Saturday, November 19, 2022

An Inflation of Expectations

A wave is what you make of it.


It is said success has many parents, but failure is an orphan. Not being heartless, let us wrap our minds around one—I repeat, one—of the orphans of the failure that helped turn the presumed midterm elections’ “red wave” into a sitz bath of blame.

Throughout the campaign, the Republican Party adopted a not-unsound strategy, which can be encapsulated in the following syllogism:

Among all voters, rampant inflation is the number one issue.

These voters are more likely to vote Republican.

These voters will create a “red wave” that will sweep Republicans into federal and state offices.

The first two premises held true. Yet the conclusion was erroneous. Why?

While properly focused upon inflation as a key driver of a segment of voters, this segment was smaller than expected. Compounding the GOP’s problem, those voters were more likely to already be Republicans. Why didn’t more independents and Democrats prioritize inflation as their number one issue and vote accordingly?

Obviously, abortion drove turnout for Democrats and many independents. Where it was available to the electorate, voters chose state proposals guaranteeing abortion rights and Democratic candidates. The proponents of the “red wave” narrative had mistakenly expected enough of these voters would split the difference on cultural and economic issues by voting for abortion rights proposals and Republican candidates to stem inflation. Again, assuming many of these voters believed electing GOP candidates would help stem rampant inflation (and that is a big if), did this swing segment of the electorate ignore their economic pain to vote for both abortion rights proposals and Democratic candidates?

Perhaps some did. Still, for a large swath of pro-choice independent and Democratic voters there is a more elemental explanation, one based upon the salience of an issue to a voter. Simply, for vast segments of the Democrats’ electoral coalition—including these swing voters—the economic pain of rampant inflation was an irritant, not an existential threat, to their financial livelihood.

Many Americans are aware of the debate, which often breaks along partisan lines, of what exactly constitutes a recession. What is less well-known is that the current round of rampant inflation has serious economists scratching their heads. Bluntly, while “hot take” armchair economists, such as politicians, have tossed about errant conclusions grounded in their ideology concerning class warfare and capitalism, etc., actual economists are far less certain of both the cause of this inflation, and how to stop it.

Nonetheless, without delving into a tangle of economic jargon, the best working definition for political purposes comes from “The Great Communicator” President Ronald Reagan: “A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And a recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.” 

Thus, the flaw in the GOP’s midterm election strategy: they conflated the economic pain of rampant inflation with the deeper pain of a typical recession. Prior to the midterm, there had not been substantial job losses. Employing the Reagan equation, odds are your neighbor hadn’t lost his job; you haven’t lost yours; and therefore Democrats (mostly) didn’t lose theirs.

While the economic pain of rampant inflation is concentrated on middle- and working-class voters, among whom the GOP continued to make in-roads, for many pro-choice independent and Democratic voters, inflation was an annoyance but not an existential threat to their way of life. As such, it certainly wasn’t a compelling reason for voting Republican. 

For instance, consider the case of college graduates. Despite inflation and the Federal Reserve rate hikes to quell it, employers are still hiring. Even when the major job losses start—and they will start—employers usually eliminate older, more highly paid workers and hire less-expensive younger workers, i.e., recent college graduates. Moreover, heading into the election college students were not fighting to hold onto their dwindling economic earnings; they were fighting to secure the $10,000 in student loan debt relief cynically proffered by Joe Biden and the Democrats. 

Not surprisingly, the college students, who are also extremely pro-choice, saw no divergence between their cultural and economic interests, and voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates. (Perhaps, there is the silver lining. As a federal court has rightly ruled against Biden’s debt cancellation scheme, college students are getting a crash course in the Democrats’ political cynicism.) 

Of course, there are other economic groups where the diminishment of economic concerns facilitated the perpetuation of the Democratic coalition during the 2022 midterm election, such as upper middle-class and wealthy voters, college educated and/or single women and men, et al. Realizing this too late after having conflated rising inflation with a full-blown, job crushing recession, the GOP has learned their own painful lesson regarding the convergence of economics and civics: people vote their pocketbooks . . . unless they don’t. 

