Here’s Everything Biden Won’t Tell You About The Disastrous State Of Our Union

Here’s Everything Biden Won’t Tell You About The Disastrous State Of Our Union

The state of our union is a complete, unmitigated disaster.

The economy is in shambles, the border is two years into the worst migrant influx in U.S. history, taxpayer dollars are flying into the hands of a corrupt Eastern European regime without oversight, and our No. 1 enemy — Red China — has compromised our president, our politicians, our phones, and our skies.

Much as he did in his lie-riddled speech last year, President Joe Biden will likely try to use his State of the Union address to Congress this week to credit himself for helping the nation back onto its feet. In reality, he’s done nothing but subject Americans to more crippling crises that prompt historic levels of disapproval.

In an unprecedented “level of sustained pessimism,” 71 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. Four in 10 Americans, the most in 37 years, told ABC News/Washington Post pollsters they have become financially worse off since Biden took office in January of 2021.

In the last few months, even Democrats have turned on their party leader after seeing his incompetence. Following the 2022 midterm elections, 52 percent of Democrats expressed a desire for Biden to seek reelection in 2024. Days before his address, support for a second Biden term fell to 37 percent among the president’s key voting bloc.

Polls may be a flawed means for gauging the public’s reaction but even without them, it isn’t difficult to see that the Biden regime is an absolute embarrassment from top to bottom.

Here’s what Biden will conveniently fail to mention in Tuesday night’s address.

The Economy Is Not ‘Roaring Back’

Biden will likely spend a good portion of his speech boasting that financial legislation such as the ill-named Inflation Reduction Act passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress is restoring American jobs, wages, and savings and causing inflation to “fall.”

Yet, two years after the president greenlit the beginning of Democrats’ expensive spending spree, Americans are still suffering from gas prices well above $3 per gallon, being gaslit about how Biden didn’t induce a recession, and paying 60 percent more for eggs than they did in 2021.

In 2022 alone, U.S. households lost $6.8 trillion in wealth thanks to record-high inflation that isn’t going away, crashing stocks, and a teetering housing market.

No matter which way Biden, the “experts,” or the corporate media try to spin it, the economy and Americans’ pocketbooks are not roaring back as Biden told Congress they would last year.

The Border Is Getting Worse

One year after he removed the border protections his predecessor enacted, Biden told Congress in his 2022 SOTU address that he wanted to “secure our border.”

Then, the president spent the next 10 months ignoring the rapidly expanding humanitarian and criminal crisis before finally making a performative visit to El Paso in early January.

If history tells us anything, Biden’s 2023 SOTU speech will point to his trip and the new border crossing loopholes he created as “proof” that he’s finally doing something about the millions of illegal border crossers flooding into the United States.

But Biden’s plan to grant “legal” status to illegal border crossers from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela so long as they fly to a port of entry in the U.S. only emboldens corrupt cartels and does nothing to stop the pipeline of fentanyl responsible for taking American lives.

The U.S. Isn’t Tough on China

Biden’s speechwriters will probably credit the downing of Red China’s spy balloon, which completed its mission before it was shot down, as a symbol of the administration’s toughness on our nation’s No. 1 competitor.

What they won’t likely mention is that Biden sold oil from our emergency reserves to his son’s friends at a Chinese state-controlled gas giant before pushing the Saudis into an amicable relationship with the CCP.

Biden may have agreed to ban TikTok from government devices, but that won’t stop House Republicans from getting to the bottom of his family’s financial connections to Red China.

Biden Is Under Investigation for His Failures

Not only will Biden skip over his failures, but you can also expect him to pretend he’s not under investigation by congressional Republicans for various derelictions of duty including failing to secure the border, weaponizing the federal government against its political enemies, and harboring classified documents from his time as a senator and vice president.

Ukraine Is a Taxpayer-Funded Money Pit

Biden opened his 2022 SOTU with a tribute to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and a promise that the U.S. would keep providing support to the Ukrainians in their fight for freedom.

One year and approximately $113 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars later, there is no end to the conflict in sight. Nothing is guaranteed other than Biden’s repeated promise to funnel American tax dollars to Ukraine for “as long as it takes” to stave off Russia.

Instead of ending the conflict, Biden’s overeagerness to get involved in a proxy war Congress hasn’t formally authorized the U.S. to participate in has just increased the threat of nuclear war.

Biden Is No Moderate

Biden spent a good portion of his 2022 SOTU masquerading as a social moderate who wanted to “secure the border” and “fund the police” instead of discuss identity politics.

As evidenced by another year of radical policies and actions like weaponizing the Department of Justice against law-abiding, pro-life Americans such as the recently acquitted Mark Houck and the former president, the Biden administration is far from abstaining from the culture war.

Since this is the first SOTU since the Supreme Court’s landmark Dobbs v. Jackson case, Biden will likely use his speech as a platform to push for abortion on demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy. He might even discuss his administration’s attempts to push back on states that ban mutilative transgender surgeries.

…and He’s Certainly No Unifier

Favorable corporate media coverage predicts that Biden will use his address on Tuesday to call for a “fresh start” and bipartisan cooperation between the GOP-controlled House and Democrat-run Senate. Biden wants to look like he’s Mr. Nice Guy by giving the other side of the aisle a chance to work with him.

But the few times Biden gave formal addresses in 2022, he demonized the half of the country that didn’t vote for him and tried to criminalize the conservative agenda ahead of the 2022 midterm elections. He has no tolerance for House Republicans and certainly has no tolerance for the voters and values those legislators represent.

Simply put, Biden’s track record is indefensibly terrible. It shouldn’t be hard for viewers to look past his inevitable gaffes to see this SOTU will be another unremarkable speech littered with lies and failed promises.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.


Politics in the 21st Century and the Cost of Blind Loyalty to Class Values

An in-depth analysis of Australian politics during the last few decades of societal upheaval and economic woes. What values and principles guide our major parties?

In 1999, Australia conducted its largest taxpayer-funded focus group — the referendum on a republic.
Voting in the referendum was compulsory, with 95.1 per cent of Australians eligible to vote doing so.

By contrast, the 2017 Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey for which voting was optional had a 79.5 per cent participation rate.

The result of the republic referendum was a decisive 54.87 per cent ‘No’ vote.
Every state recorded a majority for ‘No’. This decisive result could not be explained in terms of party loyalties or ideological terms such as ‘Left’ and ‘Right’.

None of the major parties adopted an official position and analysis suggested that the results could be explained by where people lived. For example, in Victoria, the four electorates with the highest yes votes were Kooyong and Higgins, both safe Liberal, and Melbourne and Melbourne Ports (now McNamara), then both safe Labor. In Queensland only two electorates voted yes — Ryan which was safe Liberal, and Brisbane which was safe Labor.

A national analysis generated a similar picture. 42 of the then 148 electorates that voted ‘Yes’ were predominately in affluent, inner-metropolitan areas. The no-voting electorates in outer suburban and regional Coalition seats and Labor seats showed a comparable pattern.

The 1999 referendum result was a harbinger of what was to come globally. Brexit, the rise of Donald Trump and the inability of the French establishment to suppress the ‘gilets jaunes‘ (Yellow Vests) and Marine le Pen should not have come as a surprise.

