35 thoughts on “News/Politics 1-27-22

  1. “Study suggests kids who don’t attend pre-K do better in reading and math”


    “When Joe Manchin dealt a death blow to the Build Back Better bill last month, one of the things that some supporters of the bill mourned was the $380 billion that would have gone to support universal pre-K. But what if it turns out Joe Manchin did the country a big favor?

    A few days ago I saw someone sharing an abstract for a new, large scale study on pre-K with some surprising results. I couldn’t read the full study because it was behind a paywall but Freddie deBoer has read it and he wrote about it on his Substack.

    The study looked at nearly 3,000 students and randomly assigned them to either pre-K or no pre-K. Then it tracked the outcomes for those students up through 6th grade. What it found is that the non-pre-k group did better in reading and math from 3rd to 6th grade.”

    “That graphic is a bit dense but it’s basically showing reading and math scores for four grades (labeled below each pair of bar graphs). As you can see, the non pre-k cohort (the black lines) did better than the pre-k cohort in every case. As deBoer notes, pre-K proponents sometimes argue that non-academic outcomes are just as important. But the study looked at those too. This chart shows disciplinary action offenses and once again the non pre-K kids have fewer of them over time.”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Of course…..

    Hunter probably got them a good deal with his connections.


    Liked by 1 person

  3. Flashback!

    “Biden In 2016 On Nord Stream 2, “I Know It Will Fundamentally Destabilize Ukraine””

    Yet he did it anyway…

    And now….


  4. It’s still way too high.

    “Biden Approval Rating Plunges To New Low: Poll”


    “Oh, Joe, how low can you go?

    A new nationwide poll finds President Joe Biden’s approval rating has plunged to a new low of just 39% as inflation soars and supply-chain issues have left some shelves bare.

    “Of that, 18 percent of registered voters said they strongly approve of the job he’s doing, while 21 percent say they somewhat approve. Meanwhile, 53 percent said they somewhat or strongly disapprove of his job performance,” according to the Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll, which was released exclusively to The Hill.

    “That number is six points down from his approval rating in November, when he was at 45 percent, while his disapproval rating ticked up from 51 percent two months ago. His 39 percent approval rating is the lowest since the poll first started gauging it in March,” the website added.

    “This is a new low for President Biden as he struggles to solve a myriad of issues from the pandemic and the economy to immigration and crime that trouble the public,” pollster Mark Penn said. “These numbers should prompt a long overdue pivot from the White House, but so far, the Biden administration has doubled down on its direction.””


  5. Once again, the Democrats own words come back to bite them. 🙂

    “Remember When Liberal Law Profs Said VP Can’t Cast Tiebreaker On Supreme Court Nominations? I Bet Mitch Does

    Lawrence Tribe 2020 on Barrett nomination: “While the vice president has the power to cast a tiebreaking vote to pass a bill, the Constitution does not give him the power to break ties when it comes to the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” role in approving presidential appointments to the Supreme Court.””



    “Back when Trump was President, liberal scholars argued that the VP could not cast a tie-breaking vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee.

    On September 23, 2020, when the issue was Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination, Alan Dershowitz argued:

    Never in our history has a Supreme Court nomination been confirmed by an equally divided vote among U.S. senators, with the vice president breaking the tie. But if one more Republican senator decides to vote no on President Donald Trump’s nominee—whoever she may be—we may face that situation. Did the Framers of our Constitution consider such a result? Several provisions and statements of the Framers cast light on this question.

    There are three provisions of the Constitution that are most relevant. Article 2 empowers the president to “nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the Supreme Court.” Article 1 provides that “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.” Article 1 also states that “Each house may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”
    It is clear, therefore, that in voting on proposed statutes, the vice president is authorized to cast a tie-breaking vote. But did the Framers intend the same rule to apply when the president is seeking the advice and consent of senators to a judicial nomination? We can’t know for certain, because the Constitution and Federalist Papers focus on the vice president’s role in breaking ties over legislation, not confirmation.

    On that same date, liberal Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe argued no such tie-breaking vote could be cast:

    While the vice president has the power to cast a tiebreaking vote to pass a bill, the Constitution does not give him the power to break ties when it comes to the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” role in approving presidential appointments to the Supreme Court.

    You don’t have to take my word for it. Alexander Hamilton said the same thing way back in 1788, in Federalist No. 69: “In the national government, if the Senate should be divided, no appointment could be made.” Hamilton contrasted that rule with how appointments worked back then in his home state of New York, where the governor actually did have the power to break ties to confirm nominations to New York state offices.

    Consistent with Hamilton’s understanding, as two thoughtful recent scholarly analyses have pointed out, no vice president in our history has ever cast a tiebreaking vote to confirm an appointment to the Supreme Court. If Pence tried to cast the deciding vote to confirm Trump’s nomination to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last week at age 87, it would be the first time that has ever happened. That should matter to everyone — it certainly matters (or used to matter) to “originalists,” who emphasize the importance of history when interpreting our Constitution.

    As of this writing Prof. Tribe, a prolific Twitter user, has not yet tweeted on this issue. His view was disputed at the time by some “originalist” legal scholars, while others agreed with Tribe’s view. I’m not going to try to resolve this issue now, I don’t know the answer. But it’s an issue if *someone* wants to make it an issue.

    How it would be resolved is not clear, the courts generally can’t rule on Senate Rules. If Democrats ram through a 50-vote plus tie-breaker nominee, what’s next? Is it legitimate, can that Justice take the seat? Would the other Justices in effect vote whether to seat the person? Chaos?”

