Author Archives: AmLib1

Alex Newman: Declaring War on U.S. Energy and the U.S. 4 (1)

by Alex Newman

As President Biden works to handicap both American energy production and usage, in the name of fighting global warming, he is destroying jobs, prosperity, and freedom.

On January 20, 2021, the booming town of Midland, South Dakota, became practically a “ghost town” in an instant. In the morning, every single room at the rustic Stroppel Hotel was occupied by highly paid workers toiling away on the Keystone XL pipeline and associated operations. By evening, there was nobody left. “Our whole world turned upside down with the stroke of a pen,” explained Laurie Cox, who bought the hotel six months ago with her husband, Wally, with the understanding that the pipeline would be bringing in large numbers of guests and patrons for the foreseeable future.

Now, thanks to Joe Biden’s executive decree canceling the pipeline, the Cox family’s future is uncertain at best. “Our real money was in renting the rooms — that’s where the pipeliners came in and really helped sustain us,” Cox told The New American magazine in a phone interview from her hotel. “We had a significant amount of people in the hotel, working on the pipeline and supporting them. Now, that’s done. We’re a small community, we don’t have a lot of opportunity. This was our once-in-a-lifetime chance and now it’s gone.”

Weeks into the devastation, the situation is already a tragedy. “I’ll be honest, we’re going to struggle month to month to pay the bills, whereas before we had plenty of money coming in to re-invest and improve the hotel and even hire people,” Cox said, reading off a list of other people in the region whose lives were similarly turned upside down. “I don’t even take a wage — everything we’ve got now we’re putting back into this hotel. I had hired somebody to help us run the place, but there is just no more money to have an employee anymore.”

There is still hope thanks to the hotel’s mineral bath. “Being a small hotel in the middle of nowhere, we do have our mineral waters that bring people in, even though right now we’re not bringing in enough to keep going,” she said. “We had been planning on having the workers for at least quite a long time. And our main money would have come when the main line kicked in. But now we’re going to have to try to pull in more people for going into our mineral waters — which are really special, by the way, healing.”

Still, Cox, sounding devastated but displaying traditional American spirit and perseverance, vowed not to give up. “This hotel is part of our little community, and when we bought it in September, we became part of this community. The hotel is a resource that this town has had since 1939, for generations, and we’re going to keep trying to make it work,” Cox continued. “We’re going to do everything we can to preserve this resource that God has given us.” But it will be hard, she added.

Keystone XL & National Pain

Of course, the Cox family is just the tip of the iceberg of destruction as Biden’s unconstitutional executive orders and his war on U.S. energy destroy thousands of lives and wreak havoc on countless families nationwide. According to data from the companies involved in just this one project, the Keystone XL pipeline was supposed to directly create almost 11,000 jobs — most of them “union” jobs, too, supposedly Biden’s favorite type of jobs.

Biden Bringing Economic Harm

Many of the unions that backed Biden are now expressing outrage. “The Biden administration’s decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline permit on day one of his presidency is both insulting and disappointing to the thousands of hard-working LIUNA members who will lose good-paying, middle class family-supporting jobs,” said the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA), which previously endorsed Biden’s candidacy. “By blocking this 100 percent union project, and pandering to environmental extremists, a thousand union jobs will immediately vanish and 10,000 additional jobs will be foregone.” 

But it gets worse. With a few strokes of Biden’s pen on a flurry of executive decrees, he managed to directly torpedo over 50,000 high-paying jobs on just his first day in office, according to estimates based on government figures. Some estimates suggest the real number may be as high as 70,000. Countless more will be lost in the years ahead as energy prices soar and firms seek out greener pastures to create wealth and manufacture products in places such as China.

While the Kremlin and dictators across the Middle East and beyond were thrilled with the killing of the Keystone XL pipeline, even America’s liberal friends and allies to the north were furious. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, for instance, blasted Biden’s executive order as a “gut punch to the Alberta and Canadian economies” and “an insult.” Despite being a fellow “green” fanatic, the far-left prime minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, expressed “disappointment” in Biden’s move.

American lawmakers were outraged, too. “President Biden’s executive order will rob both American and Canadian workers of good-paying jobs,” said Senator John Barrasso (Wy.), who is the top Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “President Biden’s actions will not end our need for oil from our strongest ally, Canada. Instead, it will cost jobs, result in more shipments of oil by rail and make America even more vulnerable to OPEC and foreign adversaries, like Russia.”

Fact checkers promptly sprang into action to silence critics of Biden’s killing of the pipeline. Their primary line of attack was the notion that, while it was true that Biden was destroying tens of thousands of high-paying jobs, he planned to create even more jobs in “green” energy at some point in the future. Basically, all those laid-off oil and gas workers could simply learn how to make solar panels, batteries, and those giant wind turbines strewn across large swaths of Texas and the American plains.

In other words, oil workers are being asked to give up high-paying jobs in exchange for jobs that usually pay less, in technical fields that can’t absorb the numbers of workers being shed by the oil patch, and that usually require retraining and that will mainly end after the big wind and solar projects are installed. Perhaps Biden could “create jobs” by borrowing money from China to pay people to smash big rocks into little rocks, too. At least it would not be as destructive.

Then mid-February’s bone-chilling cold hit. The very same wind turbines that were supposed to save humanity from alleged man-made global warming ended up freezing amid devastatingly cold temperatures, contributing to plunging millions into electrical blackouts as temperatures dropped below zero. (It’s noteworthy that there is a record of such cold snaps occurring in Texas since the 1890s.) The irony was not lost on the people of Texas — America’s largest energy producer — as some five million victims of government “green energy” schemes wondered if they might freeze to death before power returned. A number of people died, including an 11-year-old boy.

