So the Biden White House is claiming record employment.
Is this the same crowd that’s been trying to redefine “recession”? Who told us first that there was no inflation, then told us that the inflation was temporary, wasn’t the fault of the current Administration, was temporary, then that inflation was a good thing for the American people?
With that record of manipulation, are we truly to believe that they wouldn’t fudge employment numbers to support thier rapidly deteriorating position?
Of course even Politico reports the GDP is shrinking. One possible reason for the discrepancy is the number of people who have two or more jobs. That’s a detail that’s in the numbers but that the White House never mentions.
Mauldin Economics adds this:
The most obvious weirdness factor going into this recession is the still-strong employment data. Employers are hiring people faster than they are firing them, and many wish they could hire more. That doesn’t square with recessionary conditions.
This may be because the recession is still young.
Which means that it’s only going to get worse.
Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, Josh Blackman writes a piece in which he gets most things wrong, but I suspect that has to do with his own pro-abortion biases as much as anything.
Still, he got this part right:
In the wake of Dobbs, we are already seeing the democratic process at work. And critically, legislatures in red states are forced to confront issues they simply never had to decide before. The absence of Roe is requiring elected representatives to cast difficult votes on abortion. The New York Times distills the process with the headline: “With Roe Gone, Republicans Quarrel Over How Far to Push Abortion Bans.” Read through the article. At every juncture, I see government in action.
The thing is, the blue states are also struggling with those same questions.
And as I’ve already pointed out the other day, support for abortion on demand right up to the moment of birth, even amongst the Democrat rank and file is not nearly as high as it is amongst the Democrat party establishment. Indeed, the Democrats position on abortion is anything but a slam dunk, unless you ignore the next election cycle.
Which in turn, is precisely why as the article points out Democrats insisted that the courts needed to step in. They knew they wouldn’t win the argument any other way. They still know it, which explains the Democrat party’s efforts to pack the court. In other words, and somewhat ironically, Democrats are engaged in a 60-year-long effort to bypass democracy, and the Dobbs ruling put a stop to it.
Blackman tries rather unsuccessfully to make a direct comparison between the issue of individual gun rights and abortion. He suggests that since the states were given the responsibility of dealing with the abortion question in Dobbs, they should have also been given that responsibility on the case of gun rights vis-a-vis Bruen. It is here that his argument goes completely off the Constitutional rails. I would have expected a better understanding of the Constitution from him even with his biases. But, I suppose not.
Glen Reynolds in noting the same article, does an excellent job of dissecting this portion of it:
The Constitution explicitly expresses a view on gun rights; it does no such thing regarding abortion. And that’s because there are important structural/political aspects to whether the populace is be armed, considerations that do not enter into issues regarding abortion. That the Supreme Court noticed such a thing should not be a huge surprise, nor is it evidence of any particular contradiction.
Indeed so.
If anything is surprising about this it’s that the Supreme Court for the first time in a generation is actually reading and interpreting the Constitution as written. In other words, they’re actually doing their job. That’s something that you will never see when the Democrat appointees are in majority.
Which, in turn, is precisely why you’re hearing a lot of screaming just now, coming from your left.
For those that have forgotten or are simply unaware, this is a video of a House Judiciary Committee hearing during the questioning of corrupt FBI conspirator Peter Strzock. Watch how House Democrats act in concert to disrupt the hearing and protect the FBI agent that conspired with others to frame a sitting president, Donald Trump.
I’ll get straight to the point here.
If Voter ID laws would help get Democrats into power, the cries of “we have to protect the votes of the oppressed minority” would disappear faster than jobs do when Democrats ARE in power. You know it’s true.
Ace of spades is just on fire lately:
Every time they have political dirtywork to be done, they turn to the same two dozen trusted partisan ringers they know will deliver the results they’ve all agreed to in advance and claim it’s all “objective analysis.”
Go and read the whole thing.
What is the swamp?
The word has a long history, aided by the serendipitous contingency that Washington, D.C. was actually built on a literal swamp.
But the term, like a Chinese virus, underwent a “gain of function” makeover in 2015 when Donald Trump first strode onto the center stage of American political life.
“The Swamp”: that is the bureaucratic Washington establishment, the alphabet soup of agencies whose personnel, though unelected and largely unaccountable, run our lives right down to the latest permit, regulation, tax, fee, impost, and woke government requirement or interdiction.
But it’s also something more.
“The Swamp” names an attitude, an assumption, about power, about politics, but also about certain basic human realities.
