Enough of the B.S. Regarding Saudi Arabia

By exporting our inflation around the globe, Biden is intentionally violating a core requirement of the dollar being the world’s reserve currency—and countries around the world are not happy about it.

by John Conlin for American Greatness

Let’s first get the mandatory disclaimer out of the way: The Saudis are not our friends and they never have been. It doesn’t follow, therefore, that they must be our enemy. Not being a friend is not the same as being an enemy. And, in any event, grownups know that countries don’t exactly have friends, they have interests and interests shift with time and events.

It has been a strategic error of this country for decades—with both political parties acting as willful participants—to accept the internal Saudi Arabian “deal” where the royals can live whatever decadent lifestyles they choose so long as they allow the Wahabis to control Islamic teaching and world-wide propagation of the faith from the home of the most sacred sites in Islam.

This has not only allowed, but encouraged the spread of a poisonous branch of Islam across the globe. A great many problems in the world find their roots in this sick compromise.

But regarding the recent Saudi kick in the groin to the Biden Administration—the rejection of a request to greatly increase oil production—the Saudis have made it clear that they intend, instead, to actually lower production.

The White House and its lackeys in the press are in full court press to sell the idea this is the result of some deep and nefarious Saudi-Russian partnership. Ultimately it seems to be the only play in their playbook—when all else fails, blame Russia.

Let me suggest another reason. The Saudis—and in fact most of the world—are not overjoyed with the United States’ decision to export inflation across the globe. Yes, this is a conscious decision by those in power.

For decades, the deal we have had with the Saudis committed them to the petrodollar system with the unspoken agreement that we, in return, would be good stewards of the world’s reserve currency, the dollar.

The Biden Administration has fundamentally violated this agreement and the Saudis, and many others around the world, are not particularly happy with how this violation has impacted their assets and wealth.

Inflation like we are seeing now is direct, planned theft—and the victims of theft, whether they are citizens from flyover country or a sovereign country whose economy is intricately tied to the dollar—generally don’t like it when someone steals from them.

One can also assume the Saudis did not appreciate it when Biden himself excoriated the Saudi leadership and called them a worldwide pariah. This is a poor way to strengthen relationships and people generally don’t go out of their way to assist someone who repeatedly and publicly insults them. Most five-year-olds have seen enough of life to have already grasped this reality. But Biden, somehow, thinks it makes him look tough.

In addition, this administration’s inexorable—bordering on insane—desire to assist Iran in their quest for even more regional power and, ultimately, nuclear weapons doesn’t help the matter.

But it is the Biden Administration’s deliberate inflationary actions, as they continue to flood the world with trillions in recently created dollars, that is at the core of the Saudi pique. 

By exporting our inflation around the globe, Biden is violating a core requirement of the dollar being the world’s reserve currency—and countries around the world are not happy about it.

Yes, that dastardly Putin is a bad character. But there are a lot of bad characters around the globe and we generally find ways to deal with them. The Saudis may or may not have some secret pact with Putin but their refusal to bend to Biden’s will regarding oil production is far more likely based on Biden’s violation of a very long-standing agreement—and those Russkies have got nothing to do with it.

Like most American citizens, the Saudis don’t appreciate being stolen from. It’s no more complicated than that.

X22, On the Fringe, and more- Oct 15

 

Been a great week for Hetty appreciation! Here's tonight's news:

We’re in the Climate Army Now

This is not the first time the Democrats have raised the specter of Armageddon to shamelessly pass off their failed policies.

by Thaddeus G. McCotter for American Greatness

During the Global War on Terror, when the United States was engaged battling terrorists and insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Left routinely lied to young voters that President George W. Bush in particular, and Republicans in general, were going to reinstitute the draft and send them to these active military theaters. The Left’s message was less than subtle: vote for Democrats or else the GOP will make sure you’re drafted and/or dead.

I was reminded of this in the heat of the 2020 election, when one of the Democrats’ smears was that an unstable President Trump was going to involve us in a war—likely a nuclear one. As during the Bush Administration, the scurrilous charge targeted young voters. What was different was that Trump was far less interventionist, and utilized American military power with significantly less frequency than did his predecessors. If one understands the Left’s tactics, Trump’s disinclination to use military power was not only insufficient to stop their “he’ll get us in a war” lie; it was, in fact, their reason for spreading it. (To those who contest this assessment of the Left’s tactics, does “Russiagate” ring a bell?)

