Tag Archives: Bill Lockwood

Bill Lockwood: Gas-Powered Vehicles & Outlawing Freedom 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

One of the greatest current ironies is that our government schools ramp-up “anti-bullying campaigns” to keep our children from intimidating or coercing others to do something to which they are opposed—all the while the government itself systemically bullies both the consumer plus the manufacturer to conform to its Green Agenda.

Make no mistake. Outlawing gas-powered vehicles, as is now being pressed by our own government, and actually planned by states such as California and Washington State, is in reality the curtailing of freedom and liberty.

“Tucked into the state’s new $17 billion transportation plan is a lofty goal: No new gas-powered cars by 2030,” writes David Kroman in The Seattle Times (4-1-22). This “represents the culmination of years of advocacy in the Legislature for what is now the most aggressive timeline in the country.”

“Matthew Metz, executive director of the environmental advocacy organization Coltura, who’s helped lead the push for more zero-emission vehicle sales, said that winning the new language creates a standard by which officials in government and the private sector must now be measured.”

In requiring these electric vehicle goals, “Washington has committed itself to following California’s vehicle emission standards, which are more stringent than the federal government’s … California is in the process of finalizing rules that would mandate that all new car sales be electric by 2035, which Washington would then follow.”

Good-Bye Liberty

In the name of the supposed Global Climate Crisis the Democrats have signed on to the Green Agenda. Democratic Governor Jay Inslee, while signing the bill this week, stated that the measure will “move us away from the transportation system our grandparents imagined and towards the transportation system our grandchildren dream of.”

Yes, the grandchildren who have been indoctrinated from grade school through the university system—they dream of a non-fossil-fuel future. But that is just the point. There never has been any real debate or discussion on the entire issue, just hard core indoctrination filtering from the socialistic United Nations down through our society.

Still others, such as Jeremy Horpedahl, an economist at the University of Arkansas, said the 2030 target is “overly ambitious.” “A better approach would be to gradually encourage consumers to switch to electric vehicles for private enterprise to build the charging infrastructure with incentives.” He told The Center Square that consumers should not be “forced to purchase electric vehicles.”

“But whatever the ideal approach is, using economic incentives to encourage” electric vehicles is “far better than a strict mandate that bans fossil-fuel automobiles.”

What of This?

First, this is good-bye to liberty and freedom for the consumer. The only difference between the above approaches is whether to force people by governmental edict or push them with government-built-in incentives. So far from the freedom formula encoded in our Constitution, which sets up an even-playing-field for all businesses, this is government-sponsored doctrine enforced by the ruling elite.

Citizens do not believe the so-called “environmental crisis” that makes this mandatory—otherwise they would be buying the electric vehicles on their own. This is why the ruling class cannot allow the free market, or freedom under God, to continue. The “environmental crisis” gives the government an excuse to curtail freedom.

As Yakima Republican Sen. Curtis King, the ranking member of the Senate Transportation Committee, stated, “They want to force everybody into an electric vehicle for whatever reason they deem fit. They want to take the choice away from the people because they think government knows more than anybody else.”

Second, this is good-bye to liberty and freedom for the producer. If the electric car was a desirable product in the free market, automobile manufacturers would already be producing them. Not only would consumers prefer them, but the economics of it would incentivize the auto industry. There would be no need for government subsidies to manufacture an electric car, nor a need for tax benefits for purchasing one.

But this is not what is occurring. Freedom for consumer and manufacturer does not terminate the gasoline-powered internal combustion engine. Therefore, government is in essence saying to the auto industry: “come up with an electric vehicle or else we will close your doors.”

So, while government schools add anti-bullying curricula to the classrooms across America, the government itself practices bullying for its own Green agenda.

 

 

Bill Lockwood: The Hard Road to World Order 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

President Joe Biden mentioned the creation of a “New World Order” in a speech to the Business Roundtable on March 21. The United States, he proclaimed, must provide leadership in establishing that order.

Columnist Larry Greenley observed that “various ‘reporters’ and ‘fact-checkers’ of the woke media have already been falling over themselves to post articles exposing the ‘New World Order’ as a ‘false conspiracy theory.’”

