Friday, December 03, 2021

Getting Udder Your Skin

 A.F. Branco Cartoon 

Big Pharma loves the unconstitutional vaccine mandates Democrats are trying to inflict on Americans. political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021.

Thursday, December 02, 2021

DISASTER: Joe Biden’s Approval Rating Languishes at Dismal 36% in New Trafalgar Poll

By Richard Moorhead  | Big League Politics 

A Trafalgar poll published on Wednesday reveals that President Joe Biden has a disastrous approval rating of 36%, with the American public turning against the establishment Democrat in decisive fashion. An overwhelming 59% of American disapprove of Biden’s “leadership.”

Negative sentiment towards Biden is weighed towards strong feeling, while Biden’s meager actual approval is more weak. 18% of Americans strongly approve of Biden, whereas an equal 18% merely “approve.” In contrast, 52% of Americans “strongly disapprove” of the Biden garbage dumpster fire of a presidency, with 6.9% merely disapproving.

1,082 national respondents were surveyed in the poll, which was conducted in the last days of November. The survey has just under a 3% margin of error.

Biden’s approval among self-identifying Democrats is merely 65%, a portend that spells towards a betrayal of the elder President by his own party. It’s the custom for an incumbent President to hold overwhelming support from their own party, with former President Trump regularly polling above 90% approval from Republicans during his tenure on the presidential throne.

With such ratings, it’s not impossible that a primary challenge to the nearly 80-year old Biden will brew in the coming years. If the dismal approval ratings continue, Democrats could lose more than 60 seats in the House and lose control of the Senate in next year’s midterms- if opposition to the President translates into electoral flips, it’s not out of the question that a Republican Congress will commence impeachment proceedings of the unpopular Democrat.

Should Biden’s approval rating decline any lower, he’d potentially stand to become one of the most disliked Presidents of all time. Only George W. Bush, a president widely thought to have been the worst in the history of the United States, had polling lower than mid-30’s while in office in recent memory.

Gallup Poll Finds Inflation is Causing Hardship in 71 Percent of Low Income Families

By  Tom Borelli 

A new poll from Gallup found inflation is causing financial hardship in almost half of U.S. households.

The poll reported 35 percent said they were suffering moderate hardship and 10 percent said the level of hardship was severe.

Most concerning is that inflation is causing financial hardship in 71 percent of low income families.

Inflation is causing a problem for President Biden as measured in other polls and his chief of staff Ron Klain seems out of touch with Americans that are suffering because of the spike in prices.

Klain was criticized for promoting a tweet that said inflation was a high class problem.

Inflation is punishing American families and it’s hurting those at the bottom of the economic scale the most.

Biden and Democrats are going to pay a political price for advancing policies that boosted inflation to the highest in three decades.

Wednesday, December 01, 2021

10 Things You Need to Know About Today's Oral Arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization


AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana

It seems like both an understatement and overkill to call Wednesday a historic day, as the Supreme Court heard the oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case that could become a pivotal moment in the abortion debate.

The Court could overturn Roe v. Wade and return abortion policy to the individual states, and as I wrote yesterday, it could change the nature of the abortion debate altogether.

Oral arguments wrapped at lunchtime, but there’s so much that happened. It’s hard sometimes for laypeople to wade through the legalese, but I’ve done the hard work for you, dear reader. Here are 10 things you need to know about today’s oral arguments in Dobbs.

1. Left-leaning justices argue that upholding Roe and Casey preserves the status quo.

One of the key legal concepts at play in this case is stare decisis, or adherence to precedent. On his radio show today, Erick Erickson said that stare decisis means that you don’t just upend Supreme Court precedent for no reason. Don’t forget: it took over half a century to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson, as bad a decision as that one was.

Ed Whelan wrote at National Review that Chief Justice John Roberts made several arguments regarding stare decisis in Citizens United v. FEC in 2010 that point toward overturning Roe and Casey.