Heading into the 2022 midterm elections, the Democrats and their media cohorts are now using the prospect of nuclear war to try and prop up Joe Biden’s sagging poll numbers, which threaten to drag his party’s federal and state candidates down to defeat. To wit, Biden opined to a gaggle of fat cat Democrats:

[For the] first time since the Cuban Missile Crisis, we have a direct threat of the use [of a] nuclear weapon if, in fact, things continue down the path they are going. We’ve got a guy [Putin] I know fairly well. He’s not joking when he talks about potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons because his military is, you might say, significantly underperforming.

Yes, if the Democrats’ stoking of “civil war” rhetoric isn’t enough to get their voters to the polls for the 2022 midterm elections, why not toss in the prospect of nuclear annihilation—along a path they and their minions have helped cement—even as they taunt the enemy to try to look like a tough guy? 

What could possibly go wrong?

Nonetheless, after Biden raised the prospect of nuclear Armageddon, it should come as no surprise the Democrats have been mum about his administration reinstituting the draft. Well, in fairness, the Democrats have tried to require young women to register for the selective service; and, in the interim, the administration has averred that anyone born male at birth must register for the draft. Some observers might say these are signals the Biden Administration is taking the initial preparatory measures to reinstitute the draft. But the Left assures us these draft policies are for “progress” and “equity,” or something. Thus far, such threadbare assurances have sufficed to lead young voters, if not exactly to embrace these measures, then at least to consider them benign.

Such an about-face in messaging is a difficult balancing act, but for Democrats it is a well-trod tightrope. This is not the first time the Democrats have raised the specter of nuclear Armageddon to shamelessly try to pass off their failed policies. Their most notable, injurious, and perverse claim was that unless we trusted the world’s greatest state sponsor of terror—Iran—to use nuclear power (soley for domestic energy purposes, you understand) they would get ahold of nuclear weapons and Armageddon would ensue. This risible argument was advanced to conceal the fact Iran has persistently tried to expand its military’s use of nuclear and missile technology, and has no intention of stopping. Tehran’s terrorist regime wants sanctions relief andnuclear weapons. The Iran nuke deal would be a suicide pact for the West, as it only delays the day of Iran becoming a nuclear power that can export terror—and potentially far worse horrors—safe under their nuclear armed umbrella.   

In the instance of the Iran pact, as with Biden’s latest claim, the Democrats are relying on the indoctrinated to recall the trope that Republicans are warmongers; and, conversely, that the Democrats will spare young voters from the draft and/or military service during a war. The Democrats are also relying upon their decades-long effort to inculcate people—and youth, in particular—with the dread of the climate apocalypse. 

This paranoid dread of the climate apocalypse is an attempt by the Left to exchange the concrete threat of nuclear war that the Right had defused (if only momentarily by defeating the Soviet Union in the first Cold War) for a manufactured fear that the world was going to end in fire and/or ice, depending on Goddess Gaia’s mood in the moment. 

Today’s young voters have largely been spared the pervasive, persistent threat of nuclear war faced by other generations. Thus, where previous generations of young voters engaged in anti-war and “No Nukes” organizations and campaigns, this generation’s youthful energy is channeled into the climate change hoax movement. This is not to say young voters are blasé about the environmental damage caused by a nuclear explosion. Nevertheless, even though science doesn’t support the more extreme claims of climate alarmism which, ergo, means the danger and damages of nuclear war (even if it’s only tactical nuclear weapons) is a graver threat—for young voters a nuclear exchange remains a subordinate fear in relation to the climate apocalypse.

Further, given their priorities regarding humanity’s impending doom, young voters are disproportionately eager and willing to follow the governmental dictates and jettison their liberty, prosperity, and pursuit of happiness to “defeat” climate change (even though no one has defined what the ultimate victory will look like). How different is that from being drafted into the military?

It is significant. For, when it comes to losing their rights to defend the United States against her enemies, many young voters don’t want to be drafted; but when it comes to “preventing” the climate apocalypse, many young voters have already volunteered.

It’s you they intend to draft.    

To paraphrase the 1917 song by Tell Taylor and Ole Olsen, “We’re in the Army Now”:

From the looks of things, we’ve got to join the climate army.

Uncle Sammy means to do just what he says.

It won’t be long before we’re lighting candles,

A-fighting against that mean old climate change,

So, though nothing can wrong,

Still we sing this little song:

We’re in the climate army now.