However, for those who have been paying attention—that is, not reliant on the Main Stream Media for information—the New World Order has been planned for decades, and Joe Biden himself wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal in 1992 entitled, “How I Learned to Love the New World Order.” In that article he asked the question, “Why not breathe life into the U.N. Charter?”

The Hard Road

Why is it that our nation seems to be unraveling before our eyes and “we the people” seem powerless to stop it? The wealth of American taxpayers have been systematically siphoned off and funneled to Third World countries via international banks such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

The dollar continues to be crushed beneath the unconstitutional welfare state. Today it is worth less than 5 cents compared to its purchasing value in 1913, the year the Federal Reserve was created. Yet, Joe Biden continues to dole out the cash to welfare recipients and foreign governments. Money that we do not have.

How has it come about that Americans are being forced to shift toward Green Energy and Renewable Energies? What ever happened to the free market? And just when was America exposed to a robust debate on the causes of so-called Climate Change that supposedly drives this political shift?

Why has Biden made the United States reliant upon foreign sources for petroleum products, which betrays the necessity for going green to “Save the Planet?” Is it not more than interesting that every citizen is feeling pain at the gas pump and the grocery store and everywhere else in the market; Biden’s poll numbers continue to plummet; but there is no veering from the course of international dependence with his administration?

Why has the Biden Administration absolutely erased our southern border? With a borderless nation and MILLIONS of illegals pouring into the country—all at the expense of the American taxpayer—just how long will America remain a viable nation?

Inflation is skyrocketing with new predictions that it will reach above 10%. The wealth of individual families is dissipating before our eyes more quickly than I write these lines—but Congressional members and the American public seem powerless to remove Globalist Joe from the White House.

The answer to all of these questions is summed up in a 1974 statement by Richard Gardner in Foreign Affairs, the mouthpiece of the Council on Foreign Relations. The article is entitled “The Hard Road to World Order.”

In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion,’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.

World Economic Forum founder, Klaus Schwab, announced during the Covid-19 pandemic, that he and the global elites are pushing for a “great reset.” Schwab is simply falling in line with the global elites who have been planning this since the days of Woodrow Wilson. What we are witnessing is the “booming and buzzing” of society’s forced changes as the one-worlders push us into WORLD GOVERNMENT.

Bill Lockwood: Ostrich Logic 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

In a world in which logic and logical reasoning seem to be dissipating rapidly, university professor Gad Saad has coined a new phrase: Ostrich Parasite Syndrome. It refers to a common syndrome among all peoples, particularly the college professorships and students, whereby facts as evident as the existence of the moon are denied.

This disorder causes a person to reject realities that are otherwise as clear as the existence of gravity. Suffers from OPS do not believe their lying eyes. The construct an alternate reality known as Unicornia. In such a world, science, reason, rules of causality, evidentiary thresholds, a near-infinite among of data, data analytic procedures, inferential statistics … rules of logic, … and common sense are all rejected. Instead, the delusional ramblings of an OPS sufferer are rooted in illusory correlations, non-existent causal links, and feel-good progressive platitudes. OSTRICH LOGIC is always delivered via an air of haughty moral superiority.

Illustrative of this is Saad’s visit to a physician because he was suffering from bronchitis. “As I sat in his office, he was chain smoking. I asked him if that was a good idea while treating an asthmatic patient suffering from bronchitis. He laughed it off.”

On a more serious note, the creation of the category known as FAKE NEWS, ala Barack Obama, is now being used against the American people on a number of fronts. One item that came to my attention is that which is being now propagated by the World Economic Forum, headed by Klaus Schwab. It reads, “Klaus Schwab’s pet philosopher says, ‘Jesus rising from the dead and being the Son of God is fake news …’”

Schwab’s philosopher is Yuval Noah Harari. He is the elitist who tells us that “Humans Are Hackable Animals … Directly Connecting Brains to Computers.” Perhaps Harari’s brain has already been hacked. He certainly suffers the Ostrich Logic Syndrome.