Above all, perhaps, “the Swamp” rests and feeds upon the progressive assumption that the mass of citizens is incapable of self-government.
I call that assumption “progressive” because from the time of Woodrow Wilson on down to the latest Davos mandarin, the neofeudal bifurcation of humanity into elect and (ever the majority) subservient has been the guiding if unspoken nutrient.
The litany of Donald Trump’s policy achievements is long and distinguished.
It begins with his judicial appointments, some fruits of which we saw last month with the Supreme Court decisions on Roe v. Wade, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Second Amendment, and includes his attention to our Southern border, energy, taxes, the Middle East, and a host of other issues.
But more than any particular achievement, Donald Trump was the tocsin that awakened millions of people—those whom Hillary Clinton dismissed as “deplorable”—to the two-tier reality of political life in the United States.
(The emphasis is my own)
And that, my friends is precisely why the establishment of both parties hate both Trump and his supporters, to the degree they do. Their lofty positions are threatened to the precise degree that the American people are aware of their collective misdeeds.
Rogers comment about Davos rings particularly true, given my comment about that on Facebook yesterday:
It strikes me as amusing that so many of the working class are willing to say things like “eat the rich”, “tax the elite out of existence”, and so on… and yet, they will take the bait when those self-same elites tell them to give up their rights their freedoms their automobiles their cheap energy etc.
There is a disconnect which the mainstream media ignores. For all the complaints about the rich, the extreme left never seems to complain much about names like Soros, Gates, Biden, Gore, Obama, Pelosi, and so on. This would seemingly lead us to the conclusion that being wealthy is only problematic for the extreme left, when the wealthy are not in lockstep with the extreme left. When they are in locked up with the extreme left, their words are taken as gospel even when it’s proven to be absolute garbage… as such as global warming, for example.
But I suppose that when you have the mainstream media working as your publicity agent constantly hammering home how important you are to the lives and livelihoods of Joe and Jane Average, it’s a lot easier to pull something like that off.
The question before us between now and November is how we the people react.
Feels a lot like AIDS, when the NIH, headed by, what’s this?, Anthony Fauci would not shut down gay bathhouses or even recommend doing so, but did tell straight women to insist that straight men use dental dams when they went down on them.
Our public health authorities will do anything — anything! — if it saves one life.
Except tell a member of a noisy leftwing political constituency that they’re going to have to give up a pastime they enjoy, like rioting during a pandemic or orgies during a pox pandemic that is easily spread by close contact, as occurs during sex.
This is what happens when government runs healthcare. The healthcare gets polluted by politics. I’ve been saying this since Hillary care, and it’s becoming more and more clear that I had it right all along.
And isn’t it interesting how the mainstream media has ignored where the majority of the monkeypox cases are showing up?
The short answer is yes. As I have always said. Matt Margolis points out:
Former White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx says she knew that the COVID-19 vaccines would not protect against infection.
Really? You know, I thought I felt the Earth moving…
“I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection. And I think we overplayed the vaccines, and it made people then worry that it’s not going to protect against severe disease and hospitalization,” she told Fox News. “It will. But let’s be very clear: 50% of the people who died from the Omicron surge were older, vaccinated.”
So, why are we calling them vaccines, in the first place?
Kurt Schlichter notes all of this in passing this morning:
It’s obvious that they all knew that the puppet president was full of crap. The reason that the government couldn’t be honest about it is because of something else I’ve been writing about for the last couple of years: the government’s response was never about public health, it was always just about control.
Yeah I said the same thing repeatedly here and caught hell for it.
Fauci and Friends couldn’t keep up the bully act if honesty entered the picture. We’re only being treated to some of it now because Birx isn’t really in the fold anymore and Little Lord Fauci has one foot out the door.
Personally, I am convinced that jail time should be served by Fauci. There’s no way he didn’t know he was feeding us a line of BS. There should be a price paid for that. Since he was also instrumental in the creation of that virus in spite of legal prohibitions (which is precisely why the Chinese were involved). Jail time should also be served for that. Millions of people died because of those actions and more suffered greatly. Additional jail time should be served for that.
Let’s not forget the number of businesses that have been closed. The people who died all alone and lonely because of the restrictions imposed needlessly. (No you can’t go visit Grandma on her deathbed because you might have covid. But we’ll go ahead and stuff known covid victims in with her.)
This situation caused by Anthony Fauci killed off an economy, and most likely altered election outcomes in several ways not least of which allowing for vote fraud.
