It's far more complex than most imagine, and it's global. In a recent update, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists reported the world is 'at doom's doorstep' with a civilization-ending apocalypse imminent. The moment is both perilous and unsustainable, and the time to act is now.
Ukraine’s rich land has historically been used as a pathway for Western powers as they attempted to conquer the East
As a result, Ukraine, being surrounded by greater powers on all sides, had to master the art of changing sides
The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), founded in 1929, had the ultimate goal of creating an ethnically pure, independent Ukraine
U.S. intelligence agencies kept watch on Ukrainian nationalist organizations as a source of counterintelligence against the Soviet Union; declassified CIA documents show close ties between U.S. intelligence and Ukrainian nationalists since 1946
U.S. meddling during the Maidan Revolution encouraged demonstrators to overthrow Ukraine’s democratically elected government
A leaked phone call, intercepted by Russian intelligence, between Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs, and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffey Pyatt openly discussed their plan for a new Ukraine government.
Biden Casually Says Food Shortage "Going To Be Real" As Necessary "Price" Of Anti-Russia Sanctions
"The price of the sanctions is not just imposed upon Russia. It’s imposed upon an awful lot of countries as well, including European countries...
And The Federalist's Sean Davis aptly summarizes where things stand...
"We’re about to face massive energy and food shortages, and Biden’s solution is to ban drilling and put expensive and inefficient solar panels and windmills on what’s left of American farmland that hasn’t been bought up by China or BlackRock," he wrote on Twitter.
Isn't it obvious that this is a set-up, just like everything since the so-called "pandemic" hit the world. This is the Davos agenda to bring the "The Great Reset" in motion.
President Joe Biden believes the Ukraine war will mark the start of a “new world order.” In the middle of the COVID global pandemic, Klaus Schwab and global elites likewise announced a “great reset.”
Accordingly, the nations of the world would have to surrender their sovereignty to an international body of experts. They would enlighten us on taxes, diversity, and green policies.
When former President Donald Trump got elected in 2016, marquee journalists announced partisan reporting would have to displace the old, supposedly disinterested approach to the news.
There is a common theme here.
In normal times progressives worry that they do not have public support for their policies. Only in crises do they feel that the political Left and media can merge to use apocalyptic times to ram through usually unpopular approaches to foreign and domestic problems.
We saw that last year: fleeing from Afghanistan, the embrace of critical race theory, trying to end the filibuster, pack the court, junk the Electoral College, and nationalize voting laws.
These “new orders” and “resets” always entail far bigger government and more unelected, powerful bureaucracies. Elites assume that their radical changes in energy use, media reporting, voting, sovereignty, and racial and ethnic quotas will never quite apply to themselves, the architects of such top-down changes.
So we common folk must quit fossil fuels, but not those who need to use corporate jets. Walls will not mar our borders but will protect the homes of Nancy Pelosi, Mark Zuckerberg, and Bill Gates.
Hunter Biden’s lost laptop will be declared, by fiat, not news. In contrast, the fake Alfa Bank “collusion” narrative will be national headline news for weeks.
Middle class lifestyles will be curbed as we are instructed to strive for sustainability and transition to apartment living and mass transit. But the Obamas will still keep their three mansions, and Silicon Valley futurists will insist on exemptions for their yachts.
In truth, we are about to see a radical reset—of the current reset. It will be a different sort of transformation than the elites are expecting and one that they should greatly fear.
The world and the United States are furious over hyperinflation that may soon exceed 10 percent per year. We will be lucky if it ends only in recession or stagflation, rather than a global depression.
The mess was created by the same apparat who bought into “modern monetary theory.” That silly university idea claimed prosperity would follow vastly expanding the money supply, keeping interest rates at de facto zero levels, running huge annual deficits, piling up unsustainable national debt, and subsidizing workers to stay home.
Natural gas and oil costs are now soaring to unsustainable levels—and to the point where the middle class simply will not be able to travel, keep warm in winter, or cool in summer.
Both in Europe and the United States left-wing governments deliberately curbed drilling and non-Russian pipelines. They shut down nuclear power plants and subsidized costly, inefficient solar and wind projects. They ended up not with utopia, but with fuel shortages, high prices, and energy dependency on the world’s most repressive regimes.
The woke revolution in the West was supposed to teach us that the “white male”-dominated Western world is toxic. Its origins, ascendence, and current leisure and affluence were supposedly due only to systemic exploitation, racism, and sexism.
Elites introduced cancel culture, doxxing, deplatforming, and social ostracism to shame these supposed exploiters and to destroy their lives and careers.
Few asked how a supposedly noxious West of some 2,500 years duration became the number one destination of millions of global non-Western migrants and offered the greatest degree of global prosperity and freedom for its citizens.
So a reset reckoning is coming—in reaction to the “new orders” championed by Biden and the Davos set.
In the November 2022 midterms, we are likely to see a historic “No!” to the orthodox left-wing agenda that has resulted in unsustainable inflation, unaffordable energy, war, and humiliation abroad, spiraling crime, racial hostility—as well as arrogant defiance from those who deliberately enacted these disastrous policies.
What will replace it is a return to what until recently had worked.
Closed and secure borders with only legal and measured immigration will return. Americans will demand tough police enforcement and deterrent sentencing, and a return to integration and the primacy of individual character rather than separatist fixations on the “color of our skin.”
The public will continue to tune out of the partisan and mediocre “mainstream” media. We will see greater increased production of oil and natural gas to transition us slowly to a wider variety of energy, strong national defense, and deterrent foreign policies.
The prophets of the new world order sowed the wind and they will soon reap the whirlwind of an angry public worn out by elite incompetence, arrogance, and ignorance.
Trilateral Meeting with Ukraine, Poland and the United States Regional Collaboration on Biological Security, Safety and Surveillance
03 Oct 2016 - 04 Oct 2016
On 3-4 October, 2016 a Trilateral Meeting with representatives of Ukraine, Poland and the United States entitled, “Regional Collaboration on Biological Security, Safety and Surveillance” took place in Lviv, Ukraine. Each delegation contained government officers and scientific experts who discussed regional (Ukraine and Poland) cooperation in the area of surveillance and prevention of especially dangerous infectious diseases including: zoonotic diseases in Ukraine and neighboring countries. The delegation of Ukraine included the representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Mr. O. Kapustin), Ministry of Health (Dr. N. Vydaiko), Ministry of Defense (Mr. M. Usatyi) and State Service of Ukraine on Food Safety and Consumer Protection (Mr. M. Bilous). Scientific experts from the Institute of Laboratory Diagnostics and Veterinary-Sanitary Expertise (Kyiv) and Lviv Institute of Epidemiology and Hygiene also took an active part in the discussion. The delegation of Poland was led by the Chief of Veterinary Officer of Poland (Mr. W. Skorupski) and contained a number of scientific experts from the National Veterinary Research Institute (Pulawy, Poland). The United States delegation included representatives of the US Department of Defense (Mr. K. Garrett, Mr. G. Braunstein, Mr. W. Sosnowski, Mrs. J. Wintrol, etc.) and representatives of Black and Veatch and Metabiota Corporations (Mr. D. Mustra, Dr. M. Guttieri, Mr. S. Anderson, Mr. T. Borth, etc.). The STCU was represented by the Executive Director Mr. Curtis Bjelajac and Senior Specialist Dr. V. Pashynska.
