Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 5, 2022 | Sundance
Here is one succinct interview containing the smorgasbord of far-left policies the people behind Joe Biden are proposing as the solution to the inflation crisis they have created. It is remarkable to see it all packed into one 8-minute segment. There is so much crazy in here it would take a week of articles to unpack it.
The ultra-leftist Biden Transportation Secretary, Pete Buttigieg, appears on ABC with George Stephanopoulos to discuss the solutions to the massive economic collapse that looms all around us. Within the interview Buttigieg states the Biden administration goal is to use the high cost of living (policy driven inflation) as an opportunity for the government to take over household expenses and create equity via government distribution.
If reasonable people do not intervene quickly, the executive branch and legislative branch will move to begin subsidizing and controlling medicine, childcare, housing and food costs by diverting tax dollars into the social equity system. Depending on income, the Biden administration plans to offset higher prices for Americans by providing the essential services and products they need. In essence, Democrat-Socialism with a filter of equity in distribution, ie “enhanced dependency.” WATCH:
Remarkably, Stephanopoulos references one of the most insane New York Times op-ed’s ever written around economics {ARTICLE HERE}. Within the reference, the Democrat legislative proposal is for the government to take over the purchasing of essential products like food, fuel, gasoline and medicine. The government would then distribute those products. The entire premise is based on some academic leftist theory of economics that is just nuts. It looks nothing like capitalism.
The baseline for the approach contains the premise that inflation is driven by too many people chasing scarce goods. Thus prices are rising. This is how the Democrats look at inflation and explain the problem. Their solution is for government to buy the food at the prices they claim people cannot afford, and then sell the food at prices they claim the people can afford. [Replace ‘food’ with any item they determine]
Notice in the interview when Buttigieg is challenged about the high cost of gasoline, he complains that oil companies are not drilling enough to generate the oil and refinery capacity that we need. Essentially, the oil companies are to blame for not creating more supply.
Now, pause, and think about that.
The same Pete Buttigieg voices strong opposition to any further exploitation of oil and natural gas. Buttigieg and the Biden administration vociferously advocate for green energy transition with extreme urgency and apply punitive punishment toward any opposition. Moments later, they are blaming the oil and gas industry for not providing enough supply….
…. Do you know what that advocacy conflict sounds like? That conflicted and twisted mental outlook is the psychology happening in abusive relationships. If you had made me a better sandwich, I wouldn’t have needed to punch you in the mouth. If the oil companies we restrict were doing the things we restrict them not to do, then things would be better.
Because the oil, gas, farms or (fill_in_the_blank) etc are not doing their jobs correctly – as to predict the damage caused by govt policy and offset the consequences – then government must take over the controls of the industry and manage the process. History rhymes…
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 5, 2022 | Sundance
Republican Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Democrat Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) appear on Sunday broadcasts to discuss the most likely framework the Senate group is putting together for new gun control legislation.
The general convergence appears to surround: •a possible raising of the age to purchase a semi-automatic rifle (definition to be determined) from 18 to 21; •new federal red flag laws and/or financing to state government to construct ‘red flag’ laws; •increased federal funding for mental health screenings and facilities; and •new federal background check requirements for gun purchases.
Pat Toomey appeared on Face the Nation, while Chris Murphy appeared on CNN with Jake Tapper. Both interviews below, starting with Pat Toomey on CBS [Transcript Link Here] WATCH:
CNN State of the Union, Jake ‘Furrowed Brow’ Tapper, interviewing Chris Murphy:
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 5, 2022 | Sundance
The first round of public J6 Committee hearings is scheduled to begin this upcoming week on Thursday, June 9th. To highlight the intent of the committee hearings, they will not be held during regular congressional business hours, instead the committee has decided to hold the hearings at 8:00pm ET each day; an effort to reach a prime-time television audience. Yup, that tells us how insufferably scripted, produced and directed the DNC fiasco has become.
To help set the stage for the performance, the advanced J6 marketing team scheduled Adam “Shifty” Schiff, the likely candidate to replace House leader Nancy Pelosi in the minority after she announces her retirement post November 2022 shellacking, to appear with the bubble-headed propagandist for the regime, Margaret Brennan on CBS Face the Nation. [The Transcript is Here] WATCH:
Shifty Schiff calls the 2020 election, “the first non peaceful transfer of power in our history,” pretending not to know that President Trump’s inauguration day in Washington DC, January 20 2017, consisted of a full-scale riot of DNC and Democrat activists; including looting, arson and destroyed property. Meanwhile while Hollyweird/DNC activists put genitalia on their heads and screamed around town.
Then again, Democrats must pretend in order to retain the false premise of their ideological arguments. Of course, the DC Democrats also know their subservient media stenographers will never call them out on their nonsense, so they do it more openly.
[Transcript] MARGARET BRENNAN: You wear a lot of hats, but I want to ask you about the January 6 committee that you serve on. The