Other Assaults on U.S. Energy & Jobs

The war on American energy — and America itself — goes far beyond just the Keystone XL pipeline. Under President Trump, in 2019, America became “energy independent” for the first time in more than six decades. With his pen and phone, however, following in the footsteps of Barack Obama before him, Biden  reversed much of that progress in just a matter of weeks. Biden’s actions will be a boon to Middle Eastern tyrants, Russia, Venezuela, and other regimes awash in oil. But the costs will be devastating to America, and to some of its most vulnerable communities.

It is not just energy and transportation that depend on “fossil fuels” and hydrocarbons. According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s own website, oil and natural gas are needed in the manufacturing of over 6,000 everyday products and high-tech devices. These include tires, heart valves, toothbrushes, helmets, laptops, phones, wind-turbine blades, hearing aids, life jackets, and countless other essential goods without which modern life would come to a screeching halt. Producing these goods in the United States under the sort of regime envisioned by Biden would become difficult, if not impossible.

One of Biden’s major changes was an indefinite freeze on drilling and exploration for energy on federal lands. In just the state of New Mexico — one of the nation’s poorest states — Biden’s executive order halting oil and gas leases and drilling on federal lands is set to cost over 60,000 jobs, representing almost seven percent of the state’s entire workforce. New Mexico, a Democratic state, is also expected to lose more than $1 billion in tax revenue in the first year, an economic impact study by the American Petroleum Institute (API) suggests. Because half of New Mexico’s energy extraction happens on federal lands, and the feds own more than a third of the state’s land, that state will be particularly hard hit.

Other states set to be devastated by Biden’s decrees include Wyoming, North Dakota, Colorado, Oklahoma, and more. In Louisiana, API data suggest, the state’s Gulf Coast region could lose 50,000 jobs and almost $100 million in tax revenue just by next year as a result of Biden’s imperial decrees against American energy production. It could get worse, too, as the offshore drilling industry in Louisiana supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and contributes almost $7 billion to the state’s tax revenues each year.

“It’s devastatingly simple,” explained Representative Yvette Herrell (R-N.M.) and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) in an op-ed for Fox News. “When Washington radicals ban drilling on federal lands, Americans lose their jobs, investment flows overseas, and communities across America lose a primary source of revenue for schools, health care, and conservation efforts…. Our friends and neighbors rely upon these jobs to pay rent, put food on the table, and keep the lights on.”

“The Biden administration is attacking their livelihoods and jeopardizing America’s energy security,” the two lawmakers continued, adding that America is a global leader in producing and using energy in a clean, environmentally responsible manner while the regimes that will benefit do not adhere to proper environmental standards. “President Biden either doesn’t understand the damage he is doing to our communities or he doesn’t care.”

Gunning Americans down: Using executive orders, Biden has destroyed untold numbers of high-paying jobs producing energy domestically and made America more dependent on hostile foreigners. Perhaps even more significant than the economic damage inflicted on Americans is the national-security threat these decrees pose. “When the United States became the single largest oil and gas producer in the world, we were protected from market manipulation by OPEC and rogue actors,” the representatives said. “By undermining our energy dominance, Biden once again puts us at the mercy of foreign regimes, many of whom use those new-found billions of dollars against America and our allies.”

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey was fuming over what he described as Biden’s “destructive” policies. “What we’re seeing in the first week of the Biden administration is that the president is really taking a wrecking ball to many of the states that have oil, gas, coal, manufacturing jobs — that’s gonna have a real detrimental impact, especially as the American economy is coming out of COVID-19, a pandemic,” he declared, noting that Biden was going even further than Obama in his “green” scheming. “I think he’s really kicking the American people when they’re down economically and it’s not a message of unity that he’s been talking about.”

Producers, too, are sounding the alarm, even as apologists try to soothe concerns. Speaking of the drilling “moratorium,” Dan Naatz with the Independent Petroleum Association of America suggested this was likely to be significant and long-term. “Do not be fooled, this is a ban,” he explained. “The Biden administration’s plan to obliterate the jobs of American oil and gas explorers and producers has been on clear display.” Experts such as investment legend Felix Zulauf are predicting almost a doubling in the price of oil during Biden’s first term due to the anti-energy policies being pursued.

Green Energy Fraud

The notion that America can simply replace all of its lost energy from hydrocarbons with windmills and solar panels is plainly preposterous. Perhaps nobody explained it more beautifully and succinctly than Mark Mills, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, in a powerful five-minute video for PragerU exposing the “wind and solar” racket being used to dupe Americans into destroying their energy production.

Consider, among the countless problems, that the technology is simply not capable of supplying the power needed for an advanced civilization. After decades of governments showering billions of dollars in subsidies on their cronies behind the “green” wind and solar interests — think the scandal-plagued, Obama-backed solar panel company Solyndra, for instance, which flushed half-a-billion tax dollars down the drain when it declared bankruptcy — wind and solar power accounts for less than three percent of the world’s energy supply.

Aside from the economic absurdity of it all, the environmental devastation that would result from more widespread use of wind, solar, and battery power is hard to fathom. “Like all machines, they are built from non-renewable materials,” explained Mills. For instance, producing just one single electric-car battery requires digging up and processing over 250 tons of earth. Producing one wind farm, meanwhile, requires 30,000 tons of iron ore and 50,000 tons of concrete — not to mention nearly 1,000 tons of plastic. To get the same amount of power from solar would take 150 percent more resources.

