Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of the accompanying video from professor Peter St. Onge. Inflation is rising again, and even Federal Reserve cheerleader Bloomberg is worried the Fed is losing the plot. Inflation rising is awkward for the Fed, given Chairman Jerome Powell already cut rates for the looming recession. In fact, he just did a jumbo half-point cut—which makes inflation go up. This is known as a policy error. And the Fed’s been making a lot these days. In raw numbers, the Consumer Price Index surprised on the upside at around 2.2% annualized, but the bombshell was so-called core CPI, which strips out food and energy. That came in at nearly 4% annualized. Prices rose across the board: Groceries were up the most since the beginning of the year, with meat up more than 10% annualized. Car prices (new and used), car insurance, medical costs, and plane tickets all jumped. Services as a whole jumped nearly 5% annualized. Interestingly, watches and jewelry jumped at an 84% annualized rate—perhaps as a flight from paper money to real assets. Or perhaps because senators got big donations this election cycle and need to keep their mistresses happy. Meanwhile, eggs—which is how the rest of us keep our wives happy—jumped 8.4% annualized. So, this is not supposed to be happening at this stage of the game. I mentioned in a recent video how recessions tend to reduce inflation—in fact, by 3.7% on average. So, if we’re bumping along at 4% core with a recession coming, it suggests that underlying inflation could be 7-plus percent. That would make it very dumb for Powell to have just cut rates by a jumbo half-point, with more cuts on deck. It’s just another month in the Federal Reserve clown car. To be fair, Powell did admit last year they have no idea what they’re doing. He phrased it as the Fed navigating by star on a cloudy night. As in navigating by stars you can’t see. Which is not navigating; it’s pretending to navigate. To be fair, pretending pretty much sums up the Federal Reserve—or central banks in general, really: They pretend to manage the economy, but really all they do is print as much money as possible—which causes inflation, then recessions—and then try to balance the two to keep headlines manageable. A little pain here (inflation); a little pain there (recession)—with the people not realizing the Fed’s causing both. So, what’s next? If prices are rising, the Fed’s room for errors just got a lot tighter. Markets can see this, with the odds of another mega-cut dropping to zero for the Fed’s next meeting and mortgage rates rising again since higher interest rates mean expensive mortgages. This means we could be stuck with 7% mortgages and a frozen housing market well into next year. More importantly, these were not good numbers for Kamala Harris. Because this was the very last inflation report for Harris before she faces voters. And, with core near 4%, Harris is facing voters with a looming recession, rising joblessness, and rising inflation. Which rhymes with Jimmy Carter—who, famously, won just six states against Ronald Reagan in 1980 after Carter, too, delivered inflation and recession. Now, Harris won’t win just six—our media is even less objective than it was in the 1970s. But rising inflation with a slowing economy is pretty much the worst possible way to fight an election. Of course, if Donald Trump does win next month, you can take it to the bank that the media will put both the Biden-Harris inflation and the Biden-Harris recession on Trump. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Inflation Rising Is Awkward for Powell, Nightmare for Harris appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Liberal journalists love to paint the Republicans as opposed to facts—which implies that liberal journalists own the facts and determine who is using them properly. The Washington Post put this aggressive headline on the front of its Oct. 15 edition: “Campaign takes stand against fact checks: In live settings, Trump aims to let his falsehoods go unchallenged.” Reporters Ashley Parker and Josh Dawsey begin by noting the Trump campaign has “waged an aggressive campaign against fact-checking in recent months,” pushing the media to “abandon the practice if they hope to interact with Trump.” They describe former President Donald Trump‘s resentment over PolitiFact’s joining the anti-Trump brigade at the National Association of Black Journalists beatdown and the “fact-checking” that occurred during Trump’s ABC News debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, as well as Trump skipping’s “60 Minutes” over CBS News’ “fact-checking.” One crucial fact emerged very late out of this Republicans-hate-facts story—the dramatic imbalance of who is tagged as false. ABC’s debate moderators singled out Trump for five combative “fact checks.” CBS debate moderators said they wouldn’t fact-check the candidates and then pushed around JD Vance, Trump’s running mate, on Haitian migrants in Ohio. The word “moderator” is a bad joke. Parker and Dawsey return to an old saw: “The Washington Post Fact Checker team tallied that by the end of Trump’s presidency, he had made 30,573 false or misleading claims—an average of about 21 false, erroneous or misleading claims a day.” They don’t mention that Glenn Kessler, the Post’s so-called Fact Checker, proclaimed in 2021 that there would be no systematic counting of President Joe Biden‘s false or misleading statements. Doesn’t that suggest that “fact-checking” is a weapon used against Republicans? And doesn’t it betray a partisan tilt, that Democrats are remarkably more honest politicians? A look at the Post’s “Fact Checker” homepage on Oct. 15 demonstrates that this dramatic imbalance is still in effect. Just counting the cartoon Pinocchios on the first page shows Trump and his team have drawn 39 Pinocchios. Team Harris has … zero. For one article, the Fact Checker daintily notes: “Harris flubs manufacturing jobs claim in MSNBC interview.” Seven articles on the Trump side get the maximum “Four Pinocchios” (pants-on-fire) judgment. A new Media Research Center count of fact checks at PolitiFact shows a similar aggression. There are 24 “Pants on Fire” rulings for Republicans from January through September (20 of them Trump) to just one for Democrats (Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker). Overall, Republican politicians were judged as “Mostly False” or worse 79% of the time, while Democrats were in that penalty box only 36% of the time. The Post reporters found a liberal expert to back up their theme. University of Wisconsin professor Lucas Graves gains the big, bold, and italic pull quote inside the paper: “Within the political establishment on the right, it is now considered quite legitimate—and quite legitimate to say publicly and openly—that you disapprove of fact-checking.” It’s “tribalism” to oppose liberal fact-checking. But you can’t say it’s “tribalism” for the liberal fact-checkers to trash the Republicans much more often and much more harshly. They should be charged with ad police brutality. Naturally, the Post concludes this partisan piece by citing how the liberal bias was followed by liberal mockery on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live,” where Bowen Yang, the Asian comedian playing Vance at the CBS debate, said, “Don’t fact-check that” multiple times in one sentence. This is the pose liberal journalists love to strike: We cannot be criticized. Object to us and you hate facts, journalism, safety, sanity, and democracy. They have a monopoly on truth—whatever they decide it is. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Washington Post Claims Republicans Wage War on Fact-Checkers appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Shake It Up, Baby, Now! Harris Campaign Shifting Assets From WI to Shaky PA

