Biden's first 100 days: Approval one of lowest in modern history, economy marks bad for new president

President Joe Biden earned one of the lowest approval ratings among presidents in the modern era during his first 100 days in office, according to a new poll.
What are the details?
The ABC News/Washington Post poll, conducted April 18 to April 21, found that Biden's approval rating stands at a paltry 52%, far below expectations that Democrats had for the new president they predicted would be a mostly unifying figure.

In fact, Biden's approval rating is "lower than any president at 100 days in office since 1945," according to ABC News. Only Gerald Ford, who was publicly damaged by his decision to pardon Richard Nixon, and Donald Trump had lower approval ratings for their first 100 days in the White House. Still, Biden's 52% is 10 points higher than Trump's 42%.

Overall, the average approval rating for the 14 presidents from Harry Truman to Biden for their first 100 days in office is 66%, meaning Biden is 14% below the average.
The survey found that a majority of Americans — 64% and 65%, respectively — approve of Biden's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and supported his pandemic-related economic relief package. A majority, 58%, also support Biden's proposal to raise corporate taxes.

However, Americans are split on Biden's handling of the economy — just 52% approve — and his multi-trillion dollar infrastructure package, which also earned just 52% approval.

Biden is mostly hampered by his refusal to directly address the border crisis; just 37% of respondents said they approve of Biden's handling of immigration and the intensifying migrant crisis at the southern U.S. border.

According to ABC News, respondents also dislike Biden's trend toward enlarging the government, and a significant portion said they view him as "too liberal."

More broadly, 53 percent express concern that Biden will do too much to increase the size and role of government in U.S. society. Relatedly, 40 percent see him as "too liberal," more than said so about either of his most recent Democratic predecessors at 100 days – Barack Obama, 33 percent, and Bill Clinton, 26 percent. (This rose for Obama later in his presidency.)
What does this mean for Biden?
Although ABC News attributed the lower-than-expected approval marks to partisanship, the poll actually revealed that just 42% of Americans rate the economy positively under Biden, while 58% rate it negatively.

The data show that Biden did not experience a boost in that very important metric, which could spell disaster for his hopes of re-election if he is not able to reverse that perception.

"Biden's rating for handling the economy is essentially the same as Trump's in January, marking this as a clear challenge," ABC News reported. "Presidential fortunes often are closely linked to economic conditions."

Print Email Hits: 182

Derek Chauvin may be guilty, but Waters and Biden made sure this will drag on in appeal

Derek Chauvin may be guilty, but Waters and Biden made sure this will drag on in appeal

Remember when the Left used to go ballistic over President Trump’s propensity to lob rhetorical bombs into pending investigations and prosecutions?

Good times, good times.

Well, Trump is gone and, mirabile dictu, and we’re beginning to notice that the Left’s provocateurs are . . . lobbing rhetorical bombs into the most consequential prosecution in the nation — the murder trial of Derek Chauvin in the George Floyd case.

Indeed, it is worse than that. For all the downsides of his unhinged commentary, Trump never took matters to the point of jury intimidation, as the preternaturally unhinged Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters did over the weekend.

The jury may have returned a verdict Tuesday, finding him guilty of all charges. But as the judge noted Monday, Waters’ inflammatory language offered Chauvin grounds for appeal. Because of her, this isn’t over.

Former Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin listening to the verdict announcement.
Court TV via AP, Pool
Waters checked every box. As a federal representative from a California district, she traveled to another sovereign state, Minnesota, to interfere in its judicial system. Her rabble-rousing was done in violation of a curfew that the elected mayor had imposed to suppress the rioting that followed the tragic accidental killing of Daunte Wright by a police officer. And her remarks can only be interpreted as an incitement to violence — one less ambiguously provocative than the one over which she and other House Democrats impeached Trump.
Rep. Maxine Waters, whose controversial statements might help Chauvin’s appeal.
Waters’ standing as a member of Congress gives her no immunity against Minnesota’s criminal laws against obstruction of justice. She ought to be under investigation.