In the future, the GOP must campaign across a broader range of issues and more deftly articulate a message which can resonate with voters—indeed, to begin they should craft a message. And, first and foremost, Republicans need to remember that when surfing the political zeitgeist, a wave is what you make of it.

And so is a ripple.




X22, And we Know, and more- Nov 19

 



I get that different views and perspectives exist for a reason. But imagine getting through every (yes, even the mostly unwatchable Seasons 10-12) season of NCIS LA and thinking Hetty is just a sadistic monster of sorts who exploited children for her gains? How messed up in the head do you have to be to actually think that? Like, do all the scenes where she shares drinks with her team not matter? The scenes where she sometimes hugs them not matter? The scenes where she willfully puts her life on the line to protect them not matter? Seriously, you'd have to be a special kind of 'nuts' to think none of that matters because of Linda mysteriously being absent and there being no accountability by the producers (and yes, the writers never remembering what happened a few Seasons ago)!

There's a very important episode ending that explains that whole orphan spy thing stuff, it's Season 4's Raven and the Swans. It 100% explains why she rescued so many orphans, and it's a very touching reason and in no way makes her some kind of monster.

Here's tonight's news:



Biden Regime Special Counsel to Investigate Republicans & President Trump for Insurrection, and Trump for Documents & Obstruction


Okay, first things first.  CTH will not play the pretending game or structure the discussion of the special counsel appointment through the prism of MSM references.  Instead, we will stick to the facts as they are presented, explain the events as they are factually reflected within the actual documents, and avoid the pretending constructs.

DATA Links:  (1) Merrick Garland DOJ Statement on Appointment of Special Counsel ~ (2) pdf of Legal Appointment ~ (3) Statement of Jack Smith upon Appointment ~ (4) Transcript of AG Merrick Garland Public Announcement.

The overarching Lawfare framework has been transparently created by President Obama’s former White House Legal Counsel and current U.S. Asst Attorney General Lisa Monaco.  To wit, earlier this afternoon Joe Biden’s Attorney General, Merrick Garland, announced the appointment of DOJ Attorney Jack Smith as special counsel to investigate two specific areas:

♦ First, to investigate current republican members of congress (House and Senate), former President and current candidate Donald J Trump, former Trump administration officials, former White House staff, and other individuals, groups and organizations for their role in supporting an insurrection on January 6, 2021, against the incoming administration of President-Elect Joe Biden.  In essence, the J6 investigation – with an emphasis on congress – transfers to Special Counsel Jack Smith:

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the ongoing investigation into whether any person or entity violated the law in connection with efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held on or about January 6, 2021, as well as any matters that arose or might arise directly from this investigation or that are within the scope of [Special Counsel Regulations 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)]. (pdf)

This is an extension of the January 6th Committee special investigation that transfers the committee’s investigative findings, ie phone records, text messages, transcripts, emails, prior testimony and all evidentiary records, into the newly appointed Special Counsel.

However, all prior and current DOJ prosecutions against citizen individuals will remain within the control and direction of Main Justice.  This structure frees up Jack Smith to target the new republican controlled congressional members, their staff, families and/or communication network.   Main Justice keeps focus on the citizen insurrectionists, Jack Smith now appointed to go after the public officials.

J6 Committee staff, committee investigators, FBI agents and DOJ lawyers will now transfer from the committee to the special counsel office. Watch. (More on why later)

♦ Second – and this is ancillary to the first priority – DAG Lisa Monaco has written, and AG Garland has appointed, Jack Smith to target Donald Trump with the same special counsel process previously used by Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann.

The Special Counsel is further authorized to conduct the ongoing investigation referenced and described in the United States’ Response to Motion for Judicial Oversight and Additional Relief, Donald J Trump v. United States, No. 9:22-CV-81294-AMC (S.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2022) (ECF No. 48 at 5- 13), as well as any matters that arose or may arise directly from this investigation or that are within the scope of [Special Counsel Regulation 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)].

