Wednesday, January 19, 2022

BREAKING: Schumer Suffers Crushing Defeat on Filibuster, as Manchin and Sinema Stand Firm



Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

I’m not sure what Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) thought he was going to get by pushing a vote on the Democratic effort to federalize elections (which they call ‘voting rights’) and on the filibuster.

Schumer knew that he was likely to get a “no” on the filibuster from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ). They’ve only been holding fast on the subject for months. Both also were very firm on the subject in speeches — Sinema earlier in the week and Manchin earlier on Wednesday. It wasn’t happening, they said.

But Schumer decided to commit electoral suicide anyway, and he got it tonight.

Here’s the vote.

Manchin and Sinema voted with the Republicans to keep the filibuster.

Here are some of the political reactions to the news.

Schumer doesn’t seem to get that he just lost, and that’s it.

Joe Biden was similarly in fantasy land.

Perhaps the angriest person was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). This is lunacy on parade. Throw away your principles to get what we want, Sanders essentially railed. Even though everyone has the right to vote and the Democrats’ bills aren’t about that at all.

It’s a very good day when this kind of mania doesn’t prevail, and sanity prevails. Democrats don’t even get how this will help them because they are going to lose the Senate and be in the minority after the November election. Then you will see them flip one more time, talking about the importance of preserving the filibuster.


The Moment Joe Biden Finally Lost His Credibility


If President Joe Biden’s disorderly and lethal Afghanistan withdrawal was the moment that fractured voters’ regard for him, then his vicious Atlanta speech last week may be the moment that defines his presidency. 

Speaking Tuesday at Morehouse College and Clark Atlanta University, Biden uttered venomous, brutal accusations lacking factual basis. His shouting-in-the-wind delivery was inexplicable, and his decision to lash out at members of his own party—Senators Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.)—appears to have only strengthened their resolve not to give in to his demands. 

Biden called those who disagree with his political views on legislation “domestic enemies.” He compared them to Confederate President Jefferson Davis and former Alabama Democratic Party committeeman and ardent, violent segregationist Bull Connor. In American politics, that is about as divisive as one can get—at least he didn’t mention Hitler. 

Biden bears no resemblance today to the man who ran for president, pledging over and over again to unify the country and restore a sense of calm and normalcy to politics. From the day he was sworn in to office and signed executive orders putting thousands out of work in the energy industry, he ceased to be that guy from Scranton that people thought he was.

He has not been that guy since he invited, through ill-considered policy changes, untold numbers of illegal immigrants across our borders. He has not been that guy since he miserably failed the troops and the nation’s image during his catastrophic tail-between-his-legs retreat from Afghanistan. 

Biden, despite having no mandate and only the barest legislative majority for his party, has turned divide-and-conquer politics into the solution for everything, including the pandemic. 

You don’t warn a nation that a winter of “severe illness and death” is coming for the unvaccinated because your aim is to bring people together; those words are intended as a threat and a slight, just like his resurrection of George Wallace in last week’s speech to score cheap political points. 

The scope of Biden’s fall from grace—from glib middle-class Pennsylvanian to venomous, lying politico who will say anything to please left-wing activists—has been staggering. 

This has not gone unnoticed by voters. Last week’s Quinnipiac poll showed that a plurality of voters (49 percent) now believe Biden is doing more to divide the country than to unite it. 

Biden’s approval rating among adults was at an abysmal 33 percent; independents gave him 24 percent; Hispanics a bit more at 28 percent. His approval rating within his own party has fallen 12 points since November. 

The media tried to write off his fall as temporary last August, when a Washington Post-ABC News poll showed the public disapproving of his incompetent performance in Afghanistan by a 2-1 ratio. At the time, this event marked the first time in his presidency his approval rating was net negative. 

But in the time since, Biden has only kept losing support. 

This moment and the associated loss of credibility that Biden is suffering will have lingering effects in the American psyche. They might not remember all of the words, but they will remember Biden’s vicious, nasty, bad-faith accusations, his flagrant falsehoods and his petulant tone. 

As with Afghanistan, the media and the people who surround Biden will dismiss the public reaction, and Biden will be worse off for it.


X22, On the Fringe, and more-Jan 19


 



Evening, here's tonight's news:


Are We in a Civil War?

This civil war is one that will be marked more by virtual mob justice and battles in the streets. It isn’t a war to seize territory, it is a war of exerting control over your enemies.


I have been posed with this question, both as a conservative and a military historian. I contend that we are in a civil war. It is not a conflict on a traditional battlefield . . . yet, but a war is waging—digitally, verbally, and physically. People are attempting to use force and coercion to change the way others act, behave, and comply against their will. Values and our rule of law have become targets. One side seeks to impose its lifestyle and culture on a massive part of the population simply based on its self-perceived moral authority.  

We are at a stage of war where one side, the Left, is fighting a war against the Right. Conservatives, for the most part, try to ignore the constant attacks, many still harboring the illusion that things can be resolved with compromise or concession. It is much like America prior to 9/11. Islamic extremists had been at war with the United States for years, but it took a major attack to convince us we were in a conflict. We simply have not had our 9/11 moment yet.

January 6 was not a trigger point for liberals; it is their justification or impetus for what is to come. Portraying Republicans as supporting an insurrection gives them all the reason they need to come down and come down hard.

Most people think of our last civil war as a template for a new one—state versus state with nice neat lines of demarcation and armies in the field. That model and frame of reference doesn’t apply. This is a new model. This time the war is being waged more on the internet and in public via a biased media and augmented with riots and violence.

The war is being fought against targeted individuals. Digital terrorists, aka social justice woke warriors, strike with impunity to lie, defame, intimidate, and brutalize anyone who dares speak out against them. These leftist online marauders operate with the full consent and approval of their leaders. They try to force conservative voices into silence or self-censorship. When that fails, they will threaten physical violence.

We are facing an enemy who thinks nothing about calling your employer and trying to get you fired. The woke consider any associates or family as legitimate targets of their wrath. The truth has no meaning to them, nor do your First Amendment rights, all that matters is them crushing you, then moving onto their next target. Look at what they did with Brett Kavanaugh. When their flimsy accusations failed, they whipped up completely false accusations to go after him, his family, and smear his reputation. There were no apologies, no sense of guilt. 

The truth was the first victim of the civil war we are engaged in. The Left intends to control it, and, when it stands in their way, they simply sidestep it.

The riots of 2020 were a sign that the conflict would and could easily turn violent. These test runs were aimed at implanting terror on the Right as to what the Left was capable of, and willing to do. As we saw with the 2020 election, the fear of riots can intimidate people’s activities like voting. Ask yourself this, if Trump had been declared the winner, would the Left have accepted it peacefully? Or would they have rioted in the streets, like they did in D.C. at his 2017 inauguration? Instilling fear to drive a change of behavior is the definition of a terrorist.

The riots demonstrated that the Left can field ad hoc armies if they desire to, with little to no repercussions. They have allied themselves with radical groups such as Antifa in this conflict, a sign of just how far they are willing to go. Like petulant children, they threaten a tantrum and destruction if they don’t get their way.

This civil war is one that will be marked more by virtual mob justice and battles in the streets. It isn’t a war to seize territory, it is a war of exerting control over your enemies. Few armies will take to the field beyond the National Guard. Everyone is a potential target . . . everyone is a potential warrior at this stage. The Left is not above targeting spouses and children in this fight. 

Yes, this war is on. Yes, we are in the early stages, but make no mistake, this is a new kind of civil war, a new variety of open conflict. The battle lines of this conflict are blurred and frustrating. This time it will not just be brother against brother, but indoctrinated children against their own parents, neighbor against neighbor, rural citizens versus urban residents. What is at stake is our way of living, our freedoms, and the future direction of our nation . . . and we are only in the early stages of this civil war. 


The Nazi Next Door

Your Democratic neighbors won’t be ordered to vote for laws that ostracize you from society, steal your property, or send you away to a concentration camp. They will do it burning with pride.


Almost half of Democratic voters—48 percent—think the government should be able to fine or imprison individuals “who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications.” 

This is not the most astonishing finding of a poll just released by Rasmussen. Let’s go through the relevant points: Nearly the same percentage of Democratic voters—47 percent—think the government should be able to put a tracking system, like an ankle monitor or a locked collar, on people who refuse the vaccine. And 45 percent favor putting the unvaccinated in camps. Camps.  

More than half of Democratic voters—55 percent—think people who refuse the vaccine should be fined. Fifty-nine percent favor confining all unvaccinated people to their homes. More than a quarter of Democratic voters—29 percent—think that the government should be able to confiscate the children of unvaccinated parents . . . 

Is any of this Nazi enough for you yet? You are living next door to the people who would have turned you over to the Comité de salut public for opposing the “Law of Suspects”—the law that authorized the arrest of all suspected enemies of the Revolution and ushered in the Reign of Terror. You are living next door to the people who would have turned you over to the NKVD for “moral sabotage of the Soviet Union.” You are living next door to the people who would have called up the Gestapo and said, “My neighbor is hiding a Jew.” 

Examine these historical personages from Revolutionary France or Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany (or Nazi France): It’s not just that they were following orders. On the contrary, they thought they were doing a positive good for society. They were eager to help rid their community of dangerous elements. They were proud of what they did. 

Some of your Democratic neighbors will likewise be proud to lock you up, put a tracking collar on your neck, take away your children—all for the public good. These are people who would murder you for the public good. 

And this is the inevitable result of raising up generations of Americans without any fundamental attachment to freedom.  

Freedom of speech, freedom of action, freedom of conscience: Our public schools told us these things were ubiquitous and natural, so there was nothing special about America having them. There was nothing special about anyone having them. And because leftists don’t realize just how hard our ancestors had to fight for these unique and historically unprecedented rights, they’re not shocked or even sad to see them taken away. On the contrary, your neighbors think your attachment to these rights is precisely what makes you dangerous

My high school taught a little unit on the German excuse for World War II. This was the excuse fashioned by Hitler’s architect and Minister of War Armaments Albert Speer at the Nuremberg Trials. Speer thought that only one thing could save the German people from being tarred for all history with their irredeemable and totally enveloping sin: The leaders (including Speer) would have to take the fault entirely on themselves and say, “Our people didn’t know what they were doing; they were just following orders.” 

And this excuse has worked extremely well. Our high school teachers will discuss this, and ask us if we think that following orders is a legitimate excuse for doing evil. They fail to see how this has reframed the entire question: The question is not whether following orders is a good excuse. The question, which we no longer ask, is whether following orders was actually the motivation. 

Because of course it was not. Nazis weren’t just ordered to be Nazis. French collaborators weren’t just ordered to collaborate. Chinese students of the Cultural Revolution weren’t just ordered to murder their teachers in ways too ugly to describe here. These people relished what they did. And such was the purity of their commitment that they were willing to turn against friends and even family. Indeed, destroying something you love for the sake of the Revolution is the highest proof there can be of your personal goodness. 

Your Democratic neighbors won’t be ordered to vote for laws that ostracize you from society, steal your property, or send you away to a concentration camp. They will do it burning with pride and even with righteous indignation against you for forcing them to these extremes. They’ve already done it in New Zealand and Australia and Canada—places our schools taught us were identical to America in terms of rights and freedoms. 

This is why Americans cling to their guns. It has nothing to do with hunting. It has nothing to do with self-defense against the common criminal. We cling to our guns so that, when our neighbors show up and say, “We’re going to take you to the camps now, because you’re a danger to society,” we can look back at them and say, “Like hell you will.”


White House Baffled by How Colleyville Terrorist Gained a Visa Despite Being on Terrorist Watch List



Malik Faisal Akram, who was known as Faisal Akram, had a well known Islamic extremist history to British and American intelligence. Akram ranted, prior to his travel to the U.S, that he wished he had died in the 9/11 terror attacks. He was a regular visitor to Pakistan, and reportedly a member of the Tablighi Jamaat group set up to ‘purify’ Islam. To say the U.S. intelligence system knew Faisal Akram would be an understatement.  The FBI knowledge of Akram has now been confirmed by The Daily Mail.

Today, the White House was asked how it was possible for him to get a visa and travel into the United States.  White House spokesperson Jen Psaki, says they have no idea, but they’re looking into it.  They’ve put their best men on the review.  For more details, ask the Dept. of Homeland Security. WATCH:


I’ve Already Given My Opinion – HERE



Texas Synagogue Attack Smells Like More Evidence Of FBI Corruption


After all hostages were released from Beth Isreal Synagogue in Colleyville, Texas where they were held for 11 hours on Saturday, FBI Special Agent in Charge Matt DeSarno from the Dallas field office told reporters that the gunman was “focused on one issue” that was unrelated to the Jewish community, and that they are “continuing to work to find the motive.”

That “one issue” is presumably the imprisonment of Aafia Siddiqui, also known as “Lady Al Qaeda,” a Pakistani national who is serving an 86-year sentence in a prison less than 20 miles from the synagogue. The gunman, Malik Faisal Akram, a 44-year-old British citizen, was heard shouting about Siddiqui’s release and demanding to speak to his “sister,” a terrorist whose release mainstream Muslim groups have recently been lobbying for. Akram died of gunshot wounds after the hostages were released.

The FBI’s statement that they “are continuing to work to find the motive” is another example of the agency’s ineptitude on multiple levels. The first is simply their refusal to even hint at the crime’s motivation as antisemitism, which is the only accurate label for an attack at a synagogue on Shabbat where a rabbi and three congregants are held hostage. 

“If the law enforcement community doesn’t understand what’s going on, they’re not going to be able to address the fallout from this,” said Kenneth Marcus, the founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. “This was not a mere slip-up. It is symptomatic of a widespread failure with law enforcement to understand the problems of antisemitism and anti-Zionism,” he told Fox News.

But perhaps even more frustrating is the FBI’s corrupt obsession and use of resources on cases that suit their political fancy, like the Jan. 6 Capitol riot or “Operation Varsity Blues” (catching rich people scamming to get their underachieving kids into top universities), while letting serious violent threats to Americans fly under the radar.

The BBC reports Akram arrived in the United States via New York’s JFK International Airport two weeks ago and he is believed to have bought a handgun used in the incident after his arrival, which would have required him to pass a federal background check, a system run by none other than the FBI. 

The BBC report also said the FBI would be conducting investigations in Pakistan, “where it is understood Akram had been recently – to establish if he was acting alone or was supported by others.”

Perhaps he bought the gun “on the street,” as President Joe Biden claimed Sunday, but that still leaves questions as to what the FBI ought to know about who is helping foreigners who recently traveled to Pakistan purchase illegal firearms.

Even with the details sparse on what the FBI could or could not have known about the gunman, this caught-off-guard response from federal agents is sadly what Americans have come to expect from our top law enforcement agency.

The FBI’s failures as an entire institution in recent years are too long to list here, but looking at just the mass shootings and explosions alone that happened after the FBI was aware of the assailants as potential threats is frightening. My colleague Joy Pullmann has documented a number of instances in which the FBI was aware of threats before the violence occurred and did nothing. She writes:

For example, the 2009 Fort Hood shooter, who killed 13; the Boston Marathon bombers of 2013 who killed three and injured 264; and the Pulse nightclub shooter who killed 49 people and wounded 53 more. All were known to the FBI and several had been interviewed by the FBI before they went on killing sprees.

The FBI had also been warned numerous times about the Parkland, Florida school shooter, before he killed 17 and injured 17 more in 2018. It also knew beforehand about the 2018 Nashville, Tennessee Waffle House shooter, who killed four and injured two more, and the 2020 Nashville RV bomber.

The FBI also has a bad track record at categorizing motives and crime, just as in Colleyville. Last spring, it was brought to light by Republican congressmen that after the 2017 congressional baseball shooting, the FBI told lawmakers the mass assassination attempt was officially designated as a “suicide by cop.” The Fort Hood attack carried out as a radical Islamist was designated by the FBI as “workplace violence.”

Whether it’s their inability to move on threats before they occur, or their corrupt labels after the fact, the FBI is notorious for botching both. In the Texas synagogue case, they’ve already missed the mark on one. It will be wholly unsurprising if new details eventually confirm the other.


Another Twist in Ray Epps Saga Raises More Questions About That Jan. 6 Committee Interview


Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

You may recall the story about Ray Epps, that guy who was very much in evidence outside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and even the night before, talking about going into the Capitol. Many raised questions about his role that day, especially after he was removed from a page on which the FBI has asked for information on various people they want to question about Jan. 6.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) even raised questions about Epps when Cruz was grilling an FBI official about whether the FBI had any agents or informants involved on Jan. 6.

Then we were told by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s partisan Jan. 6 Committee that they had interviewed Epps and he told them he wasn’t an FBI agent or informant. Committee member Rep. Adam Kinzinger (RINO-IL) even sprang to the defense, saying, “Ray Epps has cooperated with the Jan 6 committee and we thank him on the broader issue,” and claimed that “Ray” was no informant or “fed.” In so doing, Kinzinger essentially blew up the Jan. 6 effort to demonize Republicans. This is the guy who has gone after Republicans and President Donald Trump, blaming them for what happened even though there’s no video of any of them urging people to go into the Capitol like there is with Ray Epps. Yet he seems to give Epps a pass and calls him just a “misled man.” Both the Committee and Kinzinger indicated that Epps was not being pursued.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) found that response from Kinzinger curious.

Now, there’s more fascinating information about Epps. Turns out Epps is going to be talking to the Committee again to give a more formal transcribed interview, according to his attorney, John Blischak. Blischak said he expected more details of Epps’ involvement to become public after that interview. Blischak says his client’s name was removed from the FBI list after Epps called the FBI and “explained his position.”

So that raises a few questions. If Epps got a pass like the Committee previously suggested, why are they doing a more formal transcribed interview with him? What is his interview about then? Was he even under oath when they questioned him before if it wasn’t transcribed? Why did they do an interview that wasn’t transcribed? Why did he get the same pass in that regard that Hillary Clinton got during her FBI interview?

Maybe they should ask Epps about this if they didn’t before. It seems like it might be interesting.

Epps was also seen in footage just before 1 p.m. on Jan. 6 at the front of a line of Trump supporters who were among the first to breach the Capitol barricades. He whispered something into the ear of Ryan Samsel, who has been charged as one of the first defendants to breach secured Capitol grounds. Moments later, Samsel and others charged through a barricade, injuring a Capitol Police officer on the other side.

You can see that incident at the end of this video.

That’s what Kinzinger dismissed as “misled.”

I’m wondering what “more details” about his “involvement,” the attorney thinks are going to come out? That sounds intriguing.



Sen. John Kennedy Humorously Sums up Joe Biden’s First Year in Office in Just 20 Seconds


Sister Toldjah reporting for RedState 

As we previously reported, President Joe Biden had a terrible week last week, the vast majority of which he brought on himself not only thanks to his inability to bring his own party together but also because he exposed himself to a cross-section of voters across the country for who he truly is in that bitter, racially divisive speech he gave in Georgia.

And while this week is not off to a promising start for Biden either, it’s important to try and put all of this in perspective going into the 2022 midterms – with that perspective being that Joe Biden’s entire first year has been a dumpster fire of epic proportions, something that is reflected in his plummeting poll numbers.

I could list them out for you here, but it wouldn’t be nearly as entertaining as listening to Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) do a rundown of the top Joe Biden failures during a recent interview he did with Fox News host Sean Hannity.

“The Biden administration has mismanaged COVID, it has mismanaged inflation, it has mismanaged the border, and it has mismanaged foreign policy – all in one year,” he stated during a discussion with Hannity about Biden’s mismanagement of numerous crises over the last 12 months.

“If aliens landed tomorrow and said, ‘take me to your leader,’ it would be embarrassing,” Kennedy, who is famous for uttering such humourous quips during interviews, went on to say.

Watch:

Though listening to Kennedy give off his famous one-liners never gets old, it’s when he lays everything all out on the line that he’s really worth listening to, which is what he did immediately after his “alien” quip.

In his remarks, he talked about Biden’s Georgia speech and its heavy emphasis on race. Understandably, Kennedy took issue with it for reasons that I think resonate with most Americans, no matter their skin color:

“Now President Biden is trying to change the subject by talking about race, and he is mismanaging that. America is not perfect. Americans know that. But they also know that we are good. Black lives have mattered to most Americans for a long time. That’s why we passed civil rights laws in 1866, 1871, 1875, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1990, and 1991. That’s why we elected an African-American president twice. That’s why we have over 10,000 elected public officials in this country who happen to be black. And President Biden is wrong to say that tens of millions of Americans are racist because they don’t support his woke agenda.”

“The truth is most Americans don’t think that much about race. They think about character. They understand that souls have no color. Most Americans understand that to a bear, we all taste like chicken. And I’m very proud of the racial progress that we’ve made in America, and President Biden should be, too.”

Watch (starts at the :22 mark):

Though Kennedy has been challenged by two Democrats for his Senate seat this year, it’s hard to believe a Louisianans wouldn’t elect him to another term. He’s truly a national treasure, not just because he has a way with words but also because he’s an endless font of wisdom at a time in this country when such things are in short supply.



Even More Dems Rush to the Exits as Midterm Wipeout Looms


Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

We’re still in that post-holiday period where members of Congress have to fish or cut bait, looking at the landscape and making those decisions as to whether they’re going to run again. If you’re a Democrat, that landscape can’t look good right now, with Joe Biden’s approval in the toilet, inflation, and COVID running rampant with Americans rightly blaming Democrats. On top of that, the recent Gallup poll is showing a huge shift toward the Republicans in party preference.

However, the general stability for the full-year average obscures a dramatic shift over the course of 2021, from a nine-percentage-point Democratic advantage in the first quarter to a rare five-point Republican edge in the fourth quarter.

[…]

The GOP has held as much as a five-point advantage in a total of only four quarters since 1991. The Republicans last held a five-point advantage in party identification and leaning in early 1995, after winning control of the House of Representatives for the first time since the 1950s. Republicans had a larger advantage only in the first quarter of 1991, after the U.S. victory in the Persian Gulf War led by then-President George H.W. Bush.

That may, in part, explain the red wave that seemed to hit in November around the country, leading to surprising wins in places like Virginia and New Jersey.

If you’re looking at the tea leaves, you’re not liking your chances if you’re a Democrat, particularly if you have to defend your seat in a tough district. When last we left you on the subject, Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) said it was time to move on and he was going to explore other opportunities. He was the 26th Democrat leaving.

But now, Rep. Jim Langevin (D-RI) and Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA) are also joining those packing it in, making that the 27th and 28th Democrat heading for the exits, either retiring or seeking other offices. Both announced on Tuesday that they would be retiring.

From Washington Examiner:

“I will keep working for the people of my district throughout the remainder of my term and look forward to new opportunities to continue to serve,” McNerney, 70, said in a tweet.

McNerney has represented California in Congress since 2007, in the 9th District since 2013 and in the old 11th District before that.

Langevin, 57, wrote a Providence Journal op-ed explaining his decision.

“I have not come to this decision lightly, but it is time for me to chart a new course, which will allow me to stay closer to home and spend more time with my family and friends. And while I don’t know what’s next for me just yet, whatever I do will always be in service of Rhode Island,” he said.

Democrats start in a bad position with being the party holding the White House, which usually is a disadvantage in the midterms. But when there are a lot of retirements or people leaving going into the midterms, that makes it even worse. In 2018, when the Democrats flipped the House, Democrats won 41 seats after Republicans had 34 people retiring or seeking other offices. So that’s a very bad sign of what looks like a massive red wave coming.

Right now, Democrats hold a very slim lead on seats in the House. Republicans only need to win five seats to take the majority. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is about to be served her walking papers for her Speaker position and I’m looking forward to sending her packing.



Signal Flare, CNN Asks if Government Should Take Over Food and Gas Prices



History may not always repeat, but it rhymes.   As seen in just about every situation where socialism and government intervention in the market economy of any nation is triggered, eventually you get to the point where government solutions to their created crisis take center stage.

We have seen this exact scenario repeated in the former Soviet Union, Poland, Europe, Cuba and more recently Venezuela.  The triggers are the same, and the outcomes are identical. Now, as unbelievable as it may seem, Joe Biden’s socialist policies have triggered the discussion in the United States.

CTH warned this was going to become a narrative; and we saw the first signs of it at the White House podium on January 12th.

WASHINGTON – People are paying a lot more for food, gas, cars and services, and inflation isn’t over yet as the pandemic continues to distort the economy. So, should governments consider setting the price of essential goods?

It’s been done before, typically during times of crisis, but for most mainstream economists, the answer to this question is a resounding “no.” Limiting how much companies can charge will distort markets, they argue, causing shortages and exacerbating supply chain problems while only temporarily reducing inflation.

“Price controls can of course control prices — but they’re a terrible idea,” David Autor, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, remarked in a survey published earlier this month by the University of Chicago. Asked whether price controls similar to those used in the United States during the 1970s could reduce inflation over the next year, less than a quarter of economists surveyed said they agree while nearly 60% said they disagree or strongly disagree.

[…] with annual inflation running at a four-decade high of 7% and midterm elections approaching, price controls could feature in future debates about how to reduce prices, particularly if actions taken this year by the Federal Reserve fail to tame inflation. (read more)

See that emphasis of mine in the above paragraph.  Yeah, the same University of Chicago at the epicenter of Alinsky crowdsourcing.

Accepting socialism in the United States does not come easily.  To use the lingo of the Marxists, it comes as an outcome of a “larger conversation” where we begin to “reimagine a nation of greater equity.”   Every nudge begins with the opening of a conversation…

Create the crisis.  Fuel the crisis. Then offer government solutions for the crisis.  Use the crisis to advance the goal.

[Barack Obama and crew are smiling at CNN right now.]