Connect with us

Opinion

You Can Fool Some of the People All of the Time

Entire nations can be fooled when elected leaders drain the treasury and make promises which cannot be vetted for years.

Jeff Davidson

Published

on

Years back, I attend a seminar which features a local “psychic.” Allegedly, she can tell audience members about departed loved ones. Naturally, I am skeptical. For 30 minutes, she’s fishing. She’ll say to somebody, “You lost someone within the last few years, haven’t you?” In a room of 45 to 75-year-olds, this is not a hard call.

“You have boys, don’t you?” she tells one married couple, The couple nod in agreement. Okay, after nearly 32 minutes the “psychic” finally has cited something that is case-specific.

As she makes her pronouncements, a camera crew focuses on those parties with whom she engages in dialogue. The next day, she can selectively edit the video footage to show off her ‘amazing’ ‘psychic’ ability.

Perfecting the Craft

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

I’m not saying the woman is a con artist, like a Nancy Pelosi or a Chuck Schumer. However, con artists have perfected their craft.

Consider someone who touts forecasting capabilities. From a targeted list that he bought, the “forecaster” mails to 4000 stock market investors.  To 2000 recipients he predicts a particular stock will increase in value by the close of the market on a selected date in the near future.

To the other 2000 recipients, he says that this stock will not increase in value. It will decrease or stay the same. Thus, 2000 recipients will receive one communication from this forecaster that proves to be true.

Hook Them Early

The forecaster mails a second letter to the 2000 recipients with whom he was correct on the first mailing. He tells 1000 of them about another stock that will increase, and tells the other 1000 that the same stock will not increase. With half of the 2000 recipients he will be correct.

What a scheme! With 1000 recipients he has been correct in his stock predictions twice in a row. He repeats the process a third time and now has 500 people with whom he has been correct three times in a row.

Granted, some people chucked his mailing post haste. Still, 300 people or so might be primed to plunk down $247/yr for his stock predictions ezine. For a total mailing cost and labor of under $3000, he collects $74,100 (300 subscribers times $247). It doesn’t matter what else happens that year – he has reaped a big reward, and he could well have mailed to 20,000 people at the outset.

Some of the People 

Abraham Lincoln said, “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” Con artists are skilled in separating fools from their money, or in capturing their votes. Who is most likely to succumb? Those who:

* want to get something for nothing

* lack direction

* seek shortcuts along life’s journey

* are not intellectually rigorous

* want to be led by someone with special insights

* think the government can print money with no repercussions

The opioid patient, the cancer patient, the patient with an inoperable brain tumor might fervently seek answers, perhaps dismissing a lifetime of accumulated wisdom and judgment in the hope that they’ve found a miracle cure.

Please Lead Us!

The masses can be deceived as they seek to be led by a “messiah type” who has ‘answers’ to their persistent problems. If the messiah is a politician, they vote accordingly.

Oddly, the fewer hard credentials that the messiah possesses, the better, as was the case with Barack Obama. He had no notable political experience or demonstrated business acumen. Indeed, he had no significant accomplishments and had built nothing, but he spoke well.

Entire nations can be fooled when elected leaders drain the treasury and make promises which cannot be vetted for years. The results of “wealth redistribution” via legislation or presidential executive order, such as Joe Biden and company are doing, for social ‘justice’ programs of nebulous merit, often take an exceedingly long time, if ever, to bear fruit.

Record it All, Feature the Best

With the “psychic,” after her crew records everything, they only need to save and use a fraction of it: Those interactions where the “psychic” said something which apparently was case-specific and true for the audience member being tapped. Thereafter, her “demo” video can be edited to make her look like a psychic genius.

What a racket. Client, consumer, voter, and buyer: beware.

 

Opinion

Biden Mandate Busted Again, This Time in Lone Star State

It was a BRUTAL smackdown at that!

Published

on

From the very moment that Joe Biden began to speak about a federal vaccine mandate, there were concerns about its constitutionality.  You see, this is a nation founded on the ethos of freedom, and there is nothing more authoritarian than forcing a population to undergo unwanted medical procedures.

And, thusly, in the weeks following the Commander in Chief’s declaration, a number of judicial bodies took up the argument, and with devastating results for the White House.

The latest smackdown comes to us from Texas.

A federal judge in Texas Friday blocked the federal government from enforcing President Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal employees, arguing that he didn’t have the authority to do so “with the stroke of a pen and without input from Congress.”

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Biden has pushed several different iterations of vaccine mandates in recent months, including one for large businesses which the Supreme Court blocked and another for healthcare workers which it allowed to go into effect.

There was no beating around the bush, either.

Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Friday ruled against the administration on a separate mandate generally applying to federal employees.

“While vaccines are undoubtedly the best way to avoid serious illness from COVID-19, there is no reason to believe that the public interest cannot be served via less restrictive measures than the mandate, such as masking, social distancing, or part- or full-time remote work,” Brown wrote. “Stopping the spread of COVID-19 will not be achieved by overbroad policies like the federal-worker mandate.”

