It’s Wednesday, December 31st…and here’s The Gouge!
First up on the last edition of 2014, courtesy of Mauldin Economics and G. Trevor, Lord High King of All Vietors, Tony Sagami offers the facts behind the fiscal fiction:
“I was raised on a farm and I’ve shoveled more than my share of manure. I didn’t like manure back then, and I like the brand of manure that comes out of Washington, DC, and Wall Street even less.
A stinky pile of economic manure came out of Washington, DC, last week and instead of the economic nirvana that it was touted to be, it was a smokescreen of half-truths and financial prestidigitation. According to the newest version of the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the US economy is smoking hot. The BEA reported that GDP grew at an astonishing 5.0% annualized rate in the third quarter. 5% is BIG number.
The New York Times couldn’t gush enough, given a rare chance to give President Obama an economic pat on the back. “The American economy grew last quarter at its fastest rate in over a decade, providing the strongest evidence to date that the recovery is finally gaining sustained power more than five years after it began.”
Moreover, this is the second revision to the third quarter GDP—1.1 percentage points higher than the first revision—and the strongest rate since the third quarter of 2003. However, that 5% growth rate isn’t as impressive if you peek below the headline number…”
We wouldn’t trust anyone even remotely connected with this Administration to tell us the time of day, let alone provide accurate statistics for any meaningful indicator, economic or otherwise.
Then again, these phony financial figures are simply a reflection of The Dear Misleader’s true character. Think about it: dating back to his youth, Obama’s schooling, career, “achievements”, indeed his entire life is built on an endless stream of deception, obfuscation and outright prevarication.
But as Kurt Schlichter writes at Townhall.com, the end may well be in sight:
“Every single thing liberals say is a lie. No exceptions.
We conservatives always knew it, but 2014 was the year when the rest of America began to understand. And 2014 was the year that Americans had to choose sides – would they stand with the liberal liars or with us conservatives? Last November, they chose us conservatives, and maybe the truth will be enough to stop Hillary Clinton and save our country in 2016.
The truth is poison to liberalism, so no wonder liberals hate the idea of a free press – after all, they are the ones who argued to the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case that the government has the right to ban books. Conservative magazines like National Review long fought the fight alone. But it is only recently that we saw the rise of a truly free press as technology put a camera in everyone’s cellphone and conservative new media (including social media) created a path around the gates that the liberal mainstream media kept.
The mainstream media used to get to decide what was and was not the truth. (See Uncle Walter, Tet Offensive, 1968!) But the truth has been set free, and the mainstream media has been revealed as the guardian of the lies that the liberal establishment needs to fool normal Americans just enough to secure their votes. That’s why we should laugh and cheer at the mainstream media’s agonized death throes.
Let’s look at a few of the lies we saw collapse in 2014. Not one would have been revealed if the mainstream media was still in control…”
Schlichter’s facts are not only right, they’re dead-on balls…
In a related item, Thomas Sowell wonders whether the desperation of Progressives has rendered truth in its entirety a thing of the past:
“…If you are killed by an unarmed man, you are just as dead as if you had been annihilated by a nuclear bomb. But you don’t even know who is armed or unarmed until after it is all over, and you can search him.
Incidentally, did you know that, during this same period when riots, looting and arson have been raging, a black policeman in Alabama shot and killed an unarmed white teenager — and was cleared by a grand jury? Probably not, if you depend on the mainstream media for your news.
The media do not merely ignore facts, they suppress facts. Millions of people saw the videotape of the beating of Rodney King. But they saw only a fraction of that tape because the media left out the rest, which showed Rodney King — another huge man — resisting arrest and refusing to be handcuffed, so that he could be searched…”
You know, like the MSM’s representations of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin:
MSM bias…WHAT bias?!?
Next, in a rare moment of candor…
“An open secret in Washington, D.C., journalism was unexpectedly shared with frustrated voters across the country on Sunday’s edition of NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Anyone who’s ever watched an elected official from either major political party be interviewed by a serious journalist has probably angrily asked aloud, “Why don’t they ask him about XYZ?!” Or, “Why did they let him get away with that answer?!”
