Posted originally on the CTH on March 12, 2023 | Sundance
BREAKING NEWS – The U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve Board, FDIC and Joe Biden collectively announce that *all* depositors with Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) will have access to their funds – regardless of amount deposited. Also, all senior bank management has been terminated.
This announced action appears to cover those under FDIC protection ($250k or less) and those above FDIC protection (deposits greater than $250k). The only vulnerability is that SVB “shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders will not be protected.”
WASHINGTON DC – The following statement was released by Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen, Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome H. Powell, and FDIC Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg:
Today we are taking decisive actions to protect the U.S. economy by strengthening public confidence in our banking system. This step will ensure that the U.S. banking system continues to perform its vital roles of protecting deposits and providing access to credit to households and businesses in a manner that promotes strong and sustainable economic growth.
After receiving a recommendation from the boards of the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, and consulting with the President, Secretary Yellen approved actions enabling the FDIC to complete its resolution of Silicon Valley Bank, Santa Clara, California, in a manner that fully protects all depositors. Depositors will have access to all of their money starting Monday, March 13. No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer.
We are also announcing a similar systemic risk exception for Signature Bank, New York, New York, which was closed today by its state chartering authority. All depositors of this institution will be made whole. As with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank, no losses will be borne by the taxpayer.
Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders will not be protected. Senior management has also been removed. Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law.
Finally, the Federal Reserve Board on Sunday announced it will make available additional funding to eligible depository institutions to help assure banks have the ability to meet the needs of all their depositors.
The U.S. banking system remains resilient and on a solid foundation, in large part due to reforms that were made after the financial crisis that ensured better safeguards for the banking industry. Those reforms combined with today’s actions demonstrate our commitment to take the necessary steps to ensure that depositors’ savings remain safe. (LINK)
Will this action help stop any contagion related to California’s largest bank?
…The odds are, yes.
Despite Friday’s action to stop trading of FRB, with this action, I doubt First Republic Bank (FRB) is now at risk.
Posted originally on the CTH on February 26, 2023 | Sundance
The first time I saw Ms. Emily Kohrs doing her gleeful and bizarre interview with MSNBC, the first thing that came to mind was Isaiah 54:17: “No weapon formed against you shall prosper, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you.” Indeed, a providence again visible as a shield over Donald J Trump. Yes, this is a spiritual battle.
On CBS Face the Nation today, Trump attorney’s Drew Findling and Jennifer Little discuss the media tour by Georgia special grand jury foreperson Emily Kohrs, and how the background of the prosecution itself became visible in the overly ambitious statements from Ms Kohrs. WATCH:
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: The investigation of former President Trump in Fulton County, Georgia, took a strange turn last week. And Mr. Trump’s lawyers now argue it could impact a possible trial. At the center of the controversy, Emily Kohrs, the forewoman for the special grand jury that investigated alleged election interference in Georgia by Trump and his allies. Kohrs gave several interviews in which she hinted that more than a dozen key players, perhaps even the former president, might have been recommended for indictments.
Now, special grand juries can’t indict, but that recommendation could prompt the district attorney to create a criminal grand jury. The judge overseeing the case told CNN last week that although the deliberations are confidential, quote, what witnesses said, what you put in the report, those are not off limits to those on the jury.
The attorneys for President Trump in the Georgia case had not given an interview to any TV network, but the Kohrs media tour prompted them to talk to our Robert Costa.
EMILY KOHRS, FOREWOMAN FOR THE SPECIAL GRAND JURY: I kind of wanted to subpoena the former president because I got to swear everybody in. And so I thought it would be really cool to get 60 seconds with President Trump.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you recommend charges against Donald Trump?
EMILY KOHRS: I really don’t want to share something that the judge made a conscious decision not to share.
ROBERT COSTA (voice over): Could Emily Kohrs’ public disclosures jeopardize the case that could be brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis? Kohrs is part of a special purpose grand jury that heard months of testimony from more than 75 witnesses about alleged Republican efforts to pressure state officials, like Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to overturn President Biden’s victory in Georgia.
DONALD TRUMP (Former U.S. President): Look, Brad, I’ve got to get — I have to find 12,000 votes, and I have them.
ROBERT COSTA: Kohrs suggested the special grand jury submitted a report to Willis last month that recommended multiple indictments on a range of charges. But Willis has yet to decide whether or not to convene a criminal grand jury that could issue indictment against some Trump allies and even the former president himself.
Drew Findley and Jennifer Little head up the former president’s legal team in the Georgia case. They say that Emily Kohrs’ media tour has tainted any attempt by District Attorney Willis to move toward charging Trump.
ROBERT COSTA (on camera): What are your options?
DREW FINDLING (Defense Attorney, Former President Trump): Are the results of that special purpose grand jury to be crumbled up like a piece of paper and thrown into a waste paper basket? Our options are, can this district attorney’s office continue to be part of this case? We have to legally research all of those issues.
ROBERT COSTA: Have you lost confidence in the district attorney?
DREW FINDLING: We’ve lost 100 percent confidence in this process. We feel this process has been compromised.
ROBERT COSTA (voice over): Emily Kohrs, they say, is not to blame.
DREW FINDLING: This 30-year-old foreperson to us has actually provided us a lens and made us aware that every suspicion we had as to this questionable process was, in fact, a reality.
ROBERT COSTA (on camera): But she didn’t break any rules, though, right? She may have break – broken a norm, but the grand jury was over by the time she went on this media tour, as you put it.
DREW FINDLING: Yes.
ROBERT COSTA: So, what did she do wrong, in your view, legally?
DREW FINDLING: We have no chagrin towards this foreperson. And it looks like they lost perspective over keeping separation between prosecuting attorneys and the members of this grand jury. There cannot be a relationship. When the foreperson uses the word “we,” that lets you know there’s a relationship there. When she says in interviews certain battles were not worth us battling, it’s not the special purpose grand jury that’s litigating, it’s the district attorney’s office.
ROBERT COSTA: She said, it wouldn’t be worth the battle they decided to call your client in, former President Trump in as a witness. That’s the public statement she made.
DREW FINDLING: And – and – right. And – and who knows what that is based on.
ROBERT COSTA: He wasn’t called in the special grand jury part of this investigation. Did that surprise you? And if he was called, would you have fought that subpoena?
JENNIFER LITTLE (Defense Attorney, Former President Trump): I’m not going to speak to what our legal decisions would have been. But it was surprising. And particularly once we heard the reasons why he wasn’t called, when we had our foreperson of this grand jury speaking about how excited and cool it would have been to be able to look at Donald Trump, the former president of the United States, for 60 seconds, but that they just determined that given the resources and the other witnesses that they had heard of, that they just didn’t need to have any more evidence at that point. It’s concerning that that was the level of diligence that was shown in that decision. And it was surprising, frankly.
