Attorney General Merrick Garland should pay attention to what the United States Supreme Court said on Monday in a landmark ruling on Colorado's decision to remove former President Trump from that state's primary ballot. 

In a unanimous 9-0 verdict, the Supreme Court overturned Colorado's decision and ruled that states cannot kick Trump off the ballot over his alleged "insurrectionist" actions on January 6. The ruling said:

Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against all federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.

The decision immediately nullified similar bans on Trump by Maine and, recently, Illinois. Regardless of party, all future presidents will no longer be subject to the humiliation of being denied ballot access by overzealous state officials. States are still at liberty to disqualify candidates from holding or seeking state office. 

The 9-0 decision is a stern reminder to lawfare-loving Garland and the Left that using laws to settle disputes with political opponents stifles democracy, and interfering in elections by using the state's judicial power is a firm no-no. Every justice, from the far left of the spectrum to the far right, felt that it was critical to say so. 

The decision couldn't have come at a better time. Over the weekend, AG Garland was at it again. Having unleashed Jack Smith as a Special Prosecutor to viciously go after Trump in friendly Washington DC courts and in Florida, on a skimpy obstruction of justice charge regarding the handling of classified documents, Garland turned to a favorite topic of his: "Fighting discriminatory, burdensome, and unnecessary voter ID election laws."

Speaking to a predominantly African-American crowd at Black Selma church service, he said:

The right to vote is still under attack, and that is why the Justice Department is fighting back. We are challenging efforts by states and jurisdictions who implement discriminatory, burdensome, and unnecessary restrictions on access to the ballot, including those related to mail-in voting, the use of drop boxes and voter ID requirements.

No, AG Garland, the right to vote is NOT under attack. Georgia, which passed its reform laws after the 2020 election and invited a boycott of woke companies, including Major League Baseball (which canceled the All-Star game in Atlanta), reported that more voters and more minority voters participated in the 2022 elections than at any time in Georgia history. Even Stacey Abrams, the losing candidate for governor in 2018, who never conceded her defeat and became a media darling, accepted that she lost her rematch against Brian Kemp. 

In Garland's world, it should be easy for people to vote even if they do not provide convincing proof that they are American citizens. He believes that requiring voters to obtain a voter ID to present on Election Day is so burdensome that poll workers should not insist on such proof and let people in to vote anyway.

Garland's position is so left-wing that it does not make any sense to most Americans. Presenting some form of picture identification is required on a daily basis in numerous life circumstances, including opening a bank account, receiving a welfare check, buying cigarettes, or entering a federal building. 

An American citizen's most storied privilege and right is to participate in our democracy. Unlike citizens of many countries, an American's choice can be profoundly consequential, given the country’s global standing. For a voter to gain entry to a polling booth, most states require voters to present some form of photo identification where the photo matches the face, and the name and address on the identification match official records. According to Garland, requiring this photo identification is ‘discriminatory, burdensome, and unnecessary.’ 

Texas has one of the most stringent voter rules in the country—a state that is constantly on Garland's radar. Even Texas allows voters to present just one of seven IDs to prove citizenship. And do you know, AG Garland, how much the Texas ID costs? $6 for citizens 60 and older, valid for six years (that's $1 a year). If you're 59 or younger, it costs $16, again, good for six years. This is burdensome?

Suppose a voter does not have even one of the seven IDs mentioned above? In that case, they can still fill out a Reasonable Impediment Declaration form, show one of six other documents, such as a utility bill, bank statement, or paycheck, and vote. The ballot is later verified by the county and counted if the document presented is valid. How, pray Garland, is any of this discriminatory, burdensome, and unnecessary? 

The only reasonable conclusion we can draw is that Garland is OK with people casting their votes even if they're not eligible to vote - that is, cheating - demeaning the very nature of American participatory democracy. It is a preposterous position for the chief law enforcement officer of the United States to take.

The Department of Justice has the power to litigate against states and counties leading up to Election Day to scare poll workers into allowing ineligible voters to cast their ballots. An aggressive DOJ could paralyze elections by going to federal court and seeking injunctions against polling stations, confusing voters' when concern regarding election integrity is at the top of people's minds. Indeed, Garland boasted that he would do precisely that. He said he has doubled the staff of the office within the DOJ's Civil Rights Division focusing on elections. 

Our latest TIPP poll shows that President Biden is leading former President Trump by only one point, well within the margin of error. Americans are deeply concerned about the country's direction, with 67% in the RealClearPolitics average saying the country is on the wrong track. 

Garland's plan is clear: Unleash the incredible power of the DOJ to neutralize common-sense election integrity laws across the Red states and deliver the White House back to Biden. 

Each side in today's often-angry political debate over the upcoming presidential election seems convinced that its candidate has a clear advantage. But, as of now, neither President Joe Biden nor former President Donald Trump has an obvious edge in the popular vote as we enter the final eight months of the 2024 election season, the latest I&I/TIPP Poll shows.

Despite being widely criticized for his lackluster campaign and showing continuing signs of age-related mental impairment, Biden holds a slender 43% to 42% lead over Trump. The online national poll of 1,246 registered voters was taken from Feb. 28 to March 1, with a margin of error of +/-2.8 percentage points.

Among those taking the poll, 8% said they preferred someone "other" than Biden or Trump, while 7% said they were "not sure."

The partisan breakdown was fairly even, with 85% of Dems favoring Biden and 86% of Republicans favoring Trump. Among independents, a crucial swing vote for both candidates, the prospective vote broke 37% in favor of Trump, 36% in favor of Biden, with a hefty 16% saying "other" and 11% "not sure."

That means, in terms of overall voter preference, as of March the head-to-head battle between Biden and Trump is within the margin of error, still too close to call.

But will both make it through the primary process to be their respective party's candidates? And will the ultimate winner even win the popular vote?

As for the primaries, Biden and Trump seem safe. In the case of Trump, only one challenger remains: former United Nations Ambassador and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. But in head-to-head preference in the I&I/TIPP Poll, 79% of Republicans preferred Trump, vs. 11% supporting Haley.

After a drubbing in her home state's primary in late February (Trump 59.8%, Haley 39.5%), Haley's chances of overtaking Trump nationally seem slim.

Meanwhile, I&I/TIPP shows Biden taking 76% of Democrats' support in the primaries, versus 9% for Minnesota Rep. Dean Phillips, Biden's last official Democratic primary challenger. While 3% of Dems said they wanted someone else, and 12% said they weren't sure, that's not enough to erase Biden's lead.

The poll gets tighter when independent and third-party candidates are included. The three major declared challengers include independent attorney-activist-author Robert F. Kennedy Jr., independent former Harvard Professor and self-declared socialist Cornell R. West, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

When those candidates are added, the race tightens considerably, with Biden and Trump tied at 38% apiece. Kennedy gets 9%, West 2%, and Stein 1%, for a combined 15% of the total vote for independents and third-party candidates. That third party-independent vote hurts Biden a bit more than Trump, cutting his share by 5 percentage points to Trump's 4 percentage points.

Democrats in particular worry about the charismatic Kennedy, nephew of President John F. Kennedy and son of former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, both of whom were assassinated. He has a built-in edge among nostalgic Democrats of a certain age and among young progressives, which could cost Biden votes even if Kennedy can't get on every state's primary ballot.

"In swing states, where Biden doesn’t have a big Democratic cushion to protect him, the impact of those independent and minor-party candidates could be enough to swing the outcome," observed the Los Angeles Times, citing a Berkeley IGS Poll showing third-party candidates costing Biden as much as 6 percentage points in the Golden State vote.

Democrats also fret over the "No Labels" third-party movement, which styles itself as a centrist alternative to the two major parties and which meets this week to decide whether to launch an independent challenge to the Dems and GOP in 2024.

"No Labels has drawn intense attention from Democratic critics of former President Donald Trump who worry the group could pull voters from President Joe Biden," noted ABC News last week.

But of course all this ignores the elephant in the room: Biden's age-related thinking and speaking issues, which even Democrats are now talking about out loud.

There's also a growing pile of evidence linking Biden to his family's alleged multi-million dollar influence-peddling efforts with companies linked to foreign governments, which many Dems fear could blow up before November's election, costing them the White House.

Because of this, speculation continues to grow about Biden either stepping down on his own or being finagled off the presidential ticket by back-room Democratic Party maneuvering, either before or after the party's late-August national convention.

If so, who would step in to take over?

I&I/TIPP asked voters the following: "If President Biden decides not to run in 2024, who would be your top choice for the Democratic candidate?"

The answer: Former First Lady Michelle Obama takes 22% of the vote, while Vice President Kamala Harris receives 20%. They are followed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom (11%), Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (10%), former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (8%), Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg (7%), Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (5%), and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (2%). So while there are two favorites in Obama and Harris, neither would have a lock on the nomination at their current levels of support.

And only one, Clinton, has been on a national ticket before, and she lost to Trump in 2016. That year, Trump actually lost the national vote to Clinton, 48.2% to 46.1%, but won a 304-227 majority of the Electoral College by taking delegate-rich swing states such as Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Michigan.

So just winning the popular vote, as recent experience shows, won't be enough.