Bill Lockwood: Big Tech: The Fourth Branch of Government? 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

Noting that freedom of speech, the ability to express publicly one’s political or religious views without fear of reprisal of government entities, is one of the keystones of freedom. Thomas Jefferson weighed it even more seriously. “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”

One of the most alarming Acts that was passed in early America was President John Adams’ Alien and Sedition Act which specifically outlawed “conspiracies” that opposed “any measure or measures of government” and also forbade “any false, scandalous and malicious writing against the Congress or the president.”

Jefferson rightly fought against these totalitarian measures and subsequently defeated John Adams as president. Freedom of Speech is a cornerstone of liberty itself.

Big Tech

It is with great alarm therefore, that today we witness the crushing of freedom of speech by Big Tech companies such as Google, Amazon, and Apple and the outlets such as Facebook and Twitter. Felix Salmon at Axios wrote that, “Tech giants including Facebook, Google, Amazon and Twitter have moved to quiet Trump and the far right.” “The country’s CEO’s in general, and its tech CEO’s in particular, have found themselves capable of projecting their power into the White House in way that was both successful and unprecedented.”

Big Tech is a permanent political force, observes Luis Miguel, wielding awesome power – for the left. It can almost be considered a Fourth Branch of Government.

Gad Saad, writing in his new book, The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas are Killing Common Sense, dispels a common myth—that Big Tech companies are “private” and therefore ought to be able to censor whom they like. “Social media companies are not the government,” goes the reasoning. “They have a right to choose which content will be carried on their platforms.”

Saad responds. “In a sane world, this would be a laughable position to hold, and yet it is endlessly repeated without any reflection on its nefarious implications. Google, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter have more global control over us than all other companies combined. It is not hyperbole to say that they have more collective power, in terms of the information they control, than all the rulers, priests, and politicians of history.”

“Big tech companies routinely ban right-leaning commentators, but of course this is all an unfortunate ‘algorithmic coincidence.’ What could be more sinister?”

To see the point, Saad illustrates. “Just as your electricity or phone line is not shut off if the electric company or phone company doesn’t like what you say, social media platforms should not be in the business of monitoring and punishing speech.”

To claim that these Big Tech companies are “private businesses” and should be free from government restraint also overlooks some fundamental facts. Big Tech receives “government subsidies, contracts, tax benefits, and regulations that keep smaller entrepreneurs from creating viable competitors,” observes Luis Miguel. “This can be seen today—when the establishment saw conservatives flocking to Twitter-alternative Parler, it wasn’t long before Amazon, Google and Apple colluded to shut the platform down.”

In short, the Main Stream Media and government itself—via Big Tech—is touting censorship against the American people. If free speech disappears, even under the guise of “monitoring misinformation,” liberty is lost.

Bill Lockwood: Identity Politics, Mind Pathogens, and Ketanji Brown Jackson 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

President Biden televised his phone call to Judge Ketanji Brown in which he informed her that she was nominated by him to the Supreme Court. In this short call Biden made clear the criterion by which he chose her. Diversity. As a black woman, she would help the Supreme Court to “look like much of America.”

Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) observed “Not a single justice has been a black woman. You, Judge Jackson, can be the first.”

He went on to say “It’s not easy being the first. Often, you have to be the best. In some ways, the bravest. Many are not prepared to face that kind of heat, that kind of scrutiny, that ordeal and glare of the national spotlight.” Then Durbin added, “We can be confident that the court, its role, and its decisions will be more understandable to the American public.”

Sen. Dick Blumenthal (D-Conn.) gushed, “The appointment of the first black woman to the Supreme Court—let’s be honest—should have happened years ago.” Her nomination “is a giant leap int the present for our country. Your service will make the court look more like America.”

What About This?

This is unabashed irrational identity politics. Appointing an individual to a legal position primarily because she is a black woman, regardless of her qualifications—whatever they may or may not be. She must “look like America” in order for her “decisions” to be “understandable” or acceptable to the American people.