ROBERT COSTA (voice over): If former President Trump is indicted, Willis can certainly expect a legal battle from Trump’s lawyers.
JENNIFER LITTLE: We absolutely do not believe that our client did anything wrong. And if any indictments were to come down, those are faulty indictments, we will absolutely fight anything tooth and nail.
ROBERT COSTA: Willis and the district attorney’s office declined to comment.
Posted originally on the CTH on February 26, 2023 | Sundance
If it sounds too good to be true….
Okay folks, this is a story that dragged me into a rabbit hole for two days. If you have seen the video testimony of Ms. Jacqueline Breger in front of the Arizona Senate Committee investigating election issues, this outline is intended to help you navigate the story.
On February 23, 2023, Ms. Breger delivered testimony to the Arizona Senate claiming documentary evidence that shows judges, politicians, police, local and state officials as well as multiple groups, organizations and individuals associated within government and elections operations the state of Arizona are being bribed and under the influence of the Sinaloa Cartel from Mexico.
It is not coincidental that everything associated with this story seems explosive and astounding. It is also not coincidental that you could spend hours looking for specific details of the allegations, including watching interviews with each of the participants, and not find your answers. Things are NOT what they seem.
I am going to start by sharing the 42-minute video {direct Rumble Link here} of the allegations made by Ms. Jacqueline Breger, because this is the origination from which all downstream story details originate. This testimony hit the web and exploded in the alternative media ecosphere. WATCH:
As she outlines in the video Mrs. Jacqueline Breger, a forensic investigator, represents the interests of an attorney, Mr. John Thaler, in delivering information to the committee that would be pertinent to their interests.
The *hook* to grab immediate attention is to apply the accusations of bribery, public corruption, fraud and money laundering to one big name, Katie Hobbs, who is now the governor of Arizona.
According to the claims, Mrs. Katie Hobbs and her husband were participants in a racketeering scheme originating from the Sinaloa drug and human trafficking cartel. Real estate transactions using dummy mortgage companies, holding companies and title companies are part of the alleged operation.
Essentially the primary real estate allegation works like this. The Sinaloa Cartel uses proxies in the U.S. to set up fraudulent corporations (mortgage companies etc). Those proxies then launder drug money through real estate transactions using the fraudulent companies. If they need to bribe a person, the cartel finances the mortgage of the individual as a way to pay the property owner. The mortgage is never paid back because the financing is the bribe. The mortgage company and the title company are essentially the cartel.
I am going to drop videos with Mr. John Thaler at the bottom of this outline so you can listen to the explanation of the allegations as they are claimed.
The money laundering allegations are widespread and involve bribing public officials, judges, police officers, city office holders, county clerks, court employees, politicians as well as a variety of local and state officials to include state representatives, state senators and various state officials. The fraud is claimed to encompass private sector payrolls, education systems, insurance claims, as well as setting up fake identities, fraudulent records by using illicit access, as well as fraud associated with local, state and federal tax evasions.
All of these issues are explosive in scale and scope, and Mrs. Breger together with Mr. Thaler, claim to have all the documentary evidence to support the allegations. Tens of thousands of documents detailing thousands of fraudulent transactions and several hundred examples of fraudulent records placed in the civic systems.
Again, I will put the videos at the bottom, if you want to spend several hours watching them (as I have already done) the option is yours.
♦ On the specifics of the allegations. There is no way to easily estimate whether or not the claims are accurate. On the specific allegations against Mrs Hobbs, the claimed real estate transactions could support the claims, but may also not support the claims because Breger and Thaler assert that “similar names” are used in the transactions. So, it could be Katie Hobbs and her husband, it could also be totally innocuous people with similar names. [This only applies to Hobbs]
But the issues with Hobbs only scratch the surface. The allegations are much more widespread and encompassing than just Hobbs.
This is where you as an information absorber need to apply a strong dose of skepticism, apply instinct and commonsense. This is also where we would say, wait a minute, who is this guy John Thaler and Ms. Jacqueline Breger, and (1) are they stable people; and (2) do they carry motives behind these allegations.
In my estimation, this is where major warning flags are located.
♦ The two principal agents working on the Sinaloa Cartel money laundering operation in Arizona are claimed to be Brittany Rae-Chavez and her mother Dawna Rae-Chavez. Mr Thaler identifies Brittany and Dawna as the epicenter of the criminal conduct on behalf of Sinaloa. Most, if not all, of the fraudulent documents as created are cited to Brittany Rae-Chavez (BRC) and her mother Dawna Rae-Chavez (DRC).
BRC and DRC may indeed be working for the Sinaloa cartel. However, Mr. Thaler has not provided specific evidence of that other than his word. It could be true that no evidence exists because no evidence is possible. However, the next detail puts a serious question mark on everything.
♦In addition to the claim of Brittany Rae-Chavez being the administrative consigliere to the cartel, she is also John Thaler’s ex-wife. That makes Dawna Rae-Chavez John Thaler’s ex mother-in-law. Additionally, John Thaler and Brittany have a five-year-old son together, and there is a custody dispute.
John claims he did not know of Brittany’s work with the cartel until he discovered her as part of his investigation of insurance and payroll fraud.
Yes, that is correct, John Thaler claims he found out his wife Brittany Rae-Chavez-Thaler was the person behind the widespread fraud he was investigating while they were married.
John and Brittany are now divorced.
The love interest in John Thaler’s life is Jacqueline Breger, the forensic investigator who delivered the senate testimony.
Everything John Thaler and Jacqueline Breger are claiming may be true. However, the motive for them saying it must be made clear.
John Thaler wants access to his son. Brittany and John are in a custody battle. Jacqueline wants to support John. The accusations against Brittany and her mother Dawna could support the interests of John in the custody battle. See the motive?
Additionally, in the divorce case of Thaler -vs- Thaler, the accusations made by Jacqueline Breger were made in court filings before presiding judge Douglas L. Rayes United States District Judge [SEE Opinion of Case HERE].
June 2022 – “Mr. Thaler’s prolix complaint alleges that Ms. Thaler, motivated by a fear a poverty, has engaged in an array of criminal enterprises across multiple states, including money laundering and tax evasion, allegedly accomplished via real estate transactions and non-profit organizations; insurance fraud, allegedly accomplished via phony personal injury claims made on behalf of non-existent persons; skimming money from state-run aid programs; narcotics trafficking; hacking into state databases and fabricating public records; bribing public officials, including judges, police officers, judicial assistants, inspectors, assessors, and accountants; bribing private professionals, such as real estate agents and brokers; bankruptcy fraud; election fraud, allegedly accomplished by creating fake ballots and manipulating others in order to influence, among other races, the 2020 election for Maricopa County Recorder; extortion via “crypto-viruses”; the creation of fake employees on payroll systems in order to collect paychecks and benefits; and murder. What’s more, Mr. Thaler alleges that high-ranking government and judicial officials in Maricopa County and the City of Mesa are in on the racketeering enterprise. Mr. Thaler’s complaint weaves a delusional and fantastical narrative that does not comport with federal pleading standards.” (link)
Are you starting to get that… “wait, wha.. OMG.. nah, hard pass” feeling yet?
