Watch “The Devastating Legacy of Obama’s Presidency – A Point of No Return | Thomas Sowell” on YouTube
Reply
Author Archives: theartfuldilettante
The Rise of Artificial Intelligence: Jobs or Robots ?
The media warn, “Artificial intelligence will replace millions of jobs.”
In San Francisco, Teamsters protest, demanding the government “protect” their jobs. In my new video, they chant, “Do not have these self-driving vehicles on San Francisco streets, taking jobs!”
They’re complaining about the Waymo driverless taxis already in use in part of San Francisco (and Phoenix).
The union is right to worry. Robot cars don’t get tired. They don’t take lunch breaks. They don’t drink or get distracted. Self-driving cars will replace many delivery-driver jobs, taxi jobs, Uber jobs and truck driver jobs.
Texas is building a special highway with a lane just for self-driving trucks.
The idea isn’t just to save money by having machines do what people do now, but to get human drivers off the road entirely.
Safety advocates want that, because despite publicity over occasional robot-car crashes, we humans make many more mistakes. Robo-cars will save thousands of lives.
But when I said that in this column last month, some of you said government officials will soon use “safety” as an excuse to outlaw human driving.
“Regulators will try to ban traditional cars,” writes orangecrate26. “You’re not taking my Mustang, or my guns.”
Government will have “total control of your movement,” writes another. “No movement at all if you think the wrong way.”
It’s a threat I hadn’t considered.
Because lots of you like driving, and politicians fear upsetting big voting groups, I assumed government wouldn’t ban human driving altogether.
But I’ve been wrong about state intrusions before.
What I haven’t been wrong about is the job loss.
Some people will lose jobs because of AI.
But history suggests that most will find better jobs.
More than 90% of America’s workers once worked on farms. Better farm equipment replaced most of those jobs. Today, only about 1% of Americans work on farms.
Are the former farmers out of work? No, most found other jobs, better jobs — jobs less demanding and dangerous than farming.
There were once half a million typists in America. Nearly all those jobs are gone.
So are thousands of phone and elevator operator jobs.
Bank tellers were replaced by ATM machines and online banking.
Video rental stores were killed by streaming services.
But after those people lost jobs, there was no surge in unemployment.
In fact, over the past 15 years, unemployment has dropped. Wages, adjusted for inflation, are up. No union predicted that.
It happened because, as machines took jobs that humans once did, people searched for different, better work. Most found it.
Thousands found better paying jobs in fields like education, hospitality and health care.
This creative destruction makes almost everyone better off. Although you won’t convince the unions.
Stossel TV Executive Producer Maxim Lott asked the Teamster boss, “In the future, there’ll be new jobs we can’t even imagine. You buy that?”
“I don’t,” he replied, “because AI’s scary, and it’s here to stay.”
It is scary and here to stay. Fortunately, many people Lott interviewed see the benefit of that.
One points out, “We got machines that pick things up. We no longer needed strong people to pick things up. We don’t say, let’s not develop the forklift!”
AI will create lots of disruptive job change, probably more drastic than anything in the past. But history suggests that this change is probably good news.
As former AI executive Alex Roy points out, “For every new technology, there has been someone who said, ‘stop this.’ But it can’t be stopped!”
That’s a good thing, he says. “Think about how many businesses don’t exist yet that could and will, when Robo-taxis are ubiquitous.”
My brain is too small to know what those jobs will be. But they will come.
Of course, it’s possible that AI robots decide that we humans are in their way and just kill us. That does worry some AI researchers. Then all bets are off.
But short of that, the AI job change will mostly be a good thing.
Artificial Intelligence (AI)John StosselNBColumn
Suggested Reading by NewsBusters
‘Amanpour & Co.’ Host Prods Israel to Surrender to Two-State Solution, Despite HamasStephanopoulos Can’t Handle Getting Owned Multiple Times, Cuts Off JD VanceSocialist Late Night Hosts Roll Out Red Carpet For Warren, Sanders
Connect
Sign up for our NB Daily newsletter for the latest media bias analysis.https://go.pardot.com/l/752103/2019-07-23/2phs
Must Read
Media Lied for YEARS About Biden’s Mental State; We Have the Receipts
Media: Economy Is Actually ‘Fantastic,’ Voters Just Too Dumb To Notice
Subscribe to Our Newsletter!