First, this is the opposite of what Dick Durbin stated. He implies that opposition to her will be based upon the fact that she is a black woman, showing a glimpse into the race card that Democrats will use if Republicans oppose her. She doesn’t have to “be the best,” Dick—she will rely primarily upon her race for her selection. What bravery is there in that?

Second, this is a tacit admission by Democrats that Constitutional and case law will be interpreted with bias. This is what liberals prefer. Forget Lady Justice being blind-folded. This destructive mindset demands Lady Justice take off the blindfold and “interpret” law and make decisions based upon the color of one’s skin and one’s gender.

But legal interpretation is supposed to be a “rational process by which we understand” a text– “scrutinizing” the text of the Constitution. Instead, Democrats are endorsing a biased, colored view.

Author and professor Gad Saad, in his The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense, shows that this is the result of a culture that promotes “Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion” above excellence and merit. To see how this mental orientation is a “collective malady” that destroys one’s ability and capacity to think rationally—which Saad calls “idea pathogens,” consider the following example.

In April 2017, the inaugural March for Science rally was held across hundreds of cities around the world to reaffirm the “importance of science.” The key website for this event in 2017 read this way.

At the March for Science, we are committed to centralizing, highlighting, standing in solidarity with, and acting as accomplices with black, Latinx, Asian and Pacific Islander, indigenous, non-Christian, women, people with disabilities, poor, gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, trans, non-binary, agender, and intersex scientists and science advocates. We must work to make science available to everyone and encouraging individuals of all backgrounds to pursue science careers, especially in advanced degrees and positions. A diverse group of scientists produces increasingly diverse research, which broadens, strengthens, and enriches scientific inquiry, and therefore, our understanding of the world.

As Saad comments, this is “anti-science gibberish.” “By definition, science is, or should be, an apolitical process. Scientific truths and natural laws exist independent of researchers’ identities.”

Satirically, he adds, “the distribution of prime numbers does not change as a function of whether the mathematician is a white heterosexual Christian man or a transgendered, Muslim, differently sized (obese) individual.” Neither does the “periodic table of elements” depend on “whether or not the chemist is a Latinx queer or a cis-normative Hasidic Jew.”

These foolish notions promoted by the March for Science highlight that in the ecosystem of university campuses “mind pathogens” spread like wildfire. It is a pathogen because “… the manner by which scientific information is codified within the pantheon of human knowledge is not culture-specific.”

“Science does not care about the privileged position of ‘ancestral wisdom,’ ‘tribal knowledge,’ and ‘the ways of the elders.’’ There are no revealed truths in science. There is no Lebanese-Jewish way of knowing any more than there is an indigenous way of knowing.”

The same holds true of law and legal interpretation. Although one may argue that there are various theories of legal interpretation, a fair evaluation of these shows that without ‘original intent’ there might as well not be a legal text at all, in the Constitution or statutory law. Application of law is color-blind and is not culture-specific. There is not a “variety” of “equally valid forms of discovery” and interpretation.

What Democrats are confessing is that we are laying aside rational and logical thinking in favor of equity, diversity, and inclusion. Since this is the case, we might as well not have a Constitution.

Bill Lockwood: Green Doctrine of Sustainable Development Partially Responsible for Ukraine Invasion 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

The Green Doctrine of Sustainable Development, maintained by our own government, is partially responsible for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. This is not to ignore the wicked dictatorial actions of Vladimir Putin, nor to downplay the atrocities of the Ukrainian war that is now being waged by Russian forces.

However, it is worthwhile for us to consider what are some of the causes of the invasion. One of those causes is our own Green Energy Doctrine that is being maintained by the ruling oligarchs in Washington, D.C.

Evolution

For those unfamiliar with the methodology utilized by government elitists to force their own belief-systems on the rest of us, consider the General Theory of Evolution. Philip Johnson, in his blockbuster 1991 book, Darwin on Trial, demonstrated the complete lack of objective scientific evidence supporting evolution. Yet, evolution, treated as “fact,” has been crammed down the throats of Americans via the Academy for well-nigh over 100 years.

Consider the evolutionary position. Natural selection, in combination with mutation, is an innovative evolutionary process capable of producing new kinds of organisms. That’s the proposition. And what sort of evidence is marshalled to support it?

