Lies of the President?

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) claimed, as a result of the latest inflation report, that food prices are falling.

The BLS, however, actually said this:

The food index increased 0.3 percent over the month [of December] with the food at home index rising 0.2 percent[.]

And this:

BLS data shows the “food at home” index rose 0.2% in December and 11.8% in the past year. Food away from home rose 0.4% in December and 8.3% in the last year.
“The index for cereals and bakery products rose 16.1 percent over the year. The remaining major grocery store food groups posted increases ranging from 7.7 percent (meats, poultry, fish, and eggs) to 15.3 percent (dairy and related products)[.]”

And this:

Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs rose 1% in December and 7.7% in the last year. Dairy and related products prices declined 0.3% in December but rose 15.3% in the last year. Fruits and vegetable prices declined 0.6% in December but rose 8.4% in the last year. Nonalcoholic beverages and beverage materials prices rose 0.1% in December and 12.4% in the last year. BLS’ “other food at home” category saw a 0.4% increase in December and a 13.9% increase in the last year.

When that flood of data came out, Biden reclamaed, and acknowledged in a speech Thursday that food prices did rise in December, but lauded the slower increase.

Oops.

Some will insist that the dichotomy between Biden’s initial claim and reality is further evidence of his decline. Politicians of the Progressive-Democratic Party and their Leftist supporters will insist he’s in full possession of his faculties (perhaps harkening back to his faculty status at UPENN [/snark]).

Taking the Progressive-Democrats and the Left at their word, though, would mean that Biden is openly lying about food inflation.

Go figure.

Proud Censorship, and Keeping and Bearing

Posted on by
Reply

Illinois’ law banning even the possession of semiautomatic weapons took effect last Tuesday, when the Progressive-Democrat governor, JB Pritzker, signed the bill after the Illinois House passed what the State’s Senate had handed over.

Aside from the plain unconstitutionality of the law, though, what especially drew my attention is this statement from Pritzker:

We will keep fighting—bill by bill, vote by vote, and protest by protest—to ensure that future generations only hear about massacres like Highland Park, Sandy Hook, and Uvalde in their textbooks[.]

No one is to be allowed access to, Illinois’ children are to be denied, information regarding firearms other than what the Progressive-Democratic Party that rules Illinois approves.

Pritzker openly brags about that denial of speech.

Related is this position by Edwards County, IL, Sheriff Darby Boewe:

Part of my duties that I accepted upon being sworn into office was to protect the rights provided to all of us, in the Constitution. One of those rights enumerated is the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR ARMS provided under the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms for defense of life, liberty and property is regarded as an inalienable right by the people.

Boewe is absolutely correct on the matter except for the narrowness of his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. What that Amendment says, in full, is this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In order to be able to mount an effective Militia, each of us American citizens must be able to be individually armed and facile with our individually owned weapons. Government is not permitted to limit the weapons any of us can possess and keep with us wherever we might go (especially if we’re needed for a Militia and its suite of weapons), nor is Government permitted to dictate to any of us our purpose in the possessing and carrying—that Militia is only one such purpose. Defense of life, liberty and property is only one such purpose. Shall not be infringed is much broader.

The Press—A Must Have?

Posted on by
Reply

Howard Kurtz, a self-identifying media critic wonders whether politicians “ignoring”—read: bypassing—the media might, by doing so, do themselves more political harm than good. The subheadline of his Fox News op-ed is this:

Ignoring the media may feel good, but it deprives a politician like DeSantis of a chance to test his mettle on the big stage

Never mind that it’s pointless for a Conservative or a Republican politician to go through the national press, as Kurtz convicts his guild with his own examples:

DeSantis once held a news conference to bash 60 Minutes for what I thought was a flawed and unfair piece about the governor and Covid.

Because criticizing a broadcast network program over its erroneous reporting must be bashing; it cannot be critiquing.

And this:

What’s more, when a CBS reporter confronted him (he had refused to do an interview), DeSantis lectured her—and the program refused to use most of his sound bite.

Because, as Kurtz knows full well but declined to write, DeSantis’ response was no mere sound bite; it was a full and complete response. CBS showed its national-level dishonesty with its decision to spike the critical parts of DeSantis’ answer.

And this, too, from Kurtz:

The [New York] Times piece strongly suggests he has to reach people who don’t watch Fox [News], given that elections are won by persuading suburban and independent voters. And if he’s the nominee, DeSantis will be called chicken, and worse, for ducking the fourth estate.

It’s only Kurtz’ guild colleagues, comprising that so-precious “fourth estate,” who call politicians names when those politicians speak directly to voters, bypassing the guild. No, politicians must go through Kurtz’ precious press filter. Politicians must have no other means of speaking to their constituents or to a more national audience.

Politicians must not use social media to talk directly to us average Americans without journalistic distortions and excerpting without context. Neither TRUTH Social nor a reformed Twitter can be allowed. Townhall confabs are not to be used without Kurtz’ filtering press to cover them and tell us what we’re seeing with our own lying eyes. There are to be no Trump-like mass gatherings without that filtering press. There are no going into the neighborhoods, the diners, the neighborhood rec centers unless the guild is present to screen what we see and hear.

No, there is only Kurtz’ so-awesome journalism guild. There is only press self-importance.

Go Figure

Posted on by
Reply

The Republican-led House of Representatives is setting up a select committee to investigate Biden administration pressure on and collusion with (yes, both) Big Tech to suppress or outright censor speech of which Biden-ites disapproved, a suppression/censorship that primarily affected Republicans and Conservatives.

President Joe Biden (D) demurs.

“House Republicans continue to focus on launching partisan political stunts,” said spokesman Ian Sams, “instead of joining the president to tackle the issues the American people care about most like inflation.”

Yet when the Progressive-Democratic Party Congressmen “investigated” the Trump administration and former President Donald Trump (R) himself throughout his four years in office, that was all on the up-and-up.

Go figure.

Pretty Words

Posted on by
Reply

In remarks prepared for Tuesday’s Central Bank Symposium that Sweden hosted, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell had this to say, among other things:

Mr Powell said he believes the “benefits of independent monetary policy in the US context are well understood and broadly accepted.” He also said grants of independence to regulatory agencies should be “exceedingly rare, explicit, tightly circumscribed, and limited to those issues that clearly warrant protection from short-term political considerations.”
In exchange for such autonomy, Mr Powell said the Fed “should ‘stick to our knitting’ and not wander off” into addressing policy issues that aren’t directly linked to its mandate to keep inflation low and to support a strong job market.

And

“Without explicit congressional legislation, it would be inappropriate for us to use our monetary policy or supervisory tools to promote a greener economy or to achieve other climate-based goals,” he said. “We are not, and will not be, a ‘climate policy maker.'”

Does Powell mean these words? And if he does, can he enforce them? Hope springs eternal….