The chutzpah of this guy: George Clooney takes $28 million of Democrats' money and gives it to Biden on June 15 and three weeks later says My Bad

Phony baloney plastic banana good time rock 'n rolla.

 

 

 

CNBC ramps up pro-Biden stories, trots out professors of philosophy, religion, and sociology, who directly depend on the student loan pipeline, to rationalize forgiveness for me but not for thee

The chutzpah of these people sometimes all the time. Get a haircut and get a real job.

In the investment world, we call this "talking up your book", about which CNBC knows a lot.

 Why student loan forgiveness sparks anger: A philosopher, attorney general, sociologist and religious thought expert weigh in 

 

 

The Party of Violence desperately wants Election 2022 to be about abortion

 

Abortion Is Centerpiece of Dem TV Ads in 2022

 

Goldmacher & Glueck, NY Times

Right off the bat this story lies, as usual from The New York Times, by omission:

 In Michigan, Democrats took aim at the Republican nominee for governor almost immediately after the primary with a television ad highlighting her opposition to abortion, without exceptions for rape or incest. ...

Some abortion ads use the specific words and positions of Republican candidates against them. ... Some use Republicans’ unyielding stances on abortion to cast them more broadly as extremists.

The ad in Michigan actually says without exceptions for life of the mother, too, which is by itself a drive-by editing lie by "Put Michigan First".

A lie by insertion. Dixon never answered a life of the mother question that way, with "no exceptions".

You see how that works?

The New York Times sort of tells the truth about Dixon's position, which is no exceptions for rape and incest, but lies about the ad, which lies about Dixon's position by making her say something about the life of the mother which she didn't say.

Then later the former paper of record edges close to telling the truth about what's going on in the ad without actually telling you the truth about what's going on in the ad.

The chutzpah.

Democrats lie to you coming and going, and so does the New York Times, but I repeat myself.

Republicans, however, seem hopelessly, perennially, unequipped to counter this disinformation war. 

They're like deer in the headlights.

And when the Democrats spot them, they floor it.

 

CNBC story blames capitalism's law of supply and demand for inflation: 92 million millennials caused it, not Federal Reserve interference with interest rates and mortgages

... too many people with too much money chasing too few goods ... millennials are still making up the largest chunk of the homebuyer market by generation ... 

More.

Meanwhile, this housing bubble dwarfs the last one, and we're supposed to blame millennials for it.

Sounds like a repeat of the excuse for the last one: greedy Baby Boomers.

Just forget about Zero Interest Rate Policy artificially driving down borrowing costs for over a decade, and forget about the crappy low-yielding $2.7 trillion in MBS still on the Fed Balance Sheet nobody wants, because millennials are to blame!

The chutzpah.

Howie Carr rips Elizabeth Talking Bull for resurrecting the "one drop rule" of Democrats' Jim Crow infamy

Good thing Boston still has two newspapers, but Facebook users prefer the wrong one.

Here:

But this is breathtaking chutzpah —  she’s resurrecting the “one-drop” rule from her Democrat party’s proudest Jim Crow days of the Ku Klux Klan, Woodrow Wilson and the rest of all those separate-but-equal Democrat worthies. 

One drop of black blood —  “Negro,” as the Jim Crows of CNN now say again, at least when they’re talking about Kanye West — and you’re … not white. ...

Yesterday the Globe was cooking the numbers to pretend that the least Indian she might be was 1/512​th — more fake news from the newspaper of Kevin Cullen, Mike Barnicle, Patricia Smith and Jayson Blair. 

All day yesterday, the Globe was running corrections of its fuzzy math. The original story said she was between 1⁄32nd and  1⁄512th Indian. That was the one the moonbats still have posted to their Facebook accounts. 

Today's most entertaining line: "It takes a lot of chutzpah for Obama to say he wants to help re­build the Demo­crat­ic Party when he’s busy burn­ing it down"

From Josh Kraushaar here in

"Obama’s Parting Shot Against His Party: By thumbing his nose at Israel as he leaves office, the president shows he didn’t learn anything from this year’s election".