The Trump Mar-a-Lago document investigation (the proverbial nothingburger – just like Trump/Russia) transfers to the Special Counsel office, along with an intended angle to look for an obstruction of justice charge (just like Mueller).   This is Robert Mueller 2.0 using Special Counsel Jack Smith.

The Trump-centric part of the special counsel appointment, the part that everyone is focusing on, is ancillary to the real purpose of the appointment.  However, that said, all investigative resources from Main Justice and the FBI will transfer to Jack Smith as they did when Crossfire Hurricane transferred to Robert Mueller.  The investigative people will transfer along with the investigative evidence.

Duplicating history, all of the DC elements of the UniParty, both Democrats and Republicans, will sing the praises of Jack Smith as an honorable man, beyond reproach, blah, blah, blah.   If you want to stop playing the pretending game, just pay attention to the people praising him, and THOSE voices are the bad guys.

As you can see from the simple (non-pretending) explanation of what is being done, the Lawfare process become clear.   Everything congress now begins to question falls under the protective blanket of an “ongoing investigation,” exactly as we predicted.  Plus, you get the additional Lawfare elements of congressional leadership under investigation which provides an entirely new ‘conflict of interest dynamic’ to the political equation.

Then you have the congressional representatives under investigation and search warrants on their phones, text messages, emails, etc…. AND the added benefit of using DOJ-NSD defined terms of “national security threat” (that’s why they emphasized insurrection) to gain FISA warrants on an entire incoming congressional delegation.  How slick is that? 

They didn’t just think this up overnight.

This is why the January 6 committee never ended.  They are using J6 as a weapon against their losing the House to republicans.  The Democrats are now structurally targeting Republicans with the appointment of Jack Smith.  It’s actually a brilliant move.  The executive is now investigating the legislative branch; the legal structure of this eliminates the separation of powers issue.

The DOJ is not investigating republicans, they are investigating defined criminals; insurrectionists that are national security threats, that happen to be republicans.  See how that works?

This also explains why Nancy Pelosi did not resign from congress, but only stepped down from her leadership role.  The timing of mid-November (today) gives Smith time to get all his midterm counter-offensive ducks in a row before his republican targets take office in January.

All of the congressional J6 and DOJ main justice teams will now assemble in new DC offices to set up the 2023 targeting operation.  The announcement was made today, but the planning of the construct has been in place for months, contingent upon the number of actual House seats that could flip.  The Lawfare design is transparent when you stop looking at the obfuscation reporting from mainstream media.

Primary goal, create enough of a legal mess as to obstruct any republican legislative effort against the Biden White House.  Additionally, if Smith’s DC team can pick-off a few republican House members under charges of “supporting an insurrection“, the political power will revert back to the Democrats in office.

Jack Smith’s curriculum vitae as a lawyer experienced in international government law, think about tribunals for overthrowing government, then becomes a clarifying skillset.

Think of it like the legal ideology of the United Nations (democracy as defined by progressives) prosecuting members of the United States government for acts of rebellion under the framework of a constitutional republican form of government they abhor.  That’s Jack Smith.

In addition, the same ideological Lawfare elements will be targeting the threat represented by U.S. nationalist politician Donald J Trump.   It’s like The Great Reset crew inserting an operative inside a corrupt and friendly United States Dept of Justice, with the intent to remove the threat Donald J Trump represents to their interests.

On the multinational corporate side, while all this is special counsel stuff is taking place, the Wall Street billionaires and multinationals will be providing the illusion of choice for the American electorate.

Things making sense now?

(Source pdf)

It’s all right there, if we just stop pretending.

Accept things as they are, not as they are presented to be.

President Trump responds: 




‘Referee Whistle’ Politics

Here’s how the referee’s whistle works: Oppose our policies? 
You are disqualified from debate. You’re the one who is unethical, unlawful, a racist, a fascist. Game over.


“Dog whistle.” You’ve heard the term. It refers to a benign political viewpoint meant to evoke a more sinister thought in the listener. So, in the eyes of Democrats and the media, “tough on crime” and “law and order” become code words for “let’s nuke the inner cities.”