Remarkably, rather than distance themselves from such egregious conduct, the nation’s leading Democrats are piling on. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insists that her fellow California congresswoman has nothing to apologize for. For his part, President Biden waited until the jury was deliberating to make the stunning public statement that he is “praying” for Chauvin to be convicted.

The fact that the jury is was sequestered when Biden spouted off is no excuse. He is a lawyer and former Senate Judiciary Committee chairman who well knows that sequestration does not make jurors impervious to prejudicial publicity. And if he’s been following the case as he claims to have been, he knows trial judge Peter Cahill has pleaded that public officials stop commenting on the trial — under circumstances where, even before the Bidens and Waters piped up, there was already substantial reason to doubt that Chauvin could get a fair trial in Minneapolis.
It does not matter how you hoped Chauvin’s trial would end. Our viability as a free, prosperous, rule-of-law society is dependent on the viability of courts as the protection every one of us, equally, can rely on against overbearing government and politicized mobs. In fact, due process is essential if we are to hold the guilty accountable — including police officers who abuse their power. Chauvin’s case is more complicated than much of the coverage suggests on key issues of intent and causation. But his conviction now has a real chance of having the result overturned because public officials, who know better, have recklessly undermined the integrity of the trial.

How is it that the Left grasps the fundamental need for due process and the presumption of innocence when a foreign terrorist is on trial for mass-murdering Americans, but not when an American police officer is in the dock?

Andrew C. McCarthy is a former federal prosecutor and contributing editor at National Review.OPINION
Derek Chauvin may be guilty, but Waters and Biden made sure this will drag on in appeal


Print Email Hits: 199

Connecticut school shows cartoon to second graders of man with erection standing over 'sad' girl

'Lesson on social and emotional learning' angers parents. Superintendent admits it was 'not appropriate'

Second graders in Greenwich, Connecticut, were shown an animated video that displays the silhouette of a man with a graphic, full erection standing over what has been described as a "sad" girl during a "lesson on social and emotional learning."

The New York Post reported that the kids were shown a cartoon titled, "Alfred Jr. & Shadow: A Short Story About Being Scared," during a virtual class that the Greenwich Free Press said was "a lesson on social and emotional learning."

The Free Press reported:

The description of the video says, "All children are normalscared, but what do children who are embarrassedscared or painfulscared need?"

It explains that The Alfred Jr. & Shadow – A Short Story about Being Scared was an educational film for children aged 6-14 years. The children learn about different ways of being scared, what they need when they are scared, and suggestions for actions. Adults also get some tips on how to meet a child who is scared.
At one point in the video, the narrator says, "Some children are afraid that their mom and dad will beat them, or that their parents will fight. Other children have experienced an adult touching or putting their penis in the child's private parts or mouth."
As the voiceover speaks, the image displayed for several seconds on the screen is what The Washington Examiner called "a dejected-looking child" next to "a sexually aroused silhouetted man."
What did one parent say?
Greenwich parent and Newsmax host Carl Higbie tweeted, "In my hometown, in my daughters age group class of second grade, they showed an animated video today of a man with an ERECTION standing over a child!!!!! this is not OK!!!!"

Higbie told the Free Press that he was "relieved" that his own second grader did not see the film, but that several other "disgusted" parents had reached out to him to express their outrage.

"That somebody thought this video was acceptable for second graders was abhorrent," he told the outlet.
Greenwich Schools Superintendent Dr. Toni Jones addressed the controversial video in an email to second-grade families, acknowledging, "Around the midway point in the video there is reference to situations in which children may become afraid, including being afraid of abuse, both physical and sexual. The content at this point in the video was not appropriate for our GPS second grade classrooms."

According to the Free Press, she added "that the content was instead likely meant for a private therapy session for children who have experienced trauma."

The Greenwich School District did not immediately respond to requests from The Examiner or The Post.