In Australia, the results revealed the nature of the intellectual and political classes, who overwhelmingly inhabit the inner metropolitan suburbs. Also, they exposed a lack of awareness within the major political parties which could not accept that, in the post-communist world, Australia is two nations.

Consequently. almost a quarter of a century later, the 2022 federal election results form a bookend to that nationwide voter survey. Both Labor and the Coalition are now confronted starkly with an uncomfortable new political reality: a collapsing primary vote and an insurgence of Greens and various Independent MPs.

Two Nations and the 2004 federal elections

The Liberal Party’s subsequent drafting of Australian Republican Movement leader, Malcolm Turnbull — who blamed John Howard for ‘breaking the nation’s heart’ on the referendum — was a manifestation of the élites’ obstinacy.

Mr Turnbull, who has made a substantial contribution to the philosophical quagmire the Liberals have built for themselves, did not want to see it.

One politician who did though, was a prescient Mark Latham. Even before he became the leader of the Federal Labor Party, he made the following observation:

‘For the past decade, the Left has been debating globalisation as an economic event when, in fact, its main political impact has been cultural…

‘With the end of the Cold War, the effectiveness of this approach has expired. ‘A starting point is to rethink the political spectrum, to move beyond notions of Left and Right…

‘… it is possible to identify two distinctive political cultures in Australia. The powerful centre of our society, concentrated in the international heart of the major cities, talks a different language to suburban communities. In lifestyle and political values, they are poles apart.

‘At the social centre, people tend to take a tourist’s view of the world. They travel extensively, eat-out and buy-in domestic help. The cultural challenges of globalisation are seen as an opportunity, a chance to develop further one’s identity and information skills…

‘In the suburbs, the value set is more pragmatic. People do not readily accept the need for cultural change or the demands of identity politics. They lack the power and resources to distance themselves from neighbourhood problems. This has given them a resident’s view of society. Questions of social responsibility and service delivery are all-important…

‘These changes are recasting the electoral map. The key seats are now located well beyond the CBD, on the urban fringe and regional hinterland. In the 1999 Republic referendum… the further one moved away from the centre of the capital cities, the higher the proportion of No votes.

‘(T)he conservative establishment… purports to hold suburban values. Yet its members are unwilling to live or work in the suburbs themselves. It is another abstract ideology in search of substance.’1

Mr Howard managed these internal, philosophic contradictions by supporting conservative values on cultural issues, and by reducing the impact of free market policies on middle Australia through extensive financial support to families. These conflicting values also have been reducing the Nationals to a rump, especially after they went along with economic rationalism and Mr Howard’s gun law changes in 1996.
The 2004 federal election was both a first test of Mr Latham’s theory on culture and of his and John Howard’s ability to execute a political strategy in response.

As political commentator Paul Kelly observed at the beginning of 2004:

‘Latham knows that repositioning Labor on social issues is a necessary step to office…

‘This week Latham confronted Howard and sought to steal his social and family values position… It is about the struggle between Latham and Howard over values, a fight that Labor had previously declined to wage.’2

It was clear that the Coalition’s strategy for the 2004 federal election needed to have a major focus on culture.

Labor’s Re-invention

Back then, cultural contradictions were more of a problem for Labor. Since the rise of Gough Whitlam in the 1960s, it had morphed into a middle-class, inner-suburban party. Blue-collar membership3

‘made up 46 per cent of the NSW ALP’s membership in 1961. By 1981 the figure had fallen to 21 per cent. … white-collar professionals, managers and administrators… share of membership of the NSW branch doubled in the two decades to 1981, from 14 to 30 per cent. The pattern in the Victorian Party was similar. … The result was that by the late 1980s, ‘a professional [was] more than three times as likely as a manual worker, and five times more likely than a salesperson, personal service employee or clerk, to participate in the ALP’s most basic structures.’

This transformation of the membership was subsequently reflected in the parliamentary party. The late John Button, a Hawke Government minister, demonstrated this by his comparison of the difference between the compositions of the 1978 federal parliamentary party and the first Hawke ministry, and the composition of the 1998 parliamentary party.’4

  • Senator Graham Richardson’s total capitulation to the Greens in 1990;5
  • Labor premier Bob Carr’s virtually shutting down most of the timber industry in New South Wales in the 1990s;6 and
  • in 2004, Queensland ALP state director Cameron Milner’s call on Mr. Latham to sacrifice Tasmanian timber jobs in the pursuit of mainland, green votes;7

reflected this cultural takeover.


On the other hand, Mr Howard took a different path. A report on the 2004 federal election commissioned by the CFMEU’s timber workers’ division noted: ‘At the start of the election campaign, Mr Howard felt obliged to accept advice that he should appease the environment lobby because it was so overwhelming. He had a few concerns including the fact that he personally had signed Tasmania’s Regional Forest Agreement and the impact of his decision on timber workers and their communities.’8

However, a campaign coordinated by the timber industry persuaded him to ignore the advice coming from his office and from the Liberal Party’s pollster, and to honour the regional forest agreements.
As a result, in the last week of the campaign, Mr. Howard addressed a nationally-reported, 1000-strong timber industry meeting in Launceston and won over the votes of people such as timber worker Ken Hall who said:

‘I have come to believe that Howard is the best leader to represent the timber workers of Tasmania. And that’s a pretty big mouthful coming from a lifelong Labor supporter who first voted for Arthur Calwell in 1966 and has voted for every Labor leader in every election since then…’.9

Despite Mr Latham’s understanding of the electorate, in the critical last days of the 2004 campaign, he made a judgment call that went against his best political instincts.

On other issues, he remained better attuned. In February 2004, Mr Latham said that marriage was the union of a man and a woman for life to the exclusion of all others. The Coalition responded by introducing legislation to amend the Family Law Act to incorporate his definition of marriage.

The need to support the legislation split the Labor caucus. Mr Albanese and several other frontbenchers argued that Labor had gone too far in pandering to a group of Christians who were unlikely to vote for Labor, at the expense of the gay and lesbian community which supported Labor.10

Significantly, subsequent Labor leaders. Kim Beasley, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard maintained Mr. Latham’s position of opposing same-sex marriage until 2011.

This fracas within Labor reinforced to voters in the outer suburbs and regions that Labor lived in a different world from them, and helped consolidate conservative voters behind the Coalition.
Labor and the Greens were not the only challenges facing the Coalition. There also was the forerunner of the ‘teal’ candidates, Liberals for Forests.

However, unlike today, the Coalition did not adopt an appeasement approach. Inner metropolitan Liberal voters who were unhappy with the Coalition’s environment policies, were made aware that a vote for the Greens was a vote for their economic policies and their radical drug policy. This policy was exposed in the first week of the election campaign.11 It derailed the Greens and contributed to their poor result.

The 2004 federal elections were probably John Howard’s greatest electoral victory. The Coalition increased its majority and, in Queensland, it won four of the six Senate positions, giving a government a Senate majority for the first time in decades.