But there is another, more common political phenomenon. It’s a favorite tactic of the Left. I call it the “referee’s whistle.” It’s the attempt to stop all debate when one side feels cornered. In other words, the referee whistles the play dead.

Dog-whistle politics was practiced long ago by Southern Democrats, who used anodyne terms like “states’ rights” to candy-coat their racist views. It took decades of work by civil rights leaders, Northern liberals and Republicans to overcome Jim Crow segregation.

Later, the “dog whistle” label would be applied to any conservative policy that liberals opposed. Ronald Reagan was criticized for his views on welfare. But so was Bill Clinton. He “launched racially coded attacks against welfare and ‘super predators,’” wrote CNN commentator Sally Kohn.

The referee’s whistle is more pernicious. It disqualifies a political stance by labeling it untruthful, illegal or dangerous. You should not even argue for it. “Tweet!” Flag on the play.

Take the 2022 midterm elections. After the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision returned abortion policy to the states, liberals predicted a wave of pro-choice support for Democrats. Instead, the campaign has largely turned on crime and inflation.

“Tweet!” This is unacceptable to the Left. “I’ve noticed . . . this gaslighting of women voters, this message that says, oh, you don’t really care about your right to control your own bodies, dears, it’s the economy, stupid,” said CNN’s Joy Reid.

Get that? If you believe women worry about inflation, you’re not only wrong, you’re a gaslighting liar, even if you quote a Democratic hero like James Carville.

Or look at liberals’ attempts to explain Florida. Why is such a diverse state about to deliver a Republican triumph this November? Obviously, it has nothing to do with voters’ rational choice. No, it’s a classic case of Stockholm Syndrome.

“That proximity to whiteness is a real thing,” tweeted Jemele Hill. “Also reminds me of an adage I heard a long time ago about how the oppressed begin to take on the traits of the oppressor.”

Apparently, Sunshine State Hispanics are greedy for that “white privilege.” And so they’re willing to trade their integrity for scraps from Governor Ron DeSantis’ table. Hill practically labels them “Tío Tomas.”

Last week, a Senate race debate in Pennsylvania showed Democrat John Fetterman struggling to speak following a debilitating stroke in May. But if this caused you to rethink your support for Fetterman, think again, because you just violated the law.

“Assuming that someone should not be able to have a job because they need an accommodation, that’s not how it works,” said disability advocate and political consultant Sarah Blahovec. “That’s not how it works under the [Americans with Disabilities Act] as well, because the ADA certainly applies to elected positions.”

“Tweet!” You are out of order, Pennsylvania voter.

At least you weren’t called a domestic terrorist. Last summer, parents across the country attended school board meetings to challenge COVID policies and critical race theory. The liberal National School Boards Association sought to put a stop to it. They called on Joe Biden to “deal with the growing number of threats of violence and acts of intimidation.” From whom? Parents.

They were practicing “a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes,” wrote the NSBA. So know your place, mom and dad, unless you want to do serious time.

Ironically, the Left wants nothing to do with stopping actual crime waves. They continue to push for lighter sentences, an end to bail, and the release of convicted felons.

In Philadelphia, there were 562 homicides in 2021, an all-time record. This year’s murder total is trending even higher. Gun robberies are up 60 percent, while commercial burglaries have risen 50 percent.

But the controversial district attorney, Larry Krasner, blames Republicans. “What we see here is the same old playbook, which is about coded and racist messaging,” he said. “Part of the Republican playbook, as you well know, is to point a finger at large diverse cities, and say large diverse cities are lawless.”

Krasner repeated the word “diverse” multiple times in his speech. Talk about a dog whistle! Don’t examine my soft-on-crime policies, he implied, blame diversity instead. It’s especially disgusting knowing that his actions have harmed diverse communities the most.

On October 26, a resolution was introduced in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives to impeach Krasner for “endanger[ing] the health, welfare and safety” of Philadelphians. A state Senate letter in January also called for impeachment.

Did Democrats respond by vowing to protect the people? No. They circled the wagons around Krasner and whistled the play dead.