The meeting focused on existing frameworks, regulatory coordination, and on-going cooperative projects in research, surveillance and diagnostics of a number of dangerous zoonotic diseases such as avian influenza, leptospirosis, Crimea Congo hemorrhagic fever, brucellosis, etc.. A special session was devoted to the current situation with the increase in cases of African Swine Fever (ASF) in both Ukraine and Poland. The delegates discussed countermeasures and possible cooperation between Ukrainian and Polish veterinary services and specialists in order to develop more effective approaches to eradicate and control the spread of ASF in Ukraine, Poland, and other European countries.
Hunter Biden's Laptop from Hell with Jack Maxey - Is It the End of the NWO?
Ann Vandersteel interviewed an explosive Jack Maxey a few days ago about Hunter Biden’s laptop. He spoke to her from Switzerland, where he’s now staying for his safety. The interview begins about five and a half minutes into the video.
Why a Woman Can Have a Penis: Gender Identity Myths Explained
BY KATHARINE JENKINS ON 8/28/18 AT 12:20 PM EDT
NEWSWEEK (WEAKNEWS}
Members of a small women's rights group, Liverpool ReSisters, have declared that "women don't have penises." They seem to be very confident of this point, having gone as far as to paste stickers claiming as much onto the genital areas of some of the statues that make up Anthony Gormley's artwork Another Place on Crosby Beach near Liverpool. It's an attention-grabbing stunt. But are they right? Well, it depends on what they mean by "women."
That claim might sound strange. We might think that it's obvious what "woman" means. And that's partly because there's a myth about men and women that has a had a firm grip on our society for a long time. It goes like this:
There are exactly two kinds of people. One kind, men, have a penis, testes, and XY chromosomes, and the other kind, women, have a vulva, uterus, breasts, and XX chromosomes. Everyone is one or the other. Men and women have different character traits that follow naturally from their different bodies, and therefore are suited to different social roles.
Over the last half-century or so, we have learned that hardly anything about this myth is true.
It is official according to NEWSWEEK Magazine that scientific genetic truth is now "wrong". What has been known since the beginning of human knowledge, that there are men, distinguished as such by having a penis, and that there are women, distinguished by their
vulva, uterus, breasts, and the ability to bear children.
President Joe Biden believes the Ukraine war will mark the start of a “new world order.” In the middle of the COVID global pandemic, Klaus Schwab and global elites likewise announced a “great reset.”
Accordingly, the nations of the world would have to surrender their sovereignty to an international body of experts. They would enlighten us on taxes, diversity, and green policies.
When former President Donald Trump got elected in 2016, marquee journalists announced partisan reporting would have to displace the old, supposedly disinterested approach to the news.
There is a common theme here.
In normal times progressives worry that they do not have public support for their policies. Only in crises do they feel that the political Left and media can merge to use apocalyptic times to ram through usually unpopular approaches to foreign and domestic problems.
We saw that last year: fleeing from Afghanistan, the embrace of critical race theory, trying to end the filibuster, pack the court, junk the Electoral College, and nationalize voting laws.
These “new orders” and “resets” always entail far bigger government and more unelected, powerful bureaucracies. Elites assume that their radical changes in energy use, media reporting, voting, sovereignty, and racial and ethnic quotas will never quite apply to themselves, the architects of such top-down changes.
So we common folk must quit fossil fuels, but not those who need to use corporate jets. Walls will not mar our borders but will protect the homes of Nancy Pelosi, Mark Zuckerberg, and Bill Gates.
Hunter Biden’s lost laptop will be declared, by fiat, not news. In contrast, the fake Alfa Bank “collusion” narrative will be national headline news for weeks.
Middle class lifestyles will be curbed as we are instructed to strive for sustainability and transition to apartment living and mass transit. But the Obamas will still keep their three mansions, and Silicon Valley futurists will insist on exemptions for their yachts.
In truth, we are about to see a radical reset—of the current reset. It will be a different sort of transformation than the elites are expecting and one that they should greatly fear.
The world and the United States are furious over hyperinflation that may soon exceed 10 percent per year. We will be lucky if it ends only in recession or stagflation, rather than a global depression.
The mess was created by the same apparat who bought into “modern monetary theory.” That silly university idea claimed prosperity would follow vastly expanding the money supply, keeping interest rates at de facto zero levels, running huge annual deficits, piling up unsustainable national debt, and subsidizing workers to stay home.
Natural gas and oil costs are now soaring to unsustainable levels—and to the point where the middle class simply will not be able to travel, keep warm in winter, or cool in summer.
Both in Europe and the United States left-wing governments deliberately curbed drilling and non-Russian pipelines. They shut down nuclear power plants and subsidized costly, inefficient solar and wind projects. They ended up not with utopia, but with fuel shortages, high prices, and energy dependency on the world’s most repressive regimes.
The woke revolution in the West was supposed to teach us that the “white male”-dominated Western world is toxic. Its origins, ascendence, and current leisure and affluence were supposedly due only to systemic exploitation, racism, and sexism.
Elites introduced cancel culture, doxxing, deplatforming, and social ostracism to shame these supposed exploiters and to destroy their lives and careers.
Few asked how a supposedly noxious West of some 2,500 years duration became the number one destination of millions of global non-Western migrants and offered the greatest degree of global prosperity and freedom for its citizens.
So a reset reckoning is coming—in reaction to the “new orders” championed by Biden and the Davos set.
In the November 2022 midterms, we are likely to see a historic “No!” to the orthodox left-wing agenda that has resulted in unsustainable inflation, unaffordable energy, war, and humiliation abroad, spiraling crime, racial hostility—as well as arrogant defiance from those who deliberately enacted these disastrous policies.
What will replace it is a return to what until recently had worked.
Closed and secure borders with only legal and measured immigration will return. Americans will demand tough police enforcement and deterrent sentencing, and a return to integration and the primacy of individual character rather than separatist fixations on the “color of our skin.”
The public will continue to tune out of the partisan and mediocre “mainstream” media. We will see greater increased production of oil and natural gas to transition us slowly to a wider variety of energy, strong national defense, and deterrent foreign policies.
The prophets of the new world order sowed the wind and they will soon reap the whirlwind of an angry public worn out by elite incompetence, arrogance, and ignorance.