Labor lost five seats, after losing three in 2001. Political scientist, Associate Professor Paul Williams, pointed out that its primary vote was its lowest since 1931 and arguably the lowest since 1906.12 Liberals for Forests flopped and, as Age columnist Shaun Carney wrote, the results were disastrous for the Greens.13

Labor and the political commentariat attempted to put the results down to Mr Latham’s inexperience and an interest rate scare campaign.14

However, long-time Labor Party pollster Rod Cameron saw it differently:

‘Most experienced observers — from both sides of politics — expected John Howard to be returned, but narrowly, with most tipping a small net gain in seats and votes for Labor. That this did not happen was a big surprise to the campaign professionals on both sides… Howard won because of economic management perceptions and he increased his majority because of Labor’s politically suicidal Tasmanian forestry policy’.15

It should be recalled that, as recently as 1993, Labor had won as many provincial and rural seats as it did outer-metropolitan seats. However, in 2004 Labor won 14 of the 63 provincial and rural seats and 19 of the 46 outer metropolitan seats.

Political commentator Professor Peter van Onselen and management consultant Dr. Phil Senior concluded:

‘Labor can’t (win back regional seats) while the party is controlled by the inner-city latte set…(I)t has lost touch with its working-class roots in the bush as well as outer-metropolitan areas. Its grubby preference deal with the Greens was the culmination of this transformation. Selling out forestry workers to win over inner-city greens not only lost Labor seats in Tasmania, but respect across provincial and rural Australia.’16

The Political Class

Again, this was not the message the élites and the political class wanted to hear or had expected, as Mr Cameron pointed out. They remained unrepentant in their determination to impose their values on what they view as the unenlightened masses.

They resent the democratic process and reflect the arrogance of the élites described by an American historian the late Professor Christopher Lasch:

‘The culture wars that have convulsed America since the sixties are best understood as a form of class warfare, in which an enlightened elite (as it thinks of itself) seeks not so much to impose its values on the majority (a majority perceived as incorrigibly racist, sexist, provincial, and xenophobic), much less persuade the majority by means of rational public debate, as to create parallel or “alternative” institutions in which it will no longer be necessary to confront the unenlightened at all.’17

Mr Latham’s analysis was right. For the Liberals, suburban values were another abstract ideology in search of substance. Everybody continued on and nobody lost their job. The Liberals’ political class continued to put its inner suburban values ahead of both the Party’s interests and the people they say they represent.

The Coalition has not hammered home the cultural advantage it had gained. Instead, it has taken the same direction as Labor, and today it is paying the price.

Meanwhile, the Greens are well-advanced in their long march to be the party of the inner metropolitan suburbs. This is at the expense of Liberal and Labor, which have not done to the Greens what they did to Pauline Hanson — both put her party last on ballot papers.

The Philosophical Divide

In 2004, political commentator Paul Kelly observed:18

‘The conundrum is obvious: the chasm between party sentiment and public sentiment. The ALP is unrepresentative of the community. The more Latham concedes to the party, the more he weakens his hand in the electorate.’

The origins of the cultural transformation Mr Latham described require an understanding of the philosophic contest between liberalism and conservatism which has ebbed and flowed since the days of the French Revolution and America’s declaration of independence. It took 200 years for liberalism to dominate conservatism culturally in Anglo-Saxon and, to a lesser degree, western European countries. Its ascendancy was heralded by the cultural revolution of the 1960s.

One example of this ascendancy in Australia is the employers’ successful assault on the concept of the basic wage beginning in 1964, the outcome of which was foreseeable and foreseen.19 Its effect was to undermine the family unit.

Another was removing in 1975 the concept of fault from Australia’s divorce law and transforming marriage from a permanent relationship into what has been described as serial monogamy. Supporters of this change saw the family unit as an instrument for the suppression of women, and a barrier to personal freedom and self-fulfillment.

‘Card-carrying member of the protest generation’ and Australia Institute founder Dr Keith Hamilton,
‘was convinced that the lifting of the suffocating constraints on sexual expression would be a source of liberation… We thought we were creating a new society and we knew our opponents were being defeated. The conservative establishment lost cause after cause…’20

Coalition’s Reprieve

Given the incompatibility of conservatism and liberalism, why did it take so long for the ascendancy of philosophical liberalism to extract a political price?

One response is that, from the end of World War 2 to the 1990s, politics in Australia, and the Western world generally, was viewed through the prism of communism, socialism and the extent to which it is necessary for the State to intervene in the economy. For example, in 1967, twelve months after his retirement Sir Robert Menzies wrote that ‘the great issue to which Liberalism must direct itself is Socialism’.21

By the time the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989, Marxism as an economic theory was discredited. For example, the Labor Party had watered down the socialist objective in its Party platform in 1981.

For the Liberals, however, the focus on socialism diverted attention away from the fundamental incompatibility of conservatism with liberalism.

Two things aided the delay of the day of reckoning for the Liberals: Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser’s rejection of the liberal agenda of his treasurer John Howard and the Queensland National Party Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s carrying his fight against the Liberals to Canberra.

As for Labor, the Left had always provided the Party’s ideological rudder. Its acquiescence to economic liberalism destroyed that rudder. In 2008, Wran Government education minister Rod Cavalier told a NSW Fabian Society Forum that one could not be a left-winger and not pursue the socialist objective and that being humanitarian did not make one a left-winger.22

It seems counter-intuitive that economic rationalism would penetrate the walls of Labor. This development demonstrates that the real winner of the 1960s revolution has been corporate capitalism.

As Dr Hamilton observed,

‘(T)he counter-culture tore down the social structures of conservatism that, for all their stultifying oppressiveness, held the market in check… but it is now evident that demolition of the customary social structures did not create a society of free individuals. Instead, it created an opportunity for the marketers to substitute material consumption and manufactured lifestyles for the influences of social tradition…

The women’s movement attacked the social and family conventions that kept women in the kitchen. … but it also conditioned the labour market to operate on the assumption that workers had family responsibilities. … When workers demanded a ‘living wage that could sustain a married man and his wife and children, the moral argument had wide appeal…

‘Equality is good for the market. It has meant a growing and better-qualified workforce; it has destroyed old-fashioned ideas that employers need to pay enough to support a family; it has helped turn nurturing households into nodes of consumption; it has hastened the development of lifestyle thinking.’23

Traditional Labor is conservative. Its instincts and values are at odds with Labor’s current ruling class. A takeover by economic liberalism has taken a political toll. In 1998, then Deputy Leader Gareth Evans admitted that:

‘I think we are now all acutely aware that the government almost certainly got ahead of the wider community… Jobs were no longer for life or secure. … The rise of service industries at the expense of the smokestacks may have created a more fluid and flexible workplace, but one affecting working hours and family responsibilities. Agribusiness pressures and the closure of family farms put many rural communities under stress.

‘… Upper-income groups by and large did well in Australia … enjoying high-quality access not only to continuing substantial incomes, but to information technology and communications services; to leisure amenities, entertaining and travel; and indeed to the political system.

‘… For lower income groups, it was a different story: wage incomes grew slowly, and even with an array of new government social wage payments, which in fact did make lower income earners better off, both absolutely and relatively, they found it difficult to think of themselves as better off. And they could never match the access of the upper-income groups to information technology, to leisure services, to the political system – or even to some aspects of consumer society.’24

Yet, while Labor has known since 1998 that economic liberalism contained the seeds of its political heartache, it still has the Hawke/Keating era on a pedestal.