We’re stuck behind a plow.

We’ll never get, you son-of-a-b—h.

We’re in the climate army now.

We’re in the climate army now.

Suppose you wonder how?

But don’t you fear. You’ll soon be here.

We’re in the climate army now.

Why The FBI’s Last-Minute Change To A FISA Application Is Worse Than Using Unverified Steele Dossier

It was the final FISA deception, not merely the FBI’s reliance on the uncorroborated Steele dossier, that led to the illegal surveillance of Carter Page.

Margot Cleveland reporting for The Federalist

Special Counsel John Durham’s deft questioning of FBI agent Brian Auten during the prosecution of Steele-dossier primary sub-source Igor Danchenko confirmed the Crossfire Hurricane team obtained permission to surveil U.S. citizen Carter Page without first verifying the dossier’s claims. While scandalous, the Justice Department’s deceptive framing of Christopher Steele’s source network as connected to his prior work with British intelligence is worse because the higher-ups who authorized the inclusion of this detail in the final revision of the application knew a FISA warrant would likely be denied without the misrepresentation. 

The special counsel’s criminal trial against Danchenko on five counts of lying to the FBI began earlier this week in a Virginia federal court, with prosecutor Michael Keilty framing for the jury the significance of Danchenko’s alleged lies during the government’s opening statement. 

“The evidence in this trial will show that the Steele dossier would cause the FBI to engage in troubling conduct that would ultimately result in the extended surveillance of the United States citizen,” Keilty began, a reference to the FBI’s FISA-approved surveillance of Page. “And the defendant’s lies played a role in that surveillance,” the prosecution continued, arguing that Danchenko lied about his sources. Specifically, the government explained, the evidence would show Danchenko lied about Sergei Millian being one source and then later falsely denied that Charles Dolan provided other information Danchenko had fed to Steele.

The Uncorroborated Dossier

John Durham then questioned the government’s first witness, Brian Auten. Through Auten, a supervisory intelligence analyst for the FBI who led the analysts working on Crossfire Hurricane, the special counsel elicited testimony for the jury of the origins of the investigation into the Trump campaign and the D.C. headquarters’ receipt of the Steele dossier on Sept. 19, 2016. 

From there, Auten walked the jury through a trip to Europe, in which agents offered Steele up to $1 million for information to confirm the dossier allegations, and Steele’s inability to provide evidence to confirm the claims of Trump-Russia collusion. Auten further explained that while Steele refused to identify his sources, by December of 2016, through research, Auten had determined that Danchenko served as Steele’s primary sub-source. 

After identifying Danchenko as Steele’s primary sub-source, Auten explained that the FBI sought Danchenko’s cooperation, making him a confidential human source and offering him immunity. Auten further testified about Danchenko’s work with the Crossfire Hurricane team and what Danchenko told them — and didn’t tell them, including Danchenko’s claims, multiple times, that he had received a telephone call from someone he believed to be Millian providing intel about the Trump campaign’s Russia connections. Auten also told the jury that Danchenko had denied talking with Dolan about any of the details contained in the dossier. 

Durham further elicited from Auten testimony that the four FISA applications used to obtain a surveillance order to spy on Page included information from the Steele dossier, including details provided by Danchenko that Danchenko had attributed to Millian. And in questioning Auten about the FISA applications and their reliance on the Steele dossier, Durham pounded the point that the FBI had used the Steele dossier to obtain a court order to surveil a United States citizen without corroborating any of the substantive details contained in the supposed intelligence report.

Between Sept. 19, 2016, when the FBI headquarters first received the Steele dossier, and Oct. 21, 2016, when the government submitted the first FISA application, “were you able to confirm or corroborate in any of the FBI system the very serious allegations that were contained in dossier reports,” Durham asked Auten. “No,” Auten replied.

“And what can you tell the jurors about whether or not any of the intelligence agencies that the FBI contacted for corroborative information produced any corroborative information” about the dossier’s allegations? Durham inquired. 

“We did receive information back from a number of different agencies,” Auten explained, but nothing that corroborated the specific allegations in the dossier.

The questions continued: “Did Christopher Steele provide any corroborative information for the information that was contained in his reports, in the dossier reports?”

“Not for the allegations, no,” Auten confirmed.

“At any time when you were overseas meeting with Steele in early October, did he provide anything?” Durham pushed.