The great American historian Charles Beard recognized what was wrong with “collective security” in the 1930s. In his article, “Giddy Minds and Foreign Quarrels,” he asked: “On what … should the foreign policy of the United States be based? Here is one answer and it is not excogitated in any professor’s study or supplied by political agitators. It is the doctrine formulated by George Washington, supplemented by James Monroe, and followed by the Government of the United States until near the end of the nineteenth century, when the frenzy for foreign adventurism burst upon the country. This doctrine is simple. Europe has a set of ‘primary interests’ which have little or no relation to us, and is constantly vexed by ‘ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice.’ The United States is a continental power separated from Europe by a wide ocean which, despite all changes in warfare, is still a powerful asset of defense. In the ordinary or regular vicissitudes of European politics the United States should not become implicated by any permanent ties. We should promote commerce, but force ‘nothing.’ We should steer dear of hates and loves. We should maintain correct and formal relations with all established governments without respect to their forms or their religions, whether Christian, Mohammedan, Shinto, or what have you.”
Beard then responded to those who wanted to scrap our traditional policy of non-intervention with “collective security”: “In the rest of the world, outside this hemisphere, our interests are remote and our power to enforce our will is relatively slight. Nothing we can do for Europeans will substantially increase our trade or add to our, or their, well-being. Nothing we can do for Asiatics will materially increase our trade or add to our, or their, well-being. With all countries in Europe and Asia, our relations should be formal and correct. As individuals we may indulge in hate and love, but the Government of the United States embarks on stormy seas when it begins to love one power and hate another officially.”
Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom Revisited
Charles Pigden
Conspiracy theories should be neither believed nor investigated - that is the conventional wisdom. I argue that it is sometimes permissible both to investigate and to believe. Hence this is a dispute in the ethics of belief. I defend epistemic ‘oughts’ that apply in the first instance to belief-forming strategies that are partly under our control. I argue that the policy of systematically doubting or disbelieving conspiracy theories would be both a political disaster and the epistemic equivalent of self-mutilation, since it leads to the conclusion that history is bunk and the nightly news unbelievable. In fact (of course) the policy is not employed systematically but is only wheeled on to do down theories that the speaker happens to dislike. I develop a deductive argument from hard-to-deny premises that if you are not a ‘conspiracy theorist’ in my anodyne sense of the word then you are an ‘idiot’ in the Greek sense of the word, that is, someone so politically purblind as to have no opinions about either history or public affairs. The conventional wisdom can only be saved (if at all) if ‘conspiracy theory’ is given a slanted definition. I discuss some slanted definitions apparently presupposed by proponents of the conventional wisdom (including, amongst others, Tony Blair) and conclude that even with these definitions the conventional wisdom comes out as deeply unwise. I finish up with a little harmless fun at the expense of David Aaronvitch whose abilities as a rhetorician and a popular historian are not perhaps matched by a corresponding capacity for logical thought.
[...]
Thus my dispute with the conventional wisdom is a debate about the ethics of belief. It is common ground in this debate that it makes sense to say that we ought to believe something (that believing it is right or rationally required), or that we ought not to believe it (that believing it is wrong, a sort of crime against reason). It also makes sense to say that we are entitled to believe something (since believing it is permissible). Furthermore, all these claims can aspire to truth - though whether they are actually true is another matter.
"What the conventional wisdom demands is not so much that we disbelieve this conspiracy
theory or that, but that we adopt the intellectual habit of discounting, dismissing and disbelieving conspiracy theories generally (indeed of ‘dissing’ them altogether).Rather than running around trying to evaluate the evidence, the sensible strategy when confronted with conspiracy theories is to shut our eyes to their intellectual charms."-- Pigden
Why the consensus of scientist in favor of human behavior as the cause of "Climate Change/Global Warming" -- What the psychology of conspiracy theory seems to have missed:
Group Behavior
Peer pressure – Going along to get along – Obedience to authority – Fear for reputation – Fear of loss of job – Bandwagon effect – Quest to be popular – Conformity – Herd instinct – gregariousness
The bandwagon effect is the term used to describe the tendency for people to adopt certain behaviors, styles, or attitudes simply because others are doing so. More specifically, it is a cognitive bias by which public opinion or behaviors can alter due to particular actions and beliefs rallying amongst the public
Conformity is the act of matching attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors to group norms, politics or being like-minded. Norms are implicit, specific rules, shared by a group of individuals, that guide their interactions with others.
Herd behavior is the behavior of individuals in a group acting collectively without centralized direction. Herd behavior occurs in animals in herds, packs, bird flocks, fish schools and so on, as well as in humans.
Of course these factors can be applied to almost all issues addressed by the psychology of conspiracy theory.
"There is in Italy a power which we seldom mention in this House . . . I mean the secret societies. . . . It is useless to deny, because it is impossible to conceal, that a great. Part of Europe--the whole of Italy and France and a great portion of Germany, to say nothing of other countries--is covered with a network of those secret societies, just as the superficies of the earth is now being covered with railroads. And what are their objects? They do not attempt to conceal them. They do not want constitutional government: they do not want ameliorated institutions . . . they want to change the tenure of land, to drive out the present owners of the soil and to put an end to ecclesiastical establishments. Some of them may go further. . ."
(DISRAELI in the House of Commons, July 14, 1856.)
Title: Ideological Origins of the American Revolution
Author: Bernard Bailyn
Year: 1967
Categories: Intellectual History, Revolutionary War, Political History
Place: American Colonies
Time Period: 1640s-1776
Argument Synopsis
Bernard Bailyn traces an intellectual history of the ideology that led up to the American Revolution (rather than a social or economic history) primarily through an examination of political pamphlets. He points to various strands of intellectual legacies (classical antiquity, Enlightenment rationalism, English common law, New England Puritans), but for him the most important was a strain of anti-authoritarian, Whig opposition political thought that originally stemmed from the period of the English Civil War and resulting Commonwealth in the 1640s-1650s. This "country" ideology was taken up two generations later in the 1720s and 1730s by opposition politicians, exemplified by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, who resisted what they saw as the encroachment on Parliamentary authority by royal ministers embodied by Sir Robert Walpole. Some dominant themes of this ideology included the corruption of politics that led to a conspiracy against the balance of government.
This ideological grounding centered on the fundamental broader struggle between Power vs. Liberty, which were in a constant state of opposition throughout history. Later American colonists increasingly saw their own struggles with England as fitting within this grander historical narrative and that they were the last, best bastions of hope for defending a uniquely English tradition of liberty. Bailyn argues that this ideological legacy set up a deep mental framework or intellectual prism through which colonists interpreted all current actions. From this vantage point, events such as Britain stationing troops in Boston in 1768 took on huge intellectual meaning in the form of a deliberate conspiracy and assault on their liberty. This ideology was how they interpreted the world, which leads to a kind of intellectual determinism (they were going to see everything in a conspiratorial light).
Colonists then faced the challenge of adapting/transforming this legacy to fit their circumstances. They did so in three areas. First, through representation and taxation, colonists challenged the idea of virtual representation, a challenge that Bailyn says originated from their long-standing experience of decentralized local autonomy. Second, they had to reconfigure an older idea of the constitution, moving away from an abstract system of how a society was ordered to one that specifically placed limits and boundaries on different spheres of government. Finally, they had to make the most radical departure with the idea of sovereignty. This posed the greatest challenge for colonists, as they had to overturn a longstanding orthodoxy about the absolute and final authority of Parliament and move towards the idea of imperium in imperio, or having separate spheres - for example, the growing idea of "internal" vs. "external" taxation. Once again, this stemmed from the on-the-ground experience of colonists with local autonomy and governance.