Multiple questions and comments from justices revolved around stare decisis. Precedent is always important in Supreme Court cases, but it seemed to rear its head often today. Justice Stephen Breyer tried to point out that it would “subvert the Court’s legitimacy” (a quote from Casey) to overturn Roe; he also argued that the Court should have the “most compelling reason” to overturn Roe and Casey. In response to Breyer, Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart retorted that Casey wasn’t a great example of letting precedent stand.

Dan McLaughlin pointed out in National Review‘s liveblog that both Breyer and Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t make any new arguments for upholding Roe and Casey on stare decisis. “What I am not hearing at all from Breyer or Sotomayor is any argument that would not have been equally applicable in defending Plessy v. Ferguson,” he noted.

2. Alito took an opposite tack, comparing Roe and Casey to Plessy.

Justice Samuel Alito made the opposite argument over stare decisis when he compared Roe and Casey to the bad precedent in Plessy, which was eventually overturned.

“Justice Alito effectively established that a ruling’s egregious wrongness can suffice (or at least go very, very far) to justify its overruling,” Ed Whelan observed.

3. Roberts searched for a middle ground between upholding the Mississippi law and overturning Roe and Casey.

Chief Justice John Roberts, whose wife has served as a pro bono counsel for a pro-life organization, seemed to search for a way to uphold the Mississippi law without creating earth-shattering precedent.

Ed Whelan writes:

The Chief seemed to be searching for a middle ground that would enable him to vote in favor of the Mississippi 15-week ban without overturning—or at least without declaring the overturning of—Roe and Casey. If I understood him correctly, he advanced the position that the viability line, which Casey repeatedly declared to be the “central holding” of Roe, was mere dictum (i.e., not part of the actual holding) in both cases.

Whelan also noted that such a middle ground may not be possible and that he hopes Roberts will see that and rule in a way that overturns Roe and Casey.

4. Barrett brought up “safe-haven” laws to argue that abortion isn’t essential.

The Court’s newest justice, Amy Coney Barrett, asked Center for Reproductive Rights attorney Julie Rikelman about “safe haven” laws, which allow women who want to give up their newborns to drop them off in certain places like medical facilities, where the child will be taken care of and the mother would not face prosecution.

Naturally, the ogres at the Daily Beast painted Barrett as an advocate for “forced pregnancy,” but Alexandra DeSanctis points out how untrue that characterization is:

Barrett’s question was designed not to advocate adoption as an abortion alternative but rather to force Prelogar to get to the heart of what principle makes the right to abortion so essential. She was asking, in other words, whether the supposed burden of parenthood is diminished by safe-haven laws. If the aim of abortion supporters is to enable women to choose not to be a parent, why are safe haven laws not good enough? Why must the government also sanction abortion?

Prelogar’s response was, in effect, that both continuing pregnancy and giving up a child for adoption still put too much of a burden on women, and thus abortion needs to remain an option in order for women to have a real choice and real freedom. The right to abortion, in other words, is essential not so that women don’t have to parent or can end pregnancy (which can be done without aborting the child) but so that they can affirmatively do away with an unwanted child.

5. Abortion advocates removed any emotional components to pregnancy in their arguments.

DeSanctis also made an interesting observation in the National Review liveblog about how the pro-abortion attorneys arguing against the Mississippi law characterized pregnancy.

Defenders of abortion, including the two attorneys arguing against Mississippi’s law, speak about pregnancy a) as if it simply “happens” to women spontaneously without their knowledge or consent and b) as if it were an aggressive form of cancer.

Any woman who has had children knows that pregnancy isn’t merely clinical, nor is the woman merely an inactive participant. But that’s how abortion advocates have to characterize pregnancy in order to advocate so forcefully for wantonly snuffing out a new life.

6. Stewart divorced the pro-life movement from a particular religious or philosophical worldview.

Ed Whelan pointed out an assertion that Justice Sonia Sotomayor made:

I think that she said at one point that only a religious belief could lead you to think that the Constitution doesn’t protect abortion. Even if she said or meant that only a religious belief could lead you to oppose abortion, her assertion is absurd.