In short, to continue pursuing the tax-funded solar and wind fantasies of central planners will require digging up millions of acres of pristine areas. All of that mining will consume an unfathomable amount of hydrocarbon energy, too, as will the industrial processes needed to refine the materials. And if that “green” power is stored in batteries, it will cost orders of magnitude more than traditional sources of electricity.

Those enormous numbers do not even factor in the massive mining operations that would be needed to get the rare-earth metals necessary to produce the batteries, wind turbines, and solar panels. For a number of reasons, almost none of that mining is taking place in America now, and it will not in the future either — especially as the Biden administration and the federal government frantically work to destroy U.S. mining operations. Instead, much of the mining will take place in China and Russia and other hostile nations. Ironically, a great deal of it is being mined by children in some of the areas environmentalists say they most want to protect — in Central Africa and the Amazon region of South America.

As Mills also points out, the life of wind and solar equipment is typically half the lifespan of conventional energy machines such as gas turbines. The International Renewable Energy Agency estimates that by 2050, solar-panel waste in need of disposal will be double the tonnage of the plastic waste produced today. And that does not include worn-out batteries or wind turbines. Adding insult to injury, storing one barrel of oil costs about 50 cents, while storing the equivalent amount of energy generated by wind turbines in batteries will take $200 of batteries, Mills explained.

In short, the true cost of all this “green” energy scheming — both economic and environmental — is astronomical.

Green New Deal & Sustainable Development

But there is a method to the madness. Indeed, it is all part of a broader and more destructive plan. Even before winning the dubious 2020 election, which was  marred by countless credible allegations of voter fraud, Biden was quietly but firmly peddling the Green New Deal. “Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face,” explained the Biden-Harris campaign website outlining a “plan for a clean energy revolution and environmental justice.”

On January 27, just one week into his presidency, following dozens of executive decrees, Biden held a press conference at the White House to unveil what sounded suspiciously like the Green New Deal floated by extremists and socialists in Congress in recent years. In his Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, signed amid the confab, Biden even called for “conserving 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030.” In other words, almost one-third of all the land and water in America would be made virtually off-limits to man. Also in the order was a new “Civilian Climate Corps.”

Adding insult to injury, he promised to “create jobs” by finishing off the energy-extraction infrastructure. “We’re also going to create more than a quarter million jobs to do things like plug the millions of abandoned oil and gas wells that pose an ongoing threat to the health and safety of our communities,” he said before parroting the UN-created slogan about “building our economy back better,” a derivative of the UN slogan “Build Back Better” that Biden ripped off for his campaign. “It’s a whole-of-government approach to put climate change at the center of our domestic, national security, and foreign policy.”

The public first got a taste of the “Green New Deal” agenda in 2019, when H.R. 109 was introduced in Congress by a coalition of 67 radical communist and socialist Democrats led by U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). Among other absurdities, the effort would seek to eliminate air travel, the eating of steaks, the use of hydrocarbons, and more. It would aim to completely end all emissions of CO— an essential gas exhaled by every living person and required by plants — over the coming decade. An FAQ released with the bill even touted “paying people who are unwilling to work.” Seriously.

But even serious environmentalists ridiculed the Green New Deal. Calling it a “recipe for mass suicide” and the “most ridiculous scenario I ever heard,” in an interview with The New American, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore blasted the “deal” as “completely preposterous.” He warned that if the scheme were actually implemented, people could be forced to turn to cannibalism to avoid starvation — and they still would not survive. All the trees on Earth would be chopped down, too, as people scrambled for energy to cook and warm their families with, he said.

That horrifying scenario would seem to fit quite nicely with the plans of the Club of Rome, an establishment powerhouse bringing together a diverse group of totalitarian characters from around the world, ranging from climate guru Al Gore to Bill Gates, George Soros, and Bill Clinton, to the late New World Order kingpin David Rockefeller and former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev. In its 1991 report, this group of powerful billionaires and policymakers indicated that with the Cold War officially in the rear-view mirror, a new target was needed to justify globalism and Big Government.

“The common enemy of humanity is man,” the club said in its report, The First Global Revolution. “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” In short, you and your family are the enemy — and your ability to sustain yourself, especially the energy needed to sustain life and civilization, is now officially in the cross hairs.

War on the United States, and Fighting Back

The war on America’s energy is actually a war on America itself, and the American people, by enemies foreign and domestic. As to the involvement of foreign interests, while most critics have seen the benefits to the Kremlin and other regimes as an unintended consequence, there is actually more to the story. As The New American magazine has been reporting for years, members of Congress discovered that Russian-government energy interests were funding U.S. “green” groups through a shell corporation in Bermuda called Klein Ltd. It was sending money to the Sea Change Foundation. From there, the money was distributed to a broad network of extremist “environmental” organizations such as the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Climate Action Network that are all seeking to destroy America’s energy industry.

Also, not only were Communist China’s agents deeply involved in promoting the Obama administration’s “green” policies, but China is a major beneficiary of Biden’s policies (see article on page 17). As American companies become uncompetitive due to surging energy prices, and Communist China continues building coal-fired power plants, America’s productive capacity and its jobs will be quickly shipped off to China. And all those “green energy” jobs and technologies? They will be in Beijing’s interest, too.

“What they’re talking about is exchanging [our former] dependence on the Middle East and OPEC, which was at one point close to 50% of our energy, for almost total dependence or twice as much dependency on China,” American Energy Alliance Senior Vice President Dan Kish explained regarding the expected hard shift into wind and solar power, pointing to Communist China’s dominance in the “green” energy sector. “I’ve got friends who are geologists who are saying, ‘Why are we doing this? This is crazy.’”