Finally, all of these strands "spilled over" into other areas slavery, religion, democracy, and equality. In the realm of democracy, they feared the mob from below and moved to reconfigure the idea of a constitution from one that centered on social ordering to one that centered on pragmatic realism of how people organized themselves (factions, parties, etc.). In the realm of equality, it was deeply unsettling to people that everyone was equal under the law: if that was the case, what to make of the fact that some people were inherently superior to others?
Is there a place for moral relativity on the US Supreme Court?
Stu Cvrk
The legacy media trumpeted by President Joe Biden’s nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court were beside themselves while gushing about her “historic nomination.”
Let us examine whether Jackson’s values comport with those of the average American.
She checked the blocks needed to make her a well-qualified nominee, according to the secularist American Bar Association. Judicial philosophy, including considerations of basic moral values intertwined with many legal statutes, has given way to revised ABA core goals that include “Eliminate Bias and Enhance Diversity” and “Advance the Rule of Law,” as noted on the ABA website.
The very concept of “diversity” is intentionally divisive, while “advancing the rule of law” masks judicial activism under the concept of using “precedent” in making decisions.
The consideration of morality has given way to “promoting ethical conduct”—as if somehow morality does not inform ethics. How can the judicial philosophy of a judge truly be determined without consideration of moral values? How can a judge be truly evaluated without examining the moral element in a particular judge’s record?
The United States was formed as the pinnacle of Western civilization with a Constitution and body of laws informed and shaped by centuries of political and religious-philosophical analysis. The United States grew and evolved exclusively from Judeo-Christian roots, and so did its federal system of laws and the courts. All other religions have had a negligible impact on the development of traditional American institutions and government entities from 1781 to the present.
Over the last 80 or so years, Americans have been “convinced” by secularists, such as those at the American Civil Liberties Union, that Judeo-Christian values have no play in modern America, whether in the courtroom or Congress, or the public square. Nobody in the federal government raises the subject of God or moral values anymore except to try to fool voters into thinking that the speaker is actually a God-fearing and moral person. The ABA is right there with the rest of the secularists in that respect!
But that is not the way the Founding Fathers saw it. On the contrary, references to God and the Divine are thoroughly infused in their political and personal writings. The Constitution they wrote, the government they formed, the institutions they established, and the laws they wrote were meant for moral people, as defined by those Judeo-Christian principles.
You don’t believe me? Then it would help if you read: “The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States” by Benjamin Morris. It was written in 1864 and will amaze when compared to what Americans have been taught about their institutions by secularists in recent years.
Christian concepts and principles infused American institutions, including the law and our courts, from the beginning of the Republic. Individual morality mattered to the Founders! Why else were witnesses required to “swear on the Bible” to tell the truth before testifying in a court of law?
During two days of testimony, which began on March 21, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, several clues about Jackson’s judicial philosophy and underlying morality were elucidated under questioning by Republican senators.
In response to questions from Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Jackson described her decision-making process in making rulings during court cases. This included her listening to the arguments of both sides in a given case as equals under the law, using her discretion under federal sentencing guidelines to assign punishment for the convicted, and displaying empathy for victims and the accused/convicted in apparently equal proportion, including during sentencing.
The latter is very troubling, as there is a world of difference between a child victim of a sex crime (including child pornography) and the convicted perpetrator of that crime. The sentencing process is not about determining guilt or innocence; that has already been accomplished.
The moral gap between the victim and the convicted cannot be bridged by a display of empathy by a judge during sentencing. Showing empathy to the convicted is not even a legal concept under the law. It would appear that Jackson does not understand—or chooses to ignore—basic concepts of Judeo-Christian morality that inform the very laws that she is supposed to endorse as a federal judge.
Jackson declared that mandatory minimums for sex offenders targeting children are “excessively severe and might be applied inconsistently.”
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are still refusing to release Jackson’s records when she was a member of that commission, which is a red flag that credible information in those files would be highly damaging to the nominee.
That rationale, plus her empathy for the convicted, is astounding. Then, her sentencing pattern for convicted pedophiles is this: a tongue-lashing plus the lightest sentence under the sentencing guidelines. Contrary to the White House’s claims, these are not the “mainstream values” of traditional Americans.
Another of Jackson’s answers under Republican questioning was equally troubling. She refused to define the term “woman”—or even acknowledge the physical differences between men and women—by claiming she was not aware of the context of the term used in a particular case of hers that was under discussion.
Jackson’s testimony conveys her unstated judicial philosophy, at the core of which is moral relativity. She seems to put victims and convicted pedophiles (and others) on the same moral plane, jumps over backward to convey empathy to those convicted of crimes against children (as if the victims and the convicted are on the same moral plane), and refuses to convey traditional definitions of words in favor of ideological “elasticity” in future service of left-wing activism through the law and “extreme radicalism,” as pointed out by the New York Post
J. Leroy Hulsey Prof of Structural Engineering at University of Alaska Fairbanks Alaska.
Experience
Alignment Systems, Inc.
29 years
◦ Owner
1993 - Present29 years
Software development; development of advanced structural composite systems; Design of bridges; buildings and complex structures such as water slides; etc. Dr. Hulsey also provides consulting services for those requiring Forensic engineering; instrumentation and monitoring.
◦ President
Jan 2002 - Jun 201311 years 6 months
620 Cambridge Drive
Forensic Engineering; Instrumentation and testing; numerical modeling; and expert witness.
•
Associate Director of the Alaska University Transportation Center & Prof of Structural Engineering
University of Alaska Fairbanks
1987 - Present35 years
Fairbanks, Alaska
Bridges; advanced composites; instrumentation; Structural Health Monitoring and Forensic engineering for complex structures.
Education
University of Missouri-Rolla
PhD Structural Engineering
1972 - 1976
Activities and Societies: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE); Transportation Research Board (TRB)
Ukraine Exposed, What's Really Going On?
It's far more complex than most imagine, and it's global. In a recent update, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists reported the world is 'at doom's doorstep' with a civilization-ending apocalypse imminent. The moment is both perilous and unsustainable, and the time to act is now.
Ukraine’s rich land has historically been used as a pathway for Western powers as they attempted to conquer the East
As a result, Ukraine, being surrounded by greater powers on all sides, had to master the art of changing sides
The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), founded in 1929, had the ultimate goal of creating an ethnically pure, independent Ukraine
U.S. intelligence agencies kept watch on Ukrainian nationalist organizations as a source of counterintelligence against the Soviet Union; declassified CIA documents show close ties between U.S. intelligence and Ukrainian nationalists since 1946
U.S. meddling during the Maidan Revolution encouraged demonstrators to overthrow Ukraine’s democratically elected government
A leaked phone call, intercepted by Russian intelligence, between Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs, and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffey Pyatt openly discussed their plan for a new Ukraine government.
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/03/26/ukraine-on-fire.aspx
\\][//
Biden Casually Says Food Shortage "Going To Be Real" As Necessary "Price" Of Anti-Russia Sanctions
"The price of the sanctions is not just imposed upon Russia. It’s imposed upon an awful lot of countries as well, including European countries...
And The Federalist's Sean Davis aptly summarizes where things stand...
"We’re about to face massive energy and food shortages, and Biden’s solution is to ban drilling and put expensive and inefficient solar panels and windmills on what’s left of American farmland that hasn’t been bought up by China or BlackRock," he wrote on Twitter.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/nato-issues-full-statement-laying-out-defense-readiness-against-russia-calls-out-china
Isn't it obvious that this is a set-up, just like everything since the so-called "pandemic" hit the world. This is the Davos agenda to bring the "The Great Reset" in motion.
\\][//
President Joe Biden believes the Ukraine war will mark the start of a “new world order.” In the middle of the COVID global pandemic, Klaus Schwab and global elites likewise announced a “great reset.”
Accordingly, the nations of the world would have to surrender their sovereignty to an international body of experts. They would enlighten us on taxes, diversity, and green policies.
When former President Donald Trump got elected in 2016, marquee journalists announced partisan reporting would have to displace the old, supposedly disinterested approach to the news.
There is a common theme here.
In normal times progressives worry that they do not have public support for their policies. Only in crises do they feel that the political Left and media can merge to use apocalyptic times to ram through usually unpopular approaches to foreign and domestic problems.
We saw that last year: fleeing from Afghanistan, the embrace of critical race theory, trying to end the filibuster, pack the court, junk the Electoral College, and nationalize voting laws.
These “new orders” and “resets” always entail far bigger government and more unelected, powerful bureaucracies. Elites assume that their radical changes in energy use, media reporting, voting, sovereignty, and racial and ethnic quotas will never quite apply to themselves, the architects of such top-down changes.
So we common folk must quit fossil fuels, but not those who need to use corporate jets. Walls will not mar our borders but will protect the homes of Nancy Pelosi, Mark Zuckerberg, and Bill Gates.
Hunter Biden’s lost laptop will be declared, by fiat, not news. In contrast, the fake Alfa Bank “collusion” narrative will be national headline news for weeks.
Middle class lifestyles will be curbed as we are instructed to strive for sustainability and transition to apartment living and mass transit. But the Obamas will still keep their three mansions, and Silicon Valley futurists will insist on exemptions for their yachts.
In truth, we are about to see a radical reset—of the current reset. It will be a different sort of transformation than the elites are expecting and one that they should greatly fear.
The world and the United States are furious over hyperinflation that may soon exceed 10 percent per year. We will be lucky if it ends only in recession or stagflation, rather than a global depression.
The mess was created by the same apparat who bought into “modern monetary theory.” That silly university idea claimed prosperity would follow vastly expanding the money supply, keeping interest rates at de facto zero levels, running huge annual deficits, piling up unsustainable national debt, and subsidizing workers to stay home.
Natural gas and oil costs are now soaring to unsustainable levels—and to the point where the middle class simply will not be able to travel, keep warm in winter, or cool in summer.
Both in Europe and the United States left-wing governments deliberately curbed drilling and non-Russian pipelines. They shut down nuclear power plants and subsidized costly, inefficient solar and wind projects. They ended up not with utopia, but with fuel shortages, high prices, and energy dependency on the world’s most repressive regimes.
The woke revolution in the West was supposed to teach us that the “white male”-dominated Western world is toxic. Its origins, ascendence, and current leisure and affluence were supposedly due only to systemic exploitation, racism, and sexism.
Elites introduced cancel culture, doxxing, deplatforming, and social ostracism to shame these supposed exploiters and to destroy their lives and careers.
Few asked how a supposedly noxious West of some 2,500 years duration became the number one destination of millions of global non-Western migrants and offered the greatest degree of global prosperity and freedom for its citizens.
So a reset reckoning is coming—in reaction to the “new orders” championed by Biden and the Davos set.
In the November 2022 midterms, we are likely to see a historic “No!” to the orthodox left-wing agenda that has resulted in unsustainable inflation, unaffordable energy, war, and humiliation abroad, spiraling crime, racial hostility—as well as arrogant defiance from those who deliberately enacted these disastrous policies.
What will replace it is a return to what until recently had worked.
Closed and secure borders with only legal and measured immigration will return. Americans will demand tough police enforcement and deterrent sentencing, and a return to integration and the primacy of individual character rather than separatist fixations on the “color of our skin.”
The public will continue to tune out of the partisan and mediocre “mainstream” media. We will see greater increased production of oil and natural gas to transition us slowly to a wider variety of energy, strong national defense, and deterrent foreign policies.
The prophets of the new world order sowed the wind and they will soon reap the whirlwind of an angry public worn out by elite incompetence, arrogance, and ignorance.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-real-reset-is-coming_4359506.html
\\][//
Trilateral Meeting with Ukraine, Poland and the United States Regional Collaboration on Biological Security, Safety and Surveillance
03 Oct 2016 - 04 Oct 2016
On 3-4 October, 2016 a Trilateral Meeting with representatives of Ukraine, Poland and the United States entitled, “Regional Collaboration on Biological Security, Safety and Surveillance” took place in Lviv, Ukraine. Each delegation contained government officers and scientific experts who discussed regional (Ukraine and Poland) cooperation in the area of surveillance and prevention of especially dangerous infectious diseases including: zoonotic diseases in Ukraine and neighboring countries. The delegation of Ukraine included the representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Mr. O. Kapustin), Ministry of Health (Dr. N. Vydaiko), Ministry of Defense (Mr. M. Usatyi) and State Service of Ukraine on Food Safety and Consumer Protection (Mr. M. Bilous). Scientific experts from the Institute of Laboratory Diagnostics and Veterinary-Sanitary Expertise (Kyiv) and Lviv Institute of Epidemiology and Hygiene also took an active part in the discussion. The delegation of Poland was led by the Chief of Veterinary Officer of Poland (Mr. W. Skorupski) and contained a number of scientific experts from the National Veterinary Research Institute (Pulawy, Poland). The United States delegation included representatives of the US Department of Defense (Mr. K. Garrett, Mr. G. Braunstein, Mr. W. Sosnowski, Mrs. J. Wintrol, etc.) and representatives of Black and Veatch and Metabiota Corporations (Mr. D. Mustra, Dr. M. Guttieri, Mr. S. Anderson, Mr. T. Borth, etc.). The STCU was represented by the Executive Director Mr. Curtis Bjelajac and Senior Specialist Dr. V. Pashynska.
The meeting focused on existing frameworks, regulatory coordination, and on-going cooperative projects in research, surveillance and diagnostics of a number of dangerous zoonotic diseases such as avian influenza, leptospirosis, Crimea Congo hemorrhagic fever, brucellosis, etc.. A special session was devoted to the current situation with the increase in cases of African Swine Fever (ASF) in both Ukraine and Poland. The delegates discussed countermeasures and possible cooperation between Ukrainian and Polish veterinary services and specialists in order to develop more effective approaches to eradicate and control the spread of ASF in Ukraine, Poland, and other European countries.
http://www.stcu.int/news/index.php?id=454
\\][//
Hunter Biden's Laptop from Hell with Jack Maxey - Is It the End of the NWO?
Ann Vandersteel interviewed an explosive Jack Maxey a few days ago about Hunter Biden’s laptop. He spoke to her from Switzerland, where he’s now staying for his safety. The interview begins about five and a half minutes into the video.
https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/hunter-bidens-laptop-from-hell-with-jack-maxey-is-it-the-end-of-the-nwo/
https://youtu.be/jgGz0nn7TK8?t=1
\\][//
Why a Woman Can Have a Penis: Gender Identity Myths Explained
BY KATHARINE JENKINS ON 8/28/18 AT 12:20 PM EDT
NEWSWEEK (WEAKNEWS}
Members of a small women's rights group, Liverpool ReSisters, have declared that "women don't have penises." They seem to be very confident of this point, having gone as far as to paste stickers claiming as much onto the genital areas of some of the statues that make up Anthony Gormley's artwork Another Place on Crosby Beach near Liverpool. It's an attention-grabbing stunt. But are they right? Well, it depends on what they mean by "women."
That claim might sound strange. We might think that it's obvious what "woman" means. And that's partly because there's a myth about men and women that has a had a firm grip on our society for a long time. It goes like this:
There are exactly two kinds of people. One kind, men, have a penis, testes, and XY chromosomes, and the other kind, women, have a vulva, uterus, breasts, and XX chromosomes. Everyone is one or the other. Men and women have different character traits that follow naturally from their different bodies, and therefore are suited to different social roles.
Over the last half-century or so, we have learned that hardly anything about this myth is true.
https://www.newsweek.com/can-woman-have-penis-gender-identity-myths-explained-1093051
So there we have it:
It is official according to NEWSWEEK Magazine that scientific genetic truth is now "wrong". What has been known since the beginning of human knowledge, that there are men, distinguished as such by having a penis, and that there are women, distinguished by their
vulva, uterus, breasts, and the ability to bear children.
\\][//
President Joe Biden believes the Ukraine war will mark the start of a “new world order.” In the middle of the COVID global pandemic, Klaus Schwab and global elites likewise announced a “great reset.”
Accordingly, the nations of the world would have to surrender their sovereignty to an international body of experts. They would enlighten us on taxes, diversity, and green policies.
When former President Donald Trump got elected in 2016, marquee journalists announced partisan reporting would have to displace the old, supposedly disinterested approach to the news.
There is a common theme here.
In normal times progressives worry that they do not have public support for their policies. Only in crises do they feel that the political Left and media can merge to use apocalyptic times to ram through usually unpopular approaches to foreign and domestic problems.
We saw that last year: fleeing from Afghanistan, the embrace of critical race theory, trying to end the filibuster, pack the court, junk the Electoral College, and nationalize voting laws.
These “new orders” and “resets” always entail far bigger government and more unelected, powerful bureaucracies. Elites assume that their radical changes in energy use, media reporting, voting, sovereignty, and racial and ethnic quotas will never quite apply to themselves, the architects of such top-down changes.
So we common folk must quit fossil fuels, but not those who need to use corporate jets. Walls will not mar our borders but will protect the homes of Nancy Pelosi, Mark Zuckerberg, and Bill Gates.
Hunter Biden’s lost laptop will be declared, by fiat, not news. In contrast, the fake Alfa Bank “collusion” narrative will be national headline news for weeks.
Middle class lifestyles will be curbed as we are instructed to strive for sustainability and transition to apartment living and mass transit. But the Obamas will still keep their three mansions, and Silicon Valley futurists will insist on exemptions for their yachts.
In truth, we are about to see a radical reset—of the current reset. It will be a different sort of transformation than the elites are expecting and one that they should greatly fear.
The world and the United States are furious over hyperinflation that may soon exceed 10 percent per year. We will be lucky if it ends only in recession or stagflation, rather than a global depression.
The mess was created by the same apparat who bought into “modern monetary theory.” That silly university idea claimed prosperity would follow vastly expanding the money supply, keeping interest rates at de facto zero levels, running huge annual deficits, piling up unsustainable national debt, and subsidizing workers to stay home.
Natural gas and oil costs are now soaring to unsustainable levels—and to the point where the middle class simply will not be able to travel, keep warm in winter, or cool in summer.
Both in Europe and the United States left-wing governments deliberately curbed drilling and non-Russian pipelines. They shut down nuclear power plants and subsidized costly, inefficient solar and wind projects. They ended up not with utopia, but with fuel shortages, high prices, and energy dependency on the world’s most repressive regimes.
The woke revolution in the West was supposed to teach us that the “white male”-dominated Western world is toxic. Its origins, ascendence, and current leisure and affluence were supposedly due only to systemic exploitation, racism, and sexism.
Elites introduced cancel culture, doxxing, deplatforming, and social ostracism to shame these supposed exploiters and to destroy their lives and careers.
Few asked how a supposedly noxious West of some 2,500 years duration became the number one destination of millions of global non-Western migrants and offered the greatest degree of global prosperity and freedom for its citizens.
So a reset reckoning is coming—in reaction to the “new orders” championed by Biden and the Davos set.
In the November 2022 midterms, we are likely to see a historic “No!” to the orthodox left-wing agenda that has resulted in unsustainable inflation, unaffordable energy, war, and humiliation abroad, spiraling crime, racial hostility—as well as arrogant defiance from those who deliberately enacted these disastrous policies.
What will replace it is a return to what until recently had worked.
Closed and secure borders with only legal and measured immigration will return. Americans will demand tough police enforcement and deterrent sentencing, and a return to integration and the primacy of individual character rather than separatist fixations on the “color of our skin.”
The public will continue to tune out of the partisan and mediocre “mainstream” media. We will see greater increased production of oil and natural gas to transition us slowly to a wider variety of energy, strong national defense, and deterrent foreign policies.
The prophets of the new world order sowed the wind and they will soon reap the whirlwind of an angry public worn out by elite incompetence, arrogance, and ignorance.
--Victor Davis Hanson | March 24, 2022
https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-real-reset-is-coming_4359506.html
\\][//
https://youtu.be/BgxQcQdVYC4?t=2
Hunter Biden laptop repairman reacts to latest developments
\\][//
The great American historian Charles Beard recognized what was wrong with “collective security” in the 1930s. In his article, “Giddy Minds and Foreign Quarrels,” he asked: “On what … should the foreign policy of the United States be based? Here is one answer and it is not excogitated in any professor’s study or supplied by political agitators. It is the doctrine formulated by George Washington, supplemented by James Monroe, and followed by the Government of the United States until near the end of the nineteenth century, when the frenzy for foreign adventurism burst upon the country. This doctrine is simple. Europe has a set of ‘primary interests’ which have little or no relation to us, and is constantly vexed by ‘ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice.’ The United States is a continental power separated from Europe by a wide ocean which, despite all changes in warfare, is still a powerful asset of defense. In the ordinary or regular vicissitudes of European politics the United States should not become implicated by any permanent ties. We should promote commerce, but force ‘nothing.’ We should steer dear of hates and loves. We should maintain correct and formal relations with all established governments without respect to their forms or their religions, whether Christian, Mohammedan, Shinto, or what have you.”
