Jen Psaki Is A Lying Liar Who Lies: Insane Gas Prices Edition

 

President Joe Biden’s Press Secretary Jen Psaki tried to evade White House responsibility for soaring gas prices Monday, casting blame solely on overseas turmoil in Ukraine.

Gas prices hit a national average of $4.06 a gallon, according to AAA, this week reaching a new high not seen since 2008 when prices reached their all-time peak at $4.11.

“The increase,” Psaki said, “is a direct result of the invasion of Ukraine,” adding “there was an anticipation” of rising prices. ...

Despite Psaki’s blame on Russian aggression for the spike in energy costs, gas prices began to soar upon Biden’s first days in office after the president’s inaugural orders shut down the Keystone XL pipeline and unilaterally suspended new oil and gas leases on public land.

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), American gas prices eclipsed an average of $3 per gallon by May as President Biden unleashed a cascade of taxes and regulation on the industry while moving to lock down lucrative reserves. In other words, gas prices have been rising since Biden took office, not since Russia launched its invasion of neighboring Ukraine.

Conservatives, the cheated-on spouses of American politics

 Kurt Schlichter dissects Kristi Noem and in the process coins a phrase that hits home.

You know who is laughing right now? Nikki! Haley is, because Kristi Noem may have derailed her own electoral freight train as it rolled down the conservative governortrix tracks toward the GOP nom in 2024. Now, Nikki! is a total non-starter, ...though the GOP establishment has this fantasy that she can cruise into the White House by pretending to be hardcore when she’s just Jeb! in a skirt. But Noem has – perhaps had – a future as a conservative conservative, and her utterly insane unforced error last week has hugely damaged her prospects. ...

What did she do? She vetoed a bill defending women athletes from the insanity of letting men dominate them and then offered the most weaksauce weasel word explanation imaginable. ...her appearance on Tucker was condescending gibberish. Watching it, woke cons started out disappointed with her and ended up infuriated at her....

It was really quite remarkable how amateurish and totally unnecessary it all was, but we’ve been seeing a lot of this lately....

It’s unclear who told Noem this was a great idea, but that person ought to be exiled ...Noem decided that instead of holding strong on an issue that conservatives care about, she would not merely rollover to the tech/Chamber of Commerce lib axis but also attempt to talk us into thinking this was just a routine administrative decision and that she is totally behind us 100 percent....

We’re not stupid. Is she? Because if she thinks that conservatives, the cheated-on spouses of American politics, are not hyper-vigilant to any sign of betrayal then she’s too dumb to be our prezzy. We’ve been shafted too many times, and she is hallucinating if she thinks anyone will get a pass – including her.

 Candidates, understand this. We are woke. We expect you to be woke. Period. If you don’t know what time it is, it’s time for you to go away.

There’s no way to split the difference, no needle-threading or insulting “explaining” that will mollify us. We didn’t like Trump because he was on TV (we didn’t watch that crap), or because he was an ideological conservative (he was not), or because he sent mean tweets (okay, a little). We supported Trump because he fought for us and did not compromise with the people who hate us and want us disenfranchised, subservient, or dead.

Read the whole thing.

Stop Gaslighting the Year 2020.

 You know that I’m sick of?  People badmouthing 2020.

Why?  Because 2020 is a mark on a calendar.  It has nothing to do with what happened this year.  It’s not responsible for a bloody thing!  Stop blaming the year for what happened to you.

There is a big part of the American public that blames 2020 for the pandemic.  

Bullshit!  

China is responsible for creating the Wuhan virus and spreading it throughout the world.  They lied about its origin.  They lied about its infectiousness.  And they deliberately allowed it to spread globally while preventing the spread of the Wuhan flu inside China.

And why is the blame deflected from China?  

We need to look no farther than that stupid CNN reporter who accused Trump of xenophobia because he said the virus came from China.  Idiots – or Chinese agents -like this are Gaslighting the American people.