The mission of the Media Research Center is to document and combat the falsehoods and censorship of the news media, entertainment media and Big Tech in order to defend and preserve America’s founding principles and Judeo-Christian values. The MRC is a research and education organization operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and contributions to the MRC are tax-deductible.
Company
MRC Programs
Legal
Features
CONNECT
Sign up for our NB Daily newsletter to receive the latest news. Subscribe
© 2005-2024, Media Research Center. All Rights Reserved.
The Republican Plot Against Donald Trump
PoliticsForeign AffairsCultureFellows ProgramLogin
Menu
POLITICS
The Republican Plot Against Donald Trump
The inside story of how Congress is pursuing endless war in Ukraine—and trying to stop a Trump election.
Credit: Getty Images / Kevin Dietsch
Feb 12, 202412:06 AM
This weekend, Senate Democrats (joined by a few Republicans, including most Republican leadership) forced through a “security supplemental” that spends close to $100 billion, most of it on Ukraine. It was the culmination of months of secretive negotiations on border security. Those negotiations produced a border security product unacceptable to most Republicans, so then Republicans voted it down, and then an hour later we were debating a security supplemental with border security stripped out.
The quick pivot, refusal to negotiate another round on border security, and immediate shift to blame Trump confirmed one thing: Republican leadership wasn’t serious about border security. They cared most about Ukraine funding and saw the border negotiations as a distraction. This extinguished any hope of real border security before the negotiation began.
ADVERTISEMENT
null
The story our leadership tells is that the “politics of border security” had changed because of Donald Trump. James Lankford dutifully negotiated a bipartisan border product. Conservative Republicans encouraged this negotiation. When the product took shape, Donald Trump demanded conservatives walk. Trump argued that Joe Biden didn’t need a border security package—which was true—so Republicans should ask simply that Joe Biden do his job. This intervention allegedly killed a great piece of border policy.
This is a fairytale that makes conservative senators and Donald Trump look bad, perhaps by design. In truth, the demands conservative senators made at the beginning of the negotiation went like this: Joe Biden can fix this problem, but he refuses, so we must make him do his job. This posture came along specific demands from senators ranging from Ukraine aid supporters like Marco Rubio to Ukraine aid skeptics like me, and those in the middle like Ron Johnson. We argued that we could condition further Ukraine aid on decreased illegal border crossings. In other words, Congress would appropriate money to Ukraine in stages: if Biden refused to drive down border crossings, he wouldn’t get his money for Ukraine.
The deal, as envisioned by conservatives, was apparently never on the table. According to both Democratic colleagues and some Republicans, this is because Republican leadership—specifically Mitch McConnell—refused to push the Democrats on this issue. Other Republicans have argued instead that even if Mitch McConnell empowered Lankford to make this demand, Democrats would have never agreed.
Obviously, this latter view reflects more favorably on Mitch McConnell, but only by a little, because it suggests a massive asymmetry in negotiating leverage. If Democrats are desperate for Ukraine aid, and Republicans—at least the negotiating Republicans—are also desperate for Ukraine aid, border security would inevitably land on the chopping block.
Did Trump oppose a deal? He certainly opposed the deal that was on the table. It would have done little to secure the border in the future, would have been a massive political gift to the Democrats, and would constrain Trump’s border enforcement if he was ever elected president. This last point deserves extra emphasis: these bipartisan deals always seem to contain provisions that would put the next president, whoever that is, in a box.
ADVERTISEMENT
null
Given its substance, it is hardly surprising that he opposed the deal, but most Republicans opposed the deal well before he weighed in—publicly or privately. In fact, the only conversation I had with Donald Trump about the border deal was a day after the text came out, well after I had opposed the bill’s headline provisions. “Why do you guys want to give these people such a gift? It’s stupid.” It was an accurate point, but it didn’t change anyone’s mind because most of us already agreed with the former president.