Will this year be a duplicate of 2016? Possibly. While still close in overall polls, Biden's ratings are near all-time lows for a president, and a recent New York Times/Siena Poll shows significant erosion in his support even among Democrats, with 10% of Biden voters in 2020 now saying they'll back Trump.

And Trump, polls show, has solid leads in at least seven key swing states, essential to winning the presidency.

"Only one in four voters think the country is moving in the right direction," the Times wrote in its poll coverage. "More than twice as many voters believe Mr. Biden’s policies have personally hurt them as believe his policies have helped them. A majority of voters think the economy is in poor condition. And the share of voters who strongly disapprove of Mr. Biden’s handling of his job has reached 47%, higher than in Times/Siena polls at any point in his presidency."

Of course, no one has a crystal ball. Even so, as it is now, Trump appears to have significant momentum. Whether Biden can regain traction despite his highly unpopular policies (especially on the economy and immigration) and growing concern about his age, remains to be seen.

I&I/TIPP publishes timely, unique, and informative data each month on topics of public interest. TIPP’s reputation for polling excellence comes from being the most accurate pollster for the past five presidential elections.

Terry Jones is an editor of Issues & Insights. His four decades of journalism experience include serving as national issues editor, economics editor, and editorial page editor for Investor’s Business Daily.

Want to dig deeper? Download crosstabs from our store for a small fee!

Our performance in 2020 for accuracy as rated by Washington Post:

By Larry Elder via Daily Caller | March 3, 2024

Neither California Gov. Gavin Newsom nor former First Lady Michelle Obama will become the Democrats’ 2024 presidential candidate. No amount of President Joe Biden’s mental decline, forgetfulness, mumbling or stumbling can change that. If Biden can fog up a mirror come Election Day, he will be the nominee. If he cannot, Vice President Kamala Harris awaits, on deck, bat in hand.

As for both Newsom and Obama, they would first have to push Harris aside. For her part, she recently said, “I am ready to serve. There’s no question about that.” That does not sound like someone about to walk the plank. She wants to be president, ran for the job in 2020 and probably expected Biden, at some point after defeating former President Donald Trump, to hand her the baton before November 2024.

With her name on the ballot, Harris has never lost an election, winning her races for San Francisco district attorney, California attorney general, U.S. Senate and vice president. She does not believe she’s disqualified because of her so-called cackle. Nor does she consider herself having failed to determine the “root cause” of the three-year massive influx of illegal immigration when all but the hosts on MSNBC know the root cause is Biden’s reversal of Trump’s border policies.

In her identity party, she checks two boxes as a female who identifies as black. Blacks are the most loyal part of the Democratic base, with black women more loyal than the men. In a September 2023 article about its CBS News/YouGov poll, CBS News wrote, “Black Democrats are the most enthusiastic about Harris today, as they were three years ago.”

In 2020, Democrats panicked the after the unelectable, self-described “Democrat socialist” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) won the Nevada caucuses, briefly becoming the party’s frontrunner. So, Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), right before the primary in his state, endorsed Biden and salvaged his meandering campaign. In exchange for Clyburn’s endorsement, Biden agreed, if elected, to make his first Supreme Court nominee a black female.

When it seemed likely that then-Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) would not complete her term, Newsom announced her replacement would be a black female. When Feinstein died, Newsom delivered. Democrats, as a reward for black loyalty, agreed to move the first 2024 primary to South Carolina, where nearly 30% of the voters are black, giving this voting bloc a greater say in the nomination process.

Newsom has another problem. Most Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, citing the economy, inflation, gas prices, crime and illegal immigration. What has Newsom said or done that would make any of this better?

As I explain in my latest book, “As Goes California: My Mission to Rescue the Golden State,” Newsom unabashedly resides on the fringe Left of his party. He supported the soft-on-crime district attorneys in San Francisco and Los Angeles. He supports cashless bail. He endorsed Proposition 47, which not only converted theft of nearly $1,000 into a misdemeanor but also took away the ability of cops to force addicts using drugs on the street to either go to rehab or go to jail.

As to Biden’s ill-advised inflation-inducing spending, Newsom wants to spend more. As to the Biden war on oil and gas and his anti-drilling policies, Newsom is an even more ferocious “climate change” warrior, having decreed an end to the sale of new gas-powered vehicles in California by 2035. Even Biden, who calls climate change “an existential threat,” has not gone that far. Newsom expanded the number of illegal aliens in California eligible for taxpayer-provided health care and brags about California’s status as a sanctuary state. Shortly after Biden’s broadly condemned abrupt pullout from Afghanistan, Newsom said, “I’m incredibly proud of President Biden.”

This brings us to Michelle Obama. For the reasons outlined above, black voters — particularly black female voters — would resent a ploy to cast Harris aside, but there is one caveat: The substitute would have to be a popular black female. Only two fit the bill: Oprah Winfrey and Michelle Obama. Winfrey does not want the gig and, despite the hopeful speculation, neither does Obama. She hates politics.

So, Harris it is.

Larry Elder is a bestselling author and nationally syndicated radio talk-show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an “Elderado,” visit www.LarryElder.com. Follow Larry on Twitter @larryelder. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Original article link

• Over two-thirds express dissatisfaction with the direction of the country
• Immigration/border security and gun violence are top concerns
• Nearly one in two picked the economy as the country's most important issue
• RELATED: Biden's José Antonio Ibarra Is Dukakis's Willie Horton

One reason behind the gloom that prevails in the country is Americans’ lack of confidence in Biden’s leadership. The president is often forgetful, mixing names and places. Even Robert Hur, a Special Counsel appointed by his own DOJ, concluded that no charges should be brought against President Biden for mishandling classified documents, citing his well-meaning nature and failing memory.

Simply put, will Biden's SOTU address lift the country out of the prevailing funk, or will it push it even further into the abyss?

In this data-driven article, we objectively examine the issues backed by statistics.

First, as President Biden gives his State of the Union speech this Thursday, what are Americans’ priorities?

These results are from the latest TIPP Poll, which surveyed 1,419 Americans from February 28 to March 1. The credibility interval for the survey is +/- 2.7 percentage points. The poll asked participants, "What are the top three issues facing the country?"

Nearly four in ten (38%) Americans picked the economy as the country's most important issue, followed by immigration/border security at 37 percent and gun violence/gun control at 20 percent as the other top concerns. Interestingly, the importance of immigration increased sharply from 29% in December to 36% in January, and since then, it has remained steady around that level.

Besides these, one in five respondents (18%) rated homelessness as an issue of concern.

Eleven other issues received double-digit scores - crime (17%), health care (16%), trust in government/politicians (15%), and national debt/federal government spending (15%).

Meanwhile, election 2024 (14%), climate change (14%), abortion (13%), home affordability (12%), lack of unity/division (12%), mental health (10%), and terrorism/national security (10%), were seven other issues that received 10 percent or more.

Russia/Ukraine situation and global security (9%), the Israel-Hamas conflict (8%), and racial justice (8%) fell in the 5% to 10% range.

Coronavirus ranked last with 2%, sharing the bottom two positions with China-U.S. relations (5%).

Priorities varied along party and ideological lines. However, Democrats, Republicans, and independents share concerns regarding the economy and immigration.

For Democrats, the top issues are:

33% Gun violence/Gun control
29% Economy
25% Climate change
22% Immigration/Border security
21% Abortion
19% Health care
16% Election 2024
16% Crime
16% Homelessness

For Republicans, the top priorities are:

58% Immigration/Border security
50% Economy
23% National debt/Federal government spending
22% Crime
16% Terrorism/National security
15% Homelessness

Independents’ priorities:

37% Economy
33% Immigration/Border security
23% Homelessness
21% Trust in government/Politicians
16% Home affordability
16% Health care
15% National debt/Federal government spending
15% Gun violence/Gun control

Top Economic Issues

From a list of 21 economy-related issues, the survey respondents picked their top three concerns.

Inflation (47%), food prices (45%), and people’s ability to pay their bills (23%) are the top three economic issues facing Americans.

Gasoline prices (20%), home affordability (20%), government spending (19%), recession (16%), rising interest rates (15%), tax rates (15%), government shutdown (11%), and lack of good jobs (10%) received double-digit responses.

Direction Of Country

Each month, the TIPP Poll probes the general sentiment​ regarding the country’s direction using the survey question, "In general, how satisfied are you with the direction that the country is going in at this time?"

Nearly two-thirds (64%) are dissatisfied with where the country is headed. 37% said they are not at all satisfied, and 27% are not very satisfied. Most Republicans (79%) and independents (70%) expressed dissatisfaction. One-half (52%) of Democrats are satisfied and 45% are dissatisfied.

We also compute a compact index from responses to the question. The index ranges from 0 to 100. A score of 50 or above is positive, below 50 is negative, and 50 is neutral.

Overall, the index entered the negative zone in September 2021 and has remained there for 31 months. The March reading is 35.7.

Democrats have the most optimistic reading, at 52.4. Republicans have the lowest score (22.5), indicating extreme pessimism. Independents are in the middle at 31.2.

Democrats fell 24.9 points from a high of 77.3 in April 2021 to 52.4 this month, a 32% drop.