Douglas Futuyma wrote Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, which has been widely used in collegiate classrooms. The “evidences” for the above position include: (1) Bacteria naturally develop resistance to antibiotics; (2) Male sparrows survived more frequently than smaller ones in the 1898 severe storm in Massachusetts; (3) The average size of birds, and their beaks, at Galapagos Islands went up appreciably through the drought in 1977.

Futuyma included others—but one can immediately sense that these do not begin to show the general theory of evolution. How did bacteria come to exist in the first place? Where do sparrows come from to begin with? How did birds on Galapagos Island come to exist? None of his examples begin to scientifically establish the general theory of evolution as explanatory of all forms of life. Yet, evolution is considered “fact.”

Sustainable Development

It is the same with theory of man-made Climate Change, a key component of the doctrine of Sustainable Development. The Green Agenda, the official doctrine of the United Nations as well as the elitists in Washington, D.C., is that of that Climate Change is human caused. That’s the doctrine. Hence, we must have draconian government control known as “Sustainable Development.” Government controlled everything.

Has there been any debate on Climate Change? No. Has there been any evidence brought forward which has been allowed to be cross-examined that humans cause Global Warming? Again, no. Has there been a “national conversation” on this subject—aside from 2-3 minute segments on news organs? No.

Nevertheless, climate change is declared to be an “existential crisis” that threatens human existence. Leonardo de Caprio picks up the Green Gospel and tells the UN that wildfires worsen in America because of human caused carbon emissions. Even more apocalyptic is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a sitting member of Congress, who says “The world is going to end in 12 years if we do not address climate change.” That was in 2019.

Doomsdayers such as these continue to multiply. It would not be so bad for Americans, except that many of them are lawmakers, or have the ear of lawmakers. The answer: shut-down America’s dependence upon fossil fuels—oil—and force us into a Green Energy world where everything will be solar or wind powered.

President Joe Biden, our chief executive officer, has completely bought into this. Not because he necessarily believes any of this doctrine—but this is the method to gain socialistic control of the economy. His primary political agenda involves unconstitutionally forcing America itself to leave an oil-based economy and into “Clean Energy.” Once again, no debate. No discussion.

Thus, as soon as he came into office Biden single-handedly, on day one, shut down the Keystone Pipeline. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, last January—within the first week of occupying the Oval Office, he issued an “executive order that introduced a sweeping, government-wide approach to climate policy.” His administration is “halting new oil and gas leasing on federal onshore lands and offshore waters.”

Biden also ordered the secretary of the interior to consider whether to adjust coal, oil, and gas royalties in order to account for corresponding climate costs, as well as ordering the Department of the Interior to take steps toward conserving 30 percent of public lands and waters by 2030 and toward doubling offshore wind production. These moves followed his executive orders to halt leasing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and effectively suspended new leases. Other draconian measures followed.

War in Ukraine

What has this to do with the war in Ukraine? Only this. The complete executive blockage of our own oil production has forced America to rely on foreign imported oil—namely, from Russia. While impoverishing America, Biden has purposefully enriched Russia.

History professor and Hoover Institution fellow Victor David Hanson, pointed out the obvious connection with Putin’s War on Ukraine. Putin has become “adventuristic” whenever he has been flushed with cash due to limited oil production in the United States. Hanson cited the 2014 attack on Crimea and the 2008 invasion of Georgia as examples.

Who has flushed Putin with cash? Biden has forced America to do that.

Fox Business host Larry Kudlow recently made the same point.

Mr. Biden, you need to be honest about the damage you’re doing to the American energy industry. In fact, you’ve done everything you can to drive up prices and you know it because you’re dancing the radical green tune. Your jihad against fossil fuels has held down production in the face of rising demand and that has been a key factor in driving up world oil prices towards $100 a barrel. In effect, Biden’s jihad against fossil fuels is financing Vladimir Putin’s military adventures because if we were producing at 13 million BPD as we did pre-pandemic … oil prices would be substantially lower and Putin would be significantly poorer.