Auten: “He did not.”

What about “at any time after the October meeting with Mr. Steele and after the million dollars-plus had been offered as an incentive to provide corroborative information for what was in those reports, did he provide any corroborative information?” Durham inquired.

“No,” Auten testified.

And yet, portions of the Steele dossier “played a significant part” in the Carter Page FISA applications. The special counsel reiterated that point regularly during the first few days of the trial while stressing — in question after question — that the FBI had failed to corroborate the allegations.

With Danchenko being the main source for Steele’s dossier, that testimony strengthened the government’s case that Danchenko’s alleged lies materially affected the FBI’s investigation. Simultaneously, the special counsel’s line of questioning served to castigate Auten and the other members of the Crossfire Hurricane team for using uncorroborated material to surveil a United States citizen.

Misleading M16 Info

The FBI’s use of the uncorroborated Steele dossier was not the FBI’s worst offense, however. Worse still was the Crossfire Hurricane team’s last-minute amendment to the FISA application that misleadingly framed Steele’s source network as one established during his time as an MI6 agent, when, in fact, neither Danchenko nor any of Steele’s other dossier sources had been sources during his time with British intelligence. 

While Steele would later confirm for the inspector general that his source network did not involve sources from his time with MI6, but “was developed entirely in the period after he retired from government service,” from Auten’s detailed trial testimony, we now know that the Crossfire Hurricane team either knew Steele’s source network was not connected to British intelligence or knew that it could not, in good faith, make that representation to the FISA court. 

For two days, Durham elicited testimony from Auten of the FBI’s attempts to ascertain Steele’s source network, including during a trip to Europe in early October, but Steele refused to identify his sources. Auten’s testimony in this regard proves significant when considered together with details previously revealed in the Office of Inspector General’s report on FISA abuse. 

In discussing the process the FBI undertook to obtain the first FISA warrant on Page, the OIG explained that the day before the FISA court granted the surveillance order, the government submitted a “read copy” of the FISA application to the FISA court’s legal adviser for a preliminary assessment of any issues. The FISA court’s legal adviser asked the attorney working with the FBI on the application “how it was that Steele had a network of subsources?” 

The government lawyer “provided additional information to him regarding Steele’s past employment history,” the OIG report explained; that response implied Steele’s source network came from his time with MI6. Significantly, the FISA court’s legal adviser then indicated the additional detail of Steele’s prior work with British intelligence should be included in the official FISA application to the court. 

“That the legal advisor not only raised the question about Steele’s access to a network of sources, but then insisted that the FISA application be updated to include information concerning Steele’s prior government position, shows the FISA court placed great significance on Steele’s previous British intelligence work for purposes of assessing the reliability of his source network.” And with that misleading information added, the next day, Oct. 21, 2016, the FISA court issued the first of four orders authorizing the surveillance of Page’s phone and email accounts.

Given the importance the legal adviser placed on understanding Steele’s source network, it seems unlikely the FISA court would have authorized the surveillance of Page had the FBI either acknowledged that Steele’s source network came from his private work with Orbis or conceded that Steele had refused to reveal his sources. It was this final deception, then, and not merely the FBI’s reliance on the uncorroborated Steele dossier, that led to the illegal surveillance of Page. And, here, those involved in adding the last-minute, credibility-boosting footnote reference to Steele’s MI6 work knew full well that misrepresentation would score the bureau a surveillance warrant, making it an even worse transgression. 

Of course, we’ve yet to see the FBI agents responsible for this farce face justice, and as edifying as it is to hear Durham eviscerate the agents involved, that is not enough to ensure this travesty never repeats itself — because it already is. 

WATCH: Muslim Parents Revolt at School Board Meeting Over Sexually-Explicit LGBT Agenda

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

Who could have possibly guessed that heavily traditional Muslim parents might not be too keen on sexually-explicit LGBT content in schools? Apparently, that came as a shock to the school board in Dearborn, MI, which faced a parental revolt on Thursday evening.

A crowd of about 600 people gathered at the school board meeting, most appearing to be Arab. Dearborn is, of course, the most heavily Muslim area of the country. Wild scenes followed as activists and union members repeatedly attempted to call for unity to no avail.

This was a clash long in the making. Despite typically voting for the Democratic Party, Muslims are largely traditionalists when it comes to the LGBT agenda. And while many Muslims in the United States are tolerant enough to look the other way in general society, they aren’t going to sit by as their children are exposed to sexually-explicit material in school.