There are also powerful domestic forces hostile to American interests who are pushing for — and profiting from — the misery they are imposing on America. In 2014, the tip of the iceberg surfaced when the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee dropped its bombshell report headlined “The Chain of Environmental Command: How a Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA.”

This shadowy network identified as the “Billionaires Club” was exposed showering huge amounts of funds on the environmentalist “green movement.” And with all that money, the billionaires had come to dominate policy making, fleece taxpayers, and more — often in violation of federal laws. Numerous billionaires involved in the Club of Rome, such as the late David Rockefeller and Bill Gates, were key players.

This war on energy inspired by hostile foreign powers and anti-American billionaires in bed with Beijing has known consequences — and those responsible have openly admitted it. As Obama put it in 2008, under his plan, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” And when power prices skyrocket, businesses will rocket out of the United States and into other countries — China, for example. In countries where power prices are not skyrocketing and where companies need not even worry about pollution, there’s the extra benefit of slave labor. Biden and his handlers are not fools. Like Obama, they fully understand the consequences of their actions. And that is the point.

But from the flyover country and state capitols to the halls of Congress, opposition is growing quickly. And effective ways to resist are already being explored. Consider the example set by Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt. Noting that Biden’s decrees targeting energy are “in contravention of Article II Section 2 and the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution,” in addition to the threat they pose to his state, the Republican governor ordered state agencies to resist.

Specifically, Stitt directed that state officials “utilize all civil methods and lawful powers to protect [Oklahoma’s] 10th Amendment powers and challenge any actions by the federal government that would seek to diminish or destroy Oklahoma’s ability to encourage job growth and the responsible development of our natural resources within the energy industry.” Other governors may follow suit.

Every state in the union can use the power of nullification. For the last four years, Democrats used it unconstitutionally to block immigration laws and constitutional Trump policies. By contrast, Republicans at the state and local level can and should use it, constitutionally, to stop federal overreach into the energy sector, where the government has no constitutional authority.

America’s Founding Fathers viewed nullification as “the rightful remedy” to lawless usurpation of power by the feds. When there’s a case such as Biden’s, wherein an apparently almost-senile puppet is carrying out the instructions of power-mad billionaires and hostile foreign powers to reduce the United States to poverty and despotic rule, it is not just the right of the states and the people under the Constitution to resist — it is their duty.

NA: https://thenewamerican.com/declaring-war-on-u-s-energy-and-the-u-s/


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

Special Show dedicated solely to the concept of PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. 5 (1)

https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-euud2-fe89c0

1.) Why did Karl Marx make “abolition of private property” the first plank in his platform?

 

2.) Why did our Founders consider private property a natural right from God?

 

3.) Most of the show is dedicated to reviewing the fabulous work by Hernando de Soto entitled The Mystery of Capital. (a) What IS Private Property? (b) Why Does Capitalism NOT work in Third World Countries? Most of them have MORE LATENT WEALTH than does the United States. Why do they remain poor? (c) Why Foreign Aid does not work. (d) Private property breeds respect for law and order–which we lose in a socialistic society. (e) Private property enhances individualism. 

– –
 
American Liberty with Bill Lockwood is about the culture of America — not simply about politics. Bill Lockwood is a preacher, teacher, writer, and radio host with a weekly program based in West Texas.

PODCAST: Apple | Castbox | PodcastAddict | Spotify | Stitcher | Google | PodBean | TuneIn | Deezer | Podchaser | RSS Feed

Read Bill Lockwood’s blog, and other great articles at his website https://americanlibertywithbilllockwood.com 

VIDEO / SOCIAL MEDIA:

SUPPORT MONTHLY: Patreon | SubscribeStar

BILL ON-RADIO IN TEXAS:

 

Bill Lockwood is a preacher at Iowa Park church of Christ.

Catch Bill on The Jesse Lee Peterson Show last Tuesday of the month, 8am U.S. Central Time (Jesse’s first hour). YouTube Playlist

Bill Lockwood: The Critical Race Theory-Rabid Anti-White Bigotry 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

Critical Race Theory (CRT) has spread into almost every area of society. Beginning in the 1970’s with various radical lawyers and liberal activists desirous of canceling the culture of America, CRT has now moved into education, sociology, religion, government, philosophy, the arts and even medicine—practically every area of human experience. Collegiate campus activists, who have been taught to admire socialist/communist agitators such as Antonio Gramsci, Cesar Chavez, and Barack Obama, now are mobilized against American society.

What is the CRT?

Critical Race Theory is thinly veiled anti-white bigotry. To CRT activists all of Western culture is tainted by the “bigotry” that comes with being white.  In turn, all institutions and traditions of America have been polluted by the past and our “institutional racism.” Whiteness is a moral blight by nature and all white people are compliant in oppression.

What exactly are these institutions that are so poisoned with whiteness? Our entire educational system which holds academic achievement as a high standard; our value system which believes an eternal standard of right and wrong exists—this is only a “white man’s construct”; critical thinking that enables one to solve problems logically is “racist”; logic and reasoning or mathematics are supposed to be “white people’s ideals”; the family structure of husband, wife, and children—inherited from the Bible—is a “white man’s organization” that needs replaced by Black Lives’ Matter “villages”; the holding of “private property” is once more, a white construct; “legal reasoning” and “neutral principles of constitutional law” are all racist ideals. The list goes on.