So the deal fell apart, and the way it fell apart was the height of political malpractice. The text—370 pages of it—dropped late Sunday, February 4. We had a Republican conference meeting on Monday, well before anyone had time to digest major provisions. McConnell left the meeting and praised the bill but criticized the changing political dynamics. He blamed Donald Trump. He blamed the House of Representatives.
It’s hard to imagine a more damaging political message: Hey everyone, we’ve got great bipartisan policy, but we’re going to kill it because the knuckle draggers don’t like it. It was a gift to Democrats and everyone knew it. Senate candidates across the country, many of whom are allies of Mitch McConnell, called me to complain bitterly of the predicament created by leadership in Washington.
Normally, spending bills go through months of review, committee markups, and hours of debate. The text of the Ukraine supplemental was distributed to Hill staff on Wednesday, February 7, and the first procedural vote was taken less than a day later. On February 5, many senators had emphasized the importance of doing something on the border before action was taken on Ukraine. Two days later, at least some of them had decided that fighting for border security for an hour had checked the box, and they were ready to move on to their real priority: funding for Ukraine. The bill will pass, albeit by a tiny margin, with a majority of Republicans opposing the bait and switch.
This current episode is finished, at least in the senate, but there will be many reruns. The form of this debacle will replay itself, to the great detriment of Donald Trump and other Republican candidates. Three facts are important. First, voters range from ambivalent to outright hostile of further Ukraine aid. Second, a subset of Republican senators are obsessed with Ukraine aid, caring about this issue more than any other. Third, a majority of House Republicans oppose further Ukraine aid, and demand strong border security measures regardless of the details of a Ukraine package.
It’s easy to sketch out how these facts will manifest themselves in our political reality. The senate Ukraine bill goes to the House, where leadership there cannot bring it up to the floor without endangering House Speaker Mike Johnson. So the House will either refuse to vote on the Ukraine bill, or will attach a strong border security bill (like HR2) and then send it back to the Senate. In public and private, Senate Republican leadership will undermine the House leadership and the Republican presidential nominee.
Democrats could try to force House leadership to bring up Ukraine aid with a discharge petition, an approach that would hand control of the House floor over to Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries with the aid of a few House Republicans. Speaker Johnson could fight this maneuver aggressively. If he does, he will be attacked by Senate Republican leaders, at least privately, and will face another negative news cycle. If he doesn’t, his own conference will turn against him. The cycle will replay over the government funding deadline in March. It will replay over the omnibus debate that follows. It will replay any time the U.S. Congress must actually do something.
Whatever shape this takes, the basic game will be the same. The media, obsessed with any story that makes Trump look bad, will blame him and “MAGA Republicans” in the House. They will blame Trump for the chaos. They will blame Trump for “extremism.” They will refuse to report on Biden’s failings and instead focus on internal Republican division. They will point to Republican senators attacking Donald Trump and House Republicans, just as they have over the last week. Democrats will run advertisements: “See, even Mitch McConnell thinks Trump is being ridiculous.” And they will rinse and repeat this narrative all the way to the November election.
This is how you save Joe Biden’s presidency: By taking the chaos of Joe Biden’s tenure and making it about Republican chaos being even worse. By taking the extremism of Democrats and making it all about the crazy right-wingers in the House and Mar-a-Lago.
To be clear, this doesn’t assume malice. The Republican establishment of Washington is so obsessively committed to Ukraine that they will use every tool at their disposal to apply pressure to other Republicans to write that big Ukraine check. The problem is that every time they apply pressure, they create an opening for Democrats and the media to tank our nominee.
For months, I have been confident that Donald Trump would be reelected as president. But this is how you snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Republican establishment is going to war for more Ukraine money. They don’t care if a second Trump term is collateral damage.