While the atrocities in Ukraine continue at the hand of Putin, remember that Biden has helped fund him.

Bill Lockwood: Tucker Carlson vs. Dick Morris 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

Tucker Carlson of Fox News has come under attack for his libertarian ideals. This has particularly irked the internationalists, Republican and Democrat, who wish America to be forever entangled in foreign alliances and eternally obligated to fight foreign wars.

Dick Morris writes today in Newsmax magazine that “Tucker Carlson Went Off the Rails Backing Putin, Shame on Him.” Tucker Carlson has not appointed anyone to defend himself against the internationalist campaign to discredit him, and I would be the last one to be so appointed. However, having followed Carlson carefully for a long period of time, and subscribing to the identical worldview and foreign policy ideal as he advocates, I take in hand to answer Dick Morris.

First, Morris declares that Carlson “supports” the Russian dictator, and “would back Russia over innocent Ukraine.” This is bogus. Carlson has continually, upon a regular basis, declared a position of NEUTRALITY and NON-INTERVENTION in foreign wars. To paint this as “support” for Putin and dictatorships over “innocent” people is pretty despicable. Dick Morris: how does neutrality support one over the other? Why not state Carlson’s position exactly?

To the “internationalists” of the world, which in reality means they favor continual interventionism at the expense of the American taxpayer, the most egregious transgression is non-intervention. Morris exposes himself.

Second, Morris criticizes Carlson for supposing that Biden has been pushing for war with Russia for months. Morris pooh-poohs this as pure nonsense and points out that Biden is NOT pushing for war and it is all Putin’s fault.

In other words, according to Morris, if Putin would just back off, we would not have to go to war with him. It is all Putin’s doing.

Morris is suffering from a lack of common sense. The Democrats have been painting Russia as the number one problem in the world for months and months. Their hypocritical and manufactured criticism of Donald Trump was that he was a Russian puppet and that Putin was public enemy #1.

Third, to support his US Interventionism, Morris says that it is Russia, not China who “controls the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.” Several things here. One, if so, why has the Democratic Party been involved in supporting the nuclear program of Russia, beginning with the Obama Administration’s Uranium One deal that gave Russia an interest in a large portion of America’s uranium?

Two, Morris is playing subterfuge. The largest army in the world belongs to CHINA. This is not to downplay what is going on in Ukraine at this hour, but let us not pretend that China is only an “emerging threat.”

Fourth, and the most important point, is that Morris states that Putin’s actions constitute “an immediate threat to the United States and our allies.”

Granted that our allies in Europe are immediately under attack. But Carlson’s point, and mine also, is: What has this to do with American interests? This is not to ignore the crisis in Ukraine, but to ask—What exactly is the American interest there? Listen carefully to Morris answer this:

Ukraine is not ‘vital’ to the U.S.? I guess the Sudetenland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and the Polish corridor weren’t either, until they were, and led to a cascade of troubles we now call WW II.

Boil this down. Logically, this means that any incursion anywhere in the world could possibly escalate into greater conflicts and even wars in which America must be involved. So, per Morris, we are bound by “moral obligation” to send our sons and daughters everywhere wrongs are committed and die for those nations. Am I the only one who sees something drastically wrong with this policy?

Even with the outbreak of World War II, America wanted to remain neutral. According to Navy Commander Robert Stinnett, who was later Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, and author of the book Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor, the American people were decidedly against the United States entrance into WWII. It was the duplicitous FDR who helped provoke the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor and give us an excuse to get into the war. But Stinnett “justifies” this treasonous act of FDR because he got us “out of” a non-interventionist policy (which globalists call “Isolationism”) and helped create the new foreign policy of “internationalism.”

Unfortunately, Morris suffers from being an “internationalist” first, and an American second. The American people are tired of the warmongering of our leaders across the globe while we ourselves are under assault on our southern border, turning our inner cities into war zones. If we cannot even control our own borders or clean up our own cities, why bang the drums for war on foreign soil?