So, you’re stuck in a 12-foot square apartment and you ate alone on Thanksgiving and Christmas? Your grandmother died alone, and you could not attend her funeral?  The government tells you that you can’t attend church service but encourages rioting for Black Lives Matter?  Don’t blame 2020.  You were only following orders.  Following the orders of the little Hitlers in Richmond, Albany, Springfield, or Sacramento.  

You’re not allowed to ask why, after wearing a make all day, washing your hands until they bleed, and staying at least twelve feet away from another human being,  the "news" reports are full of new pandemic outbreaks 24/7. 

Here’s a hint: it has nothing to do with the numbers – or the year - 2020.  

Maybe following these orders, closing businesses, throwing millions out of work, and spreading fear and panic among the populace doesn't make a virus go away.

Here's another clue. The people who tell you to shelter in place, don't go out to eat and don't travel spend their time in public, go to fancy restaurants with dozens of friends and take vacations with their families obviously don't believe what they are telling you.  You are being lied to.  Ask yourself why.  

There are lots of people and institutions that are closer and more real than the number 2020.  The focus on the year is a deliberate distraction from those who are responsible for the misery they caused us this year.

See through the gaslighting.  Fight back for the truth.

Brazil’s Top Election Court Catches Google Manipulating Search Results to Point to Negative Entries on Bolsonaro …Just Like They Do with Conservatives in America

If you thought that Google was manipulating search results for political purposes and they told you that you were crazy, they were gaslighting you.

The Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSA), Brazil’s top election court, fined Fernando Haddad (President Jair Bolsonaro’s leftist opponent) for having a contract with Google to manipulate search results during the election.

Luiz Edson Fachin, of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE), ruled that the PT candidate for the presidency, Fernando Haddad, paid Google to highlight negative content and manipulated searches to point to a website with negative coverage of Bolsonaro.

Google wasn’t fined because they claimed that as soon as they were notified by the court of the irregularities they dishonored the contract.

This is a common practice by Google in the United States.

Google manipulates search results for conservatives and conservative publishers to point to negative articles and hit pieces.

So does Google allow people or companies to pay them in order to manipulate search results or only if they are far left/socialist/communist websites?

Google claims their search results are driven by some sacred algorithm. Then how is it possible that they offered such a service to Socialists?

In the U.S. Google does it for free.

Democrats are great at Gaslighting.

A Gaslight Unto the Nations

“Gaslighting” feels like one of those trendy words that becomes au courant for a couple of years and then devolves into a punch line. (“How many men’s rights activists does it take to change a lightbulb?” one online meme asks. “None, they still use gaslighting.”) But the term’s growing popularity hints at a deeper change in political language, not just in the words we use, but in how we use them, in the goals we are trying to accomplish when we speak.

Disagreements over political issues used to hinge mostly on factual questions. (At least that was the ideal to which both sides claimed to aspire.) Does a higher minimum wage help or hurt the poor? Will tax cuts boost inequality or lift all boats? Good-faith advocates for either side would marshal their evidence and make their cases. To be sure, some debates got nasty. But, underneath the vitriol, people generally accepted that winning the argument required having a more persuasive set of facts.

There is another style of argument, one that doesn’t trouble itself with pesky facts at all. British writer C.S. Lewis dubbed this style “Bulverism,” after a fictional character he called Ezekiel Bulver. He imagined Bulver as a child overhearing his mother dismiss a point made by his father with the words, “Oh you say that because you are a man.” At that point, Bulver later recalls, “there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of your argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet.”

Lewis conceived Bulver as a stand-in for the Freudians and Marxists of his day who dismissed their opponents’ positions by attributing them to deep-seated—even unconscious—biases. If you disagreed with a Freudian, you were “projecting” or “in denial.” Question the inevitability of socialism and you were just a victim of “false consciousness” showing how deeply you’d been brainwashed by capitalism.

