the Clinton campaign for the thumb drives used to transfer the Alfa Bank data to the FBI, providing pretty conclusive proof of the government’s assertion Sussmann was representing the Clinton campaign.

Other evidence supports the government’s argument that Sussmann was also acting on behalf of Joffe when he met with Baker. For instance, Fusion GPS’s Laura Seago testified that she first heard of the Alfa Bank theory at a meeting with Elias which Sussmann and his client Joffe also attended.

Also Lots of Evidence This Affected the FBI

The special counsel likewise provided substantial evidence related to the second factor, “materiality.” Here, the jury was instructed that Sussmann’s lie must have been “material,” meaning the statement “has a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, a discrete decision of the decision-making body to which it is addressed.”

In this case, the government presented testimony of several federal agents showing how Sussmann’s lie altered their decisions, with Baker testifying “he would not have taken the private meeting with Sussmann if he knew Sussmann was working on behalf of the Clinton team.” Baker also told the jury he had “vouched for” Sussmann and treated him as a sensitive confidential human source, protecting his identity from other agents because he believed Sussmann had come to the FBI on his own.

Other agents also testified that they hit a roadblock in determining the source for the Alfa Bank data and that in assessing the data, knowing whether it came from someone with “a political affiliation or motivation” would affect the initial steps of an investigation.

Evidence Sussmann Lied On Purpose

Finally, the government must establish that Sussmann held the required “mens rea” or “guilty mind.” Section 1001, which criminalizes false statements, requires a defendant make the false statement “intentionally” or “knowingly.”

Circumstantial evidence can establish a defendant’s state of mind. So can the evidence admitted at trial, which included Sussmann’s congressional testimony with his acknowledgment that he was acting on behalf of a tech expert. All this provides overwhelming evidence that Sussmann’s lie was intentional.

In an attempt to counter this overwhelming evidence, during Sussmann’s closing argument his attorneys will likely hammer inconsistencies in statements Baker previously made concerning what Sussmann said during their September 19, 2016 meeting. Sussmann’s lawyers are also likely to highlight testimony they presented that the Clinton campaign did not want Sussmann to take the evidence to the FBI, including testimony from Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook. The government, however, countered that evidence with testimony establishing that Perkins and Coie attorneys and Fusion GPS held great discretion to act on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

The defense is also certain to highlight trial evidence showing the FBI’s national security concerns about Trump’s connection with Russia, as well as testimony touting Joffe’s reputation as a tech expert, to argue Sussmann held serious concerns about the data. But the special counsel will quickly counter that Sussmann’s concerns do not excuse him for lying to the FBI. Finally, Sussmann’s legal team will likely stress the testimony of character witnesses who spoke of Sussmann’s stellar reputation.

Why an Acquittal Is Likely Despite the Evidence

While there can be no certainty in predicting the jury’s eventual verdict, an acquittal seems likely—even with the overwhelming evidence of Sussmann’s guilt detailed. Baker’s trial testimony provided the clearest foreshadowing of this outcome when he told prosecutors, “I’m not out to get Michael. This is not my investigation. This is your investigation. If you ask me a question, I answer it. You asked me to look for something, I go look for it.”

Bill Priestap, who served as the assistant director of the Counterintelligence Division for the FBI in 2016, displayed an even more grudging demeanor in testifying on behalf of the special counsel. When questioned by prosecutors whether it was “important” for Sussmann “to fully disclose his ties to the Clinton campaign,” Priestap said it “would have been part of several factors,” telling the government attorney, “I’m struggling on your use of the word ‘important.’ It’s a motivation that is relevant, but not the only factor.”

If Baker, the man to whom Sussmann lied, adopts such a disinterested approach to justice, and Priestap, an assistant director at the FBI, shows disdain for the special counsel’s case, surely a jury of Sussmann’s peers will too.

The men and women of the jury live and work in D.C., with men and women like Sussmann, Baker, and Priestap. Their kids go to school together—literally in the case of one juror—and they likely can envision a friend or neighbor in Sussmann’s position.

While Sussmann’s lie was “material” in the legal sense, jurors seem likely to shrug the lie off as harmless, mentally parroting the woman several jurors acknowledged they donated money to when she ran for president in 2016: “What difference at this point does it make?”

I may be wrong. But I don’t think so.

‘Guns Should Not Be In The Hands Of The Mentally Unstable,’ Says Senile Man With Nukes

Babylon Bee🐝

WASHINGTON, D.C.—A senile old man in Washington who has a deadly nuclear arsenal at his fingertips is calling for dangerous weapons to be taken out of the hands of the mentally unstable.

"Listen, folks, this shouldn't be difficult," said the yammering old geriatric to a duck in the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. "The mentally unstable shouldn't have guns! It's dangerous! Think of what could happen, Jack! They could fire it blindly through their front door because they heard a noise, or leave it right out in the open where a Taliban terrorist could pick it up, or accidentally kill innocent people they thought were bad guys but turned out to be foreign aid workers!" The man then dove face-first into the pool because he thought he saw an ice cream cone there.