Seattle, WA

Luis Miguel documents how this works in Seattle where the city government held on June 12 a “whites-only employee training session.” Attendees were instructed to “undo your own whiteness” so as to be held accountable to people of color. Training literature declared that “racism is not our fault but we are responsible.” In other words, a white person is racist by genetics.

Concepts such as “individualism” and “intellectualization” are white people’s racist constructs. All Caucasians own in their DNA an “internalized racial oppression.” Training materials included this gem: “city employees who identify as white [are to] … reflect, challenge ourselves, and build skills and relationships that help us show up more fully as allies and accomplices for racial justice.” Reach down inside and find that racism that lies deep within!

Since the assumption is that whites are born with “racism” in their DNA, training in Seattle admonished, “We’ll examine our complicity in the system of white supremacy … how we internalize and reinforce it—to begin practices that enable us to interrupt racism in ways to be accountable to Black, Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) folks within our community.”

How shall we interrupt our whiteness, especially since it is in our genetics? Employees in the seminar were taught how to “interrupt” their whiteness by being “honest and implicate yourself either in the moment or in past experiences in which you acted or thought similarly.” Condemn yourself for being white.

This all is social engineering gone mad. “CRT is the opposite of ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance.’ It’s a bitter movement bent on vengeance against everything branded as ‘white.’”

CRT in Health Care

CRT has even entered the once hallowed-halls of medical science.

Wesley J. Smith, writing in The Epoch Times, points us to a recent article in The Lancet, the world’s oldest medical journal, which has now left the field of “science” and amazingly, entered into the territory of “wokeness.” Readers are encouraged to make race the primary focus of “the concept of intersectionality” to describe “how multiple social categorizations—such as race and gender—interact to confer interlocking oppressions and privileges.”

Deserting even the realm of common sense, the authors of The Lancet article Time to take critical race theory seriously: moving beyond a colour-blind gender lens in global health, write the following:

“Like gender’s problematic binary of male versus female, race is a complex social construct with biological implications, the classifications of which vary across history and geography.” Gender itself is not male and female and it is “problematic” to so consider the sexes.

Cultivated Irrationality

As Dr. Duke Pesta pointed out, Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset, in The Revolt of the Masses, defined the appearance of this modern “woke” “mass-man,” a barbaric figure whose ignorance was a necessary precursor to the rise of the violent masses. The “mass-man” could emerge to destroy his own culture. “This type of anarchist ‘did not care to give reasons or even to be right.’ Ortega argued that cultivated irrationality is what set apart 20th– century fascist and communist movements from what came before: ‘the right not to be right, not to be reasonable: the reason of unreason.”

Another “scholarly” screed speaks this way about the sin of “whiteness.” “This racial consciousness needs to be part and parcel of our efforts to address gender inequity worldwide … Only then will we develop an essential sense of humility and self-awareness to be antiracist in our work.”

Wesley J. Smith comments: “That’s not anti-racist. It’s crass bigotry, unvarnished and cruel, and moreover a blatant call to societal dissolution.” This is the point of the CRT–societal dissolution.

American Liberty Radio Show with Dr. Duke Pesta 5 (1)

The Critical Race Theory: Anti-White Bigotry
1. What is the CRITICAL RACE THEORY? Lockwood explores the crass anti-white bigotry that is the make-up of the CRT. Explores articles from The New American by Luis Miguel concerning the city of Seattle, WA holding training on “undoing whiteness.” Article in The Epoch Times (2/10-16/21) by Wesley J. Smith points out that CRT has also invaded the field of MEDICINE. We examine an article in The Lancet that toes the CRT line. (2 segments)
2. GUEST: Dr. Duke Pesta, Prof. English at Univ. Wisconsin, and Academic Director of Freedom Project Academy, a classical school that offers online classes for K-12. Dr. Pesta explains the breakdown of our culture. His article is entitled Monumental Hypocrisy, appearing in The New American on 8/24/20. Pesta has some shocking news to Americans. (2 segments)
– –
 
American Liberty with Bill Lockwood is about the culture of America — not simply about politics. Bill Lockwood is a preacher, teacher, writer, and radio host with a weekly program based in West Texas.

PODCAST: Apple | Castbox | PodcastAddict | Spotify | Stitcher | Google | PodBean | TuneIn | Deezer | Podchaser | RSS Feed

Read Bill Lockwood’s blog, and other great articles at his website https://americanlibertywithbilllockwood.com

VIDEO / SOCIAL MEDIA:

SUPPORT MONTHLY: Patreon | SubscribeStar

BILL ON-RADIO IN TEXAS:

Bill Lockwood is a preacher at Iowa Park church of Christ.

Catch Bill on The Jesse Lee Peterson Show last Tuesday of the month, 8am U.S. Central Time (Jesse’s first hour). YouTube Playlist

American Liberty Radio Show with Dr. Samuel Mitcham 5 (1)

1. America is a Christian Nation. Bible reading was common-place in schools at one time. Taking a second look at the Abington v. Schempp (1963) Supreme Court decision that removed Bible reading from public schools.
2. Climate Change and the denial of science. Socialism, at every turn, contradicts real science. So also in the global drive to cause America to submit beneath the United Nations’ doctrine of “Climate Change.”
3. GUEST: Dr. Samuel Mitcham. Speaking about his new book: The Death of Hitler’s War Machine: The Final Destruction of the Wehrmacht. What lessons can we learn from this?
– –
 
American Liberty with Bill Lockwood is about the culture of America — not simply about politics. Bill Lockwood is a preacher, teacher, writer, and radio host with a weekly program based in West Texas.