Republicans' slide began after the elections in November 2020, and they have been posting pessimistic readings (under 50) for 40 months in a row, with a median of 20.5 during Biden's presidency.

Independents’ median during Biden's presidency is 31.2.

The chart below shows our tracking since February 2001. Interestingly, this month’s reading of 35.7 is six points lower than the 23-year average of 41.7.

America’s Standing In The World

While Biden is not doing well on domestic issues, he is also faltering on foreign affairs. The TIPP Standing In The World Index measures how Americans feel about the nation’s standing in the world, a proxy measure of the effectiveness of the president’s foreign policy.

The index ranges from 0 to 100, where scores above 50 are considered positive, scores below 50 are negative, and 50 represents a neutral standpoint.

The overall index has been in the pessimistic region since August 2021. In March, Republicans (26.1) and independents (32.3) are pessimistic. Democrats also posted a pessimistic 48.9.

Biden Job Approval

Bouncing off of his first term low of 33% in December, President Biden's job approval ratings improved to 36% in January. It remained frozen at 36% in February and inched up to 37% in March.

Among Democrats, more than two-thirds (71%) approve of the job he is doing as President. In contrast, most Republicans (86%) and independents (56%) disapprove. While two-thirds (68%) of liberals approve, only 19% of conservatives and a third of moderates (36%) express approval.

TIPP developed the Presidential Leadership Index to facilitate easy tracking, an innovative metric considering favorability, job approval, and Presidential Leadership.

The Presidential Leadership Index is calculated as the average of these three components. Readings above 50.0 signify approval, while readings below 50.0 indicate disapproval.

In March, Democrats are in the positive zone with an index score of 74.2, while independents (34.0) and Republicans (12.7) are in negative territories.

The key topics Biden must address are the economy, immigration, national debt, crime, the Russia-Ukraine war, and the Israel-Gaza conflict.

President Biden does not have a clear vision to end the Russia-Ukraine war. His request for $61 billion aid is stalled in the House. We expect him to make his case directly to Americans.

Being an election year, he will likely offer goodies, especially to the young voters abandoning him in droves. Student loan waivers, summer jobs, and tuition-free education may be in the offing.

Also, we expect him to offer special incentives to union households.

Global gasoline prices will likely rise as Russia stops exports for six months. We expect Biden to announce a further draw down from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to stem escalation.

The nation is grappling with entrenched core inflation and increasing layoffs. High food prices and stagnant income have left households in dire straits. Government spending has spiraled out of control, resulting in a national debt exceeding $34 trillion. The debt is increasing by $1 trillion every 100 days. Prominent figures such as Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates, Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman, and JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon are sounding alarms about this debt spiral. Still, their concerns seem to fall on deaf ears among politicians who advocate for more spending.

Here’s a golden opportunity for the President to show that he is in command and deserves the people’s confidence. If the octogenarian fails to meet their expectations, it could further worsen his reelection chances.

Our performance in 2020 for accuracy as rated by Washington Post:

Americans had never heard of José Antonio Ibarra until a week ago. Ibarra is the suspect charged with brutally killing 22-year-old Laken Riley, a nursing student who was on her morning run in the woods of the University of Georgia campus. 

The brutality, as described by the police and prosecutors in court papers, was extreme. Ibarra allegedly used an object repeatedly to beat and probably rape Riley, "disfiguring her skull." He was charged with malice murder, felony murder, aggravated battery, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, kidnapping, hindering a 911 call, and concealing the death of another.

Another illegality went unmentioned. Ibarra was an illegal alien who crossed the southern border in 2022 and, because of President Biden's famous "catch and release" program, was let go to roam free in America. Georgia prosecutors couldn't cite Ibarra's illegal presence in the country as a crime. According to federal law, only the federal government, due to its supremacy clause, is responsible for protecting the country’s borders - although it is plaintively clear that the federal government is doing a terrible job.  

After being released at the border, Ibarra moved to New York City, where he continued to be a threat to society. Police arrested and charged him "with acting in a manner to injure a child less than 17 and a motor vehicle license violation." Unbelievably, Ibarra was released again.

Ibarra moved to Athens, GA, where he was arrested for stealing nearly $200 worth of goods from an Athens Walmart. His co-conspirator was his brother, Diego Ibarra, who, remarkably, was working in the University of Georgia kitchens using a fake Green Card. Why the University did not use E-Verify, a federal legal requirement to validate that employees without documentation are not hired, is a mystery. The brother has not been charged with the Riley murder, but the larger point stands: America's illegal immigration is creating havoc in cities and neighborhoods around the country, and President Biden alone is to blame.

Recall that Biden ran his 2020 campaign promising to reverse every Trump action regarding the border - to create a "more humane" system. 

In March 2021, about six weeks after Biden took office, the administration's effort to reverse Trump-era protocols was already underway. At a White House briefing room, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said, "The prior administration dismantled our nation's immigration system in its entirety." Mayorkas was recently impeached in the House for failing his duties but is expected to be acquitted in the Senate, should Chuck Schumer even bring up the impeachment for a trial. 

The effect of the dismantling has been extraordinarily damaging to American communities. The lack of vetting at the border has led to illegal immigrants executing people in America in criminal gang style, the kind we see depicted in Hollywood movies like Sicario: Day of the Soldado. At a House Immigration Subcommittee hearing in May 2023, Rodney Scott, formerly the Chief of the US Border Patrol, testified under oath that "drug trafficking now produces an average of 200 fentanyl deaths in the United States every day, the equivalent of a passenger jet crashing every day."

José Antonio Ibarra is the creation of Biden administration policies. We have granted access to more than 7 million illegals without any vetting and released them into the far corners of the country. Sanctuary city policies are so liberal that even when illegals are charged with crimes, they are let go. (New York City and Athens are both proud sanctuary cities.)

We are reminded of the 1988 campaign when Lee Atwater, then a GOP consultant, created the famous Willie Horton ad, which spelled the end of Michael Dukakis's candidacy in the general election. The former Massachusetts governor was considered weak on crime, having opposed the death penalty. Dukakis had signed into law a furlough program that let incarcerated prisoners out each weekend to visit family. Horton, a Black man, had already been in prison for killing a boy, but during one of his ten weekend getaways, he kidnapped a young couple and raped the woman. In the drumbeat moment of the 30-second ad, the narrator says: "Dukakis not only opposes the death penalty, he allowed first-degree murderers to have weekend passes from prison. Weekend prison passes, Dukakis on crime."

Liberals are quick to point out that the Horton ad was racist because it sought to create a stereotype that Blacks are more involved with crime. The Left is providing the same defense for Ibarra. Liberal lawyer Raul A. Reyes said in an opinion piece on CNN:

Riley's alleged killer is not representative of immigrants, nor do we even know yet if he is guilty. Any narrative that portrays undocumented immigrants generally as violent criminals is harmful and inaccurate. While he faces felony murder, false imprisonment, and other charges, he is still entitled to the presumption of innocence. This is the cornerstone of our criminal justice system. Under our Constitution, Ibarra is entitled to due process as well, like any other person on US soil.

According to the views of the Left, Ibarra is entitled to the presumption of innocence until he has his day in court. But former President Trump should be removed from the ballots in Colorado, Maine, and now Illinois because he "committed insurrection." Never mind that Trump has never been charged in any court that he did commit insurrection, nor has he been found guilty of the crime.

Welcome to Biden's America, where illegal aliens are afforded protections not available to the country's citizens.

One of the most unethical practices employed by the Democratic Party in the 2020 election was its open embrace of ‘Zuck Bucks.’ 

A private donation from Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, set up a foundation called the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), which distributed nearly $400 million in funds to voting districts nationwide. The benefiting districts were disproportionately Democrat-leaning. ‘Zuck Bucks’ paid poll workers to step up voter registration drives, provide transportation to voters to polling stations, and two half-a-million-dollar automatic ballot sorters in Philadelphia, one of the regions at the center of the election disputes in 2020. 

Although the donations were not illegal, they amounted to a massive in-kind, below-the-radar contribution to help one party over another. It is little wonder that 25 primarily-red states have passed laws to ban the practice.

It was bad enough that private money attempted to skewer elections. Now, the Biden administration, using taxpayer dollars, is trying to do the same, using the federal work-study program.

Earlier this week, Vice President Kamala Harris announced a new federal initiative to partner with voting rights groups and federal agencies to get students to register people to vote.

We have been doing work to promote voter participation for students. For example, we have under the Federal Work-Study program now allow students to get paid through Federal Work-Study to register people and to be non-partisan poll workers. As we know, this is important for a number of reasons. One, to engage our young leaders in this process and activate them in terms of their ability to strengthen our communities.

Harris's statement is blatantly unethical and possibly illegal.

For college students who apply for federal aid, the Work-Study Program emphasizes employment in civic education and work related to students' course of study whenever possible. The relationship to students' course of study is vital to the federal aid program. Even when colleges have agreements with private for-profit employers for work-study jobs, the rules stipulate that work-study jobs must be relevant to the student's training (to the maximum extent possible). 