As with the Liberals, the loyalty of Labor’s political class to the cultural values of their social set has outweighed the interests of the people they purported to represent and the political interests of their party. To quote Mr Cavalier,

‘The political class is a coterie… divisions are not about ideas or ideology. The factions have become executive placement agencies, disputes between them become serious only when they cannot agree on a placement. They are effectively united for themselves against the world.’25

The Political Price

Many would argue that Labor has not recovered from its lost legacy of a commitment to the working class. Certainly it has won elections at the state level, and it won the 2022 federal election barely, with a first preference vote in the House of Representatives of 32.6 per cent and in the Senate of 30.1 per cent.

What has Labor’s dumping of its traditional supporters by succumbing to liberalism, and the Left’s substituting ‘gesture politics’ — as Mr Cavalier would describe it — done for the Labor Party?

Labor, now an inner metropolitan, middle-class party, has alienated itself from its original base which it still needs to get hold of the ministerial limousines. It also has lowered its defences against the Greens, a development of which it should have been aware since 2007.26

As for the consequences for the people Labor claims to represent, the following charts produced by financial commentator Alan Kohler provide the conclusion of Mr Evans’ story. They show the housing prices and borrowings and the banks’ lending profile since Paul Keating’s deregulation agenda which John Howard supported.27

While the median buffer for mortgage payments for home borrowers is 21 months, Mr Kohler points out that the median is meaningless because 2½ million families are in the 25th percentile and do not have a buffer.

Mr Kohler thinks that the next housing downturn will be more severe than previous downturns because of the level of debt, an assessment consistent with the analysis of CoreLogic, Australia’s largest, independent provider of property data and analytics.28

Banks have transformed themselves from being lenders to business, which Mr Kohler points out employs people and creates wealth, to lenders to housing which does not, but which is safer and more profitable.

Turning to profits, the Commonwealth Bank celebrated its 25th year as a public company in 2016. It said that it had delivered a total shareholder return of 9500 per cent and achieved average annual dividend growth of 10 per cent.

Fast forward five years to 21 May last year. On that day, 18 CBA shares were worth $1780 — a gain of more than 1700 per cent since listing in 1991. On the other hand, over the same period the S&P/ASX 200 index increased by 325 per cent and the price of a median Sydney house increased 11-fold.29

Broad Church

While the Liberals appeared to be unaffected by the changing philosophical challenge in the 1990s, there were tensions following the federal defeats in 1990, and particularly in 1993 when John Hewson’s liberal, economic agenda turned victory into defeat.

Party leaders were conscious that the end of communism threatened to expose internal, philosophical differences and render the Liberals irrelevant as a political entity.

A rationale was needed to avoid doing what Sir Robert Menzies did in the 1940s when the United Australia Party had run its race — start again.

In one approach, former NSW premier Nick Greiner argued in 1990 that:

  • it was a post-ideological age;
  • modern Liberalism (i.e. the Liberal Party) needed to be practical, empirical and anti-ideological; and
  • ironically, Liberalism must be concerned with the re-design and reconstruction of any of Australia’s institutions which are outdated, outmoded or not working in the public interest.30

Another approach sought to: erase any suggestion of a connection between the Liberal Party and conservatism, and rebrand Sir Robert Menzies as a philosophical liberal.

Both propositions failed the pub test.

John Howard provided a solution by promoting the concept of a broad church: liberalism and conservatism could co-exist.31

Professor Gregory Melleuish observed:

‘This formulation was vague enough to encompass a range of political positions, even if they were at odds with one another.

‘The “broad church” ideal had a simple goal — ensure that all Liberals were inside the tent and shared a common outlook.’32

Mr Howard achieved his goal. The Liberals federally remained inside the tent until after he retired. However, they demonstrated Professor Lasch’s contention that ‘the defence of conservative values, it appears, cannot be entrusted to conservatives’.33

Since Mr Howard’s retirement, nobody has had the authority and the capability to hold this philosophical façade together, and so it has unravelled as the social toll of economic liberalism has eroded the last vestige of conservative values.

What Now?

Antony Green, a psephologist and elections commentator, has noted that the combined first preference vote for the Coalition and Labor in the House of Representatives at the 2022 federal election at 68. 3 per cent was the lowest for the major parties since the development of two-party politics in Australia in 1910.

This raises a number of questions:

  • What does the political class do now that it seems to matter that voters are rebelling against the fact that the major parties think that they can be different things to different people?
  • Does it matter that voters in the outer suburbs and regions believe that neither of the major parties shares their priorities, or understands their aspirations and the grind of daily life?
  • If values are not important to people in the outer suburbs and the regions, why do they resent the political class’s delivering to the inner suburbs the policies and values they want, and thinking that they only have to bribe the outer suburbs and regions?

In 1989 two American scholars, Bill Galston and Elaine Kamarck conducted an analysis of the Democrats’ poor performances in presidential elections over the preceding 20 years. It made a significant contribution to the success of the Democrats during the Clinton era in the 1990s.

This year they repeated the exercise. One ‘myth’ that they addressed is that economics trumps culture:

‘The Democratic party has viewed itself as the party of working-class and middle-class voters who would be bound to the party by economic and material benefits…

‘Too many Democrats believe that economic issues are the ‘real’ issues, and that cultural issues are mostly diversions… For many Americans across the political spectrum, social, cultural and religious issues are real and — in many cases — more important to them than economic considerations

… Economic circumstances do not determine views on guns, abortion, or religion, and attitudes toward immigration reflect deep-seated beliefs about ethnicity and national identity… ‘

‘The myth of economic determinism…. leads too many Democrats to believe that showering Americans with public resources is the surest path to victory. This is true in some circumstances but not others.’34

In Australia, it seems the Coalition and the Labor Party believe that too.

Liberalism and Conservatism

The proposition that economics does not override culture is critical for philosophic liberals who claim to be conservatives.

Mr Howard’s proposition that liberalism and conservatism can co-exist depends on their concept of conservatism. He contended that Liberals carried:

‘the Burkean tradition of conservatism within our ranks. We believe that if institutions have demonstrably failed, they ought to be changed or reformed. But we don’t believe in getting rid of institutions just for the sake of change.’35

Edmund Burke, an 18th-century statesman, is considered to be the founder of conservatism. However, Mr Burke’s focus extended beyond organisational structures.

For him, the group is the foundation of society — as reflected in these propositions:36

  • ‘To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed towards a love to our country, and to mankind’;
  • ‘We begin our public affections in our families. No cold relation is a zealous citizen. We pass on to our neighbourhoods, and our habitual provincial connexions’; and
  • Society ‘becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born’.

On the other hand, the founder of liberalism, Jean Jacques Rousseau, who was the intellectual force behind the French Revolution and a significant intellectual influence on the American Revolution believed that ‘Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains’.37

The chains are imposed by Mr. Burke’s little platoons, civilisation itself, property, organised religion and anything that corrupts the individual’s natural state:

‘The fundamental principle of all morality, upon which I have reasoned in all my writings and which I developed with all the clarity of which I am capable is that man is a being who is naturally good, loving justice and order; that there is no original perversity in the human heart, and the first movements of nature are always good.’38

For M. Rousseau feelings were pure. Feelings inform the conscience and conscience determines morality. Truth is subjective. There are no absolutes.