PODCAST: Apple | Castbox | PodcastAddict | Spotify | Stitcher | Google | PodBean | TuneIn | Deezer | Podchaser | RSS Feed

Read Bill Lockwood’s blog, and other great articles at his website https://americanlibertywithbilllockwood.com

VIDEO / SOCIAL MEDIA:

SUPPORT MONTHLY: Patreon | SubscribeStar

BILL ON-RADIO IN TEXAS:

Bill Lockwood is a preacher at Iowa Park church of Christ.

Catch Bill on The Jesse Lee Peterson Show last Tuesday of the month, 8am U.S. Central Time (Jesse’s first hour). YouTube Playlist

Bill Lockwood: Answering Daniel Webster on Nullification and Secession 5 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

Robert Hayne of South Carolina was the first man to put forth conspicuously the doctrine of Nullification, by which is meant the right of a State to arrest the operation of a law of Congress, provided the State in convention should decide that the law was unconstitutional. The year was 1830. Hayne delivered his speech in the U.S. Senate on January 21.

At issue was the Tariff of 1828, popularly known in the South as “The Tariff of Abominations.” South Carolinians hated it, and not without cause. It strongly favored the northern states while causing the southern states to carry the lion’s share of taxes on imported goods. At the same time, the tariff  forced the South to go into debt to New England.  It was largely believed that “North had declared economic war on the South.”

Daniel Webster was Senator from the state of Massachusetts. He was disturbed that Hayne, in his objections to the tariff, had also asserted a states’ right to secede. Northern states looked to Webster to give reply to Hayne, which he did the following day, in what has come to be known as The Second Reply to Robert Hayne of South Carolina.

Webster is championed as providing an unanswerable argument to Nullification. It is widely believed, even today, that Webster “dismantled” the South Carolinian’s argument, “point by point.” Webster’s reply may have been over 150 years ago, but his rebuttal needs to be examined.

Before reviewing Webster, it is to be noted that the Senator from Massachusetts had earlier taken the position that what the Constitution did not specifically forbid, Congress may do. His argumentation was that the Constitution was a “sketch, an outline, not a detailed rendering.” “The true view of the subject is that if it be a fit instrument to an authorized purpose, it may be used, not being specifically prohibited.” Consider now Webster’s disputation against Robert Hayne on the floor of Congress.

Natural Rights or Constitutional Rights?

Webster’s first response was to confess that a people had a natural right to revolution, to be openly disobedient and even to throw-off the yoke of a government, such as had occurred in our founding period. “Webster granted that the people were not bound to obey unconstitutional laws, and that they might disobey them without overturning the government.”

However, Webster distinguished between a natural right and a constitutional right. A natural right he granted, but believed the doctrine of Nullification belonged in the category of a constitutional right, and since the Constitution itself did not grant the right of nullification, South Carolina could not rightly directly interfere with a federal law.

Webster’s objections are shallow and his distinction is arbitrary.

First, Webster had earlier argued that what the Constitution did not specifically forbid, Congress may do. This is now at cross-purposes to his stand against nullification. Hayne had pressed for a “constitutional right of resistance” by the states. But Webster now insists that Nullification is illegal since it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a legal course of action. Gone therefore is his principled stand that unless a Congressional action was specifically forbidden the states or the people may do.

Second, to argue that the “people are not bound to obey unconstitutional laws” assumes that the people have a natural right to interpret the Constitution for themselves outside the “official interpretation” of the Federal Government. This is the true nature of the case, as “the people” agreed to the Constitution, ratifying it in the states, several years prior to the establishment of the Supreme Court, the supposed final arbiter of legitimate Constitutional interpretation.

As stated earlier by President John Adams: “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.”

Third, most importantly, a states’ right to Nullify, or Disobey a law that it believed was unconstitutional need not be grounded in the text of the Constitution itself. There is a natural right before God to manage our own government. This was the ground of the Declaration of Independence. Nullification is what the Founders practiced regarding England.

It is arbitrary to place a states’ right of self-government in the category “constitutional or not” as opposed to natural rights before God—as if all of our rights must be listed in the plain text of the Constitution. To this the founders would never agree. In fact, they specifically forbade that concept in the 9th Amendment. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Simply, the instrument of the Constitution merely granted certain specified rights owned by the people to the federal government. Webster’s position against Hayne, at least in this case, assumes that the role is reversed, that the people have whatsoever the government decides.

The Constitution a Revocable Contract?

Related to the above is the basic issue is whether or not the Constitution is a contract to which both parties, states and the federal government, agree. And at the heart of this is the issue of just who is the interpreter of the Constitution?

When, during the War of 1812, New England was convinced that the federal government was not serving their interest, Webster and others characterized “the Constitution as a revocable compact” and “furnished the philosophical basis for a New England declaration of independence.”

Now, however, in 1830, when New England profited heavily from the Tariff of 1828, to the South’s detriment, Webster reversed himself. When Robert Hayne argued that the “true defenders” of the Union were “those who would confine the federal government strictly within the limits prescribed by the Constitution, who would preserve to the states and the people all powers not expressly delegated …”, Webster disagreed. If Webster is correct here, the field is wide open. America is exactly where it is today by the logic of Webster’s reasoning.

Who Decides?