Many Democrats are warning of chaos and death if mentally unstable people such as themselves ever get their hands on a firearm. "It would be a disaster," said one Democratic strategist. "Think of putting weapons in the hands of people who can't even define what a 'woman' is! I shudder at the thought! Please disarm us immediately!"

"It's real simple," said the old man as he climbed out of the Reflecting Pool, disappointed to not have found any ice cream. "Guns, tanks, drones, nukes—all that stuff—we gotta take those away from people who aren't mentally fit!" 

At publishing time, the man was on the run after taking an ice cream cone he mistook for a handgun out of the hands of a tourist.

Biden’s Uvalde Visit Will Be The Closest He’s Been To The Border Since Assuming Office

Biden’s deliberate decision to avoid the ongoing border crisis because it is politically inconvenient for him is not an isolated event.

Jordan Boyd reporting for The Federalist

President Joe Biden plans to travel to Uvalde, Texas this weekend to “grieve with the community” following a deadly shooting that left at least 19 elementary school students and two adults dead. It’s the closest Biden will be to the southern border since taking office.

The president is right to visit Uvalde, but there’s no reason he can’t visit the border too, even though he will most likely use his trip to grandstand about restricting Americans’ access to guns. Uvalde is about an hour from illegal immigration hotspots such as Eagle Pass and Del Rio, making them an easy stop for Biden, who hasn’t visited the border in more than a decade, next week.

Despite repeated calls for Biden to physically address the border crisis that he created by repealing Trump-era law enforcement, the White House did not announce any plans for the Democrat’s motorcade to stop at the overwhelmed border.

Deaths at the U.S.-Mexico border, especially involving illegal border crossers, are on the rise after the president and his team explicitly welcomed illegal immigration. While it’s difficult to calculate just how many tragedies have occurred since the Biden administration issued an unofficial gag order to cut off the press from accessing data held by federal officials, recent press coverage suggests that fatalities from drowning, heat exhaustion, and starvation are becoming more frequent.

In 2021, at least 650 migrants died during their attempts to illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border. Many of them succumbed to heat exposure and drowning but others were killed by feuding Mexican cartels.

Tragedies specifically in Del Rio, which is about an hour’s drive from Uvalde, are also on the rise. In the first half of 2021, officials documented a record-breaking 66 deaths among illegal border-crossers. That’s nearly double the lives lost the entire year before.

Earlier this month, two Angolan brothers, 7 and 9 years old, died near Del Rio after they were swept away by the rushing Rio Grande while trying to illegally cross the southwest U.S. border with their parents.

Biden’s deliberate decision to avoid the ongoing border crisis because it is politically inconvenient for him and his plummeting approval rating is not an isolated event. As Fox News White House Correspondent Peter Doocy noted to the White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre in a press briefing last week, Biden rushed to visit Buffalo, N.Y. after a deadly grocery store shooting by a white supremacist but not Waukesha, Wis. after a criminal who called for violence against white people mowed down dozens of Christmas parade performers and bystanders.

Biden isn’t the only one who has been largely ignoring the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants and thousands of pounds of drugs crossing the border each and every month. Vice President Kamala Harris, who was appointed to investigate the “root causes” of illegal entrance into the United States, only briefly stopped by the southern border last year after facing immense pressure from the public and media.

Biden's Approval Hits the Basement: Worst Ever at This Point in Term

Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

Joe Biden has finally achieved something: being the worst ever.

He is 490 days into his term and at this point, he has lower average approval numbers than any president at 40.9 percent, going all the way back to Harry Truman in 1945. It’s also Biden’s lowest average approval so far. Given that this is going into the midterms, that’s a nightmare for the hopes of the Democrats.

In a data point that is sure to rankle the short-tempered Biden, he’s below what President Donald Trump was at this point in his Presidency, even with all the media constantly beating up on Trump.

Joe Biden 40.9%
Donald Trump 42.7%
Barack Obama 48%
George W. Bush 72%
Bill Clinton 50.9%
George H.W. Bush 65%
Ronald Reagan 45%
Jimmy Carter 43.1%
Gerald Ford 44.2%
Richard Nixon 57.1%
Lyndon B. Johnson 68.7%
John F. Kennedy 74%
Dwight Eisenhower 61.3%
Harry S. Truman 43.1%

Biden’s approval in a new Reuters/Ipsos poll also hit the lowest ever in that poll: 36 percent. The poll showed his numbers are still dropping precipitously, dropping 6 percent from the week before. So if he thought resorting to calling people “ultra MAGA” was going to be his salvation, not so much. Democratic operatives, including Anita Dunn, worked for six months to come up with that ridiculous tactic. It looks like that isn’t working, like everything else that he does. We could have told them that — not a good idea to build up the brand of your political opponents.

But Biden is not only incredibly low with Republicans and independents, he’s also dropping a lot with Democrats as well.

“Only 10% of Republicans and 28% of independents approve of President Biden, while 72% of Democrats still do. However, among Democrats Biden has seen a 10 point drop from two weeks ago when 82% approved of him, a driving factor for his lower overall approval rating,” said the Ipsos analysis.

Part of the problem is the horrible inflation but it’s also that a ton of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track.

