RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://news.gallup.com/poll/469898/half-say-worse-off-highest-2009.aspx

Reflecting on their personal financial situations, 35% of Americans say they are better off now than they were a year ago, while 50% are worse off. Since Gallup first asked this question in 1976, it has been rare for half or more of Americans to say they are worse off. The only other times this occurred was during the Great Recession era in 2008 and 2009.

On the other hand, today’s “better off” percentage is not unusually low, having descended to 35% or lower during other challenging economic times. This includes the late 1970s and early 1980s, the early 1990s, and from 2008 through 2012. In those periods, a higher percentage than today’s 14% volunteered that their finances were “the same” as last year.

The latest results are based on a Jan. 2-22 Gallup poll. They follow a year of persistent high inflation, with the highest inflation rates since 1982. Stock market values declined and interest rates rose in 2022, but, on average, personal wages increased substantially.

In both 2021 and 2022, Americans were evenly divided between saying they were better off versus worse off, including a 41% to 41% split in last year’s survey.

By contrast, before the pandemic in January 2020, Americans were almost three times as likely to say they were better off (59%) as worse off (20%). The 59% reading is one of the highest in Gallup’s trends, along with a 58% reading in 1999.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/3849146-bidens-state-of-the-union-everything-is-awesome/

Let’s get one item out of the way: State of the Union addresses are among the most overhyped events of any presidency. Thousands of words, many designed for easy applause lines from one side of the chamber. Ample sound and fury signifying nothing. 

Think about it for a moment: Outside of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sophomorically tearing up President Trump’s 2020 State of the Union address, what memorable line or moment has ever stood out in these speeches? They are little more than a laundry list of policy positions marinated in self-congratulation.

Tuesday night’s address by President Biden was no different. The commander in chief engaged in happy talk that would have one believe that:

— inflation were 1.4 percent (the number Biden inherited) instead of 6.5 percent as it currently stands.

— violent crime weren’t climbing in most cities across the country. (It is.)

—the border were closed and secure. (More than 5 million illegal migrants have entered the country since Biden took office, including more than 100 on the terror watch list.) 

—fentanyl overdoses were minimal. (They’re the leading killer of adults between the ages of 18-49 due to lax border policy that allows the lethal drug, produced in China, to be shipped to Mexico and brought into the country relatively easily.)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-state-of-the-union-address-america-polling-economy-covid-11675809441?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

President Biden devoted most of his State of the Union address on Tuesday night to celebrating what he says is a long list of legislative and economic achievements—spending on social programs and public works, subsidies for computer chips, even more subsidies for green energy, and a strong labor market. But if he’s done so much for America, why does most of America not seem to appreciate it?

That’s the contradiction stalking his Presidency as he enters his third year and plots a likely re-election campaign. The disconnect is clear enough in the polls. His job approval rating average has climbed to 44.2% in the RealClearPolitics average, which should be better with all of that supposed good news. Gallup has it at 41%. Mr. Biden’s RCP average job approval on the economy is 38%.

The latest Washington Post/ABC poll is even worse for the President. Some 41% of Americans say they’re worse off financially than when Mr. Biden became President, while only 16% say they’re better off. Most people—62%—say Mr. Biden has accomplished either not very much or little or nothing. That includes 22% of Democrats.

And here’s the really bad news for Mr. Biden. Some 58% of Democrats say they’d prefer a different party nominee for President in 2024, and he even loses a head to head matchup with former President Trump 48%-44%.

***

Polls are only snapshots in time, and few voters are focused on the 2024 choices. Mr. Biden could rise if the economy ducks a recession, inflation subsides, and Ukraine pushes Russia out of most or all of its territory.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/02/06/missing-documents-and-files-in-ongoing-j6-cover-ups/

The public is gradually learning how, despite repeated denials and non-answers, top government officials were well aware of the potential for violence on January 6, 2021. 

A chief investigator on the January 6 select committee told NBC News last week that law enforcement was privy to a trove of intelligence indicating problems could arise during the election certification process but, for some unexplained reason, chose to ignore the warning signs. “The Intel in advance was pretty specific, and it was enough in our view for law enforcement to have done a better job operationalizing a secure perimeter.” Tim Heaphy told NBC News reporter Ken Dilanian. “Law enforcement had a very direct role in contributing to surely the failures—the security failures that led to the violence.”

Criticism of law enforcement, as I noted here after the release of the committee’s report, was buried in a relatively brief appendix in the 840-page document. Staffers complained for months that former Representative Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) insisted the final work product singularly blame Donald Trump, not government agencies, for the events of January 6.

Cheney got her way. But now that the committee is dissolved, some are going public to reveal what the committee failed to report—and the omissions are far more consequential than private conversations between Ivanka Trump and her father, another odd fixation of Cheney’s. (Perhaps a bit of projection from Dick Cheney’s daughter?)