Also, there are no social structures. To quote former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher who is lauded as a conservative, ‘There is no such thing as society’.39

Individualism has been modified and transformed through subsequent generations. Today, in the culture of the self-appointed élites, M. Rousseau’s legacy is a culture based on feelings to which facts must give way.

Self-identity is a result of this evolution and, with it, the ability to assert that there are seventy-four genders and that children as young as eight years old could experience a gender crisis.40


The Liberals are compromised in attempting to respond to this latest manifestation of liberalism, because of their either straddling the gulf between liberalism and conservatism or choosing liberalism over conservatism when forced to make a choice.

This is evident around ‘gender’, religious freedom and freedom of speech issues. For example, in June this year, the International Swimming Union effectively banned transgender swimmers from competing in women’s events.

The Liberals were compromised on this issue already. Their loud — though somewhat inconsistent — support of such a ban during the election campaign was undermined by the fact that, in 2019, during a Coalition administration, the Australian Sports Commission was in the forefront of urging the participation of transgender people in competitive sport.41

Then there is the recent matter of ‘birthing mothers’.

Medicare was set to change a consent form to add a baby to a Medicare card to use the term ‘birthing parent’ instead of ‘mother’. After a social media outcry,42 a Labor minister, Government Services minister, Bill Shorten put a stop to this frolic, pointing out that he was reversing an initiative of the previous Coalition government.

This led Herald Sun columnist Rita Panahi to say (presumably to the surprise of Coalition supporters):

‘Bravo, Bill. It says something about how hopeless the faux conservatives in the previous government were that it took a Labor minister to tell the woke bureaucracy and trans lobby to take a hike.’43

Add religious freedom to the Liberal Party’s challenges. American church historian, Professor Carl Trueman, has posited that:

‘the idea that religious freedom is a social good is not simply increasingly implausible, it is also increasingly distasteful, disturbing and undesirable’.44

When the Coalition introduced its religious discrimination legislation in 2021, it deliberately avoided the issue which was the catalyst for the legislation — Australian Rugby Union’s sacking of Israel Folau for expressing his religious beliefs.

However, it is an issue that may not go away. In February this year, a Muslim player in the AFL women’s competition refused to play in a round in which her team was required to wear a Pride guernsey. In July, seven rugby league players took a similar action.

Then in October, an AFL club forced its CEO to resign 24 hours after appointing him because of his Christian beliefs.

Again, the Coalition is compromised on an issue which has been a cultural cornerstone of Western society for generations and which, not surprisingly, resonates in the outer suburbs.

Another challenge for liberals is freedom of speech, which often seems to be conflated with expression of religious beliefs.

Professor Trueman observes:

‘In a world in which the self is constructed psychologically and in which the therapeutic is the ethical standard… the notion of assault becomes psychological… In such a context, freedom of speech becomes not so much part of the solution as part of the problem’.45

Cultural Conservatism

Professor Lasch’s concept of cultural conservatism also presents a challenge for the Liberals. In the 1980s, he developed an understanding of cultural conservatism and concluded that:

‘the essence of cultural conservatism is a certain respect for limits. The central conservative insight is that human freedom is constrained by the natural conditions of human life, by the weight of history, by the fallibility of human judgment and by the perversity of the human will’; and

‘it is clearly incompatible with modern capitalism or with the liberal ideology of unlimited economic growth.’46

For 19th-century liberals, the family was merely a tool. Professor Lasch says:

‘The obligation to support a wife and children, in their view, would discipline possessive individualism… In the long run, of course, this attempt to build up the family as a counterweight to the acquisitive spirit was a lost cause.’

He also observed that:

‘Capitalism’s relentless erosion of proprietary institutions furnishes the clearest evidence of its incompatibility with anything that deserves the name of cultural conservatism…

‘Twentieth-century capitalism, however, has replaced private property with a corporate form of property…

‘Even the “family wage”, the last attempt to safeguard the independence of the producing classes, has gone the way of the family business and the family farm.’47

After its 2022 federal election result, the Liberal Party seems to be in a state of denial about how bad are both its electoral and cultural prospects. The assault on the values the Liberal Party once held dear, such as freedom of religion, shows no sign of abating and the Liberals seem unable to respond.

The Coalition, as a whole, holds 58 out of 151 lower house seats. Many Liberals have argued that the path back to power is through the ‘Teal’ seats that were lost, thereby ignoring the outer suburbs where there were swings against them as large or larger than the swings against them in the inner suburbs. Even if the Liberals were to regain every one of the seats that they lost to the Teals, that would get the Coalition to just 64 seats, still twelve seats short of government.

Whether the Liberals’ future is best ensured by continuing to offer policies pitched to the élite, inner metropolitan suburbs and ignoring the contradictions between the values of the liberal inner suburbs and the conservative outer suburbs and regions, is the issue that they have to decide.