This has been a very good lesson in not only how power-mad the big government progressives are but also in how much the enemy of the people media will lie for them.
Indeed so. It’s time for recompense. Unfortunately with the current power structure in Washington that’s not going to happen until the change coming in November.
This one is about the human element.
Let’s start with this one. I culled this from a Twitter exchange some weeks ago and never got around to using it but it seems to fit here very nicely.
The science has changed since the days of Roe, in nearly everything, including neonatal science.
As the Washington Examiner put it back in 2019;
Perhaps the biggest change in the long, sad debate over abortion is that science, which was once seen as an ally of abortion advocates, is now recognized as being squarely on the side of life.
Every few months brings a technological advancement or scientific breakthrough that more fully reveals the unborn child as a living, feeling human being.
Most of what we now know about the fetus was unknown or in dispute when Roe was decided in 1973.
The Examiner goes on from there, discussing Roe:
In his majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote that the court “was not in a position to speculate as to the answer” of when life begins. Blackmun proceeded to speculate, writing that, “There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth.”
We now know that’s not true. We now know that at the moment of fertilization, a new, unique human embryo with unique DNA is created. We now know that even at that early stage, an individual human life exists. We now know that the unborn baby’s heart begins to beat at three weeks, that brain waves can be detected as early as five weeks, and that all of the unborn baby’s organs are fully formed by 24 weeks.
(The emphasis is mine)
Advancements in fetal medicine now make it possible for unborn babies to survive outside the womb as early as 22 weeks. The year Roe was decided, the lower limit was 28 weeks. We also know that unborn babies can feel pain at a point in the pregnancy when the most gruesome abortion procedures are still legal.
I’m not quite sure why these time frames are an important distinction. After all, postulate a live birth. Put the child in a crib. Would the child be able to survive on its own at this stage? Of course not. So why is this argument even brought up? As best I can tell, it was an argument intended to obfusticate arguments from the pro-life side that life actually begins at conception.
It strikes me as interesting that just recently we’ve been told to “follow the science”. And yet the same crowd, is reluctant to accept the science here.
The more we recognize these facts, the easier it becomes to recognize the fact of the unborn baby’s humanity. And the harder it becomes to deny the baby’s inherent dignity.
Science has exposed the lie that a first-trimester baby is merely a clump of cells or a blob of tissue — or anything other than a human being. As Harvard Medical School’s Micheline Matthews-Roth has put it: “It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception, when egg and sperm join to form the zygote, and this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of its life.”
Science also reveals that a third trimester baby is not substantially different from a newborn baby. She looks, moves, feels, and responds just like a newborn.
So with these discoveries, it’s hard not to conclude that an abortion kills a human being… And the argument of”my body, my choice” is insufficient because there’s actually two bodies involved.
Roe, even back in the day, seemed to me arbitrary guesswork. There was still so much at the time that we didn’t know.
It should also be pointed out that Roe was handed down in the midst of the so-called sexual revolution… which in turn raised moral dilemmas outside the scope of this discussion. Still, it should be noted that the judgment was handed down in an effort to satisfy that sexual revolution.
What we had was a moral dilemma based on the belief that life begins at conception, versus a scientific view which really didn’t have enough evidence to go on. Increasingly, as science is finding out, the belief that life begins at conception, was correct all along. And that leaves us with an even larger moral dilemma, doesn’t it?
It has long been observed by legal experts that hard cases make bad law.
The constitutional issues, (which I discussed here), the racial issues (discussed here) the politics involved, (discussed here) and of course the human element, all seem to suggest that this was most certainly the case with Roe.
I have noted within the last week or two and effort on the part of the pro-abortion side to use a 10-year-old rape victim as an example of why abortions should be permitted. This seems to me an effort to use another hard case to support bad law. Are we really going to use the rape of a 10-year-old child to support what science has now determined as the killing of millions of other children? That seems the tale of wagging the dog, and frankly, rather desperate.
So the conclusion of this discussion and all the other ones linked above, is that Roe was a bad ruling because the court placed itself outside of its constitutional boundaries.
Beyond that, the remaining questions that I have discussed belong at the state level and below. However, I expect that their answers are going to be vastly different than what the Supreme Court unconstitutionally came up with in 1973, for all the reasons that I’ve listed in these discussions.