Site has no Description

Vice President Kamala Harris recently held a town hall in Detroit, and the best part about it was how she avoided speaking to black men in the familiar SIGN language — shame, insults, guilt, and nagging — that the left favors. The event, hosted by “The Breakfast Club” host Charlamagne tha God, didn’t reveal much new about the Democrats’ presidential nominee. It did, however, highlight Charlamagne’s role as more of a campaign surrogate than an objective journalist or political commentator. He framed Harris' campaign as a battle against two foes: Donald Trump and “misinformation.” He also asserted that the choice for voters in November is between Harris and “fascism.” The professional 'Negro naggers' on the left will only intensify their attacks if Trump wins the election due to increased black male support. Harris reiterated her recent policies aimed at black men, including marijuana legalization, but avoided the tongue-lashing her surrogates have grown accustomed to delivering. This approach benefits her campaign, yet it remains the exception on the left, not the rule. Democrats and their media surrogates often engage in what some call “Negro nagging” to pressure uncooperative black men back into the fold. Barack Obama caused a stir with a public rebuke during a campaign stop in Pittsburgh, chastising “the brothers” for considering sitting out the election or even voting for Donald Trump because they don’t want to support a female candidate. Obama appears to believe that since more than 80% of black men voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, they should now automatically support Kamala Harris. This disregard for political independence also aligns with Joy Reid’s recent comment that black men who support Trump are fueling a “fascist groundswell.” Similarly, Sunny Hostin, co-host of “The View,” labeled black Trump voters as “ridiculous” and “crazy” with nary an objection from her co-hosts. This is not how you speak to people you hope to persuade. This is how you speak to people you believe you own. I wouldn’t criticize a man for calling out his brother for cheating on his wife or abandoning his family. Being a husband and father comes with God-given responsibilities. However, no American has a moral obligation to vote for any particular party or candidate, and that holds true for black people and Democrats just as much as it does for white evangelicals and Republicans. One of the biggest problems in American politics today is that politicians have become far too comfortable with reversing roles. They act as if our job is to vote for them, when in reality, it’s their job to work for us. This attitude is why progressive voices have been berating black men since the last presidential election. In 2020, Rutgers University professor Brittney Cooper called black men voting for Trump “traitorous MFs.” One Democratic congressional candidate claimed that one in five black men voted for Trump because “they hate black women.” In 2022, former MSNBC host Tiffany Cross even said black men in Georgia should “get in line” behind black women and vote for Stacey Abrams. The Democrats clearly struggle with how they communicate with men, a problem that’s worsened by their obsession with race and identity. This is why they speak to disobedient black men with such disdain. My hope for this election cycle is that millions of black men will wake up to this reality. I also hope they embrace their role as political homewreckers. The unholy alliance between black feminists and white liberals, formed in the 1960s, has wreaked havoc on both the black family and African-American political engagement for decades. In this political triangle, the government takes the role of the new patriarch, black women serve as the loyal spouse, and black men are treated like children under the care of their mother and her new boyfriend. The professional “Negro naggers” on the left will only intensify their attacks if Trump wins the election due to increased black male support. That’s certainly one approach Democrats can take to address their problems, but it won’t work with black men who reject being treated like boys by women who didn’t birth them.