  1. Menzies Lecture, King’s College, London, 17 September 2002
  2. ‘Latham’s Third Way’, The Australian, 21st February, 2004
  3. Tom Bramble and Rick Kuhn, The Transformation of the Australian Labor Party, p. 4
  4. ‘Beyond Belief: What Future for Labor?’ Quarterly Essay 6, 2002, pp. 1-5
  5. ‘Don’t fall for the green fallacies’, The Australian, 19th March, 2004
  6. See, for example, ‘Forests lock-up has left us a time bomb’, The Land, Peter Austin, 21st November, 2019
  7. ‘Labor must take the Green initiative’, The Australian, 17th March, 2004
  8. The Brompton Report, 2005, p. 13
  9. ‘Latham betrays workers’, The Australian, 8th October, 2004, p. 15
  10. ‘Gay marriage splits Labor’, The Australian, Patricia Karvelas, 10th August, 2002, p. 2
  11. ‘Greens back illegal drugs’, Herald Sun, Gerard McManus, 31st August, 2004, p. 1
  12. The 2004 federal election: why Labor failed, Australian Quarterly, Vol. 76, No. 5, p. 4
  13. ‘Latham must learn the Greens are no friend of Labor’, The Age, 20th October, 2004
  14. ‘We learnt the hard way: failure to kill rates scare campaign cost us poll — ALP chief’, Sydney Morning Herald, 11th November, 2004
  15. ‘Anatomy of a Labor train crash’, The Age, 15th October, 2004, p. 15
  16. ‘Labor’s hopes rest on seats in the bush’, Sydney Morning Herald, 13th December, 2004.
    See also Dr Nick Economou, ‘Faultlines and Failures’, After the Deluge? Rebuilding Labor and a Progressive Movement (Blue Book No. 9, 2004), p. BB8
  17. ‘Introduction’, Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy (New York, W.W. Norton and Co., 1995), pp. 20-21
  18. ‘Latham: the power of image’, The Weekend Australian, 31st January, 2004
  19. See, for example, T. J. Kearney, ‘Some implications of the 1966 National Wage Decisions’, The Journal of Industrial Relations, Volume 8, No. 3, pp.221-232. ‘The concept of the basic wage had been part of the industrial landscape since 1905 and was embedded in Australian law by Mr Justice Higgins in the Harvester Case. The basic wage was designed to enable every worker, however humble, to lead a human life, marry, bring up a family with some small degree of comfort. The minimum wage, on the other hand, reflects the needs of an individual worker.’
  20. Can Porn Set Us Free?, speech to Sydney Writers Festival, 2003.
  21. Afternoon Light (Melbourne, Cassell Australia, 1967), pp. 294-295
  22. Guy Beres, NSW Fabian Forum: What happened to the Left, 18th September, 2008
  23. Can Porn set Us Free?
  24. Introduction to Chapter 1 of the ALP’s Draft National Platform, 19th January, 1998
  25. ‘Could Chifley Win Pre-selection today?’, Sydney Morning Herald, 21st April, 2005
  26. See, for example, Profile of the 2007 Australian Election, Australian Development Strategies Pty. Ltd., 2008
  27. Kohler Report, ABC TV News, 5th July, 2022
  28. ‘the rate of decline in home values is comparable with the onset of the global financial crisis (GFC) in 2008, and the sharp downswing of the early 1980s’, Hedonic Home Value Index, 1st August, 2022
  29. ‘Why Carol is laughing all the way to the bank’, Duncan Hughes, Australian Financial Review, 21st May, 2021.
  30. 1990 Alfred Deakin Lecture
  31. ‘The Liberal Party is a broad church. You sometimes have to get the builders in to put in the extra pew on both sides of the aisle to make sure that everybody is accommodated… We are, of course, the custodian of the classical liberal tradition within our society… We are also the custodians of the conservative tradition in our community… the Liberal Party it is at its best when it balances and blends those two traditions.’ Launch of The Conservative, 8th September, 2005.
  32. ‘The fractured Liberals need a new brand ― their broad church is no longer working’, The Conversation, 15th August, 2018
  33. ‘Conservatism Against Itself’, First Things, Institute on Religion and Public Life, April, 1990
  34. The New Politics of Evasion, Progressive Policy Institute, February, 2022, p. 8
  35. Launch of The Conservative
  36. Reflections on the Revolution in France, 1790, paragraphs 75, 331 and 165 respectively.
  37. On the Social Contract, Book 1, 1762, p. 1
  38. Rousseau and the Republic of Virtue (Cornell University 1986), Carol Blum, p. 103.
  39. Interview for Woman’s Own, 23rd September, 1987
  40. ‘What are the 72 other genders?’, Dr Shaziya Allarakha, MedicineNet, 2nd February, 2022
  41. National guidelines for the inclusion of transgender and gender diverse people in sport, Sportaus, June 2019
  42. See Sal Grover@saltweets, 19th July, 2022
  43. ‘Scrapping birth parenting form is a victory for sanity, biological reality and the silent majority’, Herald Sun, 22nd July, 2020
  44. The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self (Crossway, Wheaton, Illinois, 2020), p.400
  45. Ibid., p. 326
  46. Conservatism Against Itself
  47. Ibid.


Originally published by the IPA. Photo by Rene Asmussen.

Thank the Source

UK Military Would Run Out of Ammo In One Day of Fighting Russia, Warns General

UK Military Would Run Out of Ammo In One Day of Fighting Russia, Warns General

The British military’s supply of ammunition would run dry in just one day in a direct engagement with Russia as a result of years of spending cuts to the nation’s defence, a former top general has warned.

General Sir Richard Barrons, who formerly served as the Joint Forces chief, claimed that spending cuts have depleted the British military to such an extent that, in a hot war with Russia, the UK would run out of ammunition and artillery shells within just one day.

According to research conducted by The Sun newspaper, the United Kingdom’s ammunition plants would need at least one year to produce the amount of shells currently used by the Ukrainians in their conflict with Russia.

“This is truly shocking. But it is true. And we must fix it,” General Barrons wrote. “The UK spends more on defence than any EU ally and our brave Armed Forces have long been one of Britain’s most influential levers around the world.”

“Yet for decades they have been hollowed out by spending cuts,” he added, saying that the government would need to spend an additional £3 billion per year on the military to fall in line with the top level of the NATO alliance.

The Ministry of Defence, for its part, said that while ammunition levels are “highly classified”, it was boosting spending on ammunition stockpiles to “more than pre-invasion levels” with an extra £560 million earmarked by the Treasury.

The MoD also suggested that judging Britain’s readiness by the current conflict’s standards was disingenuous.

“The war in Ukraine is an example of Soviet doctrine which uses vast quantities of artillery. We do not, nor ever have, used artillery in such methods, so to try and draw such conclusions is misleading,” they claimed.

Meanwhile, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace also said this week that the United Kingdom’s defence apparatus has been “hollowed out and underfunded” — although he neglected to mention who was responsible for this.

“There’s a recognition that as the world gets more dangerous, unstable, defence should continue to get a growing proportion of spend, we can then debate how much that proportion should be,” he said.

In the first seven years after the so-called Conservative Party came into power after 2010, annual defence spending fell by £6.6 billion in real terms — a reduction of 14.6 per cent compared to the 2009-10 budget.

While slashing the military budget, the supposedly right-wing government has poured billions into left-wing projects such green energy and foreign aid, ironically including money for other nations’ militaries.

However, last year the government finally promised to increase military spending, pledging £7 billion in extra funding for the 2024-25 fiscal year, which should see defence spending rise to £51.7 billion.

Despite the apparent lack of military readiness, war hawks in the Conservative Party such as former prime minister Boris Johnson and the head of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee, Tobias Ellwood, have both called this week for Britain to double down on its support for Ukraine, with Mr Johnson calling for the government to send fighter jets to the Ukrainians.

Ellwood, meanwhile, said that Britain should engage “directly” with Russia in Ukraine rather than letting the local fighting force “do all the work”, despite noting that currently the British military is in a “dire” state, with 10,000 fewer troops than necessary.

“It is up to the Treasury and Number 10 to recognise the world is changing — we are now at war in Europe, we need to move to a war footing,” Ellwood said.

Follow Kurt Zindulka on Twitter here @KurtZindulka


Breitbart Business Digest: Market Tells Fed to Drop Dead

Jerome Powell fumbled his first press conference of the year.

Financial conditions have become much easier by almost every metric over the past three months. Equities prices have soared, bond yields have dropped, and mortgage rates are down to the point that homebuilders are sounding optimistic. Financial asset prices imply that the Fed is unlikely to get the federal funds rate above five percent and very likely to cut the benchmark rate later this year.

Powell’s job at Wednesday’s press conference following the Federal Open Market Committee meeting was to deliver a message sufficiently hawkish to discourage this. Modern monetary policy works primarily by influencing financial conditions. When you want the economy to heat up, you use your tools to loosen financial conditions. When you are trying to cool things off, you use your tools to tighten financial conditions. As Powell himself acknowledged on Wednesday, looser financial conditions undermine the Fed’s efforts to bring inflation down to its target.

Powell’s failure was written in the green pixels of the stock tickers on Wednesday. The Nasdaq Composite rose by two percent and the S&P 500 jumped by more than one percent. This violent jolt upward implies that the market is now even more convinced that its view of things will win out over the Fed’s view.