Given the nature of the personal background of the people involved, their relationships and the emotional overlay of an ongoing child custody battle, it becomes almost impossible to assert the claims by Mr. Thaler and Ms. Breger are not motivated by the family drama.
Unfortunately, the claims by Thaler and Breger may be accurate as documented. The scale and scope do seem “delusional and fantastical,” and that might be… because it is.
Decide on your own.
I simply advise to proceed with caution, and I have now spent two days in this rabbit hole…. so there’s that.
Posted originally on the CTH on February 20, 2023 | Sundance
At this point it’s a little humorous to read the DC inside Republican narrative as they produce their DeSantis messaging. The Hill has an article {SEE HERE} titled “GOP Impatience Grows for DeSantis to Make Move on Trump.”
However, political followers will notice the tell behind the story in the first few sentences:
(WASHINGTON DC) – Senate Republicans nervous about former President Trump’s lead in presidential primary polls are impatiently awaiting Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to jump into the race.
GOP lawmakers don’t expect DeSantis to make his move until after the Florida legislative session ends in early May, but the waiting game is playing on nerves, with some thinking DeSantis has lost political momentum since his big reelection win in November. (link)
Setting aside the reality that Ron DeSantis cannot run for office without first legally abdicating his role as governor, as required by Florida law, the “Senate Republicans” are “nervous.” Gee, I wonder who those Senate Republicans might be.
Later in the DC script as written, “I suspect he is going to run. I’ve been told that he’s very focused right now — the Florida legislature is in session — he’s very focused on Florida issues,” Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) said of DeSantis, whom she called “the leader of the Republican Party” after he won an impressive reelection victory in November.”
Ah yes, so very focused on “Florida issues” that Governor Ron DeSantis is in New York, Pennsylvania and Illinois on his not-campaigning, campaigning tour.
The DC stenographers really need to work a little harder to cover the narrative. Just saying.
Posted originally on the Conservative tree house on February 20, 2023 | Sundance
According to Axios, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has given Fox News (Paul Ryan) and Tucker Carlson access to the 41,000 hours of CCTV footage.
Presumably Speaker McCarthy figures this approach will support his previous promise to release and “make public” the full unedited House footage. I’m not sure I would qualify this as fulfilling the pledge. Why is an intermediary needed? Why not just release the footage and let people review it raw and unfiltered?
Via Axios – House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has given Fox News’ Tucker Carlson exclusive access to 41,000 hours of Capitol surveillance footage from the Jan. 6 riot, McCarthy sources tell me.
Carlson TV producers were on Capitol Hill last week to begin digging through the trove, which includes multiple camera angles from all over Capitol grounds. Excerpts will begin airing in the coming weeks.
Now his shows — “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Fox News, and “Tucker Carlson Today” and “Tucker Carlson Originals” on the streaming service Fox Nation — have a massive trove of raw material.
Carlson told me: “[T]here was never any legitimate reason for this footage to remain secret.”
“If there was ever a question that’s in the public’s interest to know, it’s what actually happened on January 6. By definition, this video will reveal it. It’s impossible for me to understand why any honest person would be bothered by that.” (link)
.
There could be an entirely appropriate reason for doing it this way, but that has not yet been explained.
Posted originally on the CTH on February 18, 2023 | Sundance
The Washington Post is framing this as a potential Ronna McDaniel requirement, however given the RNC under Reince Preibus ended up having the same 2016 pre-debate loyalty demand, the requirement is more likely an institutional Big Club proposal and not the idea of the chair. The board and RNC charter members of the professionally Republican apparatus are the ones creating the litmus tests.
Essentially, you will remember in 2015 and 2016 the RNC demanded that all of the candidates swear an oath to whomever won the GOP nomination. In the first Fox News debate of August 2015, the candidates were told to raise their hand if they were not willing to swear or affirm their intent to support the eventual nominee. Everyone except Donald Trump (and Ben Carson) lied. WATCH:
The construct of the loyalty oath was predicated around the fact the RNC institution did not support an outsider like Donald Trump using their club system to achieve the office of the presidency. Trump was independent minded and held his own platform positions on trade, economics, border security and immigration that ran counter to the approved policy positions of professionally Republican members.
The RNC, as an institution of life-long tenured club members, viewed Donald Trump as not an acceptable RNC candidate, and therefore were worried he would mount an independent run if the RNC effort to remove him from their party was successful. The alternative fifteen candidates were all previously approved by the RNC establishment, except Donald Trump.
As a consequence, in the 2016 contest the RNC sought to portray Donald Trump as unapproved, yet they simultaneously needed to keep up the false pretense that U.S. politics was not subject to the whims and approvals of two monopolistic private corporations (RNC and DNC). In the decade that preceded the 2016 election, CTH was one of the few places not pretending about this dynamic.
However, in the years following the 2016 revelations, there has been a much larger awakening. The 2012 result of Mitt Romney (7% primary support) combined with the 2016 Hillary outcome (22% primary support) and the 2020 Biden outcome (6% primary support) have solidified as examples of how these corporation’s function.
Thankfully, today more voters understand that U.S. political candidates are controlled by two private corporations and the billionaire financial donors/institutions who fund them.
Here we enter the 2024 contest, again with the same pretenses needing to be maintained; thus, we see a replay of the loyalty test being demanded by the RNC to qualify the candidates for debate stage entry.
Unfortunately for the RNC, the overwhelming majority of 2016 RNC approved candidates, those who made and affirmed the pledge, lied about it. The reality of their effort to tear down and diminish the eventual nominee Donald Trump, including during the general election and well into his administration, stands as empirical evidence of the bullshit construct of the loyalty oath. Insert the reminder of Senator Ted Cruz saying “vote your conscience” at the 2016 RNC convention and getting booed off stage.
The only honest person on that debate stage in August 2015, was the guy who raised his hand, Donald J Trump.
(WASHINGTON DC) -Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel is so concerned that party disunity will sink GOP hopes in the 2024 presidential election that she plans to require all candidates on the official primary debate stages to first pledge their support to the party’s eventual nominee. But many of the likely contenders are pushing back.
Former president Donald Trump said this month that he won’t commit to supporting the winner if he loses the nomination. “It would have to depend on who the nominee was,” he told a conservative radio host. Former Maryland governor Larry Hogan, another potential candidate, recently tweeted that he “won’t commit to supporting” Trump.
Others have settled on more nuanced hedges. New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, who just created a new organization to help him explore a possible campaign, says he will support the eventual nominee, but is certain Trump won’t be that person. Former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson, who has not decided on whether to sign a pledge, has gone so far as to speak with McDaniel about his opposition to it, arguing that Republicans should not be enforcing litmus tests.
“Historically, our party has not taken party loyalty oaths,” said Hutchinson, who returned to Iowa this week as he explores a possible campaign launch in early April. “For leaders such as myself who believe Donald Trump is not the right direction for the country — and I said specifically that Jan. 6 disqualified him — that would certainly make it a problem for me to give an across-the-board inclusion pledge.”
The pushback has underscored McDaniel’s concern but has not shifted her plans, according to multiple people involved in the process who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the planning. The Republican National Committee’s Temporary Standing Committee on Presidential Debates plans to meet next Wednesday and Thursday to formally set the rules for officially sanctioned debates this year. They intend to require candidates to sign a pledge to support the eventual nominee modeled on a similar document circulated by the RNC in 2015. (read more)
Oaths, loyalty pledges, litmus tests… all of it… None of it makes a damned bit of difference. Because in the big picture, the professional Republican apparatus will never support Donald Trump… because the multinational RNC donors at risk from the America First economic agenda, will not allow it.
Posted originally on the CTH on February 15, 2023 | Sundance
Yes, Dianne Feinstein has been around the corrupt Democrat system of politics for a long time, and yes, she has exhausted her usefulness. Also yes, this story is entirely apropos of how the DC professional political class works.
Yesterday, it was announced that Senator Dianne Feinstein is retiring. Essentially, the powers in control of the UniParty club system are clearing the way for Senator Adam Schiff, who will – not coincidentally – be maneuvered into position on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. However, the people around Feinstein forgot to tell her they were making a formal announcement.
WASHINGTON DC – Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said she did not know her office released a statement saying she will not seek reelection in 2024.
“I am announcing today I will not run for reelection in 2024 but intend to accomplish as much for California as I can through the end of next year when my term ends,” Feinstein, 89, said in the statement.
Later on Tuesday, reporters at the Capitol asked her about the announcement.
“I haven’t made that decision,” she said, according to Savannah Behrman of the National Journal. “I haven’t released anything.”
A Feinstein staffer then told her, “We put out the statement.”
“You put out the statement?” the senator replied, seemingly surprised. (read more)
Now, accept this scenario as it is presented…. and consider something else.
Remember when Dianne Feinstein was Vice-Chair of the SSCI during the 2016 election?
You might remember when Hillary Clinton failed to win the race, and after the SSCI efforts to defeat candidate Donald Trump failed, in January of 2017 with the incoming Trump administration now presenting the new threat to the corrupt DC system, Dianne Feinstein was removed from the SSCI and replaced with Senator Mark Warner.
The responsibility to protect the corrupt systems was too big a task for Feinstein, hence the decision to replace with Warner. That’s the inside baseball way the corrupt levers of the U.S. government work. The overarching system is in place to protect itself.
Dianne Feinstein has exhausted her usefulness. As the Democrats work the system, don’t be surprised if they don’t wait for the election. We could see Feinstein with an early exit and California Governor Gavin Newsom with the job of appointing Adam Schiff to the Senate in the pre-positioning and control.
Unfortunately, the illusion of choice will continue so long as the RNC and DNC clubs continue to operate the structures.
You might also remember it was someone from inside Dianne Feinstein’s office who released the SSCI transcript of Fusion-GPS founder, Glenn Simpson, so that everyone could get their stories in alignment with the same narrative. At least Feinstein took the blame for it, as the story was told.
It was also not accidental that Dan Jones was Senator Feinstein’s lead staffer, who then left the SSCI job to work on the anti-Trump insurance policy from outside government, coordinating with DNC operatives, Fusion-GPS and ultimately Feinstein’s replacement, Mark Warner.
Senator Feinstein has simply outlived her usefulness.
Posted originally on the CTH on February 12, 2023 | Sundanc
It’s not just random data points. It is an alignment of multiple datapoints, appearing at random intervals, that all align in one very specific direction.
The key is being able to spot them. WATCH (1 min):
[BACKGROUND] … “This is where the RGA looks to have been recruited for a larger role in 2024 than was deployed in 2016. Keep an eye on Republican governors and how they position their advocacy and endorsements.” {GO DEEP}
An ideological alignment of individual people, institutions and organizations working in concert toward a common goal is not a conspiracy. Once the objective of the common interest is identified, all benefactory components operate individually. What becomes visible is the similarity of the actions.
This is where we see patterns and common actions taken toward a common goal. This reality is the context to understand how the political dynamic is constructed in opposition to Donald Trump, and more specifically how the America First policy platform of Presidential candidate Donald Trump is viewed as a common threat.
Individuals, institutions, government ‘stakeholders’, and generally all status-quo interests stand in opposition, as reflected in the historic Niccolò Machiavelli quote:
“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.”
When the new system is constructed to the benefit of the many yet disrupts the status of the few (the proverbial elite) who benefit from retention of the old, those in the at-risk minority must pretend not to know things. Additionally, through passive aggressive undermining that same elite group frame their opposition to provide themselves plausible deniability.
It is in this political mix of eclectic interests where a person needs an intellectual filtration system, tuned to the granular nuances, in order to make sense of the landscape and see the big picture.
Posted Originally on the CTH on February 12, 2023 | Sundance
If you accept the likelihood of the 2024 Wall Street Republican roadmap being the defining difference between 2016 and 2024, then you can easily see how the Republican Governor’s Association (RGA), the state level system where the policy of GOP governors are purchased by big money, will be the driving influence. It is into this mixed manipulation where New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu becomes of strategic value.
Someone has to try and maintain the narrative of “free markets” as a Republican priority, enter Chris Sununu. Readers here and middle-class workers of America have decades of experience seeing exactly what the outcome of Republican “free market” capitalism creates. Selling out the U.S. worker and manufacturing base in favor of globalism, multinational corporate exploitation and profits at any cost are the result. In modern economic reality, there is no such thing as a “free market,” there are only controlled markets {GO DEEP}.
Pushing the conservative ‘free market’ narrative, the corporate controlled Chris Sununu appears on Face the Nation to gaslight the base republican voter with old catchphrases that used to work; they no longer do. People can now see through the rustbelt prism and identify the destruction created by the Wall Street funded UniParty apparatus. This is what 2024 presidential candidate Chris Sununu is trying to lie about. However, no republican candidate is an economic nationalist, except President Donald Trump. WATCH:
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to Face the Nation. We’re joined now by the Republican governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu. And it’s good to have you here…
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU (R-New Hampshire): Thanks.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … in person.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Great to be here. Better here than the rest of Washington, because this whole town gives me the — it gives me the chills sometimes.
(LAUGHTER)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you might need to go get over that if you’re going to run for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, as, apparently, you are considering doing.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Well, look, a lot of opportunity to change things, right?
I think New Hampshire has this awesome model of live free or die, limited government, local control, individual responsibility, really putting the voters first, send them some money, which is nice, but send them the regulatory authority too.
So a little decentralizing out of Washington and maybe a little better attitude would be — would be a good thing for America.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What’s the proactive reason you want to be president, not something that President Biden is doing wrong…
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … but something you want to achieve?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Yes, which is the right question you’re asking, by the way, because I — it drives me crazy when Republicans talk in an echo chamber about how bad the president is, and Democrats.
We got the memo, as Republicans. You got to be for something. What I’m trying to do is kind of show that New Hampshire model, show the opportunity to get stuff done. I have had Republicans in my legislature. I have Democrats in my legislature. I always get my conservative agendas done.
We always cut taxes. We always balance a budget. And I can explain to folks in Washington what a balanced budget actually means. So, there are paths. And I think America is looking for results. We need results-driven leadership, not just leadership that…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Like what?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Look, whether it’s cutting taxes, being pro- business, the regulatory reform, the immigration stuff that we were told was going to happen in 2017 and 2018 as Republicans, and it didn’t.
We were told health care reform would happen. It didn’t. We were told we were going to secure the border, and we didn’t. So, there’s all this great opportunity that has a domino effect. They’re not just things to check off a list, but those things have huge impacts on the American economy and, most importantly, American families, right?
They just want flexibility to do what they do. And, frankly, they’re tired of the nonsense in D.C. They’re tired of — of extreme candidates. They’re tired of gridlock. They want somebody to come to the table. And it could be myself. It could be other governors. It could — but it has to be leadership with proven results.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: I have been in the private sector as an engineer and a business leader. I have been in the public sector. You got to be able to deliver.
And you got to, hopefully, be inspirational and hopeful, as opposed to all this negativity you see.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you still have to get the Congress to work with you to do that very long laundry list of things you just read off to us.
So, when you were here in November, you told us that President Biden would not run for president, in your estimation. You just saw him up close for the past few days.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that still what you believe?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Well, I know other people will definitely run. They’re going to get in the race.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Democrats, you believe, will challenge him?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Oh, absolutely, yes, yes, because…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Why do you say that? Did someone tell you that in the last few days?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Well, Joe Biden has tried to move the first-in-the- nation primary from New Hampshire, right? But we’re going to — we’re going first, whether the president likes it or not.
And so that’s going to be a huge opportunity for anybody who wants to step up and challenge him. And if you look at the polls across the country, the average Democrat says, yes, thanks for your service on one term, but let’s keep it to one term, President Biden.
And I just don’t believe the Democrat left-wing elite is going to sit on the sidelines, knowing you could come to New Hampshire, get all the earned media, all the attention…
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: … without a whole lot of money, all that political momentum. He’s opened up his political flank, so to say, to give someone else a huge opportunity to charge right through and take that nomination from him.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, we’ll see if your — if your projection plays out.
You’ve been talking about trying to sort of remind the party that Republicans are about limited government.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You said recently: “Republicans are almost trying to outdo Democrats at their own game of being big government and having a solution and a say on everything.”
Who were you thinking of when you say that?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Oh, there’s a lot — look, I think there’s a lot of leadership out there that forget — that forgets.
At heart, I’m a principled free market conservative. Let the markets decide. So there’s no individual, per se, but there’s a lot of leadership that says, you know what, when we’re not getting that result out of a private business or locality, we’ll just impose from the top down our conservative will.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re not talking…
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … about the Florida governor and Disney, for example, are you?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Well, that’s a bad example. Yes, that’s — that’s an example, one of the many examples you see out there.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Ron DeSantis may be running for president as well.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Sure. Yes.
Yes, look, Ron’s a very good governor. He is. But I’m just trying to remind folks what we are at our core. And if we’re trying to beat the Democrats at being big government authoritarians, remember what’s going to happen. Eventually, they’ll have power in a state or in a position, and then they’ll start penalizing conservative businesses and conservative nonprofits and conservative ideas.
That is the worst precedent in the world. That’s exactly what the founding fathers tried not to — tried to avoid. And so I’m trying to remind my conservative friends about federalism, free markets, and being for the voter first, being for the individual.
Do I like what every private business says? No, I hate this woke cancel culture. But it’s a cultural…
MARGARET BRENNAN: What does that mean to you then?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Woke cancel culture?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Oh, it’s — it’s — look, it’s…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Because you’re not a culture warrior, really.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: No, no, no. No, but it’s there.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What does woke cult — what does that mean in your platform?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: It’s the — it’s the divisiveness — divisiveness we see not just in our schools, but in our communities, where it is me vs. you, whereas, if you are not adhering to my ideals, then I’m going to cancel you out.
It is us vs. them. It is this binary where everything’s a war. That’s a cultural problem we have to fix in America. And it starts with good leadership, good messaging, more hopeful and optimistic. But government never solves a cultural problem.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. Well…
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: We can lead on it, but we never solve it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Interesting idea, but you are contradicted by the Republican governor of Arkansas, who gave the response for your party after the State of the Union, who embraced culture war.
She says America’s in one.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Yes, we are.
MARGARET BRENNAN: She says it’s been waged by the left wing, “a woke mob that can’t even tell you what a woman is.”
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: That’s absolutely right. And that’s…
MARGARET BRENNAN: I mean, are you going to engage on things like this, like — like Sanders and DeSantis has in terms of issues on gender and issues of race?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: There should be absolute leadership on that about what that’s about.
And this idea that you have to — you know, we have forced language, that we have forced ideas on our kids, that we’re going to force anything…
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you are going to be a culture warrior?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: No, we have to talk about that, but it isn’t the government’s role to solve it.
The government is not here to solve your problems. It’s not. The government is here to include as many…
(CROSSTALK)
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, governors shouldn’t be actually talking and engaging and telling school boards and doing things like this or trying to pass laws like they are?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: I don’t think governors should be trying to pass laws to subvert the will of the voters that know better than us.
Voters are — know more than I do. The voters on that school board know, the voters in those towns know a lot more. And if — that’s the free market of politics. If they don’t like the school board, they get — they go to a town meeting, they fire them.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You are — you call yourself a pro-choice Republican.
You still have to win in a Republican primary.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is there room for someone who calls himself a pro-choice Republican?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Oh, yes, look, that issue is — look, that issue is going to change three different ways now that Dobbs has happened, right? States can decide what they want to do, right?
So, I think the definition of pro-life and pro-choice and pro-abortion are — are going to be very different, because if you’re a pro-life Republican, that’s fine. That’s — as a governor, you can do that. You can ban it in your state, and you can stay — stand behind those ideals. And maybe that’s exactly what your state wants. No problem.
I’m a pro-choice Republican in a very pro-choice state. But, at the end of the day, you’re going to have the pro-lifer over here…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: .. pro-abortion over here, and then the rest of us are, well, we have a 24-week ban, and you have a 22-week…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: … and an 18-week ban.
So, the rest of us are kind of in this spectrum of debating about weeks. So that the whole conversation is going to change.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We want to talk about some of these issues in-depth with you in a moment, so stay with us, Governor.
And we’re going to bring in a panel of bipartisan governors with us.
Positive debate on solutions and constructive criticism of approach is always appropriate for our elected officials; heck, that is the essence of our discussion. However, recently there have been many critics of President Trump; many people only just now understanding the problem and proclaiming that President Trump specifically did not do enough to block, impede, stop and counteract the globalist forces that were/are aligned against his effort to Make America Great Again.
Hindsight is 20/20, but there are people who proclaim that Donald J Trump should have been more wise in his counsel; more selective in his cabinet; more forceful in his confrontation of corporate globalists. Let me be clear….
I will never join that crew of Trump critics because I have understood his adversary for decades. CTH did not just come around to the understanding of the enemy. CTH has been outlining the scope of the enemy, the scale of the specific war and the financial and economic power of the opposition for over a decade. We understand the totality of the effort it will take to stop decades of willful blindness amid the American people. We also see with clear eyes exactly what they are doing now, even with President Trump forcefully removed from office, to destroy the threat he still represents.
Donald J Trump was/is a walking red-pill; a “touchstone”: a visible, empirical test or criterion for determining the quality or genuineness of anything political. I have been deep enough into the network of the Deep State to understand the scale and scope of this enemy. To think that President Trump alone could carry the burden of correcting four decades of severe corruption of all things political, without simultaneously considering the scale of the financial opposition, is naive in the extreme.
♦ POTUS Trump was disrupting the global order of things in order to protect and preserve the shrinking interests of the U.S. He was fighting, almost single-handed, at the threshold of the abyss. Our American interests, our MAGAnomic position, was/is essentially zero-sum. His DC and Wall-Street aligned opposition (writ large) needed to repel and retain the status-quo. They desperately wanted him removed so they could return to full economic control over the U.S, because it is the foundation of their power.
You want to criticize him for fighting harder against those interests than any single man has ever done before him? If so, do it without me.
I am thankful for the awakening Donald J Trump has provided.
I am thankful now for the opportunity to fight with people who finally understand the scale of our opposition.
Without Donald J Trump these entities would still be operating in the shadows. With Donald J Trump we can clearly see who the real enemy is.
In these economic endeavors President Trump was disrupting decades of financial schemes established to use the U.S. as a host for their endeavors. President Trump was confronting multinational corporations and the global constructs of economic systems that were put in place to the detriment of the host (USA) ie YOU. There are trillions at stake; it is all about the economics; everything else is chaff and countermeasures.
The road to a “service-driven economy” is paved with a great disparity between financial classes. The wealth gap is directly related to the inability of the middle-class to thrive.
Elite financial interests, including those within Washington DC, gain wealth and power, the U.S. workforce is reduced to servitude, “service”, of their affluent needs.
The destruction of the U.S. industrial and manufacturing base is EXACTLY WHY the middle class has struggled, and exactly why the wealth gap exploded in the past 30 years.
Behind this dynamic we find the international corporate and financial interests who are inherently at risk from President Trump’s “America-First” economic and trade platform. Believe it or not, President Trump is up against an entire world economic establishment.
When we understand how trade works in the modern era we understand why the agents within the system are so adamantly opposed to U.S. President Trump.
♦The biggest lie in modern economics, willingly spread and maintained by corporate media, is that a system of global markets still exists.
It doesn’t.
Every element of global economic trade is controlled and exploited by massive institutions, multinational banks and multinational corporations. Institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Bank control trillions of dollars in economic activity.
Underneath that economic activity there are people who hold the reigns of power over the outcomes. These individuals and groups are the stakeholders in direct opposition to principles of America-First national economics. Collectively known as “The Big Club”.
The modern financial constructs of these entities have been established over the course of the past three decades. When you understand how they manipulate the economic system of individual nations you begin to understand why they are so fundamentally opposed to President Trump.
In the Western World, separate from communist control perspectives (ie. China), “Global markets” are a modern myth; nothing more than a talking point meant to keep people satiated with sound bites they might find familiar. Global markets have been destroyed over the past three decades by multinational corporations who control the products formerly contained within global markets.
The same is true for “Commodities Markets”. The multinational trade and economic system, run by corporations and multinational banks, now controls the product outputs of independent nations. The free market economic system has been usurped by entities who create what is best described as ‘controlled markets’.
U.S. President Trump understood what had taken place. He used economic leverage as part of a broader national security policy; and to understand who opposes President Trump specifically because of the economic leverage he creates, it becomes important to understand the objectives of the global and financial elite who run and operate the institutions. The Big Club.
Understanding how trillions of trade dollars influence geopolitical policy we begin to understand the three-decade global financial construct they seek to retain and protect.
That is, global financial exploitation of national markets.
FOUR BASIC ELEMENTS:
♦Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national outputs (harvests and raw materials), and ancillary industries, of developed industrial western nations. {example}
♦The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks. (*note* in China it is the communist government underwriting the purchase)
♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).
♦With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.
Against the backdrop of President Trump confronting China; and against the backdrop of NAFTA renegotiated; and against the necessary need to support the key U.S. steel and aluminum industries; revisiting the economic influences within the modern import/export dynamic will help conceptualize the issues at the heart of the matter.
There are a myriad of interests within each trade sector that make specific explanation very challenging; however, here’s the basic outline.
For three decades economic “globalism” has advanced, quickly. Everyone accepts this statement, yet few actually stop to ask who and what are behind this – and why?
Influential people with vested financial interests in the process have sold a narrative that global manufacturing, global sourcing, and global production was the inherent way of the future. The same voices claimed the American economy was consigned to become a “service-driven economy.”
What was always missed in these discussions is that advocates selling this global-economy message have a vested financial and ideological interest in convincing the information consumer it is all just a natural outcome of economic progress.
It’s not.
It’s not natural at all. It is a process that is entirely controlled, promoted and utilized by large conglomerates, lobbyists, purchased politicians and massive financial corporations.
Again, I’ll try to retain the larger altitude perspective without falling into the traps of the esoteric weeds. I freely admit this is tough to explain and I may not be successful.
Bulletpoint #1:♦ Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national elements of developed industrial western nations.
This is perhaps the most challenging to understand. In essence, thanks specifically to the way the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995, national companies expanded their influence into multiple nations, across a myriad of industries and economic sectors (energy, agriculture, raw earth minerals, etc.). This is the basic underpinning of national companies becoming multinational corporations.
Think of these multinational corporations as global entities now powerful enough to reach into multiple nations -simultaneously- and purchase controlling interests in a single economic commodity.
A historic reference point might be the original multinational enterprise, energy via oil production. (Exxon, Mobil, BP, etc.)
However, in the modern global world, it’s not just oil; the resource and product procurement extends to virtually every possible commodity and industry. From the very visible (wheat/corn) to the obscure (small minerals, and even flowers).
Bulletpoint #2 ♦ The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.
During the past several decades national companies merged. The largest lemon producer company in Brazil, merges with the largest lemon company in Mexico, merges with the largest lemon company in Argentina, merges with the largest lemon company in the U.S., etc. etc. National companies, formerly of one nation, become “continental” companies with control over an entire continent of nations.
…. or it could be over several continents or even the entire world market of Lemon/Widget production. These are now multinational corporations. They hold interests in specific segments (this example lemons) across a broad variety of individual nations.
National laws on Monopoly building are not the same in all nations. Most are not as structured as the U.S.A or other more developed nations (with more laws). During the acquisition phase, when encountering a highly developed nation with monopoly laws, the process of an umbrella corporation might be needed to purchase the targeted interests within a specific nation. The example of Monsanto applies here.
Bulletpoint #3 ♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).
With control of the majority of actual lemons the multinational corporation now holds a different set of financial values than a local farmer or national market. This is why commodities exchanges are essentially dead.
In the aggregate the mercantile exchange is no longer a free or supply-based market; it is now a controlled market exploited by mega-sized multinational corporations.
Instead of the traditional ‘supply/demand’ equation determining prices, the corporations look to see what nations can afford what prices. The supply of the controlled product is then distributed to the country according to their ability to afford the price. This is essentially the bastardized and politicized function of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This is also how the corporations controlling WTO policy maximize profits.
Back to the lemons. A multinational corporation might hold the rights to the majority of the lemon production in Brazil, Argentina and California/Florida. The price the U.S. consumer pays for the lemons is directed by the amount of inventory (distribution) the controlling corporation allows in the U.S.
If the U.S. lemon harvest is abundant, the controlling interests will export the product to keep the U.S. consumer spending at peak or optimal price. A U.S. customer might pay $2 for a lemon, a Mexican customer might pay .50¢, and a Canadian $1.25.
The bottom line issue is the national supply (in this example ‘harvest/yield’) is not driving the national price because the supply is now controlled by massive multinational corporations.
The mistake people often make is calling this a “global commodity” process. In the modern era this “global commodity” phrase is particularly nonsense.
A true global commodity is a process of individual nations harvesting/creating a similar product and bringing that product to a global market. Individual nations each independently engaged in creating a similar product.
Under modern globalism this process no longer takes place. It’s a complete fraud. Massive multinational corporations control the majority of production inside each nation and therefore control the global product market and price. It is a controlled system.
EXAMPLE: Part of the lobbying in the food industry is to advocate for the expansion of U.S. taxpayer benefits to underwrite the costs of the domestic food products they control. By lobbying DC these multinational corporations get congress and policy-makers to expand the basis of who can use Food Stamps, EBT and SNAP benefits (state reimbursement rates).
Expanding the federal subsidy for food purchases is part of the corporate profit dynamic.
With increased taxpayer subsidies, the food price controllers can charge more domestically and export more of the product internationally. Taxes, via subsidies, go into their profit margins. The corporations then use a portion of those enhanced profits in contributions to the politicians. It’s a circle of money.
In highly developed nations this multinational corporate process requires the corporation to purchase the domestic political process (as above) with individual nations allowing the exploitation in varying degrees. As such, the corporate lobbyists pay hundreds of millions to politicians for changes in policies and regulations; one sector, one product, or one industry at a time. These are specialized lobbyists.
It is ironic when we discuss corporate financial payments to government officials in foreign countries we call them corrupt. However, in the United States we call it lobbying, the process is exactly the same.
EXAMPLE: The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)
CFIUS is an inter-agency committee authorized to review transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person (“covered transactions”), in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States.
CFIUS operates pursuant to section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) (section 721) and as implemented by Executive Order 11858, as amended, and regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 800.
The CFIUS process has been the subject of significant reforms over the past several years. These include numerous improvements in internal CFIUS procedures, enactment of FINSA in July 2007, amendment of Executive Order 11858 in January 2008, revision of the CFIUS regulations in November 2008, and publication of guidance on CFIUS’s national security considerations in December 2008 (more)
Bulletpoint #4 ♦ With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.
The process of charging the U.S. consumer more for a product, that under normal national market conditions would cost less, is a process called exfiltration of wealth. This is the basic premise, the cornerstone, behind the catch-phrase ‘globalism’.
It is never discussed.
To control the market price some contracted product may even be secured and shipped with the intent to allow it to sit idle (or rot). It’s all about controlling the price and maximizing the profit equation. To gain the same $1 profit a widget multinational might have to sell 20 widgets in El-Salvador (.25¢ each), or two widgets in the U.S. ($2.50/each).
Think of the process like the historic reference of OPEC (Oil Producing Economic Countries). Only in the modern era massive corporations are playing the role of OPEC and it’s not oil being controlled, thanks to the WTO it’s almost everything.
Again, this is highlighted in the example of taxpayers subsidizing the food sector (EBT, SNAP etc.), the corporations can charge U.S. consumers more. Ex. more beef is exported, red meat prices remain high at the grocery store, but subsidized U.S. consumers can better afford the high prices.
Of course, if you are not receiving food payment assistance (middle-class) you can’t eat the steaks because you can’t afford them. (Not accidentally, it’s the same scheme in the ObamaCare healthcare system)
Agriculturally, multinational corporate Monsanto says: ‘all your harvests are belong to us‘. Contract with us, or you lose because we can control the market price of your end product. Downside is that once you sign that contract, you agree to terms that are entirely created by the financial interests of the larger corporation; not your farm.
The multinational agriculture lobby is massive. We willingly feed the world as part of the system; but you as a grocery customer pay more per unit at the grocery store because domestic supply no longer determines domestic price.
Within the agriculture community the (feed-the-world) production export factor also drives the need for labor. Labor is a cost. The multinational corps have a vested interest in low labor costs. Ergo, open border policies. (ie. willingly purchased republicans not supporting border wall etc.).