How would Harris verify the qualification of a student to receive work-study funds? Would only political science majors in liberal arts programs qualify? What if a student is minoring in political science? Since conducting elections involves various skills - marketing, statistics, sociology, computer science, litigation, history, criminal justice, cybersecurity, and communication - would all these majors and minors be included? Which majors would be disqualified if Harris wielded such a broad brush? Wouldn't using federal funds to subsidize some majors as against others amount to discrimination? There are some of the many unanswered questions.

Indeed, there are even more significant statutory issues with the proposal. 

Elections in America are a state function. Every aspect of an election - voter registration, maintaining voter databases and authenticating candidates, poll administration, vote counting, tabulation, and declaring results - is the responsibility of the Secretary of State in each state authorized to execute state laws. When disputes occur, these are resolved in state courts under the administration of state judges. 

The federal government has a limited role, mostly centered on election security by defending against domestic and foreign actors through the FBI, combating campaign finance violations through the Federal Election Commission, and protecting election officials and workers from physical harm through federal law enforcement.  

Of course, after the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the Department of Justice became heavily involved in protecting citizens' right to vote. But after nearly fifty long years of DOJ oversight of problem districts, primarily in the South, the United States Supreme Court held on June 25, 2023, that it is unconstitutional to use the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act to determine which jurisdictions are subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Shelby County v. Holder was one of the most consequential decisions of the Roberts Court, no longer requiring an Alabama county, for example, to apply to the DOJ for permission to make the slightest change to the county's voting processes, such as relocating a polling station. 

This 2024 factsheet from the United States Department of Homeland Security explicitly details the federal role in elections. It makes no mention that the federal government should drive voter registrations or send poll workers to elections. What Kamala Harris is proposing is almost illegal, by her own department's definition.

If Harris's proposals are not stopped in court, it will amount to taxpayer funds going to college students who overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates, to mobilize citizen participation in elections when the federal government has no constitutional role. It will amount to federal funds paying workers to play a partisan role at polling stations. There's no mechanism to verify that students on federal work-study programs are non-partisan. If using private funds in ‘Zuck Bucks’ was terrible, using federal dollars is significantly worse. 

Americans have witnessed President Biden repeatedly disobeying legal precedent or court orders to do what he pleases. The Supreme Court expressly forbid Biden's Department of Education from canceling student debt. However, using ingenious methods, Biden has continued to waive hundreds of billions of dollars of debt.

Recall that we've emphasized numerous times in our editorials the negative momentum and the exodus of young people from Biden's camp. The latest initiative aims to reel them back in.

We have not forgotten how, prior to the 2022 midterm elections, Biden promised huge student loan waivers, knowing that the plan was destined to fail. Also noteworthy is Kamala Harris's prominent role as an advocate for abortion rights, another cornerstone of the Democrats' reelection agenda targeting youth.

What's on the horizon? Here are a few predictions:

Many Michigan auto union workers have no intention of voting for Biden. Another round of taxpayer-funded incentives might sway them, but who's keeping track? With the national debt already at $34 trillion, does it matter?

Take for granted and anticipate announcements related to the release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, essentially Biden's political lifeline, to curb summer-to-November price hikes.

President Biden's desperation for a November victory is palpable. Bidenomics has failed, leaving Americans in extreme distress. With nothing to show for his first term in office, his primary reelection strategy now revolves around lawfare, abortion, and financial handouts.

Employing the federal work-study program to help the Democratic Party is another example of Biden's shameful conduct. After all, he is a 52-year career politician, experienced and at his best.

As further revelations of apparent corruption by President Joe Biden emerge from a congressional investigation, the mainstream media have largely responded with a yawn. But not voters. They overwhelmingly agree that Biden should either resign or be impeached immediately if corruption charges are proved true, the latest I&I/TIPP Poll reveals.

Given the ongoing nature of both Congress’ investigation and its revelations, I&I/TIPP in recent months has asked those who answer the poll to respond to the following: “A congressional committee claims it has strong evidence that President Biden and his family took millions of dollars in bribes from foreign nations.”

The statement continues by saying, “If those claims turn out to be true, President Biden should” followed by five possible responses: “Resign immediately,” “Be impeached and removed from office,” “Be allowed to finish his term in office, but not run again,” “Run again in 2024, regardless of the findings,” and “Not sure.”

How did voters respond? 62% said Biden should either quit (24%) or be impeached (38%), while just 25% overall said he should finish out his term but not run again (14%) or run again in 2024, regardless of the corruption findings (11%). Another 12% answered “Not sure.”

The most recent I&I/TIPP national online poll was taken from Jan. 31-Feb. 2 and included 1,402 adults, with a +/-2.7 percentage-point margin of error.

Again, the responses were somewhat lopsided when it came to political affiliation, with 82% of Republicans and 65% of independents agreeing that Biden should either quit or be impeached.

But even the response of Democrats can be of little comfort to the Biden presidential campaign: 42% of his own party agree with Republicans and independent majorities that Biden should resign or be impeached, while another 22% say they’re “not sure,” for a solid majority of 56% at minimum not wanting him to run again.

That compares to the 44% of Dems who say he should finish his term and not run in 2024, or run anyway in 2024.

There’s more bad news for Democrats from many of their traditionally strong support constituencies. That includes African Americans (48%, a plurality), Hispanic Americans (64%), self-described “moderates” (59%), women (64%) and urban voters (53%), all for Biden either quitting or being impeached for proven corruption.

The poll has shown remarkable stability since first asked in August of last year. Then a 67% majority agreed that Biden should either be impeached (43%) or resign (24%) if the corruption charges proved true. Just 15% said he should finish his term, while 8% said “Run again in 2024,” regardless. “Not sure” was picked by 17%.

The results have changed little since then. In January, 62% said Biden should either resign (25%) or be impeached (37%), with 42% of Democrats, 84% of Republicans and 62% of independents in agreement that Joe must go.

January’s numbers are little different than February’s.

Despite repeated insistence by the White House that Biden has nothing to do with the family’s financial chicanery, Americans see smoke, and suspect fire. After the first revelations of Biden’s financial irregularities emerged years ago, again met by indifference from the mainstream media, what was a trickle has now become a flood.

Hardly a day or a week goes by without yet another revelation of large sums of money, sometimes in the millions of dollars, being mysteriously transferred to Biden family members or companies they are allied with from foreign sources. Many of those sources include officials with companies having ties to less-than-friendly governments, in particular Russia and China.

For the record, the House Oversight Committee has posted a lengthy, and detailed, timeline of allegations of influence peddling by then-Vice President Biden and his family members, including son Hunter to brother James Biden. Hearings are ongoing.

In February, Congress heard testimony from former Hunter Biden business partner Tony Bobulinski, a retired naval officer turned international businessman. The testimony, on its face, is devastating for the president’s denials of involvement in the family’s business affairs.

“I want to be crystal clear,” Bobulinski told Congress. “From my direct personal experience and what I’ve subsequently come to learn, it is clear to me that Joe Biden was the brand being sold by the Biden family.”

Bobulinski, who worked for a number of years putting together a joint venture between the Biden family and a Chinese energy company linked to the communist government, claims the Biden family was engaged in “serious corruption.“

Meanwhile, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., has found plentiful as-yet-unexplained evidence linking payments from foreign sources to Joe Biden and as many as nine members of his family.

According to the New York Post, Comer has “gathered evidence through bank records of millions of dollars from China, Russia, Ukraine, Romania and Kazakhstan being laundered through multiple shell companies for the Biden family, and jaw-dropping testimony from Hunter’s former business partners of Joe’s meetings with Hunter’s foreign benefactors right before big payments dropped.”

Things got worse days later in February after James Biden told the House Oversight and Judiciary committees that he had nothing to do with the proposed joint venture between SinoHawk, which was 50% owned by the Biden family and several other investors, and CEFC China Energy Limited, which is tied to China’s communist government.

However, “after investigators showed him an agreement that featured his signature alongside those of Hunter Biden and his business partners, James Biden then told legislators that he did not remember signing the agreement,” the Daily Caller reported.

In yet another example of possible undue influence, earlier this month it was revealed that James Biden used Joe Biden’s name to push a now-bankrupt health-care company called Americore.

In an email obtained by Politico, “Jim Biden invoked his brother’s name and clout in the course of his work with Americore, which has since gone bankrupt, wreaking havoc in rural communities in the process.”

That’s not the worst of it. Kentucky’s attorney general is now investigating the Americore collapse, which “wired $200,000 to James Biden the same day he wrote a check for that amount to his brother and future president Joe Biden,” reported The Daily Signal.

The developments that suggest, at minimum, influence peddling just keep coming. The big question is, will growing public anger over signs of corruption force President Biden out of office?

I&I/TIPP publishes timely, unique, and informative data each month on topics of public interest. TIPP’s reputation for polling excellence comes from being the most accurate pollster for the past five presidential elections.

Terry Jones is an editor of Issues & Insights. His four decades of journalism experience include serving as national issues editor, economics editor, and editorial page editor for Investor’s Business Daily.

Our performance in 2020 for accuracy as rated by Washington Post:

A Chinese 'research' vessel docked in Male, the capital of Maldives, a couple of days ago once again raised concerns about Beijing's growing influence in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).