Transitory Disinflation

The principal reason for the loosening of financial conditions is a widespread conviction on Wall Street that inflation will come down much quicker than Fed officials expect and that this disinflation will persuade the Fed to back off from hiking rates above five percent. A secondary reason is the view that the economy is very likely to fall into a recession severe enough to force the Fed to start cutting. So both the optimistic view and pessimistic forecast are seen as supporting higher valuations for financial assets.

Powell was quite insistent that the disinflationists are getting ahead of the facts. He pointed out that while inflation has come down for goods, with several categories even going negative, we have not yet seen the same thing in “core non-housing services.”

“Until we do, we see ourselves as having a lot of work to do,” Powell said. He added that Fed officials expect more persistent inflation in core non-housing services.

The market, however, was not persuaded. Perhaps hearing Powell say the word “disinflation” so many times was enough to convince people that even though the Fed indicated more hikes ahead, the Fed really just has one more before it pauses.


Hitler’s Economic Miracle, Freedom from Debt Slavery


” If Gentiles refuse to live a life of inferiority, then this signals their rebellion and the unavoidable necessity of Jewish warfare against their very presence” Cf. Mordechai Nisan, Kivumin, Official publication of the World Zionist Organization,August 1984 pp. 151-156.

The National Socialist Movement in Germany and Austria shut down the Rothschild banks, seized their assets and issued new labour notes as currency, backed by labour provided.
The result was the biggest economic miracle turnaround in history as the usurious class and their crippling debt burden were expelled.
Judea declared war on Germany in 1933.

24 major efforts to avoid war with France and UK by the National Socialists were ignored by the British, French, even unofficial backdoor attempts such as leaflet drops on England (“Last appeal to reason” )and the parachuting in of a senior Nazi to talk with powerful Dukes on a peace deal. The final position of the Germans was offering to leave the siezed ethnic German parts of Poland and also offer assistance to the British Empire should it come under challenge.
All to no avail as Churchill was in and the bankers needed their war and got it. Nations leaving the global cabal banking system will never be accepted even if atrocity propaganda is needed to justify the actions carried out in shutting such recalcitrance down.

Sergeant Major

Germans wanted to end the Jewish usury that enslaved the whole world, today more than ever we need this type of brave men which were the National Socialists. The term NAZI was created as a derogatory term by the Jews, because Hitler was Waking Up the World to The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion & The Synagogue of Satan. The Germans were devoted Freedom loving people with National Pride that wanted all other countries to enjoy the same living conditions free from Jewish Communist enslavement. The Germans wanted to cleanse the world from from Rothschild’s Debt Slavery System. Adolf Hitler was the most beloved Freedom Fighter on earth with an approval rating of 99%. The Germans knew that after WW2 there was nothing else if they were to lose the war, the JEW would destroy the entire Free world, and sadly they were correct. This documentary is banned in most countries around the world but thanks to the internet and VPN technology, you no longer have an excuse for being Asleep, Unconscious, and Brainwashed. The only way to stop the Jewish Globalist Communist Cabal with their New World Order agenda is to Awaken to the Truth as quickly as possible and take actions to stop the world-wide Communist enslavement that is in full swing right now. It was the Jews & Rothschild’s that Declared War on Germany and started WW2. Expect lots of thumbs down on this video because we live in a world of braindead Zombies and dumbed down Sheep that are incapable of doing their own research to ever Wake Up. The very fact that 65 to 70% of people on earth lined up for a SUICIDE JAB is Proof in the Pudding. Never forget that Lincoln & JFK both tried to squash the Rothschild Federal Reserve & Central Bank in the USA, and look what happened to both of them.

SourceSouth Australian Gov Criminal Organisation

Kevin McCarthy: Republicans, Biden Can Find ‘Common Ground’ on Debt Ceiling, Spending Cuts

Kevin McCarthy: Republicans, Biden Can Find ‘Common Ground’ on Debt Ceiling, Spending Cuts

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said after a meeting with President Joe Biden that he is optimistic that Democrats and Republicans can find “common ground” on the debt limit and spending.

McCarthy said he and Biden had a “good first meeting,” and they shared their opposing opinions on how to raise the debt limit.

“We promised we would continue the conversation and we’ll see if we can get there. I think that at the end of the day, we can find common ground.” McCarthy said, adding that he and Biden will continue negotiating on potential compromises on the debt ceiling.

“I told the president I would like to see if we can come to an agreement long before the deadline, and we can start working on other things,” he added.

McCarthy also appeared to rule out the idea of putting together a commission to find spending cuts, which some lawmakers have advocated for.

“Nobody needs a commission to tell us … we have spent too much,” the Speaker said.

McCarthy also said, “The greatest threat to America is our debt.”

House Republicans as well as many Senate Republicans have called for structural spending reforms and cuts as part of raising the debt ceiling.

Biden has called for raising the debt ceiling with no spending cuts or reforms.
This remains in stark contrast to 2006, when then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) voted against raising the debt ceiling, expressing alarm about the rapid increase in the debt under then-President George W. Bush.

Biden said in a 2006 Senate floor speech:

Facts had changed. His promise to balance the budget, his promise to pay down the debt, were proved to be false. [Emphasis added]

But he refused to take responsibility for his policies. He refused to admit that a changed world demanded a change of course.

His refusal has pushed us deeper and deeper into the hole. His refusal added $450 billion to the debt in 2002; it added $984 billion in 2003; it added $800 billion in 2004. And here we are again today, adding another $781 billion. With that addition, our national debt will be $8.6 trillion at the end of this year.

The President’s budget plans will bring that number to $11.8 trillion at the end of the next 5 years. This is a record of utter disregard for our Nation’s financial future. It is a record of indifference to the price our children and grandchildren will pay to redeem our debt when it comes due. History will not judge this record kindly.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on Monday, “No hostage-taking, no brinkmanship. Pass the debt ceiling.”

Sean Moran is a policy reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.


Fed Hikes Benchmark Rate by 25 Basis Points, Signals More Increases to Come

Fed Hikes Benchmark Rate by 25 Basis Points, Signals More Increases to Come

The Federal Reserve continued its campaign to bring down inflation by approving an increase in its benchmark interest rate of one-quarter of a percentage point, saying it anticipates further increases in the future.

Officials agreed Wednesday to lift the federal funds rate to a range between 4.50 percent and 4.75 percent, the highest since 2007.

“The Committee anticipates that ongoing increases in the target range will be appropriate in order to attain a stance of monetary policy that is sufficiently restrictive to return inflation to 2 percent over time,” the Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) said in a statement.

Investors had expected the 25 basis point raise, the eighth consecutive Fed hike since the Fed began raising its target in March of 2022. At the prior meeting in December, the Fed raised its target range by half a percentage point.

Markets expect the Fed will hike one more time this year at the meeting and then pause to observe how the economy and inflation react to the highest interest rates in over a decade. Fed chair Jerome Powell and other central bank officials have warned the market against interpreting a slowdown in hikes or a pause as preceding an imminent pivot to cutting rates. The prices of various financial assets, however, suggest that investors do anticipate a rate cut before the year is over.

“In determining the extent of future increases in the target range, the Committee will take into account the cumulative tightening of monetary policy, the lags with which monetary policy affects economic activity and inflation, and economic and financial developments,” the FOMC said.