Right or wrong, people tend to tie the pro-life movement to Christianity or other religious worldviews. But there are those who hold pro-life views for purely secular reasons.

When Justice Alito — a noted Catholic — asked whether a pro-life position is married to a religious mindset, Stewart had a ready reply.

“It’s not tied to a religious view,” he stated, noting that secular scientists also hold a myriad of views on when life begins.

That’s important because it proves that the pro-life movement is more than just a niche religious crusade.

7. Thomas tried to clarify where the right to abortion occurs in the Constitution.

We’ve heard for years that a right to abortion is somewhere in the Constitution. Justice Clarence Thomas pointedly asked where that right lives when he said, “I understand we’re talking about abortion here. But what is confusing is that if we were talking about the Second Amendment, I know exactly what we’re talking about. If we’re talking about the Fourth Amendment, I know what we’re talking about. Because it’s written in there. What specifically is the right here that we’re talking about?”

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar responded by saying  that, well, basically, it’s everywhere — or something:

Well, Justice Thomas, I think that the court in those other contexts, with respect to those other amendments, has had to articulate what the text means and the bounds of the Constitutional guarantees. And it has done so through a variety of different tests that implement First Amendment rights, Second Amendment rights, and Fourth Amendment rights.

I don’t think there is anything unprecedented or anomalous about the right that the court articulated in Roe and Casey, and the way it implemented that right by defining the scope of the liberty interest by reference to viability and providing that’s the moment when the balance of interest tips and when the state can act to prohibit a woman from getting an abortion, based on its interest in protecting fetal life.

8. Sotomayor came across as callous.

Justice Sotomayor made some awful comments in the discussion when she compared unborn babies to dead people.

She argued that the notion of fetal pain is “not founded in science at all” — a claim which has been debunked.

Sotomayor compared fetal pain to involuntary spasms in brain dead people, specifically talking about dead people whose feet have moved.

Alexandra DeSanctis hit the nail on the head when she said, “It says a lot about Roe that one of its defenders on the Court is defending the decision by comparing an unborn child to a dead body.”

“Wise Latina,” my ass. Sotomayor came across as just callous and gross.

9. The Biden administration doubled down on the assertion that abortion is “fundamental.”

Prelogar represented the Biden administration in arguing against the Mississippi law, and she made a telling statement. She said that the Supreme Court “has never revoked a right that is so fundamental.”

As the representative of the Biden administration in this case, Prelogar has doubled down in favor of abortion. This is not simply a pro-choice argument. This is strictly pro-abortion.

Prelogar is proof positive that, for all of the arguments during the 2020 presidential campaign that Joe Biden was a moderate, his administration is planted firmly on the far left.

10. We should expect a ruling in late June.

Don’t expect a ruling to come before Christmas; in fact, don’t expect anything before next summer. It’s not going to be quick, and it may even be the last decision the Court issues this term.

Dan McLaughlin noted in the National Review liveblog at the beginning of the day:

The Court’s term is likely to end the week of June 27-July 1, 2022, and unless the Court suddenly hits on some simpler resolution of this case, I would wager on Dobbs being handed down the last day of the term, probably June 28 or 29.

After arguments, he wrote:

My takeaway: we were never going to get the satisfaction today of feeling that the outcome was in the bag. No big case ever delivers that at argument. Now, we wait until late June, and of course, we hope nothing happens to the Justices in the interim. But it is hard to see how pro-lifers could be more optimistic about how this argument went.

So be patient, folks. It’s going to take some time.

But you know what? We’ll be here, ready to cover the decision and its fallout as soon as we hear something.

If you’re inclined to, I urge you to pray for the proper decision from the Court — one that demolishes Roe and Casey and protects the unborn.

The Morning Briefing: Corrupt CNN Won't Really Get Rid of Sleazebag Chris Cuomo


(Photo by Michael Zorn/Invision/AP, File)

There have been many words written by me about my dislike of all things CNN, a once-proud news organization (REALLY!) that has been flushed so far down the toilet of liberal bias hackery that it makes MSNBC look responsible. The network that became famous for its reporting from the Gulf War spent four years engaged in a partisan diaper-filling while Donald Trump was in office.