The 4,300-ton Xiang Yang Hong 03 belongs to the Third Institute of Oceanography in China and is believed to report to the Ministry of Natural Resources. For over three weeks, the vessel has been surveying waters in the Indian Ocean, just outside the exclusive economic zones of India, the Maldives, and Sri Lanka, according to ship-tracking data. The civilian research vessel is said to be mapping the Indian Ocean floor and conducting mineral exploration, among other research activities.

The Indian Navy alleges that such information can be used for "dual" purposes. For example, charting underwater regions may also have military applications in terms of the ability to deploy or operate submarines.

According to a U.S.-based think-tank, Beijing uses a large fleet of such "scientific research" vessels to collect sensitive and strategic information. Beijing has denied the allegations, stating that its maritime vessels operate within the UN Convention on Law of the Seas (UNCLOS). China's assertion that its "scientific research activities in relevant waters are for peaceful purposes and aimed at contributing to humanity's scientific understanding of the ocean" does not hold much water.

According to ship-tracking websites, the Chinese vessel was "not visible on common tracking sites" for a while after it left port until reappearing near the Maldives archipelago, a highly unusual move for a non-military vessel in international waters.

Further, the timing of the vessel's arrival is not mere serendipity. The Xiang Yang Hong 03 docked in Male on the same day as Indian and Sri Lankan coast guard ships, along with observers from Bangladesh, arrived for a scheduled trilateral naval exercise.

With the ship docking in Male, Beijing has gained another foothold in the Indian Ocean, almost making up for its lost privileges in Sri Lanka. Chinese vessels had started calling on the island nation's ports, purportedly for personnel rotation and replenishment, alarming New Delhi. After a Chinese military ship with rocket tracking and missile launch capabilities docked in Colombo in 2022, India had been pressing the island nation to revoke such privileges. New Delhi's diplomatic overtures prevailed, and Sri Lanka, earlier this year, announced a moratorium on foreign research ships entering its waters for a year.

But Xiang Yang Hong 03's arrival signals a shift in the geopolitical balance in IOR. Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu, elected late last year, is heralding a new chapter in the island nation's international relations.

Overtly pro-China, he campaigned on an "India Out" demand, jeopardizing the close diplomatic and military ties between the two nations in the Indian Ocean. Unlike other Presidents, Muizzu's first state visit was to Beijing, not New Delhi. China reportedly offered 920 million yuan ($128 million) in "free aid" to the Maldives.

President Muizzu's government has stated that the Chinese vessel will not conduct any research within the country's maritime borders and will use the port only for personnel rotation and replenishment of supplies. But, with New Delhi preparing to withdraw Indian military personnel stationed on the island, per the Maldivian President's demands, the field is left open for China to create another strategic outpost in the Indian Ocean.

The United States Supreme Court heard four hours of oral arguments on Monday to decide whether laws passed by Texas and Florida requiring social media companies, like Facebook, YouTube, X, TikTok, Reddit, and Instagram, not to stifle conservative speech are constitutional. 

At issue are deep, constitutional provisions, about the rights of various parties, never before adjudicated at the Supreme Court. 

The first right is that of the various social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Reddit, TikTok, Instagram, and others. Each is a private for-profit company entitled to adopt terms of service, conditions, and rules that it sees fit. Defining these rules is a First Amendment right of these private platforms. Subscribers are at liberty to not sign up, but if they do, they agree to the terms of service. 

Then, there are also First Amendment rights for those participating on these platforms. Who should prevail if a conservative voices an opinion not within a platform's safety and trust policies?

The Biden administration is also a party in the case, supporting the technology platforms that have been doing the Democrats' bidding by restricting conservative voices. 

Texas and Florida, both run by conservative Republican governors, passed two separate pieces of legislation and signed them into law. Both state that the platforms are forbidden to operate in their vast states if the platforms limit conservative speech. In Florida, the rule is even more aggressive. No candidate running for office, any office in Florida, can have their account suspended on any of these platforms. This rule was an apparent response to how all the platforms suspended former president Trump's account after January 6, justifying their moves by saying that Trump's speech was dangerous and could harm people. Both laws allow the states to impose fines and penalties on the platforms if they are deemed to have violated the rules. 

The technology companies argued that the speech on their platform was similar to that in a newspaper. When a reader comments on an article or writes a letter to the editor, his viewpoints are first scrutinized by a staffer who will verify that the comments are permissible. The technology platforms maintained that their safety and trust committees perform tasks similar to the bouncer on a radio show by engaging in "editorial discretion and expressive conduct."

But this comparison is grossly misleading on two counts. First, a platform like Facebook doesn't create content; it only curates it after sourcing it from other organizations. Further, all non-sourced content on the technology platforms - the vast majority of content - depends upon text, photos, and videos uploaded by subscribers. In a sense, a technology platform is more like a "conduit" - where it merely serves to host speech and content created by others. In this situation, how can the technology companies assert that they engage in editorial discretion and expressive conduct?

Second, Congress considered the "conduit" nature of the platforms' business when it granted them relief under Section 230. 

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230).

For those who find the above text too cryptic, the Electronic Frontier Foundation comes to the rescue: Online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. In other words, social media outlets such as Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are not lawfully liable even if someone using these platforms in some manner plans and delivers bodily injury to someone else.

So, how can technology companies both assert that they are entitled to Section 230 protections but also say that they engage in "editorial discretion and expressive conduct?" 

Indeed, Justice Clarence Thomas quizzed the technology companies on this very point.

JUSTICE THOMAS: And the argument under Section 230 has been that you're merely a conduit ...Now you're saying that you are engaged in editorial discretion and expressive conduct. Doesn't that seem to undermine your Section 230 arguments? 

MR. CLEMENT (speaking for the technology companies): ...My understanding is that my clients have consistently taken the position that they are not mere conduits. 

So desperate are the technology platforms that they are willing to sacrifice Section 230 protections so that they can censor speech with which they disagree. 

But thanks to Elon Musk, the Supreme Court now knows what a vibrant social media platform can do to citizen debate. All views are now permitted on X, formally Twitter, without prejudice or bias. Musk's definition of free speech is to allow someone we don't like to say something we don't like, as long as what is said is legal. For instance, advocating for terrorism is illegal, so it shouldn't be permitted. The remedy for wrong speech is not censorship but more right speech - a concept Musk has implemented through "Community Notes," when the original post stays and experts who disagree with the author provide information that users can see for themselves. 

The platforms' assertion that they engage in editorial discretion and expressive conduct is nonsense. Henry Whitaker, the Solicitor General of Florida, made a point:

We certainly agree that a newspaper, book, and bookstore engage in inherently expressive conduct. And our whole point is that these social media platforms are not like those.

Florida's and Texas's laws do not regulate free speech on the platforms but mandate that all speech should be permitted without bias. The subscribers' First Amendment rights should trump the platforms' First Amendment rights because the technology platforms do not originate content like newspapers or books. 

The Supreme Court has a golden opportunity to elevate technology platforms to Musk's high bar of free speech. The Court should uphold the Florida and Texas laws and help restore vibrant debate to the modern public square on all platforms. Like X did.

As the Ukraine war enters its third year, the Biden administration unveiled its most extensive sanctions package to date, this time to punish Putin for the death of opposition leader Aleksei A. Navalny.

President Biden announced the move.

Today, I am announcing more than 500 new sanctions against Russia for its ongoing war of conquest on Ukraine and for the death of Aleksey Navalny, who was a courageous anti-corruption activist and Putin's fiercest opposition leader. These sanctions will target individuals connected to Navalny's imprisonment as well as Russia's financial sector, defense industrial base, procurement networks, and sanctions evaders across multiple continents. They will ensure Putin pays an even steeper price for his aggression abroad and repression at home.

The Biden administration has been pursuing the most stringent sanctions regime against any country in American history - over 2,500 sanctions against Russia in just two years - all for Moscow’s merciless and illegal invasion of Ukraine. But for Biden to dramatically intensify American sanctions to punish Putin for the death of an opposition leader demonstrates to leading powers of the Global South that America's concerns about Navalny's well-being were significantly broader than him just being Russia's best chance for a democratic future. In 2020, Russia had gone so far as to claim that the CIA was working with Navalny. All of a sudden, this claim did not feel far-fetched, given how the New York Times says that for over a decade, the United States has nurtured a secret intelligence partnership with Ukraine to fight Putin.

Authoritarian countries like China, Saudi Arabia, and various Middle Eastern nations are perennially concerned about opposition leaders in their own countries who receive Western support, so many may be sympathetic to Putin's actions, especially if Navalny was a spy. Even a vibrant democracy like India has pushed back on allegations about its treatment of Khalistan leaders abroad (who envision a Sikh region that can secede from India), maintaining that as a sovereign nation, India has the right to pursue all actions necessary to protect its homeland.  

Global South capitals also find the actions of Biden and his allies deeply hypocritical. As we noted in a recent editorial, the Left's lawfare treatment of former President Trump is not that different from Russia's treatment of Navalny, although Trump has not yet been physically harmed by the ongoing lawfare.