Beard then responded to those who wanted to scrap our traditional policy of non-intervention with “collective security”: “In the rest of the world, outside this hemisphere, our interests are remote and our power to enforce our will is relatively slight. Nothing we can do for Europeans will substantially increase our trade or add to our, or their, well-being. Nothing we can do for Asiatics will materially increase our trade or add to our, or their, well-being. With all countries in Europe and Asia, our relations should be formal and correct. As individuals we may indulge in hate and love, but the Government of the United States embarks on stormy seas when it begins to love one power and hate another officially.”
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/giddy-minds-and-foreign-quarrels/
https://www.theepochtimes.com/a-manufactured-world-crisis_4374739.html
\\][//
Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom Revisited
Charles Pigden
Conspiracy theories should be neither believed nor investigated - that is the conventional wisdom. I argue that it is sometimes permissible both to investigate and to believe. Hence this is a dispute in the ethics of belief. I defend epistemic ‘oughts’ that apply in the first instance to belief-forming strategies that are partly under our control. I argue that the policy of systematically doubting or disbelieving conspiracy theories would be both a political disaster and the epistemic equivalent of self-mutilation, since it leads to the conclusion that history is bunk and the nightly news unbelievable. In fact (of course) the policy is not employed systematically but is only wheeled on to do down theories that the speaker happens to dislike. I develop a deductive argument from hard-to-deny premises that if you are not a ‘conspiracy theorist’ in my anodyne sense of the word then you are an ‘idiot’ in the Greek sense of the word, that is, someone so politically purblind as to have no opinions about either history or public affairs. The conventional wisdom can only be saved (if at all) if ‘conspiracy theory’ is given a slanted definition. I discuss some slanted definitions apparently presupposed by proponents of the conventional wisdom (including, amongst others, Tony Blair) and conclude that even with these definitions the conventional wisdom comes out as deeply unwise. I finish up with a little harmless fun at the expense of David Aaronvitch whose abilities as a rhetorician and a popular historian are not perhaps matched by a corresponding capacity for logical thought.
[...]
Thus my dispute with the conventional wisdom is a debate about the ethics of belief. It is common ground in this debate that it makes sense to say that we ought to believe something (that believing it is right or rationally required), or that we ought not to believe it (that believing it is wrong, a sort of crime against reason). It also makes sense to say that we are entitled to believe something (since believing it is permissible). Furthermore, all these claims can aspire to truth - though whether they are actually true is another matter.
https://philpapers.org/rec/PIGCTA-2
https://philpapers.org/archive/PIGCTA-2.pdf
"What the conventional wisdom demands is not so much that we disbelieve this conspiracy
theory or that, but that we adopt the intellectual habit of discounting, dismissing and disbelieving conspiracy theories generally (indeed of ‘dissing’ them altogether).Rather than running around trying to evaluate the evidence, the sensible strategy when confronted with conspiracy theories is to shut our eyes to their intellectual charms."-- Pigden
\\][//
Why the consensus of scientist in favor of human behavior as the cause of "Climate Change/Global Warming" -- What the psychology of conspiracy theory seems to have missed:
Group Behavior
Peer pressure – Going along to get along – Obedience to authority – Fear for reputation – Fear of loss of job – Bandwagon effect – Quest to be popular – Conformity – Herd instinct – gregariousness
The bandwagon effect is the term used to describe the tendency for people to adopt certain behaviors, styles, or attitudes simply because others are doing so. More specifically, it is a cognitive bias by which public opinion or behaviors can alter due to particular actions and beliefs rallying amongst the public
Conformity is the act of matching attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors to group norms, politics or being like-minded. Norms are implicit, specific rules, shared by a group of individuals, that guide their interactions with others.
Herd behavior is the behavior of individuals in a group acting collectively without centralized direction. Herd behavior occurs in animals in herds, packs, bird flocks, fish schools and so on, as well as in humans.
Of course these factors can be applied to almost all issues addressed by the psychology of conspiracy theory.
\\][//
"There is in Italy a power which we seldom mention in this House . . . I mean the secret societies. . . . It is useless to deny, because it is impossible to conceal, that a great. Part of Europe--the whole of Italy and France and a great portion of Germany, to say nothing of other countries--is covered with a network of those secret societies, just as the superficies of the earth is now being covered with railroads. And what are their objects? They do not attempt to conceal them. They do not want constitutional government: they do not want ameliorated institutions . . . they want to change the tenure of land, to drive out the present owners of the soil and to put an end to ecclesiastical establishments. Some of them may go further. . ."
(DISRAELI in the House of Commons, July 14, 1856.)
\\][//
Title: Ideological Origins of the American Revolution
Author: Bernard Bailyn
Year: 1967
Categories: Intellectual History, Revolutionary War, Political History
Place: American Colonies
Time Period: 1640s-1776
Argument Synopsis
Bernard Bailyn traces an intellectual history of the ideology that led up to the American Revolution (rather than a social or economic history) primarily through an examination of political pamphlets. He points to various strands of intellectual legacies (classical antiquity, Enlightenment rationalism, English common law, New England Puritans), but for him the most important was a strain of anti-authoritarian, Whig opposition political thought that originally stemmed from the period of the English Civil War and resulting Commonwealth in the 1640s-1650s. This "country" ideology was taken up two generations later in the 1720s and 1730s by opposition politicians, exemplified by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, who resisted what they saw as the encroachment on Parliamentary authority by royal ministers embodied by Sir Robert Walpole. Some dominant themes of this ideology included the corruption of politics that led to a conspiracy against the balance of government.
This ideological grounding centered on the fundamental broader struggle between Power vs. Liberty, which were in a constant state of opposition throughout history. Later American colonists increasingly saw their own struggles with England as fitting within this grander historical narrative and that they were the last, best bastions of hope for defending a uniquely English tradition of liberty. Bailyn argues that this ideological legacy set up a deep mental framework or intellectual prism through which colonists interpreted all current actions. From this vantage point, events such as Britain stationing troops in Boston in 1768 took on huge intellectual meaning in the form of a deliberate conspiracy and assault on their liberty. This ideology was how they interpreted the world, which leads to a kind of intellectual determinism (they were going to see everything in a conspiratorial light).