    Liked by 1 person

  6. This is what’s known as an @#$ kicking.


    Democracy in peril you clown?

    No, but CNN is. 🙂


    Liked by 1 person

  7. Border for thee, but not for we….

    Right Joe?

    “Biden official: American interest in Ukraine is ensuring borders are “inviolate””


    “A fun leftover from yesterday and our latest entry in the Someone Left The Irony On Department. With brinksmanship escalating between the US, the European Union, and Ukraine, CNN’s John Berman asks a solid question: why should Americans care about the fate of this country on the eastern edge of Europe? Jonathan Finer, deputy national security adviser to Joe Biden, says we should be all about enforcing border security and recognizing national sovereignty.

    Er .. who wants to tell him? Via Twitchy:”

    “There’s more to this answer than what’s shown in this clip, but not much more:

    BERMAN: Why should Americans care about what’s happening in Ukraine?

    FINER: Because it goes to a very fundamental principle of all nations, which is that our borders should be inviolate, that our sovereignty should be respected. If the international system is to mean anything, it means no country can change another country’s borders or affect another country’s government by force. But Russia, by amassing all these troops on Ukraine’s border is calling into question those very basic principles.

    They’re also, from the perspective of the United States and our allies, unsettling our allies, Ukraine is on the border of several NATO allies, as is Belarus where Russia is flowing troops. And our alliance commitments are sacred. The president has made that clear. And so we will be also posturing ourselves to reassure those allies should Russia choose to test that.

    To put it mildly, neither of these are satisfactory answers, and the first is flat-out laughable. This administration refuses to address our own border crisis that Biden and Kamala Harris touched off with their campaign rhetoric and bungled policy reversals. They won’t even talk about it now, trying their best to distract from the tsunami of migration that is still overwhelming our border security apparatus.”

    Liked by 1 person

  8. OH NO!

    Not the dreaded they “hold unacceptable views”……

    Trudeau is a world class 🤡


    Liked by 2 people

  9. ——–

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Indeed.


    Liked by 1 person

  11. ——–

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Get ’em outta here! 🙂

    “Newly Elected Virginia AG Continues Cleaning House, Fires University Lawyer Serving As Lead J6 Investigator

    Clearly, Youngkin, Sears, Miyares, and the rest of the newly elected Republicans have a vision for cleaning up Virginia’s bureaucracy and reversing a decade-plus slide into radical leftism, over the howls of the Democrats.”


    “Elections have consequences. Sometimes it takes a while to see the results new elected officials can accomplish as they ease their way into office. In the case of the Republican takeover of Virginia, there has been no breaking in period.

    Governor Glenn Youngkin, Lt. Gov. Winsome Sears, and Attorney General Jason Miyares have hit the ground running with bold actions to fulfill campaign promises and reverse the actions of their Democratic predecessors. The latest is Miyares, who has fired a lawyer for the University of Virginia who took a leave of absence from his role at the school to lead the congressional investigation into the US Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. Virginia Democrats, naturally, objected to the move.”


    “In a series of statements, Victoria LaCivitas, the spokesperson for Miyares, explained the rationale behind firing Heaphy from his job at UVA. Again from the NYT:

    In two statements released on Sunday, the attorney general’s office said the firing was unrelated to the Jan. 6 inquiry. In the first, to The Associated Press, Ms. LaCivita said that Mr. Heaphy had been a “controversial” hire and that the “decision was made after reviewing the legal decisions made over the last couple of years.”

    “The attorney general wants the university counsel to return to giving legal advice based on law, and not the philosophy of a university,” she added.

    In a subsequent statement, Ms. LaCivita said: “It is common practice for an incoming administration to appoint new staff that share the philosophical and legal approach of the attorney general. Every counsel serves at the pleasure of the attorney general.”

    One top Virginia Republican said that Mr. Heaphy had angered some Republicans in the state by acting too independently in his job at the university and for his role in the university’s decision in 2020 to allow a student to post a highly critical sign about the school on their door. Mr. Heaphy had privately made the case to the school’s president that while the profanity on the sign was offensive, removing it would have infringed upon the student’s First Amendment rights.

    The article casually noted that Heaphy donated to the Clinton and Biden campaigns, and served as a United States attorney. appointed by President Obama. Also, Heaphy “is married to the daughter of Eric K. Shinseki, the retired chief of staff of the Army who served as President Barack Obama’s secretary of veterans affairs.”

    In other words, Heaphy is a partisan appointee who was relieved of his state duties when the opposing party took over.

    Democrats routinely conduct such firings when they take office, replacing appointees throughout the bureaucracy with folks who more closely align with the perspective of the newly elected official. When Republicans do so, however, it’s “highly unusual,” “payback,” and a “partisan move.” Clearly, Youngkin, Sears, Miyares, and the rest of the newly elected Republicans have a vision for cleaning up Virginia’s bureaucracy and reversing a decade-plus slide into radical leftism, over the howls of the Democrats.”

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Enjoy you 81 million (allegedly), morons!


    Liked by 1 person

  14. ———

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Biden is the kiss of death, and they know it. 🙂




  16. Sure Jen, why worry about things that actually help when you can have theatrics and things that don’t work instead…



  17. ——–


  18. The truth slips out….


    Liked by 1 person

  19. Ladies and gentleman, the “adult” in the room…..


    Liked by 1 person

  20. Enjoying Biden’s invasion yet?



  21. How about now?



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.