Judge Ergoran has fined Trump $355 million, which, along with interest payments, amounts to $450 million, a sum close to Trump's cash assets. The idea is to cripple Trump's wealth. Ergoran has further tightened the noose on Trump by forbidding his children from running the business. The prosecutor, Letitia James, told ABC News that she would seize Trump's assets if Trump didn't put up a bond before the 30-day deadline. Two weeks after Trump is expected to win enough delegates to win the nomination on Super Tuesday, he is scheduled to be tried in a criminal court of law in New York in a different case. This targeted lawfare is against the former President of the United States and a person leading in the polls in a general election matchup against the sitting President, not any opposition leader. If Biden wants to punish Putin for his attacks on an opposition leader, how come Biden himself is weaponizing his DOJ to attack his rival? 

Biden's sanctions decision was bizarre in that it would further drive Russia into the waiting embrace of the Global South, India, and China, widening the abyss with the United States. These countries have helped Russia bypass Western sanctions for the last two years by actively engaging with the beleaguered nation, consuming Russia's exports, and selling Russia crucial items that it wants. In the face of the latest sanctions, they will be even more ready to support Russia, weakening the sanctions' impact.   

Besides, we have repeatedly noted that Western sanctions have failed to contain Russia and resulted in unintended consequences. In April 2023, we opined that America's sanctions are driving countries away from the dollar. The following month, we noted Western sanctions are biting the West more than Russia. 

In "Why Sanctions Haven't Hobbled Russia," the New York Times took a detailed, old-style-journalism look at two years of Western sanctions on the country and concluded accurately that Moscow's continued strength is a humbling result for the U.S. and its allies. "Its economy is growing steadily. Russia can't buy much from the West but has found new providers for drones, surveillance gear, computer chips, and other gear. Its oil and gas sales are still strong, despite attempts to stop them. Russian officials say they have plenty of money to pay for their war."

The latest Biden announcement amounted to Albert Einstein's classic definition of insanity:

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. 

Wally Adeyemo, the deputy Treasury secretary, whose primary role in the Biden administration has been to be Janet Yellen's sidekick and travel the world to sell sanctions, was his usual self, full of hubris, anticipating that the latest sanctions set would "throw sand in the gears" of Russia's military. This was the same official who championed Yellen's price cap on Russian oil as a means to curtail Russian revenues and strangle Russian military investments. The Times reported in a different story that Russian oil export income is higher than before the invasion - so much for the effect of the price cap.

In our 2-year report card on the second anniversary of Russia's thoughtless and illegal invasion of Ukraine, we gave a failing or near-failing grade to nearly every dimension of the West's conduct of the war. 

American and European taxpayers have sent $200 billion in weapons and logistical support to help Ukraine - yet Ukraine has lost nearly 13% more territory than it had when Russia first invaded. Meanwhile, Russia continues to grind on, taking more territory, as Ukraine finally withdrew from the strategically crucial frontline city of Avdiivka. Kyiv is running out of soldiers; the average age of fighters is now above 42. The hard truth is that Russia is prevailing, and Ukraine and the West are losing.

Biden officials are aware that nearly every action of theirs regarding Ukraine, going back to November 2021 before even a single shot was fired, has been a disaster. But the administration is too proud and arrogant to either admit fault or course-correct. If anything, they keep doubling down and doing the same things repeatedly and more intensely.

Einstein would be turning in his grave.

Speaking in Charleston, South Carolina, at her election night watch party, Nikki Haley, the former governor of the state who lost decisively to Republican front-runner Donald Trump by 20 points, said that she is a woman of her word. 

It's not the word that voters expected her to keep, though. A month ago, in New Hampshire, Haley, who won 43% of the vote, said of her upcoming home state battle in South Carolina:

What I do think I need to do is I need to show that I'm building momentum. I need to show that I'm stronger in South Carolina than in New Hampshire. Does that have to be a win? I don't think that necessarily has to be a win.

We predicted then that should Haley perform worse in South Carolina - which she did, considering that she couldn't even meet the 40% threshold, coming in at only 39% of the vote with 89% of votes counted - she would never acknowledge defeat and probably spin away her loss.

And spin is exactly what she did as she addressed her supporters:

That's about what we got in New Hampshire, too. I am an accountant, I know 40% is not 50%. But I also know 40% is not some tiny group. There are huge numbers of voters in our Republican primaries who are saying they want an alternative. I said earlier this week that no matter what happens in South Carolina, I would continue to run for president. I am a woman of my word.

If Haley is a woman of her word, she should quit the race. By her own statement a month ago, she has shown that she is not stronger in South Carolina than in New Hampshire. Deadends are hard in politics, but that's precisely where she is now. 

It's time for Haley to be gracious, concede, and unite behind Trump to beat Biden. To that end, she smartly said a few words from which she could quickly pivot without hurting her brand or political future. It could be the mantra of a robust nationwide GOP campaign unified behind Trump: "America will fail if we make the wrong choices. We need to beat Joe Biden in November."

Haley has burned too many bridges to contribute to Trump's reelection efforts, but a decision to end her campaign immediately could put her in good stead to earn the Secretary of State spot in Trump's second term. Politically, it would be wise for Trump not to have her be a thorn in his side in America, appearing on TV  and constantly second-guessing Trump's every statement or policy action.   

As a former UN ambassador, Haley could be the moderating voice abroad to calm nervous foreign capitals who are anxious that Trump’s return could devastate existing alliances. A Haley appointment to run Foggy Bottom would also neutralize Trump's critics who charge that Trump is too pally with Russia. Haley has been a staunch defender of Ukraine, belongs to the Military Industrial Complex wing of the GOP, and could serve as an olive branch extender to the America First agenda. A second Trump administration would pursue an America First agenda anyway, so there's little risk of Haley upsetting Trump's priorities. 

Haley's insistence that she is a compelling candidate for the GOP nomination because she won 40% of the vote is downright dishonest. In a two-person race, her support in both New Hampshire and South Carolina came from party crossovers. Her campaign, powered by TDS supporters, the liberal media, and Democratic donors, tried to replicate Liz Cheney's strategy (when Cheney begged Democrats to vote for her in the Wyoming congressional primary in 2022). 

South Carolina has an open primary, so Democrats are free to vote in the Republican primary as long as they don't also vote in the Democratic primary. Biden was always expected to win the SC primary, given how the Palmetto State put him on the road to the White House in 2020. Indeed, on February 4, Biden won more than 96% of the South Carolina primary vote. Many Democrats never participated in their primary, holding their choices to vote for Haley to hurt Trump. These voters would never cast a ballot for Haley in the general election. 

A more accurate evaluation of Haley's standing came from the results of the Nevada primary held on February 6, which were not binding regarding awarding delegates. Nevada had switched to a caucus format to award delegates, which Trump won handily. Trump wasn't on the primary ballot (candidates could only be on one of them), which meant there were only two choices for voters: Haley and "none of these candidates." Even then, Haley only captured 32% of the vote. It was an electoral disaster when "none" claimed nearly 62%.

So, RINO Nikki Haley has lost four elections in a row - Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and now her home state of South Carolina. In Iowa, Haley came in third, behind Trump and Ron DeSantis. There's no political path forward for Haley in 2024 without a legal or medical Trump disqualification.  

So, it is time for Haley to quit and unite behind Trump. Any other decision will put an end to her political career. If she has any doubts, she should talk to Liz Cheney.

Paul Krugman, a Princeton Economics Professor and New York Times columnist, serves as the chief gaslighter for the Biden administration. 

Krugman, the Economics Nobel Prize winner in 2008, is as liberal as they come. Unlike other Left-leaning economists, he is not afraid of the liberal label. His New York Times bestseller, written after winning the Nobel Prize, is called "The Conscience of a Liberal." Michael Tomasky of the New York Review of Books said Krugman's work was "the most consistent and courageous―and unapologetic―liberal partisan in American journalism."

Being liberal is one thing, but being consistently wrong by ignoring facts on the ground is another. Krugman, a staunch Biden supporter, leverages his pedigree and perch to paint a rosy picture of the Biden economy, attempting to promote the administration's position that all is hunky-dory.

Krugman recently tweeted:

Persuadable people have noticed the good economy, and Biden should go ahead and claim credit.

Credit for what? 64% of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck, and nearly 25% have $0 for an emergency. More Americans are working a second job to make ends meet.

In another tweet, Krugman states:

Recent economic news has been extremely good. But there's a strange meme among some D consultants that Biden shouldn't boast about it because it seems out of touch — that people aren't feeling the good economy. But they are!  

Good economy? 58% of Americans feel they are worse off than four years ago. 17.3% Bidenflation and the Fed's eleven rate hikes to reduce inflation have made housing unaffordable for many people and caused displacements.

Krugman's periodic statements indicate that he either chooses to remain uninformed or outright ignores the realities on the street. Given his stature as a Nobel Laureate and economics expert, engaging with a few regular Americans and displaying a sincere interest in their viewpoints could improve the accuracy of his pronouncements. Alternatively, he could speak to his graduating students, who would likely enlighten him about their struggles and job market realities. 

This partisan disease just doesn't afflict Krugman. In September 2021, 17 Nobel Prize winners in economics signed an open letter supporting Biden's Build Back Better legislation (BBB). Contrary to common wisdom, they vouched that the additional $2.4 trillion over the already approved $4.1 trillion in deficit spending would not increase price pressure, causing inflation. The BBB proposals failed and saved the economy thanks to the brilliant leadership in December 2021 by West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a non-economist. 