“The ultimate effort in the movement of voter suppression is to go into a community and nullify the voters’ decisions that they have made,” said State Senator Vincent Hughes of Philadelphia. “People vote, we don’t like it, we impeach the person that you voted for.”

Voter suppression. Nullification. Suddenly, Democrats are more troubled by impeachment than by their beleaguered constituents.

But that’s how the referee’s whistle works. Oppose our policies? You are disqualified from debate. You’re the one who is unethical, unlawful, a racist, a fascist. Game over.

Only a strong message sent on November 8—that people’s well-being and lives matter more than politicians’ whims and lies—can stop it from succeeding.




Elites’ Disdain For Trump Is Thinly Veiled Hatred For You


The elites hate Trump and the MAGA movement because populism gives the everyday person a say in how America runs.



Donald Trump finally made an announcement on Tuesday that he’d been hinting at for a long time; he will, once again, be running for president. Naturally, the internet and airwaves were flooded with people providing their perspectives on who the future of the Republican Party would or should be.

A considerable amount of the rhetoric surrounding Trump and his candidacy, however, remains incredibly cynical and appears to be guiding Republican voters away from the political framework that unleashed America’s latent economic prowess and led to cultural wins previously thought impossible, such as the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Republican voters need to be extremely skeptical of whose advice they take during this upcoming presidential election cycle. Instead of blindly advancing one candidate over another ahead of what is shaping up to be a bloody primary, Republican voters should remember the voices that led them astray during the 2016 presidential election cycle and remember what policies have improved the country’s economic health and which contributed to its steady decline.

It should come as no surprise that many of the people currently calling for the Republican Party to move on from Trump and the unique brand of MAGA populism are proponents of the economic and cultural liberalism that gutted American industry and turned the culture into a dystopian hellscape.

Generally speaking, when there is bipartisan collaboration on something, the American people are going to get screwed. Just look at the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which is little more than wasteful government spending on projects that will likely never materialize. So it should be incredibly alarming that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer plans to meet with his counterpart, Mitch McConnell, to discuss removing the MAGA influence from the Republican Party.

Why should Schumer — a Democrat — have any influence over the ideological composition of the opposite party? He shouldn’t, but McConnell doesn’t like the MAGA influence either because it challenges his grip on power and his interests, so maybe he’ll hear Chuck out and sabotage future Republican candidates who make him uncomfortable by restricting funding, as he did to candidate Blake Masters in Arizona.

Furthermore, without the populist influence of MAGA Republicans, it is unlikely that the 115th or 116th Congress would have taken any steps toward implementing the economic and cultural reforms that unleashed American prosperity during Trump’s first term. Pieces of legislation like the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017; the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act; SUPPORT for Patients and Communities (which expanded opioid treatment options while cracking down on the proliferation of illicit drugs); and the ratification of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement that replaced NAFTA would not have materialized without a heavy populist influence in Congress. 

Schumer seeking to remove this influence from the national legislature makes sense. After all, he’s a Democrat; he wants to win. McConnell’s collaboration with Schumer to remove the influence of conservative populism from Congress is inexcusable and should make his supporters question his intentions.

And, of course, there are members of the pundit class like The Dispatch’s own David French, who insisted this past summer that “Donald Trump presents an existential threat to the continued existence of the United States as an intact republic. Our nation may not survive a second Trump term.” French, one of the last of the original Never Trumpers, has a noted distaste for those on the “gutter right,” celebrated the reported loss of Republican Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, and has argued a “Christian case” for a student loan bailout. 

French’s input on 2024 should be taken with a massive grain of salt. Granted, he’s a bit of an outlier, seeing as how he is a self-identifying conservative who celebrates his own side’s failures while justifying leftist abuses of power, but people like him — anti-populists, if you will — are surprisingly common among the punditry class. 

What unites these people — the anti-populist pundit class, the elitist politicians, and their acolytes — isn’t just their opposition to Trump as a political candidate. They are utterly repulsed by the people Trump represents, and they are nothing short of disdainful of the American people who told them to shove it.