Subscribe Today
Get daily emails in your inbox
Email Address:
But, of course, they have an insurance plan even if Trump pulls it off. Though few have noticed, buried in the bill’s text is a kill switch for the next Trump presidency. The legislation explicitly requires funding for Ukraine well into the next presidential term. The Washington Post has already reported this provision was added to control Donald Trump.
It gets worse. Back in 2019, Democrats articulated a novel theory of impeachment, based on Trump’s refusal to spend money from the USAI—Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. Five years after impeaching Trump for refusing to spend money on Ukraine, they have drafted a new law that again requires Trump to spend money on Ukraine. If he negotiates an end to the war, as he has promised to do, they will undoubtedly argue that he has broken the law. We are nearly a year away from an election that could give Trump the presidency, and Ukraine-obsessive Republicans have already given the Democrats a predicate to impeach him.
Slava Ukraini, America be damned.
ADVERTISEMENT
null
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
J.D. Vance
J.D. Vance serves as the junior United States senator from Ohio and is the author of the New York Times bestseller Hillbilly Elegy.
COMMENTS
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
MORE LIKE THIS
Inside New York State’s Heedless Crusade Against the NRA
James R. Lawrence, IIIFebruary 12, 2024
The legal mechanism the New York attorney general is using to bludgeon the gun rights organization could be used on any objectionable civil society…
What I Saw Inside the DeSantis Campaign
Nate HochmanFebruary 12, 2024
The governor was great on substance but couldn’t match Trump’s symbolic appeal.
The Counter-Offensive Begins
William LindFebruary 12, 2024
How to strike back against cultural marxism.
The American Ideas Institute is a nonprofit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) organization based in Washington, D.C.
BLOGS
CATEGORIES
MEDIA
ABOUT
JOIN
INFO
© 2022 The American Conservative, a publication of The American Ideas Institute.
closeADVERTISEMENT
null
Watch “Why BLM & Antifa Are Not Considered Terrorists But Right Wingers Are… | Thomas Sowell” on YouTube
Leftists and Islamic Terrorists are Exactly the Same
Emotions have a cause. The cause does not have to be rational, or true. But when you hate or love something, there is absolutely a reason for your emotions.
Leftists LOVE Islam. They hate Christianity. They LOATHE Jews. (Obviously, there are self-loathing Jews who are leftist).
What ideas comprising leftism lead to hatred of Judaism, and unconditional love of Islam?
I believe it’s epistemological, psychological authoritarianism. Muslims are usually wild with rage over the fact that others don’t agree with them. They define “freedom” as being able to live in a world where dissenters are extinguished. Hence all the terrorism. Leftists are exactly the same. They identify with this attribute of Islam. Most Christians and virtually all Jews simply wish to be left alone. Leftists cannot identify with this. They must have universal agreement with the pack, because leftists are pack animals. The idea of independence or individualism makes them literally crazy. They hate independent people for possessing virtues they know they never will.
Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Charleston SC). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram, Michael Hurd Ph.D. on LinkedIn, @DrHurd on TruthSocial
Trump Won the 2020 Election After All According to Extensive Analysis
After extensive analysis using raw survey data coupled with mail-in vote totals, we concluded that mail-in voter fraud almost certainly changed the 2020 election outcome in all six crucial swing states.
According to the legacy news networks, social media platforms, various deep state actors, and other corrupt institutions, the 2020 election was the safest and most secure in history and anyone who questioned Joe Biden’s victory was a wacky “election denier.”
That has been the dominant narrative for the past three years, which has produced a chilling effect and caused many to forgo conducting a deep dive concerning whether the 2020 election really was as safe and secure as we have been told it was.
It is incumbent upon the 50 states to ensure that their voting systems are as safe and secure as possible. We still have time to make necessary changes.
In reality, the 2020 election was most likely marred by widespread mail-in voting fraud. And even worse, the extensive mail-in voter fraud almost certainly tipped the election in favor of Joe Biden.
Sign up for the Blaze newsletter
By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and agree to receive content that may sometimes include advertisements. You may opt out at any time.
In other words, had rampant mail-in voter fraud been prevented in the 2020 election, Donald Trump would have won the Electoral College and been re-elected to a second term.
At this point, you may be wondering how I can be so sure that the 2020 election was tainted by mail-in voter fraud. The answer is simple: The voters have told us so.
In late 2023, the Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports conducted a simple survey to gauge the degree of voter fraud in the 2020 election. We asked 1,085 voters who participated in the 2020 election about their voting behaviors three years prior. To our surprise, the results showed that at least one in five mail-in voters admitted to committing ballot fraud in the 2020 election.
Our findings caused quite a stir in the media, especially among those who suspected the 2020 election was not completely secure due to the dubious changes to voting rules state officials unconstitutionally imposed under the cover of COVID-19.
Shortly after the poll was released, former President Trump called it “the most important poll released in the last 20 years” and “the biggest story of the year.”
Eventually, we began to wonder if we could apply the poll results to publicly available election data to determine whether mail-in voter fraud impacted the outcome of the election. This was no easy task.
After extensive analysis using the raw survey data provided by Rasmussen coupled with state-based and other reputable sources documenting mail-in vote totals, we concluded that mail-in voter fraud almost certainly changed the 2020 election outcome in all six of the crucial swing states.
This is all laid out in great detail in the Heartland Institute’s latest policy study, aptly titled “Who Really Won the 2020 Election?” (Spoiler alert: not Joe Biden.)
Here are just a few of the main takeaways:
Upon further analysis of the Rasmussen survey data, we found that more than one in four mail-in voters (28.2%, to be precise) admitted to committing at least one kind of election fraud in the 2020 election.
Under multiple scenarios, with differing rates of mail-in voter fraud taken into account, our results indicate that Trump would have won the Electoral College in the 2020 election had fraudulent mail-in ballots not been counted.
Even if the level of fraud detected in the Heartland/Rasmussen survey substantially overstated mail-in voter fraud by multiple orders of magnitude, Trump would likely still have won the 2020 election.
According to the official 2020 election results, Biden defeated Trump in the Electoral College 306 to 232. The national vote tally was similarly lopsided, with Biden receiving approximately 81 million votes to Trump’s 74 million votes.
In almost all the hypothetical scenarios we lay out, Trump would have won enough Electoral College votes to defeat Biden soundly.
But the 2020 election, like most recent national elections, was ultimately decided in the swing states.
In 2020, Biden won each of the six swing states by fewer than 20,000 votes, a tiny margin in the context of the overall vote.
But here’s the rub: When we extrapolated for mail-in voter fraud in the six crucial swing states, using state-specific mail-in voter data and accounting for a variety of fraud rates (from the 28% level all the way down to the 1% level), the Electoral College vote changed considerably.
In almost all the hypothetical scenarios we lay out, Trump would have won enough Electoral College votes to defeat Biden soundly. In other words, Biden’s Electoral College victory, although seemingly large, was predicated on razor-thin margins in all six of the swing states.
We know for a fact that each of the six swing states changed its election rules in the months leading up to the 2020 election to allow for mass mail-in voting based on inaccurate state voter registration rolls. We also know that several of these states made it easy for mail-in voting fraud to be committed by eliminating common-sense guardrails like signature verification and permitting shady election practices to take place like ballot harvesting.
So it stands to reason that these unprecedented last-minute changes to voting procedures likely resulted in a flood of fraudulent ballots being counted. It also stands to reason that widespread mail-in voter fraud in the 2020 election disproportionately benefitted Joe Biden, seeing that he received more than twice as many mail-in votes as Trump.
When considering all these factors, it seems obvious that Biden’s 2020 victory was aided and abetted by rampant mail-in voter fraud. But as they say, what’s done is done. It does no good to cry over spilled milk or shady elections.
With less than nine months before the 2024 presidential election, however, we must ensure that this does not happen again. It is incumbent upon the 50 states to ensure that their voting systems are as safe and secure as possible. We still have time to make necessary changes.