…“We all sit there because we all know the first time we bark, it’s the last time they do the show,” said Todd. “There’s something where … it’s the last time. Nobody will ever come on your show. There is that balance sometimes.”…”
Remember; this is the same “balance” that led CNN to censor their own coverage of Saddam Hussein…so he’d continue to talk to them. All of which is why Progressive print media (like there’s any other kind!)…
…is for all purposes dead, and Liberal television and radio…
…is not far behind.
Which brings us to the latest from David Goetsch, writing at Patriot Update, who provides the answer to the question inquiring minds really want to know:
“I have grown accustomed to the fact that liberals believe they can somehow change human nature and create a utopian world or, at least, a world that fits their definition of utopia. Although I still find it disturbing, I no longer find it surprising that liberals base their opinions and actions on emotionalism rather than logic or reason. A steadfast refusal to let facts get in the way of their presuppositions seems to be in the DNA of liberals, yet they think they are brighter than anyone else. For example, recall when Jonathan Gruber, the puffed up academic from MIT, talked condescendingly about the stupidity of the America public. Frankly, if he had limited his denunciation to just liberals, I might have agreed with him.
Before going any farther down this road, a caveat is in order. If you are put off by my use of the word “stupid” in the title of this column, understand that I spent a good deal of time trying to come up with a softer descriptor. For example, I tried the word “ignorant,” but it did not work because ignorance is just a lack of knowledge that can be cured through reading, listening to those who are more informed on the subject in question, discussing, debating, and keeping an open mind. Since liberals are steadfastly opposed to reading, listening, discussing, and debating with an open mind, “ignorance” failed the test of applicability. So did “illogical,” “unreasonable,” “fact-averse,” and “uninformed.” Finally, I settled on the word “stupid” because it conveys just the right meaning: a determination to continue doing the wrong things even when you know they are wrong simply because you want them to be right. Now that is stupid.
All of this is to say I am rarely shocked or even surprised when a prominent liberal says or does something that is just plain stupid. At least I shouldn’t be surprised, but then liberals have a way of outdoing themselves in the dumb and dumber department. Consequently, even though I am inured to the illogic, lack of reason, and aversion to facts that so often characterize liberal thinking, there are still occasions when I find myself asking, “Can liberals really be this stupid?”…”
Well…
Case in point:
Speaking of Liberal stupidity in practice, it’s the subject of a recent edition of Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt, as Jim inquires…
Just What Is the ‘Appropriate’ Way for Police to React to Mayor de Blasio?
|
NYPD Commissioner William Bratton, Sunday:
NYPD Commissioner William Bratton said it was “very inappropriate” for police officers to turn their backs to video screens showing Mayor Bill de Blasio speaking at an officer’s funeral Saturday.
Rudy Giuliani, Sunday:
“The mayor is not in any way to be treated with people turning their backs. It doesn’t matter whether you like the mayor or you don’t like the mayor, you have to respect the mayor’s position.”
Yes, the NYPD officers acted in a disrespectful manner when they turned their backs to the mayor. It’s disrespectful because a lot of men and women on the police force do not respect the mayor — right now, and sadly, for the foreseeable future. This was not an accidental faux pas; this was the clearest way to send the signal, “Despite the fact that you are in the city’s highest elected office, we don’t respect you.”
Let’s begin by saying that any NYPD officer reacting to the news that two of his brother officers were gunned down in cold blood deserves a wide berth in processing all of the emotions from that horrific event. There’s a lot of anger in the force, and they’ve got good reasons to be angry. A symbolic gesture like this might be a particularly powerful and not destructive way of channeling that anger.
“Respect the office, not the man.” Boy, some elected officials make this simple request difficult.
Just how contemptuous of others can an elected official be before he’s no longer automatically entitled to “respect”? Can we all agree that an elected official can do something or say something that creates a circumstance where having a title in front of your name just isn’t enough to require that respect? I’m sure we can all think of particularly vivid examples . . .
“Meow!”
Why are we asked to “respect the office” of mayor, president, or other elected official? Do custom and tradition and civic life really ask us to greet every action of every elected official with “respect”?
