Watch: Joe Biden Can’t Bring Himself to Say ‘America First’
2:08
Presumptive Democrat nominee for president Joe Biden couldn’t bring himself to say “America First” during a NowThis News broadcast on Wednesday.
Biden has often attacked Donald Trump’s “America First” mantra.
Referring to Trump, Biden said, “This guy’s whole idea of America— America on its own has meant America alone. We’re out there by ourselves.”
In April, Biden attacked Trump’s “America First” position.
“If, in fact, for example, we solve the problem in the United States of America and you don’t solve it in other parts of the world, you know what’s going to happen,” Biden told CBS 4.
“You’re going to have travel bans, you’re going to not be able to do, have economic intercourse around the world,” he said.
“Look, when America goes alone— when America is first, it’s America alone. And the idea that we’re stepping back from the world leadership that we in fact engaged in during the virus and the pandemics in the past, it is leaving it leaderless as a matter of fact.”
Last week, Biden was asked if he’s been tested “for some degree of cognitive decline.”
ὄ Biden admitted today he's "been tested" and is "constantly tested."Did Biden take a cognitive test? What were the results? Why is he getting frequently tested? pic.twitter.com/A4NCC8w2wC— Trump War Room – Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) June 30, 2020
“I’ve been tested and I’m constantly tested,” Biden responded.
“All you’ve got to do is watch me, and I can hardly wait to compare my cognitive capability to the cognitive capability of the man I’m running against,” he said.
Former White House Physician Dr. Ronny Jackson disputed that notion in an appearance on The Kyle Olson Show.
“I think that he’s old enough now that he’s having cognitive difficulties and that just happens. It’s part of growing old,” Jackson said.
“If (Trump) goes head-to-head with Joe Biden cognitively, there just wouldn’t be much of a comparison. It would be very one-sided,” Jackson said.
Kyle Olson is a reporter for Breitbart News. He is also host of The Kyle Olson Show, syndicated on Michigan radio stations on Saturdays. Listen to segments on YouTube. Follow him on Twitter, like him on Facebook, and follow him on Parler.
Patriotism vs. Globalism in 2020: A
Country Is at Stake
Patriotism vs. Globalism in 2020: A
Country Is at Stake
Given the extraordinary
pace of events in America and the world this year, it is not hard to imagine
that a bystander — perhaps a bug-eyed alien who has been following the series
"The Earth" — would be pleased with the dynamics of the
show. But he also would be puzzled at the rapid twists of the
plot. The U.S., for example, enters a 2020 season in all its might
and glory, with the strong economy, where unemployment for everyone is low,
where reduced taxes and regulations promise further growth, and the basic
indices of economic activity spell "victory" for the funny-looking
guy who made it happen. Then — BAM! — a "deadly virus"
hits — eh, unimpressive...the mortality rate would have been much higher for
the sake of the show; 2 percent is a rookie number (would be even lower if the
infected were not placed in the nursing
homes). Nonetheless, America goes into lockdown, losing trillions of
dollars. Unemployment soars. Then — BAM! — massive
protests accompanied by rioting, looting, arson, vandalism, and sheer violence erupt
as a response to the incident of police brutality. The whole system
is declared evil and beyond repair. The crime rate
soars. American flags are burned — not in Iran or
North Korea, but in Washington, D.C. Some parts of the country that
were the envy of the world look like a war zone. Whoa, a
startled viewer would think — what just happened?
What is happening is that
November gets closer, and the country finds itself in a situation that may be
described with a mathematical catastrophe theory used to study discontinuous
processes. An example of a discontinuous process would be an arched
bridge to which more and more weight is added. At first, little
effect is seen as the weight on the bridge is increased — the bridge begins to
bend almost imperceptibly. At a certain point, however, enough
weight is added to the bridge that it collapses. A sudden change in
a discontinuous process is called a catastrophe.