Going forward, will enough states do the right thing? Or, like so many other things in today’s upside-down world, is the quaint American tradition of free and fair elections a vestige of the past?
How to be Honest…and a Friend
People often ask me if it’s a sign of true friendship to ignore a friend’s flaws? My answer: No, not necessarily. If someone is your friend, doesn’t it make sense to try and stop her from making a mistake? You can’t control her or do her thinking for her, but you can certainly care enough to comment. If she won’t listen, or feels there’s nothing she can do about it, at least you commented. You did what you could.
I touched on this a few years ago here in the Delaware Wave, and a reader told me, “It’s not appropriate to comment on a friend’s flaws if they don’t ask for your opinion. If a friend has asked for your opinion, and this friend is beneficial to your happiness, then it makes sense to give it to him. You take this action for your own happiness. It may result in a secondary benefit to your friend, but it’s not your reason for taking this action.”
Interesting. You tell your friend what you really think for your own sake, as well as his. In fact, you do it primarily for yourself. Does that make you “selfish?” Of course not. The issue here is integrity: A real, authentic relationship with your friend. The great philosopher Aristotle put it brilliantly when he said that a friend is an extension of yourself. Friends gain from one other by being who they are. And a part of friendship is telling a friend when you believe he or she is going off course. By doing so, you are, in a perfectly selfish yet legitimate sense, saying, “I don’t want to lose who you are.”
A lot of people don’t know how to communicate, especially when it comes to criticism. I get critical comments all the time about my column, my books and my other writings. The comments that include aimless hostility or name-calling get clicked into trash and forgotten. But the thoughtful ones grab my attention because they may give me better insight about people and, at the same time, get ideas for future books, articles and columns.
The same applies to personal relationships. Your friend, spouse or other loved one isn’t going to listen to you unless you speak with sensitivity and honesty. Remember, you’re doing this more for yourself than for the other person, and that honesty helps you to be heard.
Some people can’t tolerate criticism. In these cases, my advice is to simply not give it to them. But if (when) they encounter problems and complain to you, be truthful. “Can I be honest with you?” is a good way to start. If you don’t say anything, then you’re enabling their sensitive behavior by conveying that you’re willing to pretend that this thing happening to them is either an accident or the fault of others. What kind of make-believe friendship is that?
Being authentic means caring enough to have an opinion, and delivering it with integrity. The greatest compliment someone can pay to you is to render a thoughtful, assessment of something you possibly handled wrong. You don’t have to agree. But if he took the time to put that kind of thought into your life, then surely it counts for something.
At the core of this is your character. The notion that you should see no flaws in your friends suggests that you should ignore reality; that you should pretend to your friend and yourself as well. This is nothing more than lying, and makes no sense.
I recognize that there are people who like to hear themselves talk. They render opinions simply because they like to feel important or otherwise work out their personal issues — on your time. This sort of person doesn’t really care about your reaction, and isn’t a true friend. Friendship is, and should be, a two-way street where self-interested parties each gain something of personal value. And, since we’re each in the driver’s seat of our lives, we’re just as free to say, “No thank you. I’m not interested.”
Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Charleston SC). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram, Michael Hurd Ph.D. on LinkedIn, @DrHurd on TruthSocial
There are so Many Things Wrong with Nicki Haley (and all Other Never Trumpers)
I used to have some respect for this woman. I was wrong. Her colleague Rep. Nancy Mace (SC) has correctly pointed out that the Republican immigration bill keeps the borders wide open.
Why would anyone vote for a Republican with Democrat positions when there are already plenty of Democrats with Democratic positions? Especially when the Democratic positions are identical to those of Communist China and terrorist Iran. This poor woman thinks she’s going to become President by getting elected by Democrats in open Republican primaries. Good grief. That’s a special kind of stupidity that disqualifies her from high office, right there.