“Seven in 10 (70%) Americans believe things in this country are off on the wrong track, while only one-fifth (20%) of Americans believe they are headed in the right direction. This represents a six point drop from two weeks ago when 26% of Americans thought they were headed in the right direction. The overwhelming majority of Republicans (90%) and independents (70%) believe things are off on the wrong track, a sentiment that nearly half of Democrats (49%) agree with,” said the pollster.

It’s hard to point to anything that is going well with gas prices and inflation at record highs, the stock market crashing, supply chain problems continuing and violent crime going up. But it’s always the economy when it’s bad that is the overarching issue. Biden spent months denying it and now doesn’t seem to even understand what is causing it or how to address it.

Ironically, Biden came in with all kinds of media support. But as Ipsos observes, while he came in with a 60 percent approval, he now has a 59 percent disapproval, nearly a complete flip.

 

 

Did he wait for a weakness before he invaded? That's a rhetorical question--of course he did.

 

Article by Byron York in Townhall

Did Putin Wait Until Biden Became President to Invade Ukraine?

 

In the days after Russia attacked Ukraine, there was a lot of talk among Republicans that Vladimir Putin would not have invaded had Donald Trump still been president. Trump was so difficult to predict, so impulsive, so impetuous, the thinking went, that Putin would not have risked a massive U.S. response under Trump.

"The sheer unpredictability of Trump, his anger at being defied or disrespected, his willingness to take the occasional big risk (the Soleimani strike), all had to make Putin frightened or wary of him in a way that he simply isn't of Joe Biden," National Review editor Rich Lowry tweeted.

The anti-Trump crowd scoffed. Trump was Putin's stooge, they said. The Russian strongman didn't need to invade Ukraine because Trump would have given him everything he wanted without all the messiness of a big war. "Trump never once showed any anger, risk-taking or unpredictability with Putin," tweeted Rick Wilson, co-founder of the Resistance fundraising group The Lincoln Project. "He showed deference, adoration, admiration, obedience, and sought to wreck NATO, Putin's highest goals. Putin didn't need to buy the cow. The milk was free."

Now, though, the side skeptical that Putin would have acted had Trump been president has gotten some support from an unlikely source. Fiona Hill, the Russia expert, former senior National Security Council aide in the Trump White House and star witness against Trump in his first impeachment, appeared recently on a program sponsored by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Discussing the Ukraine war, Hill suggested that Putin waited to invade Ukraine until Biden became president, preferring Biden's "predictability" to Trump's volatility.

Hill was quite critical of Trump, saying he knew nothing about matters concerning Ukraine or international relations. When Trump met with Putin, she continued, Putin found himself having to explain things to Trump. If Putin were going to launch an invasion, Hill said, "he thought that somebody like Biden, who's a 'transatlanticist,' who knows all about NATO, who actually knows where Ukraine is, and actually knows something about the history, and is very steeped in international affairs, would be the right person to engage with, as opposed to somebody you've got to explain everything to all the time." In this view, Putin saw Biden as someone he could deal with as Russia seized territory from Ukraine. But not the erratic Trump. Who knew what he might do? "[Putin] wants to have predictability in the person that he's engaging with," said Hill.

Hill certainly made it sound as if Putin made the specific calculation that his brutal invasion of Ukraine would be more likely to succeed with Biden in the White House than with Trump. Of course, Hill is not the final authority on such matters. But her account lends credibility to those who argued that Putin would not have invaded Ukraine were Trump still in the White House.

Meanwhile, a lot of Americans are going to see ominous undertones in a new move under consideration by the Biden administration. On Monday, The Wall Street Journal ran a story headlined, "Pentagon Weighs Deploying Special Forces to Guard Kyiv Embassy." The paper reported that U.S. officials are considering sending elite troops "for the defense and security of the [American embassy in Kyiv], which lies within range of Russian missiles." The paper added that the presence of U.S. special forces "would mark an escalation from Mr. Biden's initial pledge that no American troops will be sent into the country."

Biden not only pledged that no American troops will be sent into Ukraine -- he pledged not to send the highest levels of other U.S. assistance to Ukraine, lest it draw the U.S. into the war. "The idea that we're going to send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks and trains going in with American pilots and American crews -- just understand, don't kid yourself, no matter what y'all say, that's called World War III," Biden said in early March, when he refused to facilitate the transfer of fighter jets to Ukraine.

More recently, on May 3, during a visit to a Lockheed Martin facility in Alabama, where the company makes the Javelin anti-tank missiles the U.S. is sending by the thousands to Ukraine, Biden told workers that, "You're making it possible for the Ukrainian people to defend themselves without us having to risk getting in a third world war by sending in American soldiers fighting Russian soldiers."

And now there is a plan to send American soldiers into Ukraine, ostensibly just to protect the U.S. embassy, but also creating the risk that a Russian military action, intentionally or not, might hit Americans, drawing the U.S. further into the war. The Journal reports the special forces plan has not yet been presented to the president. But when it is, Biden -- and the United States -- will have a deeply consequential decision to make.

 

https://townhall.com/columnists/byronyork/2022/05/25/did-putin-wait-until-biden-became-president-to-invade-ukraine-n2607744 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage