What are the opening hours?

Saturday 8am - 5pm Sunday 8am - 5pm

http://TexasLibertyJournal.com/

Texas Liberty Journal, Trophy Club, TX (2024)

11/05/2024

Election Day: America’s Last Stand Against a Descent into Darkness
Texas Liberty Journal

Opinion – Today is no ordinary election day; it’s a watershed moment, a last-ditch effort to reclaim the foundations of liberty in a country slipping rapidly toward authoritarianism. The vote you cast today may be the most consequential act of civic duty in your lifetime—a choice that could spell the difference between restoring our constitutional republic or watching its final decay. A vote for Donald Trump represents more than a candidate; it is a vote to preserve the freedoms and self-governance that generations have fought to safeguard. Without a decisive, overwhelming turnout that leaves no room for doubt or manipulation, we may be watching the end of the great American experiment.

For years now, a deep-seated erosion has taken hold in our institutions, our values, and even our communities. Government, once an instrument of the people, has been infiltrated by forces at odds with liberty and self-determination. This infiltration stretches from local school boards to federal agencies, with unelected bureaucrats and activist judges deciding what is best for the people, often ignoring the people’s will entirely. The outcome of this election will determine whether we, the American citizens, can assert ourselves against this encroaching authoritarianism, or whether we’re content to passively accept our descent into one-party rule.

The Stakes Could Not Be Higher
Let’s be clear about the stakes. If Kamala Harris were to ascend to the presidency, either through election or through a manufactured disqualification of Trump, it would signal the formal end of the two-party system. With 20 million illegal aliens on a path to citizenship—and therefore to voting—our electoral balance would be irreversibly skewed. In every state, their votes would drown out those of lawful citizens, effectively dismantling the prospect of a Republican president for generations. A one-party system, historically, is the path to poverty and oppression. The policies pursued by today’s Democratic leadership already show signs of those authoritarian leanings: centralization of power, stifling of dissent, and an alliance with a compliant media eager to silence the opposition.

Imagine a nation where the people’s choice no longer holds sway, where elections resemble those of one-party regimes, a mere show to legitimate those already chosen by the elite. A Harris administration would solidify a monopoly on power that would cripple our middle class, reduce our freedoms, and enforce an ever-growing dependency on government. We have seen such examples in every authoritarian regime throughout history: a downward spiral that relegates the majority to mere subsistence, while the elites grow ever more powerful. This is not hyperbole; this is the blueprint Democrats themselves have revealed through their policies, which elevate government authority over personal liberty.

And if they win, they won’t pretend to listen to the people any longer. Our Republic will become, in effect, an oligarchy, veiled in the trappings of democracy but devoid of its essence. This is what we face.

An Urgent Plea to American Patriots
This election must be too big to rig. Every American with even a passing sense of patriotism must turn out and vote—not just for Trump but for the very survival of our democratic processes. Our votes must overwhelm any margin of error, fraud, or manipulation. The Left has proven itself adept at working every lever within its reach to secure its desired outcomes, from ballot harvesting and mail-in voting to courtroom battles waged by teams of highly-paid lawyers who ensure that laws tilt their way. This is no time for complacency or hesitation; if we don’t assert ourselves now, the window will close, perhaps forever.

The Left’s Agenda is Already in Motion
If Trump wins, we should expect the Democrat machine to mobilize its forces against him once again. Their commitment to opposing him goes far beyond ideological difference; it is visceral, almost pathological. “Trump Derangement Syndrome” isn’t merely a phrase; it is the lens through which the Left has viewed him from day one. They don’t see him as merely a president or a politician—they see him as a threat to their power, and as such, they will deploy every available means to dismantle his administration and nullify the people’s choice.

Plans are already being made to ensure that Trump either cannot take office or, if he does, that his power will be so restricted he will be unable to enact any meaningful change. Impeachment efforts, relentless media attacks, judicial blockades—these tools have been utilized in the past and will be refined and unleashed again, with greater ferocity and purpose. The question is not whether the Left will resist Trump; it’s how far they’re willing to go, and if history is any indicator, they are willing to go all the way—even if it means tearing down the very institutions they claim to protect.

What We Stand to Lose
Our Constitution was crafted not just as a governing document, but as a safeguard against tyranny. But the Constitution is only as strong as the people’s will to uphold it. For too long, we’ve watched as unelected officials interpret, redefine, and often disregard it to fit the narratives of those in power. This election offers us a chance to reaffirm our commitment to self-governance. But if we fail to turn out in force, if we allow fraud and manipulation to taint the outcome, we will have lost the last true mechanism for resistance.

The cost of failure is unfathomable. A future without a middle class, a future where government dictates every aspect of life, a future in which dissent is crushed and replaced with Orwellian newspeak—the loss of American freedom would resonate globally. We cannot afford to assume that someone else will secure this future for us; the responsibility rests on each of us.

The Republic’s Last Stand
There will be no do-overs, no second chances, no reset button. This election is our moment to choose: to either reclaim our nation from the grips of radical ideologues or to watch its transformation into a state we no longer recognize. Freedom, once lost, is rarely regained without extraordinary sacrifice. But here and now, with a vote, we have the power to resist—to assert the founding principles of our Republic, to demand accountability, and to preserve the precious liberties that countless Americans have died defending.
So let this be your rallying cry, your mission, your civic duty: vote for Donald Trump, for freedom, for the Constitution, and for the America we know and love. Because if we lose today, we may never get another chance.

**This post first appeared in the Texas Liberty Journal. Please visit our website for this and other political analysis and commentary.

09/19/2024

RINO Republicans: Irrelevant and Out of Touch with the GOP’s Future

In recent years, the term “RINO” (Republican in Name Only) has taken on new meaning, particularly as a label for individuals within the GOP who have steadfastly opposed the populist movement led by former President Donald Trump. As the 2024 election cycle approaches, a notable group of these “Never Trump” Republicans—figures like Dick and Liz Cheney, George Bush, Mike Pence, John Bolton, Mitt Romney, Adam Kinzinger, Lisa Murkowski, and the disbanded yet outspoken Lincoln Project—have taken their defection to new heights, publicly declaring their intent to support Kamala Harris, the Democratic frontrunner, for president. By doing so, they have effectively cemented their irrelevance within the modern GOP, ensuring that their influence will continue to dwindle in a party that has transformed far beyond the neoconservative days of the Bush administration.

The Irreversible Break
The decision to endorse Harris over Trump is nothing short of an existential crisis for these figures. While many of them have long been estranged from the Trump wing of the party, this outright endorsement of the opposition signals their final break from the GOP’s base. Figures such as Dick and Liz Cheney, who once represented the hawkish, interventionist wing of the Republican Party, are now seen as relics of a bygone era. Their support for Harris, a staunch progressive, reveals just how disconnected they’ve become from the conservative grassroots.

Liz Cheney’s anti-Trump crusade reached its zenith with her prominent role on the January 6th Committee, where she sought to portray Trump as a danger to democracy. While this earned her accolades from the left, it led to her resounding defeat in Wyoming’s Republican primary, where her loyalty to the party’s base was called into question. Her father’s legacy as Vice President under George W. Bush may have carried weight during the War on Terror, but in today’s GOP, a party increasingly focused on America First policies, the Cheney name is synonymous with the establishment—a faction that has lost its grip on power.

George Bush: A Distant Memory
The Bush dynasty, once a dominant force in Republican politics, now finds itself in the political wilderness. George W. Bush’s silence during the Trump presidency spoke volumes, but his recent endorsement of Kamala Harris underscores how far he has drifted from the conservative movement that once championed his leadership. Many conservative voters see the Bush years as a period of misguided wars and unchecked spending, and the former president’s support for a Democratic candidate further alienates him from a party that has moved in a dramatically different direction.

Mike Pence and John Bolton: From Allies to Pariahs
Mike Pence, once Trump’s loyal vice president, finds himself in a political no man’s land. His refusal to challenge the 2020 election results earned him the ire of many Trump supporters, and his subsequent political moves, including his Harris endorsement, have isolated him even further. Pence’s traditional conservative stance on issues like abortion may resonate with some in the GOP, but his unwillingness to embrace the populist tide means his future within the party is bleak.

John Bolton, Trump’s former national security advisor, has long been a polarizing figure. His neoconservative worldview, shaped by a belief in American interventionism abroad, is a stark contrast to the America First approach that now defines the GOP. Bolton’s endorsement of Harris is unsurprising, given his public spats with Trump, but it only serves to highlight how out of touch he is with a Republican base that no longer prioritizes endless wars and nation-building.

Mitt Romney, Adam Kinzinger, and Lisa Murkowski: The Party’s Outcasts
Mitt Romney, the senator from Utah and 2012 Republican presidential nominee, has spent much of the Trump era positioning himself as the GOP’s moral conscience. His votes to impeach Trump and his consistent criticism of the former president have made him a pariah within the party. Romney’s decision to back Harris all but guarantees that he will have no future influence in shaping the GOP’s policy or direction.

Adam Kinzinger, another vocal critic of Trump, has followed a similar trajectory. Once a rising star in the GOP, Kinzinger’s tenure on the January 6th Committee and his constant bashing of Trump’s influence on the party led to his political demise. His exit from Congress was more of a resignation than a defeat, but his endorsement of Harris signals that he, too, has no intention of aligning with the future of the Republican Party.

Lisa Murkowski, the senator from Alaska, has long walked a fine line between maintaining her seat and placating a Republican base that has increasingly viewed her as too moderate. Her vote to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial alienated her from the GOP electorate, and her support for Harris solidifies her position as an outsider within the party.

The Lincoln Project: A Failed Experiment
Perhaps the most glaring example of political irrelevance is The Lincoln Project, the group of disaffected Republicans that formed in opposition to Trump. While initially heralded by the media as a principled stand against the populist takeover of the GOP, the organization quickly descended into scandal and disarray. Its members—George Conway, Steve Schmidt, John Weaver, Rick Wilson, Jennifer Horn, Ron Steslow, Reed Galen, and Mike Madrid—have not only failed to sway Republican voters but have also been engulfed by internal turmoil, sexual harassment scandals, and allegations of financial mismanagement.

The Lincoln Project’s endorsement of Harris is more of a desperate attempt to stay relevant than a meaningful political statement. Their influence has waned to the point that they are now more popular with MSNBC viewers than with actual Republican voters. Their vocal support for a Democratic candidate only serves to remind the GOP base that they no longer belong within the party’s tent.

The GOP’s Future: Unwavering Loyalty to the Base
The transformation of the Republican Party over the past decade has been nothing short of revolutionary. What was once a party led by establishment figures like the Bushes, Romneys, and Cheneys has now become a movement driven by a populist, nationalist base. The issues that animate the GOP today—securing the southern border, protecting American jobs, limiting government overreach, and standing up to the radical left—are completely at odds with the worldview of the RINO Republicans who are now backing Kamala Harris.

By choosing to support Harris, these figures have all but guaranteed their permanent exclusion from any future Republican administration. Their influence has been reduced to the occasional appearance on cable news, where they are paraded as “reasonable” Republicans willing to buck their party’s leadership. But within the actual GOP, their voices carry no weight. The Republican Party is no longer a party of compromise with the left—it is a party of conviction, driven by a desire to restore American greatness and reject the globalist, interventionist policies of the past.

A New Era for the GOP
As the 2024 election looms, the irrelevance of the Never Trump Republicans becomes increasingly apparent. Their endorsement of Kamala Harris is not a principled stand but a final act of desperation from a faction that has lost its influence and power. The future of the Republican Party belongs to those who are willing to fight for the interests of the American people, not those who seek the approval of the media or the Washington elite. In the end, the RINO Republicans have chosen their path, and it is one that leads far away from the heart of the GOP.

**This post first appeared in the Texas Liberty Journal. For more in-depth coverage of Texas politics and conservative viewpoints, visit our website.

09/18/2024

Does Rep. Jasmine Crockett Want Donald Trump to Be Killed? MAGA supporters?

Dallas, TX — The political temperature in North Texas has reached a boiling point as Rep. Jasmine Crockett [D-TX-30], known as one of the most radical progressives in Texas, faces fierce criticism over her controversial stance on former President Donald Trump’s Secret Service protection. Crockett, second only to Rep. Gene Wu in terms of radicalism, has drawn significant backlash for her co-sponsorship of H.R.8081, a bill that sought to strip Trump of his Secret Service protection following his conviction on felony charges in New York.

The uproar comes on the heels of a second assassination attempt on Trump, which occurred on September 14, 2024. The attempt took place at Trump’s New Jersey golf course, where a suspect, Ryan Wesley Routh, breached security and fired multiple shots. The Secret Service neutralized Routh before he could inflict harm, but the attempt underscored the life-threatening risks Trump continues to face, even after leaving office.

Crockett’s push to remove Secret Service protection from Trump has been described as not only extreme but dangerous, given the former president’s ongoing security risks. This most recent assassination attempt follows an earlier attack on Trump during a rally in Pennsylvania, where he narrowly avoided a fatal injury when a bullet grazed his right ear.

Despite these violent threats, Crockett has doubled down on her position, drawing the ire of many Texans. Leading the call for her resignation are 16 prominent Texas Republicans, including State Rep. Brian Harrison and State Sen. Bob Hall, who released a letter on Monday condemning her legislative actions. “Presidents of the United States, both current and former, must be protected—this should not be a partisan issue,” their statement read.

Crockett’s Radical Agenda in the Spotlight
Jasmine Crockett’s radical legislative agenda has long been a topic of concern for Texas conservatives. Known for her unapologetically progressive stances, Crockett has earned a reputation as one of the most left-wing members of the Texas delegation. Following in the footsteps of Rep. Gene Wu, the most radical progressive in the state, Crockett has been a vocal supporter of extreme measures on issues ranging from criminal justice reform to economic redistribution.

Her co-sponsorship of the “Denying Infinite Security and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely Dishonorable Former Protectees Act” (DISGRACED) is just the latest in a string of controversial moves. Had it passed, the bill would have left Trump without Secret Service protection—a move critics argue would have made the former president even more vulnerable to assassination attempts like the ones he has faced in the past year.

Even more inflammatory were Crockett’s recent remarks about the MAGA movement. In an interview, she referred to MAGA supporters as “threats to us,” a comment that further inflamed tensions between her and conservative Texans. State Rep. Harrison blasted her remarks as “divisive and dangerous,” while State Sen. Hall called them “a chilling insight into her extreme worldview.”

Political Violence and Crockett’s Hypocrisy
Crockett’s response to the assassination attempt on Trump has done little to quiet her critics. In a carefully crafted statement posted to her official X account, she stated, “My thoughts are with Mr. Trump as he recovers. My deepest appreciation is extended to law enforcement for their selfless & decisive action. Political violence in all forms must be condemned.”

However, Republicans were quick to highlight the hypocrisy of Crockett’s statement. Many pointed out that by supporting legislation that would have removed Trump’s Secret Service protection, she was effectively putting his life at greater risk. “Her words are hollow,” said one Republican strategist. “You can’t claim to condemn political violence while simultaneously voting to leave a former president defenseless against it.”

Ken Ashby, the Independent candidate challenging Crockett in the upcoming election, seized on this apparent contradiction. “Rep. Crockett’s actions speak louder than her words. The fact that she supports leaving a former president vulnerable to assassination attempts is not only reckless, but it shows just how extreme her views have become,” Ashby said in a recent interview.

Ashby, who is gaining traction among conservative voters in Texas’ 30th District, has positioned himself as a voice of reason in a race where no Republican candidate is running. With Election Day approaching, Crockett’s controversial positions could be a major liability as voters weigh the risks of re-electing a radical progressive against the more measured approach Ashby offers.

Crockett’s Radicalism and the Future of North Texas Politics
Jasmine Crockett’s political career has been defined by her radical views, which have earned her praise from the far-left and scorn from conservatives. Her tenure in Congress has been marked by her support for progressive policies that many in Texas see as far out of step with the state’s values. From her early days as a public defender to her time in the Texas House of Representatives, Crockett has pushed for policies that critics say go too far in dismantling traditional structures of law and order.

In addition to her support for the DISGRACED Act, Crockett has been a vocal advocate for police reform, economic redistribution, and expanded government healthcare—positions that have alienated many moderate voters in her district. Her stance on Trump’s security, combined with her inflammatory rhetoric about MAGA supporters, has only deepened the divide between her and Texas Republicans.

Ken Ashby has been quick to capitalize on Crockett’s vulnerabilities, framing himself as a defender of American values and a protector of the dignity of the presidency. “It’s not just about Trump,” Ashby said in a recent statement. “It’s about protecting the office of the presidency and ensuring that all our leaders, past and present, are safe from harm. That’s something every American, regardless of party, should support.”

As Election Day draws near, the future of North Texas politics hangs in the balance. The race between Crockett and Ashby has become a referendum on extremism, with voters in District 30 forced to decide whether they want to continue down the path of radical progressivism or chart a more moderate course.

A District Divided
The controversy surrounding Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s radical views and her dangerous legislative efforts has highlighted the deep political divide in North Texas. As the second most radical progressive in Texas, Crockett’s extreme positions have made her a polarizing figure, and her co-sponsorship of a bill that could have stripped Trump of vital security protection has only amplified the concerns of her critics.

With two assassination attempts on Trump in the past year, including the most recent on September 14, 2024, many voters are questioning the wisdom of Crockett’s judgment and the safety implications of her legislative priorities. Her opponent, Ken Ashby, has positioned himself as the alternative to radicalism, offering a more secure and balanced approach to governance.

Ultimately, the voters of District 30 will decide whether to endorse Crockett’s radical agenda or embrace Ashby’s more conservative vision for North Texas. The outcome of this election could have far-reaching implications for the political landscape of Texas, shaping the direction of the state for years to come.

**This post first appeared in the Texas Liberty Journal. For more in-depth coverage of Texas politics and conservative viewpoints, visit our website.

09/18/2024

California Governor Gavin Newsom’s Attack on the First Amendment: The New Law Criminalizing AI-Generated Political Parody

TLJ - California Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation on September 17, 2024, that effectively muzzles the First Amendment under the guise of curbing “deepfake” technology. The new law, touted as the nation’s most aggressive stance on AI-generated content, makes it illegal to use artificial intelligence to create parody images, videos, or audio impersonations of political candidates in the run-up to elections. While the law claims to address the growing concern of misinformation in political campaigns, it’s a direct assault on a core element of free speech: political satire.

The Move Against Free Speech
Governor Newsom’s decision comes after a public spat with Elon Musk, owner of the social media platform X. The conflict began when Musk shared an AI-altered video of Vice President Kamala Harris. Newsom rebuked Musk and swiftly vowed to push for legislation that would prevent such content from being shared in California. True to his word, the bill was signed into law and is set to take effect before the November 2024 elections.

The law allows courts to issue injunctions against the distribution of intentionally deceptive political content, including satirical deepfakes, during election season. Penalties can also be levied on individuals or entities that share such content. Newsom, in a conversation with Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, dismissed the idea that the law was politically motivated, stating, “I could care less if it was Harris or Trump. It was just wrong on every level.”

However, the implication of this law is clear—it limits the ability of citizens, commentators, and even comedians to use AI for political satire, parody, and commentary. While Newsom and his allies frame the legislation as a safeguard against misinformation, this is a direct violation of the First Amendment, which has long protected satire as a form of political expression.

What’s Really at Stake?
At first glance, combating AI-generated misinformation might seem like a noble cause. With deepfakes becoming increasingly sophisticated, the potential for misleading voters is a legitimate concern. But the problem arises when the state begins to overreach, dictating the boundaries of acceptable speech. Political parody has always played a critical role in American democracy, serving as a tool to mock, criticize, and hold the powerful accountable. From the lampooning of Richard Nixon in “All in the Family” to “Saturday Night Live’s” biting satire of both Democratic and Republican politicians, parody has been a vital form of political expression.

This new California law threatens to blur the line between deceptive manipulation and political satire, chilling a form of speech that has been constitutionally protected for over two centuries. As Elon Musk pointed out, “Parody is legal in America.” But in Newsom’s California, it appears that may no longer be the case—at least when AI is involved.

The Broader Implications
The passage of this law is part of a broader, troubling trend in which powerful figures in government seek to control the flow of information under the guise of protecting “truth” and “democracy.” With this legislation, California now leads the charge in cracking down on AI-generated content, but this could easily set a dangerous precedent for other states to follow. If laws like this are allowed to proliferate, it would mark the beginning of a slippery slope, where freedom of expression becomes increasingly curtailed in the digital age.

Even more alarming is the timing. Newsom’s law takes effect before the 2024 elections, a critical moment in American politics. Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, who carried the bill, admitted the law was written with the explicit intent of targeting content in the 2024 cycle, referring to it as the nation’s “first AI election.” Under the pretext of shielding election officials and candidates from targeted misinformation, this law effectively curtails the ability of voters to engage with and criticize political figures in new and creative ways.

Political Satire or Misinformation?
The key issue here is defining what constitutes “misinformation.” While deepfakes that genuinely deceive voters are problematic, this law takes aim at all AI-generated content, even when it is clearly marked as parody or satire. Political figures, especially during campaigns, have always been subject to scrutiny, mockery, and impersonation. Satirical images and videos often draw attention to important issues, shaping public opinion through humor. By prohibiting AI-generated content in this realm, the law conflates misleading information with the use of humor and satire, undermining the spirit of the First Amendment.

The dangers of deepfake technology are real, but the solution to this issue cannot be the heavy hand of government dictating what kinds of content are permissible. As it stands, existing defamation laws are already sufficient to address cases where deepfakes cross the line from satire into malicious deception. Yet, the California law treats all AI-generated political content as a threat, removing the essential nuance that distinguishes satire from falsehood.

Newsom’s Long Battle with Elon Musk
This latest law also highlights the ongoing feud between Governor Newsom and Elon Musk. What began as a disagreement over COVID-19 lockdowns has escalated into a broader clash over free speech and the role of tech companies in moderating content. Musk has been a vocal critic of California’s regulatory environment, especially as the state continues to push for more control over tech platforms and the content they host.

In response to this law, it is not hard to imagine that Musk and others will challenge it in court, arguing that it oversteps the constitutional protections of free speech. Musk’s platform, X, could become a battleground for legal challenges, especially since the law allows users to flag content for removal, putting tech companies in the difficult position of adjudicating what constitutes “misleading” political content.

****This post first appeared in the Texas Liberty Journal. For more in-depth coverage of Texas politics and conservative viewpoints, visit our website.

09/04/2024

How the Harris-Biden "War on Oil" Policies Fuel Inflation

TLJ - In the intricate web of modern economies, one thread stands out for its sheer indispensability: oil. Not just the lifeblood of transportation, oil's influence permeates every facet of consumer life, from the mundane to the sophisticated. Yet, under the Harris-Biden administration, what appears as a war on oil could well be the unseen hand inflating prices across the board, touching every product we use or consume.

Consider your morning routine. That cup of coffee from Starbucks? Oil isn't just in the fuel that transports the beans; it's in the cup itself, lined with petroleum-based plastics. The makeup you applied before going to work... those are petrochemicals. Petrochemicals are integral to cosmetics. And let's not forget your smartphone or laptop, where oil derivatives are crucial in manufacturing components like plastics, synthetic rubbers, and even the tiny amounts in circuits.

The agricultural sector, the backbone of food production, is deeply oil-dependent. From the fuel for tractors to the fertilizers made from natural gas, a byproduct of oil extraction, to the plastic packaging of your groceries, oil's footprint is undeniable. Water purification? It relies on energy-intensive processes, often powered by fossil fuels. But water additives, filters, piping ... every component is a product of oil; synthesized from petroleum derivatives.

Your clothes, your shoes, your eye glasses or contacts. Your hair products (or hair dryer), shampoo bottles (and even the shampoo) are all petroleum based. And let's not forget that everything you purchase was shipped to that store ... or your door. Shipping is a huge oil based industry. It's not just the fuel, it's the cardboard box, the tape, the sticky print labels and even the ink on those labels. It's even the road... the additives in the asphalt. The paint of the lines on the road. The traffic lights or reflective road signage.

Even the most eco-conscious choices, like electric vehicles, aren't free from oil's influence. The manufacturing of EVs, from batteries to tires, involves oil at every step and in every part. The plastic dash, the leather seats, the electronics. The last thing in the line is the electricity to charge them. While renewable sources are growing, a significant portion still comes from oil or natural gas. Even if the source of the energy comes from a renewable source, the wires that bring it to your house are copper & rubber, which is made from petroleum. Oil.

Every single thing in your home is made with, by or shipped using petroleum ... oil. Everything.

This pervasive reliance on oil sets the stage for understanding the economic repercussions of the Harris-Biden administration's energy policies. By imposing restrictions on new oil and gas leasing on federal lands, as seen in early 2021, and signaling a shift away from fossil fuels, these policies have inadvertently tightened the oil supply, pushing prices up. This isn't just about filling up your car; it's about the cost of everything.

Inflation, therefore, isn't merely a monetary policy issue but a direct consequence of energy policy. When oil prices surge, not due to market demand but policy-induced scarcity, every sector feels the pinch. Manufacturers face higher production costs, which inevitably get passed on to consumers. The ripple effect is clear: higher oil prices lead to higher costs in transportation, manufacturing, agriculture, and beyond, culminating in the inflation we're witnessing.

The administration's approach, while aimed at combating climate change, overlooks the immediate economic realities. By not fully supporting domestic oil production or infrastructure like the Keystone XL Pipeline, they've contributed to a scenario where oil prices could have been moderated, thus potentially alleviating some inflationary pressures.

In essence, oil isn't just a component of our economy; it's the lifeblood. The policies that inadvertently restrict its flow are akin to tightening the economic arteries, leading to a systemic increase in costs across all goods and services. As we navigate this complex landscape, understanding oil's role beyond just fuel for our vehicles might just be the key to untangling the inflation conundrum we face today. The Harris-Biden administration's energy strategy, while well-intentioned for the environment, might be the unseen force inflating our everyday expenses, reminding us that in economics, as in life, everything is interconnected.

**This post first appeared in the Texas Liberty Journal. For more in-depth coverage of Texas politics and conservative viewpoints, visit our website.

Texas Liberty Journal

11/05/2024

09/19/2024

09/18/2024

09/18/2024

09/04/2024

Address

Opening Hours

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Other News & Media Websites in Trophy Club