Our system allows for the impeachment of presidents and other elected officials. Is that really “respectful”? Or is an impeachment an act of respect for the office, to decide that a particular individual, through criminal or other supremely unethical behavior, must be removed, because letting him stay will damage that office and the public’s respect for it?
If that’s the case, respect for the individual occupying high office isn’t automatic, compulsory, or reflexive. It is conditional — given in broad conditions, encompassing mere political disagreement or personality conflicts. But that respect can be revoked, given sufficient provocation. (More important, it’s MUTUAL!!!)
Let’s go back to what de Blasio said after the grand-jury decision in the Eric Garner case:
I was at the White House the other day, and the President of the United States turned to me, and he met Dante a few months ago, and he said that Dante reminded him of what he looked like as a teenager. And he said, I know you see this crisis through a very personal lens. I said to him I did. Because Chirlane and I have had to talk to Dante for years, about the dangers he may face. A good young man, a law-abiding young man, who would never think to do anything wrong, and yet, because of a history that still hangs over us, the dangers he may face — we’ve had to literally train him, as families have all over this city for decades, in how to take special care in any encounter he has with the police officers who are there to protect him.
And that painful sense of contradiction that our young people see first — that our police are here to protect us, and we honor that, and at the same time, there’s a history we have to overcome, because for so many of our young people, there’s a fear. And for so many of our families, there’s a fear. So I’ve had to worry, over the years, Chirlane’s had to worry — was Dante safe each night? There are so many families in this city who feel that each and every night — is my child safe? And not just from some of the painful realities — crime and violence in some of our neighborhoods — but are they safe from the very people they want to have faith in as their protectors? That’s the reality. And it conforms to something bigger that you’ve heard come out in the protests in Ferguson, and all over the country. (These people are either especially stupid, or on…
That’s an explicit statement that he fears what the NYPD would do to his son. That’s a pretty hefty accusation and one that he exacerbates moments later by contending that the police force he oversees makes its decisions based upon racism:
This is now a national moment of grief, a national moment of pain, and searching for a solution, and you’ve heard in so many places, people of all backgrounds, utter the same basic phrase. They’ve said “Black Lives Matter.” And they said it because it had to be said. (Only if your goal is to keep Progressives in power!) It’s a phrase that should never have to be said — it should be self-evident. But our history, sadly, requires us to say that Black Lives Matter. Because, as I said the other day, we’re not just dealing with a problem in 2014, we’re not dealing with years of racism leading up to it, or decades of racism — we are dealing with centuries of racism that have brought us to this day. That is how profound the crisis is. And that is how fundamental the task at hand is, to turn from that history and to make a change that is profound and lasting.
If you doubt that section of de Blasio’s speech was directed at the NYPD, then ask yourself this: when the mayor says, “Black Lives Matter,” who is he saying it to? Who does he think doesn’t think that black lives matter? If you’re a mayor and you accuse your police force of racism, can you really be surprised to see your police force behaving in a disrespectful manner? And can you legitimately expect them to continue to respect you?
With all of that in mind, I wonder how many Americans agree with the president in this cheery self-assessment?
President Barack Obama says the U.S. is less racially divided than it was when he took office, despite recent protests over police treatment of black people. Obama says mistrust between police and minorities isn’t new. He says it’s being talked about more because the proliferation of smartphones allows more interactions to be recorded.
The president says he thinks the issue of race has surfaced in a healthy way.
Obama spoke to NPR News before leaving for his winter vacation in Hawaii.
He says it’s understandable that many people feel race relations have worsened, pointing to extensive media coverage of protests in Ferguson, Missouri, and in New York. But he says minorities who have dealt with discrimination all their lives know things have improved.
Maybe if Obama stopped watching ESPN every morning and tuned into FOX…?!?
Gallup’s long-term polling points to consistent, generally positive assessment of race relations, and then there’s this recent poll:
A majority of Americans now say that race relations in the United States are bad, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, which showed the most pessimistic assessment of racial issues in almost two decades.