If we were to drop Ezekiel Bulver into a modern-day Twitter debate, he would feel right at home. Bulverism is now the norm. Political debates have become like sumo wrestling: The goal is to knock your adversary out of the ring. Why argue with your opponents when you can muscle them clean out of the conversation? So partisans begin every argument by attacking the other side’s character and motives. According to Trump loyalists, anyone with a smidgeon of international expertise is a morally suspect “globalist.” For those on the left, having the wrong skin tone or sexual leanings is enough to deny you a seat at the table. New York Times editorial-board member Sarah Jeong famously complained on Twitter about “Dumbass f—king white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.” No need to listen to them, obviously, they’re no better than dogs.

Read the whole thing.

Mollie Hemingway @ The Federalist: "Media Gaslighting Can’t Hide Fact Trump Campaign Was Spied On"

Gaslighting is a tactic in which a person or entity, in order to gain more power, makes a victim question their reality. Since we get so much of our information about the world from the media, their twisting of the truth is very effective.

As the media "reports" on President Trump you begin to wonder about what is real and what is fake. Especially if you don't recall past reporting. For example, the media has been reporting both that the FBI has been spying on the Trump campaign and denying that the Trump campaign has been spied on. That's gaslighting.

On Saturday night, heavily redacted copies of the FBI’s application to wiretap Trump campaign affiliate Carter Page were released. The portion of the 412-page document that was not redacted supported the claims of Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), as well as those made by the majority of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence....

President Trump tweeted triumphantly and hyperbolically about what the documents showed regarding the FBI’s behavior toward his campaign. Whatever you think about Trump’s reaction to the release of the FISA application, the media reaction to the story was disingenuous and even more hyperbolic than the president’s tweets. After a year of continuous and alarming revelations, the media are still more interested in proving the Trump campaign treasonously colluded with Russia than wrestling with the fact that the FBI spied on a presidential campaign, and used dubious partisan political research to justify their surveillance.

The media reaction to both the redacted Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) wiretap applications and President Trump’s tweets was pure gaslighting. They claimed the FISA applications hurt the critics’ case. It wasn’t that they reported the news that critics of the FISA application felt vindicated while defenders of the wiretap applications also felt vindicated. They wrote as partisans in a war with those skeptical of FISA abuse....

This is part of a pattern for the media when they encounter facts related to the surveillance of the Trump campaign. When Department of Justice officials leaked to the media that they had run at least one informant against the Trump campaign, a breathtaking admission by any sense of news judgment, the news was buried in the middle of the story and completely downplayed.

Others joined in with the gaslighting, spending weeks arguing — and I’m not joking here — that running a secret government informant against a campaign is not spying on a campaign....

If you go back to last year, CNN’s Jake Tapper mocked and derided Republican voters who told pollsters they thought the Obama administration had spied on the Trump campaign. This mockery took place after CNN reported that … the Obama administration had spied on Page!...

You can, along with the partisan and gaslighting media, claim it’s not a big deal to run human informants or secretly gather intelligence against a presidential campaign. But you can not deny it happened.

Read the whole thing.  Mollie Hemingway at the Federalist has done a remarkable job of covering this story.

IOP: expecting consistency between models and observations is an “error”

You see, the Climate models are not supposed to agree with reality.

The publisher of Environmental Research Letters today took the bizarre position that expecting consistency between models and observations is an “error”.

The publisher stated that the rejected Bengtsson manuscript (which, as I understand it) had discussed the important problem of the discrepancy between models and observations had “contained errors”.

But what were the supposed “errors”? Bengtsson’s “error” appears to be the idea that models should be consistent with observations, an idea that the reviewer disputed.

The reviewer stated that IPCC ranges in AR4 and AR5 are “not directly comparable to observation based intervals”:

That's right: the global warming climate change climate disruption models should not reflect what's actually happening.  Got it?

You're being Gaslighted by the Clime Syndicate.

Sociopaths frequently use Gaslighting Tactics.