He's burned everything else down, might as well burn his own house.

Remind you of anyone?

Dark pools of money spew out bluenoses against Trump

Registered Democrat Obama voter Michael Goodwin, writing here:

For his chutzpah, tens of millions of dollars are being poured into attack ads against Trump, and the urgent blue-nosed concerns about dark pools of money in politics have vanished. As long as he’s the target, all is fair.

Often, the avalanche of sludge against Trump looks and sounds like a reactionary confederacy fighting to keep its power and privileges. Naturally, the mainstream ­media is slashing away.

A Washington Post editorial claims that stopping Trump is the only way to “defend our democracy.” In other words, those troublesome voters are the problem.

A New York Times columnist raised the prospect of assassination. Sure, it was a joke. Make that joke about Obama or Clinton and see who laughs.

Chutzpah: Trump one ups Carson's answer for IRS tax audits

Ben Carson implied in the Republican debate last night that he was politically targeted for an IRS audit after speaking out publicly against Obamacare.

Donald Trump seemed to like the answer so much he decided to go for it for himself.

In remarks made to Chris Cuomo on CNN immediately after the debate, Trump blamed his long history of tax audits on the fact that he was being targeted for being a Christian.

Yeah, like the whole world thinks that's the reason.

Conservatives Forget Romney's Family Was Long Opposed To Conservatism

So sfgate.com, here and here.

The liberal Republicans like Mitt Romney's father George Romney didn't support the conservative candidate, Barry Goldwater, in 1964, but they still expect us to support them in 2012.

That's what you'll read when you look up "chutzpah" in the dictionary.

h/t 'Nita

There Is No Lie Obama Will Not Tell

"[T]he Supreme Court has been overturning acts of Congress ever since [1803], on average every 16 months. So overturning Obamacare would be about as unprecedented as the sun rising in the east tomorrow morning. ...

"Franklin Roosevelt called the [National Recovery Act of 1933] 'the most important and far-reaching ever enacted by the American Congress.' But that didn’t stop the Supreme Court from overturning it in May 1935, by a vote of 9-0.

"The National Recovery Act passed the House by a large majority and the Senate by 46-39. The “strong majority” mentioned by Obama in the passage of Obamacare did not exist. . . . It garnered not a single Republican vote in either house, the first time so important a piece of legislation was passed on a totally partisan basis.

"As I said, one can only admire his chutzpah. It seems there is simply no lie President Obama will not tell in pursuit of his agenda. He can count on the mainstream media buying it, but will anyone else?"

-- John Steele Gordon, "Presidential Chutzpah"

Don't miss the full opinion, here.

China Lectures America While Failing To Comply With The Rules

From Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, here, who points out there is a dwindling supply of growth to steal from the future:

China has already pushed credit to 200pc of GDP. It cannot repeat the trick. ...

As for China's bluster, it is chutzpah and self-delusion. We all agree that the US needs to "cure its addiction to debts", but so will China soon.

China buys US debt in order to recycle $200bn a quarter in foreign reserves, hold down the yuan, and continue its mercantilist export strategy. If China had not distorted world trade in this fashion, the US would not be in such a mess.

Obamacare: Designed To Fail To Get To Single Payer?

If so, it gets the chutzpah award of the millennium. The following appeared here:

Power Line Blog: John Hinderaker, Scott Johnson, Paul Mirengoff

http://www.powerlineblog.com

NON-ENFORCEMENT: A FEATURE OR A BUG?

March 29, 2010 Posted by John at 6:59 PM

The individual mandate is one of the most controversial features of Obamacare, so when it came out that the law makes no provision to enforce the mandate, many were nonplussed. Morgen Richmond, in the linked article, writes:

[W]ithout an effective mechanism of enforcing the individual mandate, the entire system is likely to collapse. (The individual mandate is the "third leg of the stool" as many a liberal has been pointing out for months.) Given that the bill also bans insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, WHY WOULD ANYONE OBTAIN INSURANCE COVERAGE PRIOR TO NEEDING IT? This was already going to be a problem with the relatively low cost of the penalty, but take away any meaningful enforcement of it and it is a complete and total joke.