The statement said that the FOMC is “highly attentive to inflation risks,” a phrase the Fed has used since its second hike in May of last year.

The Fed dropped references to the pandemic from this statement, including a line that attributed inflation to “supply and demand imbalances related to the pandemic, higher food and energy prices, and broader price pressures.” The Fed also no longer says it is closely monitoring “public health” when assessing possible changes to monetary policy.

The Fed noted that inflation has improved in recent months.

“Inflation has eased somewhat but remains elevated,” the statement sad.


Something’s Buggin’ Tucker Carlson, Food Production is a National Security Issue

Something’s Buggin’ Tucker Carlson, Food Production is a National Security Issue

This is a topic we have covered extensively, and it is great to see Tucker Carlson questioning the sudden alignment of various elements that are creating a very real food insecurity problem.

The #1 factor in the shortage of food production is the newly emboldened ‘western energy policy‘ and the impact energy has on everything from field (fertilizer) to fork (distribution).  Other factors include government policy that blocks food development (Dutch, Irish and Sri Lanka Farmers), a sudden uptick in food facilities having major fires and damage, and a series of issues with the feed that goes into the production of proteins.

This is all happening as the advancement of insects as a more “sustainable” protein replacement is being advanced by the same western governments.  However, if you happen to notice that all of the issues travel in the same direction, you are a conspiracy theorist, or something.  WATCH:

We have been watching the predictable outcomes surrounding the western government shift to change energy policy for almost two years.  Approximately a year ago we first said, “the absence of food will change things.”

As energy resources like natural gas were curtailed the resulting price increase and subsequent shortage of fertilizer was discussed in great detail well in advance.

Now, we are starting to see exactly what those warning voices were talking about.

An interesting article in ZeroHedge Saturday [SEE HERE] draws attention to how the media can no longer try to ignore the created global food crisis.

ZeroHedge – People on the other side of the planet are dropping dead from starvation right now, but most people don’t even realize that this is happening.  Unfortunately, most people just assume that everything is fine and dandy.  If you are one of those people that believe that everything is just wonderful, I would encourage you to pay close attention to the details that I am about to share with you.  Global hunger is rapidly spreading, and that is because global food supplies have been getting tighter and tighter. 

If current trends continue, we could potentially be facing a nightmare scenario before this calendar year is over. (read more)

The article then goes on to detail the issues and food shortages in Pakistan, India and the entire African continent.  Factually, according to media reports on the region, the worst food crisis in history is happening – yet most U.S. and European Union media are avoiding it.  The famine is happening in almost complete western silence.

Keep in mind, none of this is unexpected.  In fact, the G7 countries discussed the pending problem in mid 2022, yet no one took any steps to avoid it.

Vladimir Putin’s military action against eastern Ukraine had nothing to do with the severe food shortages and inflation in Sri Lanka {link}.  Nor did Russia have any influence over the Dutch government trying to stop food production {link}.  Additionally, Putin had no control over Justin Trudeau’s decision to limit harvest yields by blocking the use of nitrogen-based fertilizer {link}. More importantly, it was not Vladimir Putin who forced all the western politicians to sign up for a new ‘climate friendly’ energy program that is destroying the ability of western farms to generate higher yield crops.

You do not need to be a farmer to understand that nitrogen/phosphorus-based industrial fertilizer has been the reason why farm yields have generated massive amounts of food on a global basis.  The United States, Canada, the U.K. and places like the Netherlands have massively increased their ability to generate food for export, in large part due to the success of improved fertilizer and crop saving modern pesticides.  Take those farming advancements away under the guise of climate change and you get Sri Lanka, Pakistan and now the African Continent.

Those western climate and energy policies create downstream consequences.  The decision to chase a new global energy policy under the name “Build Back Better,” in combination with short-sighted EU sanctions against Russia, and you get food shortages.

It was not Vladimir Putin who told British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz their proactive recommendation to switch from crop-based biofuels to human food would be blocked.  That G7 decision was made by Justin Trudeau and Joe Biden. {link} Even more significantly, it was not Russia who threatened the multinational energy companies about investing in Africa for expanded natural gas supplies for their fertilizer needs. That threat came from the same western government alliance, per their instructions from the World Economic Forum group {link}.

It was predictable {JUNE 21st} {June 30th} and {July 6th} that western government leaders would seek to avoid responsibility for the food crisis they created, and throughout the latter part of 2022 we saw western media trying, desperately, to frame Russia for global food shortages in order to protect western politicians.

I said this in July of last year and as the consequences now surface it is even more critical to understand.

Joe Biden, NATO, the G7, the European Union, the World Bank, USAID, and every western leader in the United States and Europe stated in early and mid 2022 there will be food shortages in 2023.

They did not say there might be shortages; their statements were emphatic, there will be shortages.

Accept this basic cornerstone.  Then ask why not a single proactive step has been taken by any of the aforementioned institutions or governments to alleviate what they declare is a certainty.  Why?

Simple question, “why?”

If all of the western nations, non-govt organizations and heads of state, are aware of a coming food crisis, why is there no proactive response?

It is a question that even the most hardcore leftists will not answer, because there is only one answer.  No action is being taken because they do not want to take action.  No effort to avoid the crisis is being done, because they do not want the crisis avoided.

Peel all the layers of obfuscation and causation away, and what we find is the epicenter of the food shortage is directly the result of the Build Back Better agenda.  A post-pandemic western government deliberate decision to radically change global energy development.  In succinct terms, the climate change agenda.

However, regardless of how you feel about the validity of “climate change,” the cause of diminished food supplies is purposeful.  It is not climate change causing food shortages. It is the purposeful action taken under the guise of mitigating climate change that is causing the shortage of food.

The collective Build Back Better energy policy of western governments’ is the reason for massive increases in energy costs, massive oil price jumps, gasoline price increases, significant increases in chemical costs, increases in diesel fuel costs, shortages of fertilizer created using natural gas, and the end result is lower crop yields, higher farming costs and eventually, food shortages.  They knew this.

All of the organizations and government who have been decrying the future shortage of food, know it is the radical shift in energy resource development that is creating the crisis.  This acceptance of reality begins the framework to understand just how entrenched and committed these western leaders are toward their beloved climate change agenda.

We are only just now beginning to see the first aspects of the food shortage.  However, once the issue becomes unavoidable the western leaders will not and cannot accept the blame for what they have done.  They will blame-cast, excuse and justify what is surfacing.

Food shortages will be blamed on the Ukraine conflict, Russian aggression, climate change and any various iteration of justification that does not identify the true cause, their energy ideology.

I’m not so sure that people fully understand what the entire system of western government would be willing to do to avoid being blamed for avoidable death on a potential scale that is quite alarming.  All of the western leaders, institutions and governments are on the same boat.   They are all in this together.

(June 22, 2022) – (Reuters) – The European Union is divided on how to help poorer nations fight a growing food crisis and address shortages of fertilizers caused by the war in Ukraine, with some fearing a plan to invest in plants in Africa would clash with EU green goals.

The need for food “clashes with EU green goals.”…  Let that sink in.


Nothing to see here comrade, nothing to see….



Please help truthPeep spread the word :)