The American model right
now has one active variable, the economic model, and one active parameter, a
necessity to choose one out of two courses of its
development. Speaking scientifically, we have reached a divergence
point that requires a system to follow one of the two possible paths that are
mutually exclusive. At this point, both of them are equally
probable, and the system "freezes" — to land on one of the paths, it
needs a push. It is difficult to accurately prognosticate the
system's behavior at this point, but one can model it. Once the
choice is made, the return to the divergence point is impossible — if you stand
before the abyss, you may either walk around it or take a step into it.
Which paths lie before
America? The first one is presented — and has been practiced for the
last 20 years — by the globalism aimed to secure America's leading place in
monopolar world. The main tools of it are supranational entities
such as international organizations, multinational corporations, and financial
institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. Even though
globalization has been pictured by academia and media as an endless pool of
growth, opportunities, and progress, it has been marked by substantial
shortcomings. For example, under the new regime of enhanced
financial mobility and power, with greater volatility of financial markets and
increased risk, real interest rates have risen substantially. This
has discouraged long-term investment in new plants and equipment and stimulated
spending on the re-equipment of old facilities along with a large volume of
essentially financial transactions — mergers, buybacks of stocks, financial
maneuvers, and speculative activities. This explains why overall
productivity growth in the member-countries of the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development fell. So did gross
fixed investment, and so did GDP growth. But the elites have done
well despite the slackened productivity. Because globalization
has helped keep wages down, while increasing real interest rates, the upper 5
percent of households have been able to skim off a large fraction of the
reduced productivity gains, thereby permitting elite incomes and stock market
values to rise rapidly. For the multinational corporations
that shaped foreign policy by
engaging in lobbyism, globalization has also been great. One of
their main objectives that they achieved was cheaper labor
sources. Labor is often cheapest, and least prone to cause employer
problems, in authoritarian states. Capital moves to such friendly
investment climes, shifting resources from the more expensive to the less
costly locale. (That is why the MNCs have vocally opposed the Trump
administration's escalation of trade tensions, tightening of immigration
restrictions, and disruption of global value chains.)
For the global majority,
globalization has been a whole different story. Income inequality
rose markedly both within and among countries. In the United States,
despite a great increase in productivity thanks to new technologies, inequality rose. Underemployment, job insecurity, benefit
loss — all increased.
The Trump administration
disdains globalization and practices a healthy and much needed
protectionism. It withdrew from free trade and other deals and
viciously attacked globalization structures nurtured by the previous
administrations: U.N., NATO, WTO, International Criminal Court, and now WHO,
which proved shockingly unprofessional and frankly hostile to the U.S.
interests.
If Trump gets four more
years as a president, he may get to the holy of holies of the economic
globalism — the IMF and the World Bank — which will undoubtedly face a debt
crisis due to the downfall of the world economy. Ironically, the
COVID-19 hysteria that became an act of desperation for the Democrats — whether
it was a projected event or a natural crisis that would have been a shame to
waste — now plays against the global financial leviathan and its
masters. According to none other than George Soros, the COVID-19 pandemic
is a one-two financial punch for developing economies. Not only has
it put extraordinary pressure on budgets worldwide, but it has also caused a
sharp exodus of capital from emerging markets. JPMorgan Chase &
Co. predicts that 1 in 5 emerging-market countries will default on their debt
obligations — meaning that the core banks may collapse. If some
federal reserve banks fail, the government may nationalize them — but no doubt
Trump would not save them, as Obama did in 2008. That would fatally
undermine the economic foundation of the Democrats for good; that's why Trump's
victory is not an option for them.
If Biden wins, he, as a
true O'Biden-Bama Democrat, will have to save the failing banking system by
unprecedentedly increasing the national debt in a weakened
economy. The previous model that balanced emission with trade deals
would not be possible to execute in a severely damaged global
economy. That is why Biden's victory would lead to a delayed
catastrophe, but with lower chances of surviving it, because the condition of
the country will deteriorate — his leftist policies will make sure of it.
The choice we as a
country will make in November is clear: Trump and patriotism or Biden and
globalism. Development or decline. It is just that
simple.
Image: Fox News via YouTube.
No comments:
Post a Comment