Still, the CPI rate hit a record 9.1% in June 2022, a level not seen since the Jimmy Carter years of the late 1970s. Thanks to Janet Yellen, Krugman, and co., America is paying over $1 trillion to service the national debt, which has already reached $34 trillion and an unbelievable 127% debt-to-GDP ratio. The U.S. is the most indebted nation in the world. Imagine what would have happened had the BBB legislation passed, and the country was flooded with all that borrowed cash. We would be looking at the Fed tightening even more than it has, well into the next several years, plunging America into a deep recession. 

No wonder 'Bidenomics' turned out to be a big brand blunder. President Biden, who listens to folks like Krugman, makes tall claims that do not pass the smell test. Pocketbook economics is different from wonkish, esoteric policy stuff. Americans realize the truth when filling their gas tanks or leaving a grocery store.

When Krugman makes claims on broad economic topics, we take them with a pinch of salt. The material we present is based on our research and data, essential tools of the economics profession that Krugman and his friends deliberately misrepresent. Our work depicts an entirely different picture of the economic struggle in Biden's America.

Inflation Concerns

Inflation is a nightmare for Americans. With stagnant wages that have failed to keep pace with price increases, Americans have not been able to adjust to the higher cost of living. Average hourly earnings for all employees dropped 2.0% to $11.16 in January from $11.39 in January 2021, when Biden assumed office.

Since January 2021, prices have increased by 17.3%, while real wages have declined by 2.0%, i.e., people now need 19.3% more income than they had then to maintain their living standards. According to some estimates, Americans need an extra $11,400 a year to make ends meet.

Professor Krugman, this chart would be different if the inflation problem were over, as you say. Please note that the share of those very concerned has stayed above 50% for 24 months.

Living Standards

Even though the year-over-year inflation rate has come down from its peak of 9.1% in June 2022 to 3.1% in January 2024, two-thirds are still concerned about maintaining their living standards.

Note that the concern is across the board: 64% of Democrats, 70% of Republicans, and 64% of independents.

The chart below tracks concerns from June 2022. Notably, the share of those concerned persists in the 66% to 76% range, although the inflation rate has dropped considerably, showing that a significant share of Americans are still struggling.

Utility Bills

A majority of Americans (53%) in the latest TIPP Poll are concerned about paying their utility bills. Here again, it is not driven by party affiliation. Fifty-three percent of Democrats, 56% of Republicans, and 51% of independents share the concern.

Contrary to the notion of a good economy, the concerns persist in the 53% to 65% range.

Another recent survey by HOP Energy highlighted Americans' struggles with paying their utility bills, revealing that one in five Americans faces difficulty paying their utility bills on time. Additionally, nearly one in eight (12%) have experienced a utility shut-off due to non-payment.

Mortgage/Rent Payments

Nearly half (48%), according to the latest TIPP Poll, are concerned about making mortgage payments or rent. Here again, note that the concern is shared by all party affiliations – 49% of Democrats, 50% of Republicans, and 47% of independents.

The chart below tracks the concern since June 2022. Notice that there is no significant decrease, and the share concerned hovers in the 48%-55% range, which is inconsistent with the idea of a good economy.

Recent data from the Transunion credit reporting agency reveals that 1.3% of mortgages are currently 60 days past due, with approximately 1,092,000 Americans falling into this category. This marks a 16% increase from the previous year.

People in the $45,000 and $74,999 per year income bracket took the biggest hit from rising rents. According to a recent Harvard study, 41% of their paycheck, on average, went toward rent and utilities.

The mortgage/rent situation is displacing individuals and families and increasing homelessness. Recent government data also supports our survey results. The latest 2023 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimated that 653,100 people experienced homelessness on a single night in 2023, marking a 12% increase of 70,650 individuals from 2022. HUD also noted that the 2023 count was the highest since they began tracking the situation in 2007.

Credit Card Debt

Over four in ten (42%) respondents in the latest TIPP Poll are concerned about making timely credit card payments. One in five (22%) is very concerned, and another fifth (20%) is somewhat concerned.

Here again, it is across the board by 46% of Democrats, 43% of Republicans, and 35% of independents.

The chart below shows our monthly tracking. Notably, 40% to 50% of Americans have shared the concern over the past year.

According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s latest Household Debt and Credit Report, Americans held $1.13 trillion in credit card debt as of December. That’s a historic high.

Meanwhile, our data echoes a CNBC story on Thursday titled:

Nearly 1 in 4 Americans with debt are putting less money toward credit card payments: ‘People are really struggling.’

Auto Loan Payments

Many Americans struggle to make timely auto loan/lease payments.

One-third of TIPP Poll respondents are concerned about making timely auto loan or lease payments. One in six (17%) are very concerned, and another 16% are somewhat concerned. The share of worried among Democrats is 38%, Republicans 33%, and independents 29%.

The chart below tracks the share of concerned Americans since March 2023. The share has remained steady in the 33% to 43% range.

According to recent news stories, car loan delinquency rates have climbed to 7.69%, the highest level since 2010.

The increase in delinquency rate is due to multiple reasons. First, the average cost of a new car now is $48,759. Second, the average interest rate for a new car loan is 7.8%, whereas for a used car, it is 8.6%. With high car prices and interest rates, one in six (17.1%) make car payments of over $1,000 a month.

Medical Costs

Most (54%) are concerned about paying for medical or health care costs, with 29% very concerned and another 25% somewhat concerned. 52% of Democrats, 59% of Republicans, and 51% of independents share the concern.

Interestingly, the concern decreases with age:

• 67% for age 18-24
• 60% for age 25-44
• 54% for age 45-64, and
• 39% for age 65+

The chart below shows our monthly tracking since June 2022. Note that over the past year, the data has moved in a close range from 54% to 63%.

Children’s Education

Over one-quarter (29%) are concerned about financing children’s education. One in six (17%) is very concerned, and 12% are somewhat concerned. The item did not apply to 56% of those who participated in the survey.

Concern levels are similar for Democrats (32%), Republicans (30%), and independents (24%).

Retirement Savings

Two-thirds are concerned about having enough savings for retirement. Four in ten are very concerned; another quarter (26%) is somewhat concerned.

Interestingly, the concern among those aged 65+ is the lowest:

• 64% for age 18-24
• 75% for age 25-44
• 70% for age 45-64, and
• 49% for age 65+

Tracking over the past two years shows:

Quality Of Life Index

Each month, the TIPP Poll asks Americans the question:

In the next six months, do you think that your quality of life will be better, worse, or about the same as now?

The responses are converted to a compact index that ranges from 0 to 100. Above 50 is positive, below 50 is negative, and 50 is neutral.

The chart below shows the yearly averages from 2001 to 2023. Observe the average for the period, which is 55.8. Before the pandemic, the 2019 average was 60.3.

However, the quality of life index has dropped steadily. The average for 2022 was 48.8 - the first time since 2001 the annual average dipped below 50.  It is still relatively weak for 2023 at 50.2.

• 60.3 for 2019
• 55.4 for 2020
• 56.9 for 2021
• 48.8 for 2022
• 50.2 for 2023

Our broad interpretation is that the quality of life index reflects Americans’ struggles today due to inflation and economic conditions.

RCM/TIPP Financial Stress Index

RCM/TIPP Financial Stress Index is the only metric to track the financial stress felt by Americans.

We compute the stress index from responses to the question:

Thinking of your personal finances, compared to the past three months, do you feel more stressed these days, less stressed these days, or feel the same level of stress?

The index ranges from 0 to 100; the higher the number, the more stress. A reading of 50.0 is the neutral point.

Americans’ financial struggles increase financial stress. The chart below shows the yearly average of monthly readings for each year. Notice that the levels during 2022 (67.6) and 2023 (67.5) were elevated similar to 2008 (68.4). Further, in February 2024, 32 of the 36 demographic groups we track posted 60+ on the stress index.

While we concede that unemployment is low and the economy has not yet fallen into a recession, making exaggerated claims about the broader economy to fulfill political motives is insensitive and disingenuous. People can see right through it, and the claims sound hollow.  Americans expect better from economists like Krugman.

Our performance in 2020 for accuracy as rated by Washington Post:

It has been two years since Russia, mercilessly and in violation of all United Nations norms, invaded Ukraine. Even though America and the West responded with remarkable and single-minded solidarity not seen since World War II, the cost to human life and suffering in Ukraine and across Europe (and even regions far removed from the conflict zone) has been staggering. 

The situation was so severe that there were months when we were edging towards World War III and nuclear confrontation, as the Doomsday Clock dangerously approached the closest to midnight since the 1963 Cuban missile crisis.

On the second anniversary of the Russian invasion, we shall grade America's (and, more generally, the West's) performance across various dimensions.

War performance: D. According to the Harvard Kennedy School's Russia-Ukraine War Report Card in December 2023, Russia currently occupies 25,000 square miles, about 20% of Ukraine, nearly 9,000 square miles more than before the Feb 2022 invasion. [At the war's peak, Russia had occupied almost 54,000 square miles, but Ukraine won 29,000 square miles back]. American and European taxpayers have sent $200 billion in weapons and logistical support to help Ukraine - yet the report card shows that Ukraine has lost nearly 13% more territory than it had when Russia first invaded. The hard truth is that Russia prevailed, and Ukraine and the West lost.