In this case, six books promoting the LGBT agenda have caused an uproar. Fox 2 in Detroit provides some details.

Dozens of people wanted their voices heard about the six LCBTQ+ books being reviewed by the district, including “This Book is Gay” and “All Boys Aren’t Blue.” This review comes after a parent complained that the books were sexually explicit and inappropriate for children.

“A normal, psychologically sound and stable mind would come to a conclusion that that specific material is nothing but sexually explicit,” Ziad Abdalmalik said.

It’s been a minute since I’ve been in school, but I don’t remember books being in the library explicitly promoting and describing heterosexual sex. Why do schools need books called “This Book is Gay” and “All Boys Aren’t Blue” in their libraries? Those are topics best left between parents and their children, and I think that’s what these Muslim parents are saying in their protest.

Of course, the Karen contigent was present as well.

Those who disagree say this uproar is not about books at all, but rather about LGBTQ people.

“Stop pretending this is about protecting children from books. We all know this is about erasing our LBGTQ students and staff. It was literally written on signs people brought to the meeting on Monday,” said Mary Kay Kubicek…

…”If parents do not want their children to read a book, they should not allow them to do that. But to voice their views of one group of citizens on the rest of Dearborn doesn’t work either,” Judith Jones said at the meeting. “This is what Hitler did, and we all know how that worked out.”

A Hitler comparison. How very original. Apparently, if you don’t want your child to be able to walk into a public school library and pick up a book about gay sex, then you must be a nazi. What a brilliant retort that’s never been done before.

These people are insane. If they want to subject their children to the LGBT agenda, they can do so under current law on their own time. But taxpayers should not be forced to send their children to schools that actively promote such, especially in explicit ways. School boards exist to serve parents and children, not political narratives. If the majority of Dearborn parents don’t want these books in the libraries, they shouldn’t be in the libraries. That’s how local control of schools works.

As to whether this will lead to anything politically in a broader context, I doubt it. Yes, these parents appear to be blaming Rep. Rashida Tlaib, but I’ll believe the residents of Dearborn will hold her accountable when I see it and not a moment before.

Illegal Aliens Flown to Martha’s Vineyard by Ron DeSantis Granted Special VISAs Permitting Lawful Residency as Crime Victims

Sundance reporting at Conservative Treehouse 

As expected, the Lawfare ideologues have weaponized the legal system to grant special visa status to the illegal aliens flown to Martha’s Vineyard by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.  The aliens have been granted lawful U.S. residency status via “U VISA’s” reserved for victims of crimes.

Their applications as criminally trafficked victims come as the result of Texas Sherriff Javier Salazar certifying they were victims of an illegal human trafficking operation led by the Florida governor.  As an outcome, Ron DeSantis is under investigation by federal authorities and Texas authorities for violations of human trafficking laws.

[Picture Source – With More Detail]

The federal government, U.S. Treasury Dept, has an open investigation into the funds used by DeSantis to conduct the transfer operation. “Documents indicate Florida officials paid Destin, Fla.-based Vertol Systems Co. $1.56 million for the Martha’s Vineyard flight and possibly for a flight to Delaware, the home state of President Joe Biden, that ultimately didn’t happen.” [link]  Meanwhile Texas Sheriff Salazar is conducting a criminal investigation for human trafficking.

The 50 aliens have essentially been designated as victims and received the special VISA’s protecting them from extradition.  They are now considered witnesses for use by the Treasury investigation and Texas criminal probe.

WASHINGTON DC – Texas Sheriff Javier Salazar on Thursday certified that the group of migrants flown to Martha’s Vineyard, Mass., last month by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) were victims of a crime, qualifying them to obtain a visa.

Salazar, the Bexar County sheriff, submitted certification documents that will allow the nearly 50 migrants to apply for U visas, which grant crime victims nonimmigrant status in the U.S. to ensure that they are available as witnesses during investigations or trials.

“Based upon the claims of migrants being transported from Bexar County under false pretenses, we are investigating this case as possible Unlawful Restraint,” Salazar said in a statement to GBH News.

The Venezuelan nationals transported to Martha’s Vineyard were reportedly given false information about where they were going and the support they would receive at the destination.