This corrupt economic manipulation/exploitation applies over multiple sectors, and even in the sub-sector of an industry like steel. China/India purchases the raw material, coking coal, then sells the finished good (rolled steel) back to the global market at a discount. Or it could be rubber, or concrete, or plastic, or frozen chicken parts etc.
The ‘America First’ Trump-Trade Doctrine upset the entire construct of this multinational export/control dynamic. Team Trump focused exclusively on bilateral trade deals, with specific trade agreements targeted toward individual nations (not national corporations).
‘America-First’ is also specific policy at a granular product level looking out for the national interests of the United States, U.S. workers, U.S. companies and U.S. consumers.
Under President Trump’s Trade positions, balanced and fair trade with strong regulatory control over national assets, exfiltration of U.S. national wealth is essentially stopped.
This puts many current multinational corporations, globalists who previously took a stake-hold in the U.S. economy with intention to export the wealth, in a position of holding contracted interest of an asset they can no longer exploit.
Perhaps now we understand better how massive multi-billion multinational corporations, and the political institutions they pay for, were/are aligned against President Trump; and they will never relent in their need to see the risk he/we represents destroyed.
I will never relent in my support for anyone who fights this enemy.
I will align with and encourage anyone who joins this fight.
If you are looking for criticism against the only person I have ever witnessed who actually fought our correct enemy, look elsewhere.
Posted originally on the CTH on February 12, 2023 | Sundance
Appearing on Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, Mike McCaul, discusses the ongoing Biden administration battle in the sky with balloons, objects and various Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO’s).
McCaul identifies China as the most likely culprit for sending the spy and surveillance equipment over North America, claiming the timing of the spycraft arrival against the backdrop of the military revealing the latest stealth bomber, the “B-21 Raider,” does not seem coincidental.
Additionally, because of course he does, Chairman McCaul notes that if we do not continue to send billions to Ukraine, then China and Russia will continue sending spy missions over the United States. The way we defeat the UFO’s is to send more money to Ukraine. That’s his logic, and he’s sticking to it. WATCH:
MARGARET BRENNAN: We go now to Congressman Michael McCaul. He is the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Good morning to you.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL (R-Texas): Morning, Margaret. Thanks for having me.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to start on this unusual activity, three takedowns in eight days. In the case of the spy balloon, this was Chinese surveillance, according to the administration. On Friday, they put restrictions on six Chinese companies that allegedly helped China’s military build that balloon. Is this the right move, to just try to make it harder for them to get U.S. technology, or does Congress need to do something that’s more broad?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Well, it’s certainly the right move.
It will be one of my number one priorities, as the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in this Congress, to stop the export of technology to China that then goes into their most advanced weapons systems, in this case, a sophisticated spy balloon that went across three nuclear sites, I think it’s important to say, in plain view of the American people, you know, in Montana, the triad site, air, land, and sea nuclear weapons.
In Omaha, the spy balloon went over our Strategic Command, which is our most sensitive nuclear site. It was so sensitive that President Bush was taken there after 9/11. And then, finally, Missouri, the B-2 bomber, that’s where they are placed. It did a lot of damage.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that what U.S. intelligence told you? They have been saying they mitigated the impact.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: They say they mitigated it.
But my assessment, and — and I can’t get into the detail of the intelligence document — is that, if it was still transmitting going over these three very sensitive nuclear sites, I think — I think, if you look at the flight pattern of the balloon, it tells a story as to what the Chinese were up to as they controlled this aircraft throughout the United States.
Going over those sites, in my judgment, would cause great damage. Remember, a balloon could see a lot more on the ground than a satellite.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you said you want to try to stop the export of technology that can be used by China’s military.
As a conservative, though, how much — this has to make you a little uncomfortable to have government try to control private business investment. How do you do that?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Well, we have what’s called an entities list. The Department of Commerce had jurisdiction over the office within their — the Department of Defense has one.
We need to harmonize those, make it more security-focused. You know, capital flows is one issue, but technology exports into China that they use to turn — that maybe eventually turn against us, we have to stop doing that.
And I think we can do it by sectors. They do it by companies now. Obviously, they identified the six. I think, shockingly, when the balloon was recovered, it had American-made component parts in there with English on that. It was made — you know, parts made in America that were put on a spy balloon from China. I don’t think the American people accept that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you believe that this was a strategic choice by Xi Jinping’s government in Beijing, or do you believe that it was just the left and right hand not knowing what was going on?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: When I saw the sites that it was flying over, it was very clear to me this was an intentional act. It was done with provocation to gather intelligence data and collect intelligence on our three major nuclear sites in this country.
Why? Because they’re looking at what — what is our capability in the event of a possible future conflict in Taiwan? They’re really assessing what we have in this country. I find it extraordinary the timing of this flight as well, right before the State of the Union speech, and also right before Secretary Blinken was scheduled to meet with Chairman Xi.
I think it was very much an act of belligerence on their part. And perhaps they don’t care what — what the American people think about that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Before I let you go, I want to ask you.
You voted in the last Congress to provide a lot of assistance to Ukraine. But, this past week, at least 10 of your members, Republican members, introduced a bill called the Ukraine Fatigue Resolution to try to cut off aid.
How hard is it going to be to have a Republican-led House continue to help Ukraine?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: I still believe, Margaret, there are many, on both sides of the aisle, a majority of the majorities in support of this.
We have — we have factions on the left and right that do not support Ukraine…
MARGARET BRENNAN: This WAS a Republican bill.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: … assistance, and that will probably continue.
Right. And I do think, for me, particularly, it’s — we have to educate, where has the money gone? You know, the audits that are in place right now, there are four of them on Ukraine funding. And we have to explain, why is Ukraine so important?
You know, what happens in Ukraine impacts Taiwan and Chairman Xi, that China’s aligned with Russia, Iran and North Korea against freedom, democracy in the West. And I think that’s a debate we’ll have, but I still feel very confident that we will give them the assistance they need.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: I would like to see it faster, so they can win this faster.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you — you think Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, others who signed this need to be educated?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: I — you know, look, we took Marjorie Taylor Greene into a briefing.
She was satisfied, I thought, with what — the controls that have been put in place on the spending. But I don’t think that they will be — ever be persuaded that this cause is something that they would support.
I think they have this false dichotomy that somehow we can’t help Ukraine beat back the Russians, who invaded their country and — and secure the border. We can do both. We’re a great nation. And the fact of the matter is, unfortunately, this administration has chosen not to secure the border. He can’t even control and secure our airspace now, it looks like.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Congressman McCaul, thank you for your time today.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Thanks, Margaret. Thanks for having me.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 