“The great question is,” per Webster, “whose prerogative is it to decide on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the laws?” This is the crux of the entire discussion. Webster answers that it lay with the federal government alone, in particular the federal judiciary. In response, consider:

First, Webster is in the field of philosophy, since the Constitution itself, by its language alone, does not specifically address the “interpreting” the Constitution, at least as mandating law for the entire country. It is noteworthy also that neither Jefferson nor Madison agreed with Webster at this point. The ‘Principles of ‘98’, which they authored, pointedly took issue with his assertion. And it is more than highly doubtful that any of the Founding generation would agree that the federal judiciary alone could decide laws for the entire nation.

Second, the federal constitution was founded as a contract, a compact between the States and the federal government. To ignore this is to ignore the entire fabric of the Constitution. When the Pilgrims escaped to American shores they were escaping a top-down control of the Roman Church in the Old World. Though ignored by modern America, this is the taproot of our Constitution.

Our Founders believed that their associations in religion were voluntary, which lay at the base of their political associations. This type of preaching gave rise to the words of the Mayflower Compact. “We solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic …” The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut of 1639 reads exactly the same. These were antecedents to our Federal Constitution.

These concepts gave rise to the fundamental law of our nation, The Declaration of Independence, which asserts that “the consent of the governed” is for rule to be legitimate. This principle Webster, as well as myriads of moderns, freely cast aside by the assertion that the federal government alone may decide what is constitutional. Not much consenting in that.

As noted above, Webster himself agreed with the principle of Nullification in matters of “palpable” departures and that it is true that “the people are not bound to obey unconstitutional laws.” But if this be the case then the ability to “interpret” the Constitution does not lie within the province of the federal judiciary alone. Webster did not see his inconsistency.

Third, most ominously, if Webster is correct, then once again the field is boundless for Congress to make whatever laws it desires. As long as an activist Supreme Court agrees, these legislations become law and there is absolutely no recourse, per Webster’s argument, for the citizens that must chafe beneath the burden of these laws.

No matter how wicked or onerous, whether it enact socialism or communism, infanticide by law or homosexual unions, a one-child policy as in China, the socialist redistribution of wealth, an open border or nationalized health care carried on the backs of the middle-class—citizens are legally bound to bear that yoke.

This is where the logic of Webster leads.

Confederation?

Webster finished by asserting that if a State has the right to nullify federal laws, then the entire Union is a “rope of sand” and we are “thrown back again … upon the old Confederation.” The people had, Webster reminded, “rejected the Confederation by ratifying the Constitution, whose central point was to prevent the states from vetoing measures enacted for the common national good.”

He added that people ought to repudiate Hayne’s principle of “Liberty first and Union afterwards.”

Let us here agree with Webster on confederation. If states have the right to nullify laws, perhaps we are indeed “thrown back” onto the ‘old confederation’ which the people “rejected by ratifying the Constitution.”

Must Webster’s principle of Union first, and Liberty afterward always be maintained? Does this ring true to the Founders’ vision? As Webster announced it, it must. But if so, we “are thrown back” onto eventual subservience and despotism. How far must we uphold “Union” to the detriment of our “Liberty?”

James Madison asserted, almost as if he was prophesying of modern America, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, …may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

We have certainly crossed to the other side of the road in America where tyranny has become commonplace. Webster would certainly have agreed, at this point, that his principle of Union first, and Liberty afterward, is no longer valid. But if not valid now, neither was it then. We should not be left to the Webster’s of the world to tell us just when we should cherish our liberties more than the Union.

Robert Spencer: In Iraq, pope views mosques and churches destroyed by the Islamic State, laments ‘our cruelty’ 4 (1)

by Robert Spencer

The pope was making a theological point, that all human beings are sinful, and that this destruction is a manifestation of that sinfulness. But it is also noteworthy that he ascribed the destruction he saw to all of humanity, and decried nations that sell weapons, but never said a word about why the ruined buildings he saw were destroyed in the first place. The Islamic State destroyed mosques because the people who attended them did not accept their authority, and were thus apostates in rebellion against the caliphate. It destroyed churches because they were places of unbelief (see Qur’an 5:17, 9:30, etc.) and shirk, the association of partners with Allah in worship. But there was never any possibility that the pope might ask the assembled Muslim leaders to fight against jihad violence and teach their people to refrain from jihad violence. After all, the pope has committed himself and the Catholic Church to the proposition that Islam is peaceful and has nothing to do with terrorism, so as far as he was concerned, there was nothing for him to ask the Muslim leaders about. And that rendered the trip a useless and indeed counterproductive exercise.

“Pope Francis dismisses ‘heresy’ charges for his commitment to Christian-Muslim dialogue,” by Claire Giangravé, Religion News Service, March 8, 2021:

VATICAN CITY (RNS) — Aboard the papal flight back from Iraq, the first papal trip since the COVID-19 pandemic began, Pope Francis addressed criticism of those who have accused him of being “one step away from heresy” in his commitment to promoting human fraternity among the world’s faiths.

“There are some critics who say the pope is not brave but reckless, that he’s taking steps against Catholic doctrine, that he’s one step from heresy,” the pope told journalists on Monday (March 8).

Francis said that his decision to speak with Muslim religious leaders and promote interreligious dialogue is “always made in prayer, in dialogue, asking for advice.” He said that his efforts to mend Christian-Muslim relations, far from being “capricious,” are in keeping with the doctrine laid out by the Second Vatican Council….

On Saturday (March 6), the pope met in Najaf, a holy city to Shia Muslims, with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq’s most prominent Shiite leader. The historic meeting, which lasted roughly 45 minutes, was the first official meeting between a pope and a prominent Shiite representative.