Heck, there are still days when it appears as if they don’t know that he isn’t anymore.

One of CNN’s biggest hacks not named Don Lemon is Chris Cuomo, the younger brother of the former governor of New York, Andrew “Kill All the Elderly” Cuomo. Little Brother is now experiencing his own fall from grace, all because he tried to save Big Brother from his.

Matt wrote about it for us:

Chris Cuomo has been suspended indefinitely as a result of the fallout from the latest revelations from the New York attorney general’s investigation of his brother, disgraced former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.

Despite repeatedly claiming he was not helping his brother, text messages released by the New York attorney general’s office showed Cuomo was in regular contact with Melissa DeRosa, the governor’s top aide, assisting with his brother’s response to the allegations and exploiting his media connections to dig up dirt on Andrew’s accusers.

If ever a family deserved to be unemployed, it’s this one. The thing is, however, that Chris isn’t without a job, he’s merely been suspended. Yes, an indefinite suspension isn’t good, but we’re talking about CNN here. This is the network that let Jeffrey Toobin back on the air after he had a little quality time with his exposed shvantz on a Zoom call with his buddies at The New Yorker.

Put mildly, they don’t seem to embarrass easily. Some may argue that this is different because Cuomo violated journalistic and ethical standards. Saying that CNN cares one whit about journalism and ethics is like saying Cher worries about the perils of cosmetic surgery.

Just look at the official statement from the network:

“When Chris admitted to us that he had offered advice to his brother’s staff, he broke our rules and we acknowledged that publicly. But we also appreciated the unique position he was in and understood his need to put family first and job second,” the spokesperson continued. “However, these documents point to a greater level of involvement in his brother’s efforts than we previously knew. As a result, we have suspended Chris indefinitely, pending further evaluation.”

As Matt wrote, there isn’t a lot to evaluate. If CNN had any standards at all, Cuomo would have been escorted from the building by security last night.

The mere fact that Cuomo had his brother on his show frequently when he was governor was always a problematic blurring of ethical lines. Cuomo has always referred to himself as a journalist. A serious journalist would have recognized that the optics alone were worth avoiding. Almost every person in conservative media pointed out that the Brothers Cuomo shtick on CNN was a sleazefest, especially once the pandemic started and Andrew Cuomo’s star was rising because idiot Democrats actually thought he was handling things well.

That little bit about Cuomo’s “need to put family first and job second” is all you really need to know about how unserious CNN is regarding this situation. That left the door open for Cuomo’s eventual return.

Maybe the network will do the right thing for once and kick Li’l Fredo to the curb. It doesn’t have to though. It is basically a well-subsidized liberal narrative machine that is ultimately funded by AT&T, a company that makes almost $200 billion a year. That’s why it doesn’t matter that its ratings are constantly staring up at the competition. It’s such a shameless organization that the execs there might bring back Cuomo and his brother to co-host a show after an appropriate time-out.

I kid, but…

Tuesday, November 30, 2021

Brit Hume on Omicron variant: Politicians' 'cures' for COVID have been worse than the virus

By Fox News Staff | Fox News

In the wake of the new omicron variant, Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume told "The Brian Kilmeade Show" on Monday that since the inception of the coronavirus pandemic, the cures from politicians have been worse than the virus.

BRIT HUME: It looks to me like we're freaking out again and making the same kinds of mistakes that we made the first and second and third time around.

There are ripple effects of that. And this has been the issue from the very beginning of the pandemic. And that is that in our efforts to stamp it out, to stop it in its tracks, which was probably never going to be possible, we undertook all sorts of efforts without ever seriously considering the side effects of our efforts. You know, Trump may have made a lot of mistakes on this, but he was right when he said, you don't want a situation where the cure is worse than the disease. 

When you think of the school days missed by kids, really how much that contributes to continued inequality and educational outcomes that these poor kids who you know, who many of whose parents don't even have a computer in the house or who are struggling to try to be educated in this setting where, you know, they're really not in school, they're really not getting instruction and so on. It's very serious.