In the wake of protests over the deaths of unarmed black men at the hands of police, just four in ten Americans told pollsters that they believe race relations in the United States are “good,” while 57 percent disagreed. And nearly a quarter — 23 percent — classified the current state of the country’s racial issues as “very bad.”
The data showed a dramatic slide from just 18 months ago, when a July 2013 poll indicated that a majority — 52 percent — offered an optimistic view of race relations.
|
Like we said earlier, we wouldn’t trust anyone even remotely connected with this Administration to tell us the time of day…and we wouldn’t trust Obama, Tom Coburn’s inexplicable feelings of friendship notwithstanding, to let our dogs out…
…while we’re away!
On the Lighter Side…
Finally, we’ll call it a wrap for the year with the sage observations of Thomas Sowell’s…
Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene
Now that Barack Obama is ruling by decree, he seems more like a king than a president. Maybe it is time we change the way we address him. “Your Majesty” may be a little too much, but perhaps “Your Royal Glibness” might be appropriate. (We prefer “Douches Maximus”!)
It tells us a lot about academia that the president of Smith College quickly apologized for saying, “All lives matter,” after being criticized by those who are pushing the slogan, “Black lives matter.” If science could cross breed a jellyfish with a parrot, it could create academic administrators.
Mitt Romney seems to be ready to try again to run for president in 2016. But most defeated presidential candidates who ran again lost again. There are much stronger Republican candidates available now than there were in 2012, including governors Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. At this crucial juncture in the nation’s history, why run a retreaded candidate?
Explaining differences in achievements between groups often pits those who attribute these differences to ability against those who attribute differences to barriers. Neither seems to pay much attention to differences in what people want to do. Few guys from my old neighborhood were likely to end up as violinists or ballet dancers, simply because that was not what they were interested in.
When Professor Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T. boasted of fooling the “stupid” American public, that was not just a personal quirk of his. It epitomized a smug and arrogant attitude that is widespread among academics at elite institutions. There should be an annual “Jonathan Gruber award” for the most smug and arrogant statement by an academic. There would be thousands eligible every year.
Every society has some people who don’t respect the law. But, when it is the people in charge of the law — like the President of the United States and his Attorney General — who don’t respect it, that is when we are in big trouble.
Sorry Trevor, but we wouldn’t give either of these fools a kidney if their life depended on it; we’d defer to Tom Coburn!
Has anyone asked the question, “How could so many people across the country spend so much time at night marching, rioting and looting, if they had to get up and go to work the next morning?”
Hillary Clinton’s idea that we have to see the world from our adversaries’ point of view — and even “empathize” with it — is not new. Back in 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain said, “I have realized vividly how Herr Hitler feels.” Ronald Reagan, however, made sure our adversaries understood how we felt. Reagan’s approach turned out a lot better than Chamberlain’s.
Our schools and colleges are laying a guilt trip on those young people whose parents are productive, and who are raising them to become productive. What is amazing is how easily this has been done, largely just by replacing the word “achievement” with the word “privilege.”
There are few modest talents so richly rewarded — especially in politics and the media — as the ability to portray parasites as victims, and portray demands for preferential treatment as struggles for equal rights.
Republicans complain when Democrats call them racists. But when have you ever heard a Republican counterattack? You don’t win by protesting your innocence or whining about the unfairness of the charge. Yet when have you heard a Republican reply by saying, “You’re a lying demagogue without a speck of evidence. Put up or shut up!”
President Obama’s establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba was not due to what the American public wanted or even what his own party wanted. It was a decision in defiance of both, just as his decisions about military matters ignore what generals say and his decisions about medical matters ignore what doctors have said. Yet pundits continue to depict him as a helpless lame duck president.
When the political left wants to help the black community, they usually want to help the worst elements in that community — thugs they portray as martyrs, for example — without the slightest regard for the negative effect this can have on the lives of the majority of decent black people. (And the majority of Blacks let them!!!)
If anyone in the mainstream media is at a loss for what New Year’s resolution to make, try this: Stop “spinning” or censoring stories about race, and try telling the plain truth, if only for the novelty of it.
To you, our loyal readers, we wish a safe and prosperous 2015. Happy New Year!!!
Magoo
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.