The Democrats are getting more and more desperate:
PERINTON, N.Y. (WROC) — Congressman Lee Zeldin was attacked at a campaign event in Perinton Thursday night. Zeldin is the Republican candidate for governor in New York State. Witnesses say Zeldin was giving a speech about bail reform at the VFW on Macedon Center Road when a man got on stage, started yelling, “wrestled with him a bit, and pulled a blade out.” The alleged attacker was suppressed by AMVETS national Director Joe Chenelly. The Monroe County Sheriff’s Office said he was taken into custody.
Perinton is in heavily Democrat territory on Rochester’s Southeast side.
Zeldin was not hurt.
This is not the first report of its kind in recent days. Given the repeatedly demonstrated level of desperation on the part of Democrats, it’s past time for Republican candidates to be toting security with them.
The story made it to the mainstream media, (CNN, the New York Times and so on) …if only briefly. You know as well as I do how the supposed mainstream media would be treating this if Zeldin was a Democrat. It would be wall to wall coverage and we’d be getting lectures about such attacks being caused by overheated rhetoric.
As it is, I will guarantee you that this will disappear from the mainstream media within 24 hours, the way the continued attacks on Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh have.
Update: the attacker was immediately released after being charged. It’s like I’ve been saying for a long time now. If an action supports the Democrats it’s not a crime.
Did anybody else notice that Biden and the Democrats chose to declare their phony climate emergency in the hottest weeks of July? Almost like they planned it that way.
Dr Anthony Faucci probably one of the best arguments ever for getting government out of the health care business both entirely and immediately.
I suggest that monkeypox showing up on the scene just in time for the midterm elections is no accident. Watch that one closely, kids.
According to reports this morning, Joe Biden has contracted covid 19. I’ve seen some speculation that he must have caught it in Saudi Arabia while begging for oil. Given the incubation periods for this virus however, it seems more likely that he gave it to the Saudis. I’m sure that’ll go over large at the next OPEC meeting.
I am quite sure that the largest number of people who are breathing a sigh of relief that Joe Biden’s covid-19 infection is not overly serious, both Democrats and Republicans, are mostly relieved because they are deathly afraid of a president Kamala Harris. And, so they should be.
In both cases we have a mental defective getting a hold of a gun. If gun control works, how did they both manage to do that? Obviously the answer is gun control doesn’t work. And the thing is that conclusion is drawn before we even get into the rest of the analysis. I mean, forget that Chicago demonstrates how gun control doesn’t work on a daily basis, but let’s not jump down that particular rabbit hole at the moment.
In both the above cases, we have a gun free zone, supposedly. Signs all over the place to that effect. Yet in both cases, the mental defective in question not only didn’t obey the sign, they purposely picked those locations to do their thing, on the statistically correct assumption that they would be able to kill at random, like a Wolf among sheep.
In the case of the Indiana mall, we have another specimen, a second amendment advocate. Someone who believes in the Constitution the way it’s written. And in spite of the gun free zone signs on the entrances to that mall he also disobeyed the signs. And as it turns out it’s a good thing he did, because a lot of lives got saved by his actions.
What specifically, were his actions? 15 seconds after the shooter started, 22yo Eli Dicken fired 10 rounds from 40 yards, hitting the shooter 8 times. The man is a hero ..and of course the gun grabbers are having conniption fits.
Meantime, in the case of the Uvalde school shooting nobody was able to protect themselves because of what is essentially gun -phobic nonsense. So they called the police,who showed up quite quickly supposedly to take charge of the situation, but who then stood around outside pretty much helpless to the situation for 45 minutes until citizens started going in to try and save their kids.
The police sprung into action, by arresting the parents.
So it is that the argument about how ‘we don’t need guns, we have the police for that”, also goes out the window. too.
No wonder the gun grabbers are desperately angry over these occurrences. Not only is their argument that completely blown out of the water, not only has everything they’ve been trying to sell the American people shown as fatally flawed, (literally!)… they find themselves now in a position where they are unable to defend their arguments, as we have been seeing for the last few days on social media.
It’s time for America to lose its gun phobia. The founders, whatever else you think of them, had this one right.
Over at WBAL, Rachel Duncan;
BALTIMORE —
As many as 12 flash drives containing votes from Tuesday’s primary election cannot be located, Baltimore City Election Director Armstead Jones told the 11 News I-Team.
The flash drives go into the ballot-scanning machines and keep a digital record of the vote. After the polls close, the flash drives are uploaded to the Board of Elections, which records the votes in its system.
You know, just a thought… Perhaps this is a problem for vote integrity? Personally, I would be interested in looking at the party affiliation breakdown for the areas covered by those flash drives, wouldn’t you?
Maybe we should consider going back to paper ballots?