The Never Trumpers are dishonest. They used to claim to support lower taxes, less regulation, gun rights and a strong military. Initially, they claimed to support Biden in order to save what was important to them. Yet Biden’s radical left party has decimated everything. We’re getting hyperinflation, higher taxes, unprecedented regulations, gun bans, political arrests, stifling of free speech and a military replaced with a drag show. They know Trump did NONE of these things. They know Trump delivered on many of the items Republicans always promised to deliver on, but never did. Yet Never Trumpers continue to applaud Biden. And they will gladly applaud anyone they replace him with, including Michelle Obama.
The Never Trumpers are morally lower than anyone. And that includes the socialists and fascists who systematically and openly destroy us, with the help of the Never Trumpers.
As The American Thinker (blog site) pointed out on 2-5-23:
“In nine months, America will be holding an election for the ages. Yeah, I know everyone says that about every election, but the stakes for November 2024 could not be higher.
This assumes we will have an actual election. If it looks like Donald Trump is running away with the election, expect a false flag event to postpone or cancel the election. The excuse could be a war, especially as several are brewing, ready to boil over in October. Or some other excuse to invoke martial law and lockdowns for “public safety.” How about those millions of migrants, military-aged males, an invading army ready to cause trouble when called upon? Or a cyber-attack directed at election systems?
Another pandemic, the so-called “Disease X” could shut down the country, including voting. And there is still good old-fashioned cheating, although this may be difficult if the margin is too large.”
[Headline/picture from Breitbart News 2-5-23]
Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Charleston SC). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram, Michael Hurd Ph.D. on LinkedIn, @DrHurd on TruthSocial
Even Trader Joe’s is no Longer Safe
Perhaps the biggest story of our time? Not terrorism, election fraud, or freedom of speech violations — massive as those are. It’s what the Soros district attorneys are doing in our big cities. San Francisco is a wreck. Police are telling people not to leave purses or wallets in their shopping carts at Trader Joe’s, even for a minute. Because thieves will grab them and even if they’re arrested, they’ll just be let go again in the name of “social justice.”
America is falling apart; the big cities are gone. And it’s mostly because of crime. New York and Chicago are ruined, perhaps irreparably. And look at D.C. Carjackings are rampant, and the criminals are being released without bail and set out on the streets to escalate their attacks even further. Politicians, even Democrats in some cases, are attacked. And one of Trump’s appointees was recently murdered, just blocks from the White House. By a carjacker.
None of this is accidental. George Soros, and people like him (all of them Democrats and RINOs) WANT this. What else are we to conclude? It’s only getting worse. They blame it on “racism” and “social injustice.” Their solutions lead only to more and more violence. They know it’s happening and they don’t care. They probably even applaud it. You might say, if you don’t live in one of America’s big cities, “It’s not my problem.” But that’s not true. The organizers of Black Lives Matter — a terrorist arm of the Soros movement — meant it when they said to rural and small city America, back in 2020, “We’re coming for you next.” They don’t have to rape, pillage or burn down buildings (although they’ll be happy to do that, especially if Donald Trump somehow manages to get back into the White House). They can let the criminals — the violent criminals — do the dirty work for them.
It’s not a conspiracy. It’s being done out in the open, for all to see. They announce it, they promise it, and then they DO IT. The big cities are probably too far gone. But what about the smaller cities, especially in red states who don’t think they’re vulnerable to this orchestrated, “legalized” form of terrorism? And even rural areas? You have to be ready to defend yourself. Buy weapons to protect yourself. It’s almost all that you can do, other than moving to the least crime-ridden area you can find (while it lasts).
Your federal government is well armed, but it’s actually the enemy now. Your federal government supports the terrorist tactics of Black Lives Matter, George Soros, and others, including the Democratic Party itself. The Democratic Party: basically, now a mobster organization in charge of these cities where criminals are encouraged and permitted to attack innocent people.
This isn’t stupid 60s leftism. This is the real deal. These people are out to destroy America and, along with it, any notion of civilization we still take for granted. They ARE coming for you. And they mean it.
Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Charleston SC). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram, Michael Hurd Ph.D. on LinkedIn, @DrHurd on TruthSocial
Watch “This is Why American Education is SOO Expensive | Thomas Sowell” on YouTube