You have health outcomes affected by the fact that people missed appointments for screenings and treatment and so on for cancer and other diseases. The supply chain problems we’re having as a consequence of COVID and the restrictions that were placed on travel and with people out of work and so on. So we're going to be feeling the pain from those for a long time.




By Paul Mirengoff | POWERLINE 

President Biden speaks about the bipartisan infrastructure bill in the State Dinning Room of the White House, Saturday, Nov. 6, 2021, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Joe Biden has ordered a ban on travel from eight African countries due to the emergence of the latest coronavirus variant. The countries from which Biden is cutting off travel are South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Lesotho, Eswatini, Mozambique and Malawi.

When Donald Trump banned travel from China in the early days of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, Biden called the move xenophobic. I suppose that makes Biden’s travel ban racist by similar reckoning.

Speaking of Trump, Biden, and covid, the Wall Street Journal points out that deaths in the U.S. from that virus since Biden was inaugurated exceed the number of deaths that had occurred when, during a 2020 campaign debate, Biden proclaimed: “Anyone who is responsible for that many deaths should not remain as President of the United States of America.” At the time Biden proposed this disqualifier from holding the presidency, the U.S. had recorded 220,000 covid deaths, according to the Journal. Since inauguration day, it has recorded 350,000. And counting.

The comparison isn’t “apples to apples.” When Biden made his statement during the debate, the pandemic had been raging in the U.S. for about six and a half months. It’s been about ten months since the sad day Biden became president.

On the other hand, we had no vaccine during almost the entirety of Trump’s presidency. We’ve had one — developed and distributed during Trump’s presidency — throughout the time Biden has occupied the Oval Office.

Furthermore, as the Journal reminds us, Biden promised to “shut down the virus, not the country,” and he claimed to have a plan to accomplish this. This was BS.

So was his statement that “if [Trump] had done his job, had done his job from the beginning, all the [220,000] people would still be alive.” Has any presidential candidate ever defamed his opponent so flagrantly on a matter of policy? If so, I don’t recall it.

Here’s another comparison between Trump and Biden on the pandemic — one that’s closer to “apples to apples.” During the debates, Biden slammed Trump’s performance by claiming that Europe had done much better in limiting covid deaths than the U.S. At the time, however, the number of deaths per capita in the U.S. was in line with four major European countries it made sense to compare us with — the UK, Spain, France, and Italy. Like the U.S., these nations had reliable data, large populations, and lots of foreign visitors before travel was restricted.

As Trump’s presidency drew to a close, per capita deaths from the virus in the U.S. were about at about the midpoint of per capita deaths in these countries — nearly identical to the UK, a little lower than Italy and Spain, somewhat higher than France.

What about now? Today, per capita deaths attributed to the virus are higher in the U.S. than in all four of the comparator nations. Currently, the U.S. has recorded 2,393 deaths per capita from the virus. France, Spain, the UK, and Italy come in at 1,814, 1,880, 2,113, and 2,213 respectively.

The U.S., therefore, has lost ground to these four countries in terms of covid deaths under Joe Biden. This, despite the fact that the U.S. (under Trump’s leadership) was considerably faster off the mark than France, Spain, and Italy in getting the vaccine approved and into arms. (The UK, free from EU constraints, was a little faster than the U.S.)

Personally, I don’t think presidents should be judged based, without more, on how many Americans die during a pandemic. But Joe Biden based much of his case for the presidency on precisely this criteria. In both debates with Donald Trump, he led with that case. His pitch was as effective as it was crude.

By Joe Biden’s crude metrics, he has failed abjectly in dealing with the Wuhan coronavirus, both in absolute terms and in comparison to Europe. By his rhetoric, Biden “should not remain as President of the United States of America.”

I’m glad the Wall Street Journal has called Biden out on this. Don’t expect to read about it elsewhere in traditional media. 