Take Trump out of the equation, even. If, for the sake of the hypothetical, Hulk Hogan won the presidency in 2016 on the basis of re-establishing the U.S. as the global manufacturing hegemon while promising to restore national sovereignty at the southern border and reverse the cultural malaise that ate away at people across the heartland, the McConnells and Frenches of the world would be anti-Hogan. 

They hate Trump, but they really hate you. You, your family, and your community are supposed to finance their special interests with your tax dollars until the end of time. They couldn’t stand having their interests put on the back burner for four brief years while Trump advanced the interests of the American people. Trump’s willingness to actually deliver for the people, effectively giving them a semblance of control over the government, wasn’t supposed to happen. 

The elite’s attempts to pivot the base of the Republican Party away from its ongoing fascination with populism is how they plan on driving a wedge back between the American people and control of the government.




The Progressive Freakout Over Elon's Twitter Takeover Proves We Were Right All Along


Kira Davis reporting for RedState 

Remember back when Twitter started their full court press of censorship and account banning? Immediately after January 6, 2020, they began a huge purge. I lost 5000 followers overnight. Larger accounts saw even bigger losses. Coincidentally, it was only happening to conservative accounts. The progressive talking heads mocked and ridiculed the consternation from the right. Jake Tapper made a snide comment about not even being concerned about how many followers he’d lost because counting followers was beneath him. Of course, he boasts an account with over three million followers.

The left scolded the rest of us for our outrage. They pretended we were worried about popularity, when really it didn’t have anything to do with popularity. It was about reach, and Twitter was purposefully limiting the reach of conservative accounts through purging and shadow-banning. They made the complaints seem petty and narcissistic.

Build your own platform!

Some moneyed up Republicans did just that…and then they were banned from Amazon servers and app stores. You can build a platform, but if you can’t get it online, what good is it?

When we suggested that bias social media had helped influence 2020 elections (squashing Hunter Biden stories, deleting opinions as misinformation, etc.), the left scoffed at the idea. Social media is just a conversation space, and if you’re not following the rules of so-called “polite conversation” you’ve got to go. Nothing more, nothing less. They told us to stop whining about the non-existent influence of social media giants.

And then came Elon.

He’s hardly even begun to overhaul Twitter, and yet already Democrats in Congress are making noise about regulating Twitter. Very Important Opinion™ pieces about how “disinformation” could sway the next election began flying around. What will happen in 2024? What if Trump runs again, but this time without the restraints of social media censorship? What if *gasp* he actually reactivates his account? America cannot survive!

Failed Presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar appeared on CNN recently to express her concern that unfettered social media that embraces free speech could have an outsized influence on politics.

As it turns out, conservatives were not crazy for suggesting that social media blackouts had a great influence on elections. When social media colludes with corporate media to squash legitimate stories, or even varying opinions on those stories, it does create a vacuum of sorts. The Democrat party understood this and swept in to fill the void with dangerous and harsh rhetoric about their fellow Americans on the right. It most certainly had an effect, but we weren’t supposed to notice.

Until now. Now they notice, because now the guy they don’t like is in charge of one of the most influential media platforms in the world. Their current frenzy has given away the game. They know damn well that controlling social media means controlling the flow of information and ultimately, the flow of the truth. Now that they aren’t in control, it’s a Problem™.

We’ve been right this entire time, and the freak-out fest proves it.

And what is really amusing is that Elon Musk doesn’t seem to be doing anything except taking off reins, not binding. Of course there still need to be moderation controls. Parler and Gab both learned the hard way why that is. People can get crazy from behind a keyboard (present company excluded, obviously) and if you don’t create an environment that people want to play in, your customers won’t show up. Still, Musk isn’t proposing censoring progressives. He’s just proposing not censoring (again, outside of typical moderation). In the deranged minds of progressives, having to compete on an even playing field equals DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!!!

They’re not even self-aware enough to acknowledge their admission. But the rest of us see clearly what we’ve known all along.

The internet is the great equalizer, when allowed to function autonomously, and Democrats – the party of Jim Crow and slavery – really do not care for equality.