The pope described al-Sistani as “a humble man” who has “wisdom and prudence,” adding that “it was good for my soul to encounter him.” Francis said the meeting was “a duty in his pilgrimage of faith” to promote human fraternity among religions….

It was the tragic decimation of the Yazidi ethnic community by the Islamic State group following the 2014 occupation of Northern Iraq that inspired the pope to make the trip, he said. The book “The Last Girl” by Nobel Peace Prize-winner Nadia Murad, which described the suffering of the Yazidi people, “provided the background for the decision,” he said.

On Sunday (March 7), Francis viewed the ruins of mosques and churches in Mosul, the capital of the Islamic State during the occupation. He said he “had no words” after seeing the scale of destruction. “Human cruelty, our cruelty, is impossible to believe,” he added.

The pope also criticized those nations selling weapons, though he didn’t single out any particular country….

Among the topics addressed by the pope during the trip was the question of the suffering of immigrants, which has been a main focus of this pontificate. Francis met with the father of a 3-year-old boy who died attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea. The picture of Alan Kurdi’s body became a symbol of the plight of immigrants and refugees in Europe and beyond….


Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 21 books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Rating America’s Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster. Follow him on Twitter here

Bill Lockwood: Consensus Science is No Science 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

Climate Change alarmists claim that about 2700 scientists agree with them and that these represent about 97% of all scientists. And so, they claim, it is an indisputable fact. But the fact is, there is no consensus in the scientific community over Climate Change. A U.S. Senate majority report says more than 650 scientists express dissent over man-made global warming claims.

In addition, over 30,000 scientists have signed on to a petition that says there is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gasses causes or will … cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

We have all heard the Barack Obama’s of the world saying, “the debate is over” regarding Climate Change. Climate Change is real, we are told, and man-caused. The plain message is that we must curtail the free market, get rid of private property laws in America in order to save the planet.

Almost all Climate Changers then pontificate that 97% of all scientists agree that man, specifically American people, are the real polluters, and that this is the cause of our Climate Emergency.

What is Science?

Science is physical observation, hypothesis, and experimentation to test the hypothesis. It also includes the ability to reproduce the results. This has nothing to do with how many scientists believe a certain thing. One scientist in a laboratory can overturn an entire “belief system” of a scientific community.

The late Michael Crichton, who had an earned a medical degree from Harvard Medical School in 1969, spoke in 2003 at California Institute of Technology at Pasadena, California. Pointing out that “consensus” has nothing to do with science, but is a only a justification for shutting down opposite ideas not associated with their beliefs.

I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in tis tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other; reach for your wallet, for you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus, period.

Dr. James D. Bales, long-time professor of Bible at Harding University in Searcy, Arkansas, made the same point pertaining to the Creation v. Evolution controversy. “If to be accepted by scientists” [or any number or percentage of them] he noted, “is all that is meant to establish something scientifically, then the only scientific method would be to count heads.”

“If more scientists accept a position than reject it, the minority has been outvoted and the scientific truth is whatever the majority says it is.” However, this in turn means that

all the talk about framing a hypothesis, the testing of the hypothesis by the scientific method, the retesting of the hypothesis by another, and the significance of prediction is just so much ritualistic talk and is unrelated to science. If enough scientists can be persuaded, regardless of that means of persuasion, that a certain position is true, the position has been confirmed scientifically.

“Consensus science”, by which is meant, how many scientists believe something, is not science at all. It is in reality, “consensus among scientists,” which establishes nothing scientifically. Scientists believed at one time the earth was flat; they believed that Jews were inferior peoples, some today believe in spontaneous generation—that life comes from non-life; many believe in natural selection and mutation and that species change based upon inherited characteristics. None of these have been established scientifically.

Consensus science is no science at all.

“America Must Submit”; Cancel Culture & The Equality Act – Guest: Kathleen Marquardt 5 (1)

1.) Cancel Culture. What is Cancel Culture? It is a Marxist war against Western civilization and Christianity, specifically.

2.) Equality Act passes US House of Representatives. Christians beware! It now moves to the Senate. The so-called Equality Act removes Christianity from any protective custody shielding churches from legal assaults by the Homosexual Agenda. This is what Joe Biden has promised–it is what the Socialists of America (aka Democrats) call for.

Same segment: Antonio Guterres and Eco-Imperialism. Guterres is the Socialist Secretary-General of the United Nations. Climate Change is the one tool in the toolbox that the UN utilizes to shut down the economy of the United States. America must submit! per Guterres.

3,4) GUEST: Kathleen Marquardt, Vice-President of the American Policy Center, discusses with Bill Lockwood “What exactly IS Cancel Culture?” Where does it originate? How does it manifest itself in society today? (Segments 3 & 4).

– –
 
American Liberty with Bill Lockwood is about the culture of America — not simply about politics. Bill Lockwood is a preacher, teacher, writer, and radio host with a weekly program based in West Texas.

PODCAST: Apple | Castbox | PodcastAddict | Spotify | Stitcher | Google | PodBean | TuneIn | Deezer | Podchaser | RSS Feed

Read Bill Lockwood’s blog, and other great articles at his website https://americanlibertywithbilllockwood.com

VIDEO / SOCIAL MEDIA:

SUPPORT MONTHLY: Patreon | SubscribeStar

BILL ON-RADIO IN TEXAS:

Bill Lockwood is a preacher at Iowa Park church of Christ.

Catch Bill on The Jesse Lee Peterson Show last Tuesday of the month, 8am U.S. Central Time (Jesse’s first hour). YouTube Playlist

« Older Entries Recent Entries »