Media hit for 'sophomoric and ridiculous' take on Biden's travel ban after calling Trump's restrictions racist

By Cortney O'Brien | Fox News 

The area for TSA screening of travelers at JFK airport's Terminal 1 is relatively empty, Friday, March 13, 2020, in New York (AP Photo/Kathy Willens)

President Biden imposed a travel ban on several African countries in the wake of the new strain of the coronavirus, the omicron variant, despite calling his predecessor "racist" and  "xenophobic" for imposing his own travel restrictions - a flashback the media has largely ignored. 

In 2017, then-President Trump imposed travel restrictions on six predominantly Muslim countries over concerns of improper vetting. Liberal media often referred to it as the "Muslim ban." When Covid began spreading throughout the world at the beginning of 2020, Trump would then block travel from China and six other countries, including Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan and Tanzania. Biden, a presidential candidate at the time, suggested Trump's actions were "xenophobic."

"We are in the midst of a crisis with the coronavirus," Biden tweeted the day after Trump imposed travel restrictions from China into the U.S. "We need to lead the way with science - not Donald Trump’s record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering. He is the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health emergency."

Biden also referred to Trump's temporary ban on African countries as a "disgrace."

But now as president, Biden now appears to be taking a similar course. The first cases of the omicron variant are expected to have originated in southern Africa. Biden announced on Friday that the U.S. would be restricting travel from South Africa, and seven other countries, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Lesotho, Eswatini, Mozambique and Malawi. The ban began on Monday. 

At the time of Trump's travel ban announcement, the media had a meltdown of sorts and suggested it was a racist move. But the tone of this week's headlines suggest they're more understanding of Biden's travel bans.

Juxtaposed CNN pieces on the dueling travel bans showed that the network was much kinder to Biden's more recent restrictions.

The New York Times Opinion page ran a piece titled, "The Racism at the Heart of Trump's ‘Travel Ban'" in February 2020. But this week, the newspaper ran a tamer title, "United States will bar travelers from 8 countries."

Fox News contributor Joe Concha tried to put his finger on why the press is okay with Biden's ban.

"Because Joe Biden’s ban comes from good, decent place in an effort to save lives, while Trump just did it as an excuse to ban people from coming here," Concha told Fox News Digital. "As utterly sophomoric and ridiculous as those arguments are in applying motive, there are actually enough viewers and readers out there willing to believe it."

Biden is "replicating what he himself called racist," "Unfiltered" host Dan Bongino said on Saturday while sounding off on media hypocrisy. Georgia gubernatorial candidate Vernon Jones also wondered where the outraged headlines were.

"The legacy media never disappoint," the Media Research Center's Dan Gainor told Fox News Digital. "They continue to embrace their role as public relations staff for the Biden administration. The omicron variant has been identified in at least a dozen countries so far. Nearly all of those weren't included in Biden's list of nations where he blocked travel. The key reason South Africa was blocked is it actually identified the virus. Yet, the press refused to call out Biden in any similar way to what they did to President Donald Trump."

"Leftist journalists continue to obey my rule of media coverage: Everything left is right and everything right is wrong," he concluded.

At her Monday press briefing, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki claimed Biden was critical of Trump’s "xenophobic tweet" and not critical of the travel restrictions themselves. Media observers pushed back on that explanation.

Fox News' Andrew Mark Miller contributed to this report.

Monday, November 29, 2021

Giving Tuesday: A Day To Help Charities

Dear Friends,

Help make this animated series possible!

Save the date, #GivingTuesday, the Global Day of Giving, is coming up on November 30! #GivingTuesday is the day when charities, families, businesses, and communities around the world come together for one common purpose: to celebrate generosity and to give.

Your support on November 30 can make a big impact on future generations. You will help us develop the series of animated videos featuring Harriet and Roxanne to teach black history for the elementary school age. Our website lesson plans and our book, “Black History 1619-2019: An Illustrated and Documented African-American History,” inspire this animation series.

Every dollar donated to the Yocum African American History Association will be matched up to $12,000.  Every gift matters and your support is critical. Please donate at: