Monday, August 1, 2022

Soldiers of Misfortune in Vindman’s Ukraine Bubble

As the U.S. deepens its commitment to the losing effort in the Donbass, two pro-war mouthpieces continue to demand more blood and treasure.


MSNBC analyst Malcolm Nance had had enough. “I’m done talking,” he exclaimed in April when he went on the air wielding an AK-47 rifle. Nance revealed he had volunteered for the International Legion of Territorial Defense of Ukraine. This assignment lasted all of three months and Nance didn’t exactly maintain radio silence during his time there. But now he is back stateside, appearing again on Zerlina Maxwell’s show, explaining why he characterizes “domestic terrorism” in America as “white extremism,” when he never would characterize terrorism abroad as Muslim or Christian in nature.

Put another way: Nance is a big talker about the threat of Russia in Ukraine who felt the urgent need to “volunteer” as an armed combatant in the war. He bugged out soon after the Russians achieved a major military breakthrough by taking control of the Luhansk region. So, the problem he was “done talking” about in April had, if anything, gotten worse during his time in country. Apparently this top-notch national security analyst decided  it was the right time to demobilize because the threat of “white nationalism” in the United States is much worse

Nance has compared the modern American Right to terrorist insurgencies in Syria and Libya. Lately, he’s settled on the Provisional IRA. This is ironic since Joe Biden recently compared the Palestinian people to the oppressed Irish people who fought the British in a centuries-long struggle for national liberation.

Pallets of Grandiose Claims

Whatever purpose Nance had in Ukraine, in practice he presented a blowhard’s-eye view of a war he was supposed to be fighting in as part of America’s noble commitment to spreading democracy abroad. This war propagandist characterizes opponents of U.S. involvement as Kremlin operatives, white supremacists, or gullible hillbillies. In an interview on Philadelphia’s WHYY radio, Nance claimed extravagantly that the United States had intelligence on the impending Russian invasion that had been worth “pallets of gold bars. He said the Russian now have moved into a second phase of the war in which they’re focused on holding on to the Donbass region. He stated, incorrectly,  that the Donbass was fully seized in 2014. Finally, he insisted, “Ukraine is absolutely winning.” When a caller objected to his characterization of Russians as lacking humanity, Nance went on a long tirade about how Dostoevsky held the same opinion.

Chatting by the Meat Grinder

The biggest irony of the interview was when Nance mocked American right-wing militia members buying AR-15s after he had boasted of volunteering for a foreign army that mass-conscripted young men, often shipping them to the front with little to no training. Nance’s tall tales also omit the story of actual foreign volunteers in the ILTDU who have made it to the “meat grinder” as he repeatedly called it. 

It is not clear whether during his time in the theater of war Nance had reached a true combat zone, but other volunteers have. On June 22, American volunteer Stephen Zabielski was killed by a landmine. In April, upstate New York native Willy Cancel was killed in combat. And most recently, two Americans, Luke Lucyszyn and Bryan Young, were killed along with two other volunteers from Canada and Sweden in the Donetsk region. Two Americans were captured fighting in Ukraine in June, along with a third in July. They could all be sentenced to death, alongside three British and Moroccan fighters already tried by the Russian-controlled Donetsk People’s Republic. 

Earlier this month two more British volunteers, Andrew Hill and Dylan Healy, were charged with similar offenses after being captured. Another Briton, Paul Urey, was revealed to have died in DPR captivity although it is not confirmed that he was an actual combatant.

How serious is the situation of the captured men? Consider that most of the American public’s attention to American captives in Russia is focused on WNBA player Brittney Griner, who is being tried on drug possession charges. 

There is also a precedent for Americans foolishly wandering into a conflict as mercenaries only to meet an untimely end. 

Consider the case of Daniel Gearhart, a Maryland-born husband, father, and Vietnam veteran who ventured to Angola in 1976 as a soldier of fortune to fight for the anti-communist FNLA guerrilla group. Rushed into service for a small outfit of foreign fighters, Gearhart’s commander was a Cyprus-born veteran of the British Paratroopers named Costas Georgiou, better known as “Colonel Callen.” Based on his penchant for fearless combat against the Soviet-backed Angolan troops as well as his ruthless execution of his own fighters for any hint of insubordination, he might as well have called himself Colonel Kurtz like Marlon Brando’s character from “Apocalypse Now!  

Within a week of Gearhart’s joining the outfit, they were ambushed and captured by Cuban troops that had been tracking them. In the Luanda Trial that ensued Georgiou, Gearhart, and two other British citizens were sentenced to death, while nine others received long prison terms. On July 11, an Angolan firing squad carried out the sentences.

Gearhart’s case should serve as a warning to those who are taken in by the tough talk of charlatans like Nance to support deeper involvement of the United States and other Western nations in the Ukraine conflict.

The (Pay)day After

Nance is far from the only propagandist attempting to force rose-colored glasses onto the American people regarding Ukraine. Retired Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman this week co-wrote an essay in Foreign Affairs haughtily titled “Build Ukraine Back Better,” where he absurdly claims, “[i]t remains unclear how long the war will last, but what is clear is that this war will end with a Russian defeat and a sovereign and independent Ukraine emerging as a new European power.” He goes on to make the case for the United States to rebuild Ukraine in the wake of a conflict that likely would not have occured without the United States and European Union urging for Ukraine to affiliate with the EU at the expense of ties with Russia. 

Vindman is most famous for his role in the first impeachment hearings against Donald Trump. When answering questions from both parties, he repeatedly invoked his role in coordinating “interagency policy” with respect to Ukraine from within the White House National Security Council for his decision to speak out against Donald Trump’s temporary withholding of aid to Kyiv. 

The media crowned Vindman a hero and whistleblower even though he had usurped and obstructed the broad plenary powers of the president to decide foreign policy matters legally defined under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. In his new role, Vindman is fully ensconced in his true calling: lobbying and guilting America into its new nation-building project in Ukraine. 

According to the European Commission, the EU has contributed 4.1 billion euros (around $4.16 billion) to the Ukrainian war effort, while the U.K. has provided 3.8 billion pounds ($4.55 billion). The United States has sent a staggering $54 billion to Ukraine as of May, before several additional supplementary packages were sent through July. At the Lugano Conference Vindman mentions in Foreign Affairs, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s representatives announced an eye-popping price tag for rebuilding Ukraine:$750 billion

To put this sum into perspective, to meet this goal the Western allies would have to cough up a dollar amount exceeding the GDPs of Poland, Turkey, and the majority of other EU member states. Implicitly, Vindman is arguing that while Russia may be to blame for launching the war, Ukraine’s allies will have to pay for it. Yet Vindman has the temerity to declare Ukraine a “European power.”

During his WHYY interview, Nance voiced the absurd opinion that Russia was losing the war because it had failed to seize Ukraine’s capital of Kyiv. In this way he has moved the goalposts several football fields beyond the primary goal of Putin’s invasion, which was to secure control of the Donbass region and force Zelenskyy’s government to eschew close ties to NATO and the European Union. 

Russia is currently driving towards the conquest of the remainder of Donetsk, the region where it already holds almost two-thirds of the territory. Early in the invasion Russia succeeded in partially occupying two additional Ukrainian oblasts, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson along the Black Sea coast. Should he fully occupy Donetsk, Putin could become more ambitious on the battlefield against a diminished Ukrainian fighting force.

A July 18 NPR article attempted to describe the real picture of an outmanned and outgunned Ukrainian military. It painted the picture using the first-person account of a Ukrainian military cadet named Oleg rushed to the front from officer training academy, and a soldier named Oleksandr who was sent to the front in Sievierodonetsk within twelve days of enlistment.  

A Cause Sold at a Premium

Ukraine insisted in March that it does not use public-relations firms and speechwriters to craft its messaging, but records show otherwise. Its ambassador to the United Nnations, Sergiy Kyslytsya, said in March that no one besides Zelenskyy and Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba’s staff were researching or writing speeches. 

This was an absurd statement given it was well known that PR firm SKDKnickerbocker was contracted on their behalf. The Ukrainian Armed Forces contracted with American defense blogger Daniel Rice to write favorable articles about the war and the need for Congress to send more artillery. 

In a sign of just how shallow the Ukraine advocacy is regarding ethical consistency, in May the Ukrainian government hired Qorvis, LLC to represent them in Washington. Qorvis had from 2014 until earlier this year represented Russia in its efforts to fight U.S. sanctions legislation.

Do Americans believe the rosy picture painted by Nance and Vindman? Interest in the war has declined since it settled into the slower, bruising slugfest in April and May. With no limit placed on Russia’s ambitions within Ukraine at this point, the initial boost that it gave to middling Western politicians desperate for a unifying purpose has dissipated. Italy’s unity government has fallen, Boris Johnson’s government in the UK was dragged down by his own Tory Party. The promise of a grand adventure overseas was only a distraction rather than a treatment for problems at home. This should serve as a cautionary tale to warmongers: propping up the caving roof of someone else’s house against the rain will not fix the crumbling foundation of one’s own.



X22, Christian Patriot News, and more- August 1st

 



Evening. Here's tonight's news:


Are the New Progressive Rules Reciprocal? ~ VDH

Are today’s norms tomorrow’s norms? 


In the era of peak woke we are supposed to accept any radical departure from long-held custom and tradition as the new normal.

Perhaps. But if so, is the improved new code of behavior at least reciprocal? Will the radical Left really wish to live by its own novel normality when it loses power? 

Have leftists ever read Thucydides on the stasis at Corcyra and his warning that zealots who destroy laws, customs, and traditions for short-term gain, soon rue the day they began making such changes when, in vain, they seek refuge in the very sanctuaries of behavior that they have destroyed?  

Or will they just plead that their own rules do not apply to themselves given their innate moral superiority? Will they employ the John Kerry defense that one must bomb the upper atmosphere with private-jet carbon emissions in order to do the important work of flying around the globe to stop carbon emissions? 

The Supreme Court

How about the new protocols regarding the Supreme Court? 

Should conservatives mass at the home of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, decrying her radical nihilist abortionist ideology? Is that an understandable cri de coeur? Would such intimidation in the future moderate her extremism? Is that now an acceptable strategy? 

Should Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) now lead a throng of screaming, right-wing protestors to the very doors of the Supreme Court? Should he egg them on by calling out by name Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sotomayor, warning that they have sown the “wind” and will soon reap the “whirlwind,” as they will have no idea what “hit” them?  

Is that moral courage? Would the New York Times and NPR nod approval to such “grassroots” anguish? Will anyone define what the incendiary “hit them” means? 

When the Republicans gain the presidency and Congress, should they pack the court to 15 justices, on the cue of current progressive efforts? 

Is the new norm that right-wing goons should dog Justice Jackson while eating at restaurants, throng her—and then be contextualized and excused by conservative cabinet members, media, and politicians? Is that our new normal reaction to rulings with which we disagree? 

Should the next president trash the rulings of liberal justices when abroad before his foreign hosts? Should the conservative world keep mum when a crazy right-winger shows up fully armed near the homes of left-wing Supreme Court justices?  

Should the Left one day achieve a 5-4 majority, would major conservative politicians then claim that their rulings are “illegitimate” and seek to find ways to nullify them? 

Should conservative clerks leak controversial drafts of left-wing opinions to the media in hopes of mobilizing preemptive opposition to and strategies against subsequent progressive rulings?

Are the Left’s new Supreme Court protocols the new normal that the Right, when in power, should duplicate? 

The Congress 

If the Republicans enjoy a Senate majority in 2023, should they follow the left-wing cue of Barack Obama—to end the “Jim-Crow-era” and “racist” filibuster, and thereby end “obstructionist” ideologues who prefer “gridlock”? 

Should right-wingers designate 550 sanctuary jurisdictions in which overreaching federal environmental law simply does not fully apply? Are there to be cities and counties where federal gun registration is de facto dropped—on the principle of a higher allegiance to the Constitution? 

When Republicans take over the House in 2023, should they immediately start impeachment proceedings against Joe Biden, for destroying the border and ignoring his oath to faithfully execute immigration laws? 

Will they also appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the “Big Guy” to find how much of son Hunter Biden’s cash he received and whether he fully reported such income to the IRS—all to impeach Biden a second time as a private citizen once he leaves office? Is that the Left’s congressional legacy? 

Or should they call in Ivy League psychiatrists right now to tele-diagnose Biden as demented and deserving of an “intervention” under the 25th Amendment? Should they subpoena transcripts of all Biden’s private calls with foreign heads of state, or bring in those on the national security council to testify to what Biden said privately to foreign leaders, to ferret out any sign of senility or reference to Biden family skullduggery? 

Should a newly elected House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) tear up on national television the next misleading and factually inaccurate State of the Union address by Joe Biden? Will the nation then voice support for his adherence to the Nancy Pelosi norm?  

Will there soon be a return of the January 6 committee in which Speaker McCarthy appoints only those Democratic members who voted in 2023 to impeach Joe Biden and were political lame ducks? Will he announce that any members of “the squad” will not be serving on any congressional committees in 2023? 

Should the selectively packed committee examine the 120 days of 2020 rioting, the planned attempt to storm the White House grounds on May 31, 2020, the burning of a historic church or of a federal courthouse, and the Black Lives Matter/Antifa conspiracy to riot, loot, and destroy that was coordinated on social media? 

Will they call in an “insurrectionary abettor,” Vice President Kamala Harris, to ask why in the violent aftermath of an attack on the White House grounds did she as a vice presidential candidate boast that “protests” such as those would and should continue? 

Should “insurrectionist” Stacey Abrams be compelled to testify about her prior year-long efforts to “nullify” the Georgia gubernatorial vote? 

Will the new Congress investigate all the House and Senate members who tried to reject the Ohio vote of 2004, or who sought to pressure electors to reject their constitutional obligations in 2016, or all the senior left-wing politicians who claimed that the president in 2017 was “illegitimate,” the vote of 2016 was “rigged,” and Joe Biden should not honor the count in 2020 if it did not go his way? 

Will there be a new committee to investigate “left-wing rage,” to ascertain why political attackers, mass shooters, and attempted assassins serially target conservative congressmen, senators, Supreme Court justices, and gubernatorial candidates? Do they use social media to plan their nefarious plots? 

Was such unaddressed and ignored congressional rejectionism in the past “reckless” or even “insurrectionist”? 

The Military 

What will be the new norm should a new Republican-appointed chairman of the Joint Chiefs or defense secretary vow before Congress, without supporting documentation, that he is rooting out dangerous BLM and Antifa sympathizers in the military as likely insurrectionists? 

Will he express worry about “black rage” that is reflected in inordinate proportional representation in spiking violent crime, and especially disturbing new asymmetrical hate-crime statistics? Will he worry that white males are vastly “overrepresented” in combat units and die on the front lines at twicetheir numbers in the general population? Is that a de facto violation to the most existential degree of equity and inclusion or diversity? 

What will be the reaction if the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs calls up his Chinese Communist counterpart to warn him that Joe Biden is senile and talks recklessly about “removing” Putin, and thus China or Russia must be warned should Biden suggest something dangerous? Do new military norms accept the chairman now has operational authority and can simply abort the chain of command when he sees fit, regardless of the statutory link between the president and defense secretary and their theater commanders? 

What will happen if a slew of conservative retired generals now senses a new normal and will thus publicly decry Joe Biden as a fascist, a Nazi-like failure, a veritable architect of Auschwitz border cages, a liar, a cheat, and deserving of removal the sooner the better? Will that be OK? 

Will there follow applause or at least exemption under the new normal, or will an unhinged liberal voice in the wilderness vainly suggest such invective is improper if not illegal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice? 

What would happen should the new military demand mandatory conservative and traditional civic education among the ranks, banish the current woke diversity-equity-inclusion industry—and thus see recruitment crash? Would the Left stay silent or scream as the army struggles to achieve just 40 percent of its recruitment goals? 

The FBI and CIA 

What about the new normal at the FBI? Will it stay a retrieval service, but this time around for a Republican president in 2025—should an addled first family member lose a feloniously incriminating laptop, a sexually embarrassing diary, an unlawfully and deceitfully registered handgun, or a wayward crack pipe? 

Will the next FBI director preposterously open an investigation during the 2024 election, on rumors that the activities of the Biden family, of General Mark Milley, of Anthony Fauci, of key senators with Chinese financial interests all constitute a sort-of-kind-of “collusion” conspiracy with China, aimed at advancing a self-enriching and mutual left-wing agenda in the presidential election? 

Will the FBI director claim 245 times under oath before Congress he has no memory of what he has ordered? Will it be a slap-on-the-wrist, reduced-sentence tacit approval that an FBI lawyer altered a court document to ensure we get to the bottom of “Chinese collusion”? Is it alright if we learn that a Republican presidential candidate hired a foreign ex-spy, and hid his pay behind three walls, to find dirt on his opponents? 

Will Congress bring in some old right-wing FBI retired bulldog to compile a “dream team” of Federalist Society legal zealots to hunt for “Chinese collusion” among Democratic grandees? 

Will the FBI investigate Mark Zuckerberg, following his $419 million dark-money trail to see how many state registrars were absorbed by Zuck-bucks cash in conspiratorial fashion? 

Will an enterprising conservative ex-spy compile a fantasy “dossier” of alleged Biden family shenanigans, in lurid sexual detail, with the Chinese, and then peddle it to right-wing blogs on the eve of an election, all while being paid by the FBI? 

In answer to the “Access Hollywood” and various lawsuits and investigations of Donald Trump,  will Congress form a committee equally to ferret out the apparent pandemic of left-wing sexual harassment, illicit romances, and dangerous liaisons, as they call in the Cuomo brothers, Andrew Gillum, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.)—and Joe Biden? 

Will the FBI in 2025 be dispatched to school board meetings to monitor whether left-wing activists are too intimidating to board members? Will they bring in SWAT teams to arrest leftist political operatives whom the Republican Justice Department finds possibly indictable? 

Will they put in chains prominent ex-Democratic advisors who refuse a Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) subpoena to appear before his new Hunter Biden committee? Will they roust out in their underwear, leftist reporters who are rumored to be in possession of a Republican president’s daughter’s diary, intimating she took inappropriate showers with her dad? 

Will 50 prominent conservative ex-CIA operatives and other intelligence officers swear in 2024 that a lost Republican laptop outlining payoffs from foreign sources was a product of Chinese disinformation? Will former conservative CIA directors or directors of national intelligence lie under oath to Congress with impunity? 

In sum, are today’s norms tomorrow’s norms? 

Or were they simply transitory and necessary in the age of the dreaded Trump—as one-time leftist means to achieve noble ends, and thus should never be institutionalized much less boomeranged? 

If so, will they reappear whenever the Left returns to power? 

Or should they be applied equally to the Left right now to ensure that outrage and disgust with such immoral and illegal machinations prohibit their use in the future?



The Justice Department Delegitimizes Itself

The government is fast racking up taxpayer bills approaching $100 million going after Donald Trump while spending but pennies to put leftist rioters in jail. 
It’s a problem.


The ideal of justice is a blindfolded woman poised and still and holding slowly balancing scales. At the Department of Justice over the last several years, the practice of justice is more like an inflatable flailing tube man.  

In the lead-up to the 2016 election, everyone thought that federal prosecutors would decide whether to charge Hillary Clinton based on whether she knowingly violated a law that bars mishandling of classified material. It turned out that then-FBI Director James Comey would decide on the basis of what he thought was “reasonable.” After initially letting Clinton off, the tube man flailed right and Comey, breaking procedure against commenting on a pending investigation, announced that the Clinton probe was on again.   

The Justice Department only got worse from there. Comey told the country that one reason not to charge Clinton was that the government had never before charged someone for conduct similar to hers. Yet after Comey, the Department went on to spend years investigating Donald Trump, not only for conduct never before charged, but for crimes no one even knew were crimes—including rude tweets. A dusty old law chiefly prohibiting cheating the federal government out of money would be stapled to Trump’s tweets and taped to an obstruction-of-justice charge and then the president was going to be marched off to prison for conspiracy to steal an election—or so the Department led the country’s credulous Left to believe for years.  

Gone are the days of Comey’s somewhat evenhanded blundering. The flailing man’s hands are now in an unmistakable search for the necks of its political opponents. Consider the unruly Capitol protest following the 2020 election. For the protesters, the Department has dusted off the charge of “seditious conspiracy.”   

The last time the department pursued seditious conspiracy charges, in 2010, it went after a group of Christian nationalists. The charges were thrown out of court. The last time the department made the charge stick was about 30 years ago—against Islamic terrorists who plotted to blow up the FBI and United Nations headquarters. In that case, seditious conspiracy was icing atop an already well-baked cake of indisputable crime. 

But for the Capitol protesters, the charge is the essential means by which the government hopes to turn a protest into Pearl Harbor. Without seditious conspiracy, all the department can serve its political masters for dessert are uncoordinated offenses against the public peace, mostly misdemeanors like trespass, in a protest otherwise well within the guarantee of the First Amendment.  

Offenses against the public peace hardly moved Justice Department officials when leftists tormented hundreds of cities and towns across America in 2020. They killed dozens, assaulted thousands of policemen, and caused billions in damages. For them, the Justice Department took a break from its legal MacGyverism. Although groups of Leftists organizing online sought “to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of . . . law[s] of the United States,” nonefaced charges for seditious conspiracy—even after attacking federal courthouses, ICE facilities, and even the White House itself.   

For the worst of the leftist rioters, federal prosecutors played the role of defense lawyers. They pleaded with a federal judge to go easy on Montez Terriel Lee, Jr., who burned a man to death in a Minnesota business he set on fire because—and this is a quote from the government’s actual brief—Lee, a five-time convict, “credibly state[ed] that he was in the streets to protest unlawful police violence against black men, and there is no basis to disbelieve” him. The brief even urged the judge to see that “a riot is the language of the unheard,” profanely quoting the revered apostle of nonviolence, Martin Luther King, Jr.  

For Montez Lee, the tube man flailed so far left it became a windsock in a gale and snapped.  

Federal sentencing guidelines called for Lee to get 20 years in prison. The government wanted him to get no more than 12. For Guy Wesley Reffitt, a Capitol protester who had no serious criminal past, hurt no one, and never even entered the Capitol building, guidelines call for about 10 years. The Department wants to stick him with 15.  

For Reffitt, in the government’s view, a riot is not the “language of the unheard” but an “attack on our democracy”—by which prosecutors mean Lee’s democracy and not Reffitt’s. In the democracy the Justice Department cares to protect, whether Reffitt sincerely believed that he was the one defending American democracy from an unlawful attack isn’t worth considering because Reffitt backed the wrong guy—and nothing is worse than that. Not even murder. 

Since President Trump’s election, the animating principle of the Justice Department has boiled down to one rule: “get him.” Reffitt’s is just another body the department plans to climb over to reach Trump—whom it wants to charge as the ringleader of a popular paroxysm that it helped to stoke by its own corruption but which it tries to dress up as the brainchild of the one man it most hates. And Lee, the Minnesota rioter, is just another soldier granted pardon for his service in the Left’s anti-Trump politics.   

The Justice Department is unlikely ever to reform itself. It is fast racking up taxpayer bills approaching $100 million going after Trump and his supporters while spending but pennies to put leftist rioters in jail. Its problem is its people. Federal prosecutors such as Jeffrey S. Nestler in Reffitt’s case and Thomas Calhoun-Lopez in Lee’s are model, longstanding Justice Department employees. That’s the problem.  

The task of reforming the Justice Department will fall to a Republican Party doing its voters’ will—and perhaps also to a reelected President Trump himself. For no matter how brazen the department’s corruptions become, there will never be enough space in jail for the more than 74 million Americans who voted for President Trump in 2020 despite the strenuous efforts of his most committed enemies. 



Sunday Talks, Fed Chief Kashkari Says High Inflation Spreading More Broadly Throughout Entire Economy



The pretending from the federal reserve chairs continues.  In this interview, Neel Kashkari, the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, says “we keep getting surprised” by data on inflation, which continues to be “higher than we expect, across the broad range of the economy.”  Yet, notice that Kashkari refuses to outline the single cause of the broad inflation is the intentional lack of energy production. [Transcript]

Kashkari continues the selling point that demand side inflation is being targeted because demand still exceeds supply.  That’s essentially true, however, it is the supply of energy that is fundamentally disrupted by Joe Biden energy policy.  It is not consumer demand for goods and services, it is the structural need for consumers to have consistent, affordable energy resources.

The collapse of energy production from domestic coal, oil and gas development is the problem.  Everything else is ancillary to the origination problem.  However, in order to support the climate agenda, the Federal Reserve must pretend not to know this. WATCH:


Kashkari notes a serious problem can arise when wage inflation starts to catch up with inflation overall.  THAT just happened last month.  The combination of wage inflation to match the high consumer inflation then drives an even higher cost for goods and services.  This is the inflation storm that leads to hyper-inflation, structurally high inflation that cannot be controlled by any monetary measure, and unfortunately, we just entered the first outer bands of this inflation hurricane last month.

A personal sidenote: when we were going through the pandemic crisis and response in 2020/2021, CTH took heat for saying the real objective at the end of the pandemic path was the global climate change agenda.  Well, here we are.  At the end of this climate change path is full control over human activity using digital currency.  Hunger games.

[Transcript] – JOHN DICKERSON: We turn now to the president of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve, Neel Kashkari. Good morning, Neel. Inflation–

PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS NEEL KASHKARI: –John, thanks for having me.

JOHN DICKERSON: Thank you for being here. Okay. Everybody wants to know inflation, still hot? What is it? What does it look like to you?

KASHKARI: It’s very concerning, you know, we keep getting inflation readings, new data that comes in, and as recently as this past week, and we keep getting surprised. It’s higher than we expect. And it’s not just a few categories. It’s spreading out more broadly, across the economy. And that’s why the Federal Reserve is acting with such urgency to get it under control and bring it back down.

JOHN DICKERSON: Wages within that, what does the wage picture look like in two different ways, we measure it, both just on its own, and then relative to inflation?

KASHKARI: For most Americans, their wages are going up, but they’re not going up as fast as inflation. So most Americans, real wages, real incomes are going down. That’s why families are finding it increasingly hard to make ends meet. When they go to the grocery store, when they buy necessities, they’re not able to buy as much because they’re getting a real wage cut, because inflation is growing so quickly. I mean, typically we think about wage driven inflation, where wages grow quickly. And then that leads to higher prices in a self fulfilling spiral. That is not yet happening. High prices and wages are now trying to catch up to those high prices. Those high prices are being driven by supply chains and the war in Ukraine, among other factors. And so we need to get the economy back into balance before this really does become a wage driven inflation story.

JOHN DICKERSON: Let me ask you about a figure that people may not know as much about, everybody knows about the consumer price index and inflation, the economic cost index came out this week. And some economists look at that as a signal for inflation. Tell me what you saw in the economic cost index this week.

KASHKARI: Well, we have a lot of different measures, for example of wages, of what’s happening to wages. And ECI, as I call it, is one measure that it’s a- it’s a robust measure of what’s happening to wages and what’s happening to benefits, and wages continue to climb. And on one level, that’s a good thing. We want Americans to be making more money. But if wages are climbing, such that the economy shows that it’s overheating, that tells me that the Federal Reserve has more work to do to bring inflation down to bring the economy into balance just at its basic level. Inflation is when demand is outstripping supply. We know supply is low because of supply chains, because of the war in Ukraine, because of COVID. We hoped that supply would come online more quickly, that hasn’t happened. So we have to get demand down into balance. Now, I hope we get some help on the supply side. But that doesn’t change the fact that the Federal Reserve has its job to do, and we are committed to doing it.

JOHN DICKERSON: We have 30 seconds left. Help on the supply side, what does that mean?

KASHKARI: Well, I talked to a lot of global businesses who are trying to get their supply chain sorted out so that they can meet their customers’ needs and make sure that there are products on the shelves. They’re making some progress. There’s some signs, it’s getting better, but it’s taking a lot longer than they thought and that I thought and so that means we cannot wait till supply fully heals. We have to do our part with monetary policy.

JOHN DICKERSON: We’re gonna take a commercial, we’ll be back to continue this conversation with Neel Kashkari. Stick with us.

JOHN DICKERSON: Welcome back to Face The Nation. We continue our conversation with Minneapolis Federal Reserve’s Neel Kashkari. Neel, let’s pick up where you left off on this question of supply. When I was talking with two senators earlier there was this debate about whether taxation on companies that don’t pay a minimum level of taxation will have their supply hurt. So in other words, you tax- tax them supply goes down, that hurts with inflation. What’s your assessment of that?

KASHKARI: You know, long over the long term, that’s probably true. On the margin, people say that about raising interest rates, why raise interest rates, that’s going to make it more expensive for firms to invest. And that’s going to not help with the supply side. That’s true over the long-term. But over the short-term, the demand side effects totally swamped the supply side effects. And so when I look at a bill that’s being considered that your two senators talked about, my guess is over the next couple of years, it’s not going to have much of an impact on inflation. It’s not going to affect how I analyze inflation. Over the next few years, I think long term, it may have some effect. But over the near term, we have an acute mismatch between demand and supply. And it’s really up to the Federal Reserve to be able to bring that demand down, and we’re committed to doing what we need to do.

JOHN DICKERSON: Neel, help me understand recessions. There is a debate in Washington that’s full of political gamesmanship. So take us inside why it matters if America is in a recession, and what the component parts are, that are a part of that and how that helps us understand the health of the economy.

KASHKARI: Well, it really matters when Americans feel it, when Americans are, especially in the job market. That’s the most important part of the economy, so to speak, for Americans is their job. Do they have a decent place to work and earning decent wages? And typically, recessions are, they demonstrate why job loss is high unemployment, those are terrible for American families. And we’re not seeing anything like that. The labor market so far, is very strong, we are seeing some sectors like the tech sector start to shed workers or start to cool down in hiring. But fundamentally, the labor market appears to be very strong. While GDP, that the amount the economy is producing, appears to be shrinking. So we’re getting mixed signals out of the economy. From my perspective, in terms of getting inflation in check, whether we are technically in a recession or not, doesn’t change my analysis. I’m focused on the inflation data. I’m focused on the wage data. And so far, inflation continues to surprise us to the upside, wages continue to grow. So far, the labor market is very, very strong. And that means whether we are technically in a recession or not, doesn’t change the fact that the Federal Reserve has its own work to do. And we are committed to doing it.

JOHN DICKERSON: Last 20 seconds, Neel, on GDP when it goes down, isn’t that kind of what the Feds trying to do? Slow down growth? So is that a good number?

KASHKARI: Well, we definitely want to see some slowing. We don’t want to see the economy overheating. We would love it if we can transition to a sustainable economy without tipping the economy into recession. There’s not a great record of doing that. Typically when the economy slows down, it slows down by quite a bit, especially if it’s the central bank that is inducing the slowdown. So we’re going to do everything we can to try to avoid a recession. But we are committed to bringing inflation down and we’re going to do what we need to do. And we’re a long way away from achieving an economy that is back at 2% inflation and that’s where we need to get to.

JOHN DICKERSON: All right, Neel Kashkari. Thanks so much for being with us. And we’ll be back in a moment. (read more)




CBS News Poll Provides Red Flag After Red Flag for Democrats


Bonchie reporting for RedState 

Is the Democrat Party on the rebound heading into November’s mid-term elections? If the latest CBS News poll is any indication, the answer is a resounding “no.”

Despite proclamations that Joe Biden is “back in the game” and that the left is enjoying a bump following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the survey provides red flag after red flag for Democrats. And while the CBS News shows have spent Sunday morning trying their hardest to spin the findings by focusing heavily on female opposition to Republicans over abortion, even that “good news” for Democrats is tempered by a lack of enthusiasm.

Every single election cycle, Democrats and their media allies convince themselves that they are going to turn out young voters and shift elections. Every single election cycle, that plan falls flat. It looks like that’ll happen again in November, with under-30 voters being, by far, the least enthusiastic demographic for the mid-terms.

As to the liberal wine-mom contingent, while they are really big on abortion, they are also suffering from a lack of enthusiasm. And what does a lack of enthusiasm lead to? It leads to decreased turnout, something Democrats can’t afford given their epic collapse among Hispanic voters, which is also reflected in this poll.

You are reading that correctly. The GOP has closed a 40-point gap with Hispanic voters since 2018, bringing it to just three points in 2022, and there’s every reason to think things could continue to shift further before the votes are cast. Democrats have taken a huge demographic advantage and sacrificed it on the alter of woke-ism over the last two cycles. I hope it was worth it to solidify those gains with suburban white women.

There’s more bad news, though. On the issue of January 6th, no one cares except Democrats.

If you are asking why 15 percent of Republicans think January 6th is important to their vote, it’s almost certainly because they disapprove of the select committee, and with only 45 percent of independents saying it’s a factor, the issue is just not a gamechanger for Democrats. Further attempts to drag out the hearings all the way until November will likely only lead to further polarization. That’s the corner Democrats have painted themselves into. They’ve obsessed over issues that don’t move the dial, and that will end poorly for them.

As to the overall numbers, CBS News projects the electorate will be four points in the GOP’s favor. That’s an exact flip from what they found in 2018, where Democrats held a four-point advantage.

There’s just nothing here for Democrats to hang their hat on. Yes, college-educated white women still love them, but that’s been baked into the cake for a long time now. The shift in the Hispanic vote is going to be massive, putting many seats in play that were thought to favor Democrats. Meanwhile, inflation and the economy continue to be the top issues for voters, and that’s not going to improve significantly anytime soon.