The New York Times disclosed last week that the FBI conducted a tabletop exercise of sorts to “game out the worst potential outcomes of a disputed election.” The so-called “red cell” analysis took place on October 27, 2020, and envisioned four post-election outcomes related to a “lone offender” attack. The bureau did not, however, consider the possibility of a mass uprising or coordinated assault by alleged “militia” groups on January 6, the Times reported.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/02/06/ukrainian-paradoxes/

One of the strangest things about the American response to Ukraine has been the willingness of the Left and the establishment Right to discount completely that the war is heading toward a rendezvous with ever-deadlier weapons and staggering fatalities—even as we witness increasing nuclear threats from a weakened and adrift Vladimir Putin. They insist that Putin is merely saber-rattling. And he might be. Supposedly, in his diminished and discredited state, Putin would not dare to set off a tactical nuclear weapon (as if diminished and discredited leaders are not more likely to do so).

Proxies Versus Balloons 

But while we discount the nuclear dangers of a paranoid Putin reacting to the arming of our proxy Ukraine, the brazen Chinese, in violation of American airspace and international law, sent their recent “weather “ surveillance balloon across the continental United States with impunity. Only after public pressure, media coverage, and the Republican opposition did the Biden Administration, in the 11th hour, finally drop its increasingly incoherent and disingenuous excuses, and agree to shoot the balloon down as it reached the Atlantic shore—its mission completed. 

Given the balloon may have more, not less, surveillance capability than satellites, may have itself been designed eventually to adopt offensive capability, and may have been intended to gauge the American reaction to incursions, the Biden hesitation and fear to defend U.S. airspace and confront China makes no sense. 

Contrast Ukraine: Why discount the dangers of strategic escalation in a third-party proxy war, but exaggerate them to the point of stasis when a belligerent’s spy balloon crosses the U.S. heartland with impunity? Are the borders of Ukraine more sacrosanct and more worthy of our taking existential risks than our own airspace and southern border?

When and How Did Russia Enter Ukraine?

 Russia did not just enter Ukraine on February 24, 2022. So where were the voices of outrage in 2014‚ from Joe Biden and others in the highest positions of the Obama Administration when Putin first absorbed Crimea and eastern Ukraine?  

Why do the most fervent supporters of blank-check aid to the Zelenskyy government grow indifferent when we ask how Russia in 2014 managed so easily to reclaim vast swaths of Ukraine? Is it because of the 2012 hot-mic conversation between Barack Obama and then Russian Federation President Dmitry Medvedev in Seoul, South Korea, in which Obama promised: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space. . . . This is my last election . . . After my election, I have more flexibility.” 

Obama’s “ flexibility ” on missile defense in eastern Europe was an understatement—given he completely canceled a long-planned major U.S. commitment to Poland and the Czech Republic, a system that might have been of some value during the present conflict with Putin. And certainly, Putin did give Obama the requested reelection “space” by not invading Crimea and eastern Ukraine until 16 months after Obama was reelected in his “last election.” Once he did so, the bargain was apparently sealed, and each party got what it wanted: both space (i.e., temporary good Russian behavior) and flexibility (i.e., canceling an air defense system).

https://www.frontpagemag.com/who-guards-the-race-guardians/

Recently a black man named Tyre Nichols was savagely beaten by five Memphis policemen, and died a few days later of “extensive bleeding caused by a severe beating,” according to the preliminary autopsy report.

Typically such an event is met with nationwide protests and riots marked by arson, vandalizing, and looting. The usual race-baiters, attracted by black blood, exploit the crime in order to promote their own interests as racialist tribunes, or to get publicity for some ideology and its supporting “evidence,” like the sketchy, counter-factual “systemic racism” that drives police to target unarmed black men for murder, even though for decades police shootings of all ethnicities have declined considerably.

In this instance, however, the protests were muted and localized. More pertinent, the five policemen were black men, a fact that require some sophistic rhetorical gymnastics in order to argue that this murder bespeaks systemic racism or lingering “white supremacy,” for which protestors find arson and vandalism somehow effective. It also didn’t hurt that the five were fired and charged with second-degree murder with dispatch, taking away another sham motive for riots–– the accusations of impunity or cover-ups that long investigations and delayed filling of charges invite.

This disaster no doubt has many causes: poor training, lax hiring standards, “equity” and “diversity” imperatives, for example. Police departments are finding it harder to recruit more police to replace those who have quit, despite six-figure salaries and signing bonuses. The problem obviously can be traced to the “defund the police” movement and the perception of many likely hires that they will be demonized and second-guessed, and their bosses in city government won’t have their backs. That treatment is not likely to attract people to a dangerous occupation that requires you to wear a target on your back every time you show up for work.

Yet the “systemic racism” explanation is too politically useful to forgo, and so the current heinous crime by black cops must be subject to this one-size fits all argument. But what the purveyors of this weapon forget is that dubious theories like “systemic racism” in the end are patently harmful and insulting to black people, as all arguments based on determinism compromise the full humanity of all peoples.