The net result will be an ever increasing shift of healthcare costs on to those who remain in the insurance system (or to tax payers), and possibly even the bankruptcy of the insurance industry.

Hmm. Bug or feature? We report, you decide. A reader writes:

Absolutely essential and fundamental to the very design of the Obamacare bill is the individual mandate to require purchase of prescribed health insurance. And yet in what is an amazingly revealing feature of the bill there is literally no provision for enforcement of the mandate. While this has been known for some time -- it was discussed a few weeks ago in NRO in the context of resistance or civil disobedience to the mandate -- it is only now getting the exposure it deserves.

As the linked article makes clear, while the bill does provide for fines to enforce the mandate through the income tax system....the IRS is explicitly prevented from collecting the fines by assessments, liens or seizures, no civil or criminal penalties attach to failure to pay such fines and no interest accrues from the date the fine is due!! This is actually amazing and cries out for explanation.

In my view, this is not the result of a simple oversight or error...quite the contrary. This is a feature, not a bug. We can be sure of this because they had to go to the trouble of specifying that enforcement was prohibited; silence would have meant that the normal IRS enforcement powers were available and presumed to be used to ensure that the mandate legislated by Congress was carried out. Normally the simplest explanation would involve stupidity, incompetence, error, haste or some other ordinary failure. In this case I think the explanation has to be, since it was intentionally put in the bill, that the architects of Obamacare intend that the individual mandate will fail....and guarantee it by actually affirmatively prohibiting enforcement.

Why would they do this? One reason is that, despite all the confident left wing bluster, they may very well be afraid that, given the extraordinary implications for the vast expansion of government power, the Supreme Court may well find, as they should, such a mandate to be unconstitutional. [Ed.: Unlikely, in my view.] That would undermine the whole program and is a complication that the Obama administration I am sure would prefer to avoid. As well as avoiding nasty scenes of property seizures or wage garnishments lack of enforcement would also prevent an individual desiring to make a test case from having standing to sue. (Why the approach taken by the Attorney General in Virginia in relying for standing on conflict of state and federal laws is clever.)

The real reason, I suspect, is more insidious -- quite simply to destroy the private health insurance industry and create an irresistible demand for expansion of the program to a public option and ultimately to single payer provision. It is undeniable that guaranteed issue of insurance at ordinary rates for those with preëxisting medical conditions is popular; but forcing insurance companies to cover them at average rates cannot possibly work unless healthy younger people are forced into the risk pool at rates higher than what their risk rating would otherwise be. Without the mandate, in other words, the insurance companies cannot possibly be viable and also cover preëxisting conditions at average premium rates.

Quite simply, Obamacare has created a ticking time bomb for the insurance industry. Those with preëxisting conditions will be covered.....and demand continuation of the coverage at prescribed rates....and those who ignore the mandate, presumably anybody at all affected by it, face no consequences. As costs spiral out of control, premiums will have to rise and subsidies increase. Insurance companies would have to either fold or shift costs....to those covered by employers....becoming a perfect target for left wing demagoguery and vilification. The only way out as more and more of those covered by employers get pushed into the exchanges as costs get shifted to them and employers no longer offer insurance -- yet another intended consequence -- is the public "option" or outright nationalization through a single payer plan.

We know that a single payer nationalized health care plan is the long term objective and intention for proponents of Obamacare and has been all along. They're completely disingenuous about how "incremental" and "modest" the program is. The astonishing fact that they deliberately prohibited enforcement of a critical component of the plan tells you all you need to know. It will intentionally create a crisis...a feature, not a bug....and a crisis is something this crowd never wants to go to waste.