Diplomacy: F. While Russia is 100% percent responsible for triggering the war and deserves universal condemnation and punishment, America helped escalate the conflict. On November 10, 2021, the U.S. and Ukraine did what Russian President Putin had been lobbying against since 2008. Egged on by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, President Biden entered into a strategic agreement with an entire section devoted to countering Russian aggression that had not yet happened. It outlined how the U.S. would step up weapons delivery to Ukraine. It specified how Ukraine's integration into "Euro-Atlantic institutions are concurrent priorities." The deal was a radical departure from former President Obama's reluctance to engage with Ukraine. 

Two months after the war started, both Russia and Ukraine met in Istanbul. They were close to inking a peace deal when then U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, under Biden administration guidance, scuttled it. 

Now, sticking to an untenable position that Russia needs to surrender all of its Ukrainian territory and agree to war reparations as a condition for peace talks is not moving the peace needle. In war, losers don't set preconditions for talks. Meanwhile, Russia continues to grind on, taking more territory, as Ukraine finally withdrew from the strategically crucial frontline city of Avdiivka.

American leadership and NATO unity: A. One positive outcome has been the way that NATO has not only remained united but has expanded its membership to countries like Sweden and Finland, a prospect unthinkable a few years ago. Europe, as a whole, is a lot more united, even with countries like Hungary voting to send Ukraine aid. Germany has now committed more than $100 billion to increase military spending. Former President Trump often pointed out that wealthy countries, including Germany, should pay their fair share to defend themselves and their allies, but he was mocked for his "naive" stance. Europe now sees America as such a crucial partner for transatlantic security that even the idea that America could slightly step back brings horror to European capitals.

American readiness for a future direct military conflict: C. The last time that America fought a war was against Iraq in 2003, 21 years ago. Most American soldiers today have no experience in combat, with veterans from the Iraq war having already retired. Even American military leadership is devoid of mid-level officers who have battlefield experience. Shipping billions of dollars worth of American munitions to Ukraine has resulted in depleting American inventories to a dangerous level, and replenishing them may take many years. Part of the issue is that the Military Industrial Complex supply chain still relies on other countries, like China, to export parts and materials to build American weapons. A primary justification for the $61 billion Ukraine aid package from conservative Republicans in the Senate is that it would keep money in America and augment American industrial capacity, manufacturing, and jobs. 

The Western sanctions regime: D. While the 2,500+ sanctions on Russia have dented the vast nation, the Russian economy grew at 3.6% in 2023, far outpacing Germany's and the U.K.'s, which, showing two consecutive quarters of negative growth, are in a recession.

For the last 18 months, contrary to corporate media opinions, we have repeatedly noted that imposing sanctions against such a large energy exporter as Russia would fail and be counterproductive. In April 2023, we wrote an editorial on America's sanctions driving countries away from the dollar. The following month, we said Western sanctions are biting the West more than Russia. In late July, we noted that the New York Times, for the first time, acknowledged what we had been saying months earlier. On February 16, the Times again expressed a mea culpa by admitting that sanctions haven't hobbled Russia - and Moscow's continued strength is a humbling result for the U.S. and its allies.  

America's dollar weaponization prompted the Global South countries to begin disengaging from America and creating regional alliances like those of BRICS countries. No country wants to be the target of Treasury bureaucrats who can cut off the lifeblood of an economy because that nation doesn't want to play by America's rules.

Western strategy: D. The Western mantra has been that Russia has to be punished for interfering in the sovereign choices of another nation and invading its territory, upsetting the rules of the world order. 

However, populations of more than half of the world have refused to buy into this argument. They point out how NATO has been interfering in Russia's security by expanding the alliance to Russia's very borders. Before 1990, dating back to NATO's founding in 1949, the coalition had 16 nations. After the Cold War ended, NATO expanded steadily and now has 31 member countries. 

Russia saw an existential threat in NATO admitting Ukraine, a point which drew sympathy from countries like China, India, Brazil, and South Africa. Besides, these countries saw Western hypocrisy when the West helped engineer regime changes in Kyiv in 2014. As we have noted, America has been interfering in Ukraine since 2007. 

By not uniting the world against Russia, which continues to be the supplier of critical raw materials and military and civilian industrial technology to numerous countries, the West has failed. It portends tough times ahead for organizing a global outcry should China attack Taiwan because the wolf has already cried out too many times.   

Against this backdrop, the United States Senate, the Biden administration, and countries at the Munich Security Conference are all pressuring the GOP House to pass the $61 billion Ukraine aid bill to continue the fight. The average age of the Ukrainian soldier is reported to be 42+. The brave Ukrainian soldiers are exhausted beyond description. Ukraine has been facing the worst mobilization issues since the beginning of the war. There are not enough able-bodied men to fight, even as Russia draws into its reserve of soldiers after its mobilization drive during the war.

The world sees the folly and asks why America, already nursing a debt of $34 trillion and struggling to service it with annual interest payments exceeding $1 trillion, doesn't want to negotiate peace. 

As we now enter the third year of a grinding war that appears to have no end in sight, all we can hope is for wiser counsel to prevail.

Related Reading Recommendations

Updated Ukraine Recovery and Reconstruction Needs Assessment Released – European Commission

Ukraine Can No Longer Win - RealClearDefense

Ukraine outnumbered, outgunned, ground down – The Economic Times

There is excellent news for the American industry, economy, and international trade sectors. The discovery of colossal rare earth deposits in Wyoming could essentially restructure the global supply chain of these crucial elements in the near future.

A discovery of 2.34 billion metric tons of rare earth elements (REEs) in a mine outside of Sheridan, Wyoming, has generated great excitement across industries stateside. For one, the reserves are estimated to be bigger than China’s current reserves, implying that this single find could end America’s reliance on Chinese exports if exploited judiciously.

According to available data, the U.S. uses about 8,300 metric tons of these vital elements annually. The Brook Mine in Wyoming is believed to have reserves totaling 1.2 million metric tons, making America the world’s largest processor of some of the most in-demand REEs.

Secondly, the mine is said to be rich in two of the most sought-after rare earth elements - neodymium and praseodymium oxides. Considering that rare earth minerals are crucial to a wide range of industries as varied as computer chips, wind turbines, electric vehicle batteries, specialized glass products, and defense purposes, being self-sufficient could have a consequential impact on the country’s economy.

The reduced reliance on Chinese exports could significantly impact relations with America’s ‘strategic competitor.’ Beijing had begun to use REEs as a pawn in international relations. In 2023, China imposed restrictions on the export of some of the crucial minerals, leaving users scrambling to find alternate sources. President Xi’s quixotic Zero Covid policy and extended lockdowns had exposed how utterly dependent key sectors were on Chinese exports.

World leaders were often forced to walk a tightrope when criticizing Beijing or seeking cooperation on world affairs. China’s hold over rare earth production and processing, and its manufacturing prowess, gave the country an unfair advantage that it sought to exploit by furthering President Xi’s aggressive, dominant agenda.

China, the current global manufacturing hub, has dominated world markets thanks to two crucial factors – cheap labor and abundant, locally available raw materials. The country earned dollars by exporting pricey raw materials and cheap finished products. If international buyers find other sellers of REEs, China’s exchequer will be badly hit. The reserve discovered in Wyoming is estimated to be worth around $37 billion. This could mean bad news for an already shrinking Chinese economy struggling to shake off the pandemic-induced pall.

Should the predictions and projections regarding the rare earths discovered in Wyoming pan out, America could soon see a resurgence in its industrial manufacturing sector. This could give a significant boost to the nation’s economy as a whole. A booming manufacturing sector means more employment and further investment in R&D. Without the cost of imports, raw materials may become available at competitive, if not cheaper, rates. The tide could finally turn on the jobs leaving the country.

The REEs discovered in Wyoming is a boost in the arm of the American economy. Beyond the US borders, the restructuring of the REE market could help to reign in China and President Xi's ambitions over the coming decade.

A draft resolution prepared by the three groups in the government’s parliamentary majority and seen by the Financial Times requests “the delivery of additionally necessary long-range weapon systems” for Kyiv that could strike “far in the rear area of the Russian aggressor.”

While non-binding, the successful passage of the motion could leave Scholz symbolically isolated. With the mainstream opposition Christian Democratic Union in favor, the chancellor’s resistance to the missiles’ delivery to Kyiv would be seen as being supported only by MPs of the hard left and hard right.

The debate over delivering Taurus, a bunker-busting missile with a range of 500km, has rumbled on for months in Berlin.

While Scholz’s coalition has dramatically increased its deliveries of weaponry to Ukraine and is now the second-largest supplier after the U.S., it has stubbornly resisted calls for Taurus to be sent, fearful of the potential escalatory effect the powerful missile may have.

Taurus has greater range and sophistication than the British Storm Shadow and French Scalp cruise missiles delivered to Ukraine last year. The FT said it would be capable of reaching Moscow and evading most Russian anti-aircraft defenses.