 

 

Bill Lockwood: Almost a Dictatorship 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

American Journal Daily is putting out a piece today (2/9/22), written by Daniel Ottomire, entitled “Red Wave Just Crashed on President Biden—38 Republicans Order Joe to Take a Cognitive Test Right Away.” Ottomire reports that Republicans are concerned—and for good reason—that Joe Biden’s “wits have left him.”

Nearly 40 Republicans have written a letter, spearheaded by Rep. Ronnie Jackson of Texas, former White House doctor to President Trump, asking the 79-year-old to take a cognitive test. So far, Democrats have refused to cede that Biden is in a muddled state.

Ottomire writes, “Imagine that. Democrats are forcing a sick man to stay in office, just so they won’t admit they were wrong. Such a thing could be considered elder abuse and worse. But if they do subject him to a test and he fails, the party would suffer even more in the midterms.”

What Of This?

I have no doubt that Biden is mentally handicapped at this point. But I don’t see the Democrats budging on this. Why?

First, Why would they? Even if Biden is submitted to a test, does anyone half-way familiar with the way Democrats “doctor” records, and have for years, that the American people will get an accurate accounting? Further, Joe Biden was in cognitive decline as a candidate for president, only campaigning out of his basement – yet the American people apparently “voted” him into office. With the integrity of the Biden election at issue here—and continues to be—they are not worried about “elections.”

Second, Biden and the Democrats are crushing the country into socialism more quickly than we can pull out a test and administer it to Joe Biden. With literally millions pouring through our southern border on a yearly basis, without so much as going through a turnstile, the pro-Democratic Welfare State of uninformed voters grows exponentially. The Republican response? “Demand” Biden take a cognitive test. Mmm.

As a matter of fact, the Border Patrol, as Angie Wong of The Post reports this week, after having spent several days on the border: The Border Patrol “ “has changed from an enforcement agency to a concierge service.”

Worse still she writes that “The southern border of the United States has become a suggestion, a line that vanishes a little more each day.” Even worse than that is the fact that not only is Joe Biden flagrantly violating U.S. Law each and every day, but is now actively working with the cartels and coyotes, coordinating on “when and where drop-offs will happen.”

This does not merely mean that we have lost control of our own country’s borders—but we have lost control of the government itself which is in an active war AGAINST the American people. Yet, Biden still sits in Washington, D.C., flinging out his nasty charges against the common working class.

Dan Stein, the president of Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), adds that, according to the official government documents that came out this week recounting the low numbers of illegals deported in 2021, that “for all intents and purposes, the Biden Administration has implemented the radical left’s goal of abolishing ICE.”

As FAIR puts it, Without common sense limitations on immigration and the resulting population growth, virtually every social cause is lost.

Department of Homeland Security Bulletin Feb. 7

Perhaps most frightening is the following, posted on February 7, on the DHS website:
“DHS remains committed to proactively sharing timely information and intelligence about the evolving threat environment with the American public,” said Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas. “We also remain committed to working with our partners across every level of government and in the private sector to prevent all forms of terrorism and targeted violence, and to support law enforcement efforts to keep our communities safe. This NTAS Bulletin outlines the key factors that have increased the volatility, unpredictability, and complexity of the current threat environment, and highlights resources for individuals and communities to stay safe.”
The United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM) introduced and/or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors. These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence. Mass casualty attacks and other acts of targeted violence conducted by lone offenders and small groups acting in furtherance of ideological beliefs and/or personal grievances pose an ongoing threat to the nation.

There you have it. Targeted as “terroristic threats” are those disseminating “misinformation” and “disinformation.” Any party that “undermines public trust in government institutions” is a terrorist. “Sowing discord” –like the truckers in Canada—is an punishable offense.

And the strongest Republican response to this open WAR AGAINST AMERICA is Milquetoast Mitch McConnell’s “wait until the next election” rhetoric or 38 Republicans “demanding” Joe to take a cognitive test. I say, the Dems are going to have the last laugh if something else is not done, and quickly.