Print Email Hits: 206

'Superbugs' kill more than 35K people in the US each year. Doctors may be partially to blame, study suggests.

As the medical community finds treatments to combat the coronavirus, another deadly enemy continues to lurk in hospitals across the country: antibiotic-resistant infections.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls antibiotic resistance one of the “biggest public health challenges of our time,” and a new study suggests doctors may be partially to blame for its prevalence.

The study, published last week in the peer-reviewed journal JAMA Network Open, found more than half of antibiotics prescribed in hospitals were not consistent with recommendations, alarming health experts who say inappropriately prescribing medications contributes to antibiotic resistance. 

"We’re in an antibiotic crisis. Many call this the 'silent pandemic' going on concurrently with the coronavirus pandemic," said Dr. Debra Goff, infectious clinical pharmacist and professor of pharmacy who leads antibiotic resistance efforts at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center.

In the agency's study, researchers looked at 1,566 patients who received antibiotics and found that 55.9% shouldn’t have received them based on practice guidelines.

Guidelines didn’t support prescribing antibiotics to 79.5% of patients who were treated for community-acquired pneumonia and 76.8% of patients who were treated for a urinary tract infection. 

Prescriptions were flagged if there were no documented signs or symptoms of infection, no lab results or if antibiotics were prescribed longer than necessary.

Out of the patients that may have been unnecessarily prescribed antibiotics, more than 50% lacked documented infections signs or symptoms and nearly 60% were given medications for an excessive duration.
Patients are often given antibiotics when they’re hospitalized and then prescribed a new course of antibiotics when they’re discharged, Goff says, leading them to take medications for up to two weeks.

“These football scores of antibiotic duration – 7, 10, 14 days – were not developed based on clinical outcome studies. Those durations were just how the researchers designed the study,” she said. “(But) there’s data clearly showing that these traditional durations are no longer necessary … shorter is better.”
31M Americans suffer from osteoarthritis:FDA advisory committees will begin hearings on drug aimed at osteoarthritis pain

'They were always, always together':Husband and wife, married 66 years, died minutes apart from COVID-19

Taking antibiotics longer than necessary increases a patient's chance of developing antibiotic resistance, said Dr. Ryan Shields, an infectious disease pharmacist and associate director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s antibiotic stewardship program.
This occurs when germs like bacteria and fungi develop the ability to defeat the drugs designed to kill them, according to the CDC.

Studies have shown patients with antibiotic-resistant infections are at an increased risk of worse clinical outcomes, such as severe disease and death, compared to patients with infections that can be treated with antibiotics.

This may be due to significantly longer hospital stays, high risk of treatment failure and increased risk of undergoing surgery, Goff said. According to the CDC, more than 35,000 people die from antibiotic-resistant infections in the U.S. each year.

They’re not only deadly, but costly. According to a January report by the CDC and the University of Utah, six multi-drug resistant pathogens are estimated to cost the U.S. more than $4.6 billion annually. 

“Every day they’re in the hospital consuming resources,"  Goff said. "Add it all up … antibiotic resistance costs a lot of money.”

Additionally, antibiotics that specifically address antibiotic-resistant pathogens are more expensive than traditional antibiotics, running at a price of about $400 to $1,000 a day compared to about $25.

The CDC study was conducted between 2011 through 2015, which means prescribing practices have likely changed since the report, said Shields of UMPC. In 2017, the Joint Commission put into effect a new accreditation standard for antimicrobial stewardship programs in hospitals to educate staff and practitioners about antibiotic resistance.

However, it’s not just doctors who carry the responsibility of combating antibiotic-resistant infections, health experts say. Oftentimes, the main reason patients visit their doctors is to get an antibiotic prescription.
“When you’re paying for a doctor’s visit, many are going to the doctor for the antibiotic. They pressure the doctor,” Goff said. “That’s where the consumer and patients also need education.”
Adrianna Rodriguez


Print Email Hits: 247

More Articles ...