During a women’s town hall with Fox News’ Harris Faulkner on Tuesday, Republican presidential nominee and former President Donald Trump made a vow to voters that he plans to “immediately” end sanctuary jurisdictions if he secures a victory in the upcoming November election.Nancy, a woman in the audience, explained to Trump that her son was on the University of Georgia’s campus the day 22-year-old Laken Riley, a nursing student, was murdered while out on a jog. The man charged with Riley’s brutal slaying is 26-year-old Jose Ibarra, a Venezuelan national in the U.S. illegally and a suspected member of the vicious transnational gang Tren de Aragua.'We’re going to have law and order.'Nancy proceeded to ask Trump, “I wanted to know, how quickly in a sanctuary city like they’re calling Athens, Georgia — how quickly can you remove those threats to our societies so that our children can go out on a run, as they rightfully should be able to do in a park in the daytime by themselves?”Trump responded, “First of all, we are going to end all sanctuary cities immediately.”Faulkner asked Trump whether he would accomplish that via executive order. “I could do it with an executive order; I’ll have to do it with an executive order. You can do it with the Aliens Act of 1798,” he responded.The Alien Act, which was passed in 1798 by the Federalist-controlled Congress, authorizes the sitting president to deport non-citizens.“We can do things in terms of moving people out. We can move them out of the sanctuary cities,” Trump continued.“Normally, you like to understand the opponent,” he added. “Why do they want open borders? Why do they want to do this? Why do they want sanctuary cities?”Trump declared that sanctuary cities are meant to protect only criminals. “We’re going to end all sanctuary cities in the United States, and we’re going to go back to normalcy. And we’re going to have law and order,” he stated.Trump stated that his administration would prioritize reinvigorating law enforcement officers who have been slowed down and even prevented from doing their jobs under the Biden-Harris administration.“They want to do their job. We’re going to let them do their job,” Trump added. “I’m going to give them immunity. We’re going to protect them.”“You look at New York, and Chicago, and L.A., and every city all run by Democrats,” he continued. “Liberal, stupid Democrats.”“Our country has lost its way,” Trump concluded.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A pro-life mom has reported to prison after being convicted of violating a law protecting access to abortion clinics. 33-year-old Bevelyn Williams was sentenced in July to 41 months in prison for violating the Freedom of Access to Clinics Act over several instances during which she prevented patients of entering abortion clinics. She was convicted of misdemeanor criminal trespass. 'Biden's Department of Justice has brazenly weaponized the FACE Act against normal, everyday Americans across the political spectrum, simply because they are pro-life.'"Biden/Harris administration has made my husband a single father today," wrote Williams on the X platform Wednesday. "I am on my way to turn myself into federal prison where I am scheduled to serve three years in federal prison for unlawful assembly. Share this and make mothers and fathers of this nation aware of what's going on!"A statement from the U.S. Attorney's Office said that Williams "repeatedly intimidated and interfered with individuals seeking and providing critical reproductive health services" by use of physical force and threats of violence against the staff. They cited an incident in 2020 where Williams injured the hand of a clinic volunteer and also a livestream she posted during which she said she would "terrorize" the clinic. Conservatives have accused Democrats and especially the Biden administration of using the FACE Act to target pro-life and Christian activists for unjust prosecution and imprisonment. “The Biden DOJ has weaponized this constitutionally suspect law against pro-life sidewalk counselors while failing to protect pregnancy centers and churches from violent attacks,” said Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Texas in 2023. “Free Americans should never live in fear of their government targeting them because of their beliefs," said Republican Sen. Chip Roy of Texas. "Yet, Biden's Department of Justice has brazenly weaponized the FACE Act against normal, everyday Americans across the political spectrum, simply because they are pro-life. Our Constitution separates power between the federal government and the states for a reason, and we ignore that safeguard at our own peril."Williams has opened a GiveSendGo account for donations to help her cause. "I was persecuted as a Christian standing for my beliefs when it comes to life," wrote Williams on the page. "This is devastating news. Not only is this bond extensive for the accused crime, but she made it very clear in the courtroom that she was going to an make example out of me. The concern of being a young mother, and a stay-at-home mother, was completely disregarded."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

It’s bad law, bad policy, and bad politics to sue Virginia to protect noncitizens from being removed from the voter rolls.

Politico Hammered by Reality Checks After Noting How Backing Trump Isn't Profiting Elon Musk

Dumb Bigot Rips Down Flag in an Act of Anti-Semitism Before Realizing it's ACTUALLY a Greek Flag (WATCH)