Bill Lockwood: Destroying Private Property in America Will Bring Widespread Poverty 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

Consider this headline. In Defense of Destroying Private Property. R.H. Lossin writes in the liberal The Nation, that, in the wake of the George Floyd Black Lives Matter rioting, the “mainstream media reaction” “has been surprisingly tempered.” The socialist answer, of course, is that the “property destruction” might just be a “reasonable and articulate expression in itself?” After all, the reasoning goes, “broken windows and burnt cars are simply not commensurate with the violence of state-sanctioned murder or the structural violence of poverty that has placed people of color at a disproportionate risk of dying of Covid-19.”

Lossin even quotes Martin Luther King, Jr. to suggest that looting demonstrated a keen understanding of a political economy organized around repression, exploitation, and disenfranchisement: ‘Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking … knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights.

Call it what you will—Martin Luther King apparently endorsed “abusing property rights.” So does the socialist The Nation media outlet.

This has become a common nightmare reality in America, where the powers-that-be have allowed the BLM rioters to openly and brazenly destroy private property. So widespread has this become that it was not uncommon for store owners to spray-paint homemade wooden signs on the front of their properties that read: “We support BLM, please don’t hurt us.”

Worsening matters even more are the local prosecutors and judges who have no desire to enforce the law or punish those committing the crimes. In denial of common-sense, rioters, looters, even murderers are being released back into the cities by activist judges and anemic justice systems to create more destructive havoc on the citizens. Mobs are growing and violence-mongers are now stalking our streets while private property and even life is being destroyed.

In the end, a society that does not respect private property rights is doomed to regress to the backward state such as is lived in the rest of the world.

The Mystery of Capital

One of the greatest books explaining the essentiality of private property rights to liberty and prosperity is the work of Hernando de Soto entitled “The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West”, But Fails Everywhere Else, published in 2000. De Soto points out the following.

The real nature of private property. The nature of private property is not “part of the physical world” but is about invisible things, explains de Soto. “It is an implicit legal infrastructure hidden deep within their property systems—of which ownership is but the tip of the iceberg.” Formal property law. Without it, there is no such thing as private property.

Property actually is the formal title, the recognized uniform law of the country. It is an integrated system of “legal property rights.” For example, other nations have the same and even more “assets” than the United States. There are far richer countries in terms of natural resources. The difference is that Third World countries do not have the law system that we have and “lack the process to represent their property or create capital.”

To illustrate, if one cannot prove that he or she owned anything – by way of legal title recognized by a uniform law code– then that person will be likely forced to bribe his or her way through bureaucracy, or, with the help of his neighbors, take the law into his own hands.

Consider much of the American Plains Indian culture. Concepts of private property were far different, and practically non-existent. There was absolutely no “law structure” outside of a local band of Indians living together, and even in this small group, accumulation of goods was discouraged. A great man was to give his ponies away—not collect a personal herd.

Owning land was unheard of. The Native Americans simply lived off of it and wandered it freely, hindered only by stronger tribes that warred with them.

This lack of formal property meant that nothing could be borrowed from any “banker,” for there was no collateral—not to mention banks were non-existence in that culture. Subsistence was hand-to-mouth, and might makes right. Rudimentary living. So exactly, without formal property law and a legal system that protects that property, that private property is worthless.

This is exactly the manner in which much of the world now continues to live. De Soto estimates that there is $9.3 Trillion in “dead capital” in foreign and third world countries. Dead, because it is not able to be used to draw upon and create capital. And this is due to the lack of a law system that protects that property.

The lack of legal property thus explains why citizens in developing and former communist nations cannot make profitable contracts with strangers, cannot get credit, insurance , or utilities services: They have no property to lose. Because they have no property to lose, they are taken seriously as contracting partners only by their immediate family and neighbors. People with nothing to lose are trapped in the grubby basement of the pre-capitalist world.

This is the warning to modern America. If our legal system is going to disregard the private ownership of property, the capital in which workers have invested their monies and themselves, then we are moving back to primitive living—to the grubby basement of the pre-capitalist world. And by witnessing the violence-ridden inner cities such as Baltimore or Detroit, that grubby living is not far off.

Either the legal system will protect Americans, or Americans will begin protecting themselves and their properties outside the boundaries of law. Liberal judges are inviting the Wild West.

« Older Entries