The certification comes a day after the Department of the Treasury announced that it would investigate DeSantis’s usage of COVID-19 relief money and the “allowability” of funding migrant transportation with that money or interest earned on it. (read more)

It was obvious from shortly after the first wave of aliens was transferred from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard that progressive Lawfare operatives had found an angle to use the transfers as a targeting mechanism against Governor Ron DeSantis.  That’s likely why the second set of flights to Delaware never took place.

Retail Sales Growth Drops Below Rate of Inflation, What Does That Tell You?

Sundance reporting at Conservative Treehouse 

You often hear me talk about how financial pundits and economic analysts are disconnected from Main Street.  Yesterday we got a prime example of that from the Wall Street Journal.

The topline of the WSJ article is essentially that people are not spending money on anything except essential goods (housing, energy, fuel, food, etc), which is somewhat of a ‘duh tell us something we don’t know‘ type article.   However, the analytical part of the article is where you find the insufferable disconnect.   Here’s one example:

[Data Point 1] “Gasoline prices dropped in September for the third month in a row, falling 4.9% from August.”  [Data Point 2] Sales at gasoline stations, a proxy for spending by car owners, declined 1.4% last month.” 

If gasoline dropped 4.9% in price, but sales only declined 1.4% that would indicate more physical gasoline was purchased at a lower price than the month before.   It’s not a hard concept to understand.

This is a retail sales reality even identified in the article itself, “Unlike many government reports, retail sales aren’t adjusted for inflation, so some swings reflect price changes rather than shifts in the amounts purchased.”

However, now look at this:  “Spending at restaurants and bars grew 0.5% in September from the prior month. But prices at restaurants grew 0.9% in the same month, according to a separate Labor Department report released Thursday, meaning that consumers are getting less for their spending.”

No, that’s not what this means.

If restaurant prices increase 0.9%, but restaurant sales only increase 0.5% it means you are selling/serving fewer customers.  It doesn’t mean consumers getting less food, it means fewer consumers are eating at restaurants….   Which is caused by consumers having to prioritize their spending.

(WSJ) – […] Spending declined in categories linked to big purchases like cars, televisions, beds and golf clubs. Purchases at electronics and appliance stores declined 0.8% in September while spending at furniture stores fell 0.7%.

[…] Scott Brave, the head of economic analytics for Morning Consult, said consumers have started to pull back on optional purchases while still spending on the essentials.  “They are having to make tough decisions,” he said. (more)

Biden Melts Minds Talking Gender, Lies Repeatedly About the Economy

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

Joe Biden is apparently in a running battle with John Fetterman to prove who the most brain-damaged Democrat in the country is. On Friday, the president appeared with leftwing heartthrob Rep. Katie Porter and minds were melted. Mostly his own, but you get the idea.

Maybe someone in the comments can figure this one out because I’m at a total loss.

Is he trying to make some kind of equality of the sexes argument there? If that’s it, I can fathom how he ended up talking about age. Besides, what is a “Biden man” and a “Biden woman?” I’ve searched for further context but haven’t found it. Whatever the topic actually was, it couldn’t possibly make that statement make sense.

Thus are the joys of having a senile president, I suppose. Another question here is why he’s out in California appearing with Porter. What possible political benefit could that offer? Especially when the topic is “lowering” costs for American families. Did Biden miss Thursday’s inflation report? Because it was horrific.

I was listening to a podcast earlier in the day and someone on it made the point that it’s better to own a downturn with empathy than it is to continually gaslight that everything is fine. Biden, having the political instincts of a gopher, has chosen the latter path.

Of course, no sentient nor non-sentient human being is buying what he’s selling. The “Inflation Reduction Act” did absolutely nothing to reduce inflation. That’s born out by the reality that inflation actually increased month over month from August to September. In other words, your hard-earned tax money got blown on green energy garbage and actually made things worse. If that doesn’t infuriate you, you are probably a Democrat.

At some point, you can’t blame the constant lying about the state of things on Biden’s mental state. Yeah, he melts more faces than an 80’s guitar god, but he knows exactly what he’s doing when he essentially accuses Americans of being too stupid to see how great things are. Oh, you don’t like paying 15 percent more for things compared to when Biden took office? Well, look at the jobs numbers, moron!

That arrogance is going to cost him and his party, and it’s going to be a glorious meltdown to witness. November can’t get here soon enough, both for the entertainment factor and the fact that I’m not sure the country’s economy can survive much longer with Democrats at the helm.