Colonists then faced the challenge of adapting/transforming this legacy to fit their circumstances. They did so in three areas. First, through representation and taxation, colonists challenged the idea of virtual representation, a challenge that Bailyn says originated from their long-standing experience of decentralized local autonomy. Second, they had to reconfigure an older idea of the constitution, moving away from an abstract system of how a society was ordered to one that specifically placed limits and boundaries on different spheres of government. Finally, they had to make the most radical departure with the idea of sovereignty. This posed the greatest challenge for colonists, as they had to overturn a longstanding orthodoxy about the absolute and final authority of Parliament and move towards the idea of imperium in imperio, or having separate spheres - for example, the growing idea of "internal" vs. "external" taxation. Once again, this stemmed from the on-the-ground experience of colonists with local autonomy and governance.
Finally, all of these strands "spilled over" into other areas slavery, religion, democracy, and equality. In the realm of democracy, they feared the mob from below and moved to reconfigure the idea of a constitution from one that centered on social ordering to one that centered on pragmatic realism of how people organized themselves (factions, parties, etc.). In the realm of equality, it was deeply unsettling to people that everyone was equal under the law: if that was the case, what to make of the fact that some people were inherently superior to others?
http://cameronblevins.org/cblevins/Quals/BookSummaries/Bailyn_TheIdeologicalOriginsoftheAmericanRevolution.html
\\][//
Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Judicial Philosophy
Is there a place for moral relativity on the US Supreme Court?
Stu Cvrk
The legacy media trumpeted by President Joe Biden’s nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court were beside themselves while gushing about her “historic nomination.”
Let us examine whether Jackson’s values comport with those of the average American.
She checked the blocks needed to make her a well-qualified nominee, according to the secularist American Bar Association. Judicial philosophy, including considerations of basic moral values intertwined with many legal statutes, has given way to revised ABA core goals that include “Eliminate Bias and Enhance Diversity” and “Advance the Rule of Law,” as noted on the ABA website.
The very concept of “diversity” is intentionally divisive, while “advancing the rule of law” masks judicial activism under the concept of using “precedent” in making decisions.
The consideration of morality has given way to “promoting ethical conduct”—as if somehow morality does not inform ethics. How can the judicial philosophy of a judge truly be determined without consideration of moral values? How can a judge be truly evaluated without examining the moral element in a particular judge’s record?
The United States was formed as the pinnacle of Western civilization with a Constitution and body of laws informed and shaped by centuries of political and religious-philosophical analysis. The United States grew and evolved exclusively from Judeo-Christian roots, and so did its federal system of laws and the courts. All other religions have had a negligible impact on the development of traditional American institutions and government entities from 1781 to the present.
Over the last 80 or so years, Americans have been “convinced” by secularists, such as those at the American Civil Liberties Union, that Judeo-Christian values have no play in modern America, whether in the courtroom or Congress, or the public square. Nobody in the federal government raises the subject of God or moral values anymore except to try to fool voters into thinking that the speaker is actually a God-fearing and moral person. The ABA is right there with the rest of the secularists in that respect!
But that is not the way the Founding Fathers saw it. On the contrary, references to God and the Divine are thoroughly infused in their political and personal writings. The Constitution they wrote, the government they formed, the institutions they established, and the laws they wrote were meant for moral people, as defined by those Judeo-Christian principles.
You don’t believe me? Then it would help if you read: “The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States” by Benjamin Morris. It was written in 1864 and will amaze when compared to what Americans have been taught about their institutions by secularists in recent years.
Christian concepts and principles infused American institutions, including the law and our courts, from the beginning of the Republic. Individual morality mattered to the Founders! Why else were witnesses required to “swear on the Bible” to tell the truth before testifying in a court of law?
During two days of testimony, which began on March 21, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, several clues about Jackson’s judicial philosophy and underlying morality were elucidated under questioning by Republican senators.
In response to questions from Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Jackson described her decision-making process in making rulings during court cases. This included her listening to the arguments of both sides in a given case as equals under the law, using her discretion under federal sentencing guidelines to assign punishment for the convicted, and displaying empathy for victims and the accused/convicted in apparently equal proportion, including during sentencing.
The latter is very troubling, as there is a world of difference between a child victim of a sex crime (including child pornography) and the convicted perpetrator of that crime. The sentencing process is not about determining guilt or innocence; that has already been accomplished.
The moral gap between the victim and the convicted cannot be bridged by a display of empathy by a judge during sentencing. Showing empathy to the convicted is not even a legal concept under the law. It would appear that Jackson does not understand—or chooses to ignore—basic concepts of Judeo-Christian morality that inform the very laws that she is supposed to endorse as a federal judge.
Jackson declared that mandatory minimums for sex offenders targeting children are “excessively severe and might be applied inconsistently.”
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are still refusing to release Jackson’s records when she was a member of that commission, which is a red flag that credible information in those files would be highly damaging to the nominee.
That rationale, plus her empathy for the convicted, is astounding. Then, her sentencing pattern for convicted pedophiles is this: a tongue-lashing plus the lightest sentence under the sentencing guidelines. Contrary to the White House’s claims, these are not the “mainstream values” of traditional Americans.
Another of Jackson’s answers under Republican questioning was equally troubling. She refused to define the term “woman”—or even acknowledge the physical differences between men and women—by claiming she was not aware of the context of the term used in a particular case of hers that was under discussion.
Jackson’s testimony conveys her unstated judicial philosophy, at the core of which is moral relativity. She seems to put victims and convicted pedophiles (and others) on the same moral plane, jumps over backward to convey empathy to those convicted of crimes against children (as if the victims and the convicted are on the same moral plane), and refuses to convey traditional definitions of words in favor of ideological “elasticity” in future service of left-wing activism through the law and “extreme radicalism,” as pointed out by the New York Post
https://www.theepochtimes.com/ketanji-brown-jacksons-judicial-philosophy_4365300.html
\\][//
611: Rise And Fall Of Empires, China’s New World Order, To Govern The Globe, Alfred McCoy
https://player.fm/series/holistic-survival-show-pandemic-planning/ep-611-rise-and-fall-of-empires-chinas-new-world-order-to-govern-the-globe-alfred-mccoy
\\][//
J. Leroy Hulsey Prof of Structural Engineering at University of Alaska Fairbanks Alaska.
Experience
Alignment Systems, Inc.
29 years
◦ Owner
1993 - Present29 years
Software development; development of advanced structural composite systems; Design of bridges; buildings and complex structures such as water slides; etc. Dr. Hulsey also provides consulting services for those requiring Forensic engineering; instrumentation and monitoring.
◦ President
Jan 2002 - Jun 201311 years 6 months
620 Cambridge Drive
Forensic Engineering; Instrumentation and testing; numerical modeling; and expert witness.
•
Associate Director of the Alaska University Transportation Center & Prof of Structural Engineering
University of Alaska Fairbanks
1987 - Present35 years
Fairbanks, Alaska
Bridges; advanced composites; instrumentation; Structural Health Monitoring and Forensic engineering for complex structures.
Education
University of Missouri-Rolla
PhD Structural Engineering
1972 - 1976
Activities and Societies: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE); Transportation Research Board (TRB)
https://www.linkedin.com/in/j-leroy-hulsey-31141720
\\][//