And, given the narrowest of margins in Congress, there is little doubt that any attempt to ratify this mandate legislatively would fail.

From the very moment that Joe Biden began to speak about a federal vaccine mandate, there were concerns about its constitutionality.  You see, this is a nation founded on the ethos of freedom, and there is nothing more authoritarian than forcing a population to undergo unwanted medical procedures. And, thusly, in the weeks following the Commander in Chief’s declaration, a number of judicial bodies took up the argument, and with devastating results for the White House. The latest smackdown comes to us from Texas. A federal judge in Texas Friday blocked the federal government from enforcing President Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal employees, arguing that he didn’t have the authority to do so “with the stroke of a pen and without input from Congress.” Biden has pushed several different iterations of vaccine mandates in recent months, including one for large businesses which the Supreme Court blocked and another for healthcare workers which it allowed to go into effect. There was no beating around the bush, either. Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Friday ruled against the administration on a separate mandate generally applying to federal employees. “While vaccines are undoubtedly the best way to avoid serious illness from COVID-19, there is no reason to believe that the public interest cannot be served via less restrictive measures than the mandate, such as masking, social distancing, or part- or full-time remote work,” Brown wrote. “Stopping the spread of COVID-19 will not be achieved by overbroad policies like the federal-worker mandate.” And, given the narrowest of margins in Congress, there is little doubt that any attempt to ratify this mandate legislatively would fail.

Continue Reading

News

Fact Checkers Make Exception for Liberal-Leaning News Outfit

Perhaps one of the several other “fact checking” corporations would like to take a stab at it?

Published

on

If there was ever a reason to doubt the authority and authenticity of the mission of the so-called “fact checker” organizations it is this:  There are more than one of them.

You see, if “facts” and “truth” were binary, there wouldn’t be a glut of competing companies out there attempting to sell their services to social media corporations and other media outlets.  We wouldn’t have any disparity whatsoever.  There would be one fact-checking group because, as stated in their creeds, there should be but one set of “facts”.

The entire industry is a bit of a scam, if we’re ready to be that honest with ourselves.  And, if we’re not, there are plenty of examples out there of these companies massaging the narrative in order to maintain their lucrative contracts.

NewsGuard, the establishment “news rating” project that claims to fight untrustworthy media outlets, is cautiously defending NPR as the establishment media outlet continues to claim that U.S. Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonya Sotomayor are at odds over masks, even after a statement from both Justices and Chief Justice John Roberts debunking the story.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

On Tuesday, NPR released a story claiming that Justice Sotomayor had opted to work remotely after Justice Gorsuch refused a request from Chief Justice Roberts that all justices mask up when on the bench.

Later in the day, a Supreme Court source told Fox News that neither Justice Roberts nor Justice Sotomayor had made any such request.

But then:

Despite the total breakdown of the initial story, Newsguard refuses to make any judgments on NPR’s reporting, arguing that the situation is still unfolding.

Prior to the statement from Chief Justice Roberts, Newsguard maintained that the facts of the story were still unclear.

“There are two conflicting reports, one from NPR and one from Fox News, both citing anonymous sources,” said Matt Skibinski, general manager of Newsguard. “It’s hard to say anything definitive about either report without more information.”

But Newsguard cannot hide from this fact:

However, even after all three Justices named in the story – Gorsuch, Sotomayor, and Roberts – made public statements debunking it, while NPR refused to issue a correction, Newsguard maintained that the story was still unfolding.

Perhaps one of the several other “fact checking” corporations would like to take a stab at it?

If there was ever a reason to doubt the authority and authenticity of the mission of the so-called “fact checker” organizations it is this:  There are more than one of them. You see, if “facts” and “truth” were binary, there wouldn’t be a glut of competing companies out there attempting to sell their services to social media corporations and other media outlets.  We wouldn’t have any disparity whatsoever.  There would be one fact-checking group because, as stated in their creeds, there should be but one set of “facts”. The entire industry is a bit of a scam, if we’re ready to be that honest with ourselves.  And, if we’re not, there are plenty of examples out there of these companies massaging the narrative in order to maintain their lucrative contracts. NewsGuard, the establishment “news rating” project that claims to fight untrustworthy media outlets, is cautiously defending NPR as the establishment media outlet continues to claim that U.S. Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonya Sotomayor are at odds over masks, even after a statement from both Justices and Chief Justice John Roberts debunking the story. On Tuesday, NPR released a story claiming that Justice Sotomayor had opted to work remotely after Justice Gorsuch refused a request from Chief Justice Roberts that all justices mask up when on the bench. Later in the day, a Supreme Court source told Fox News that neither Justice Roberts nor Justice Sotomayor had made any such request. But then: Despite the total breakdown of the initial story, Newsguard refuses to make any judgments on NPR’s reporting, arguing that the situation is still unfolding. Prior to the statement from Chief Justice Roberts, Newsguard maintained that the facts of the story were still unclear. “There are two conflicting reports, one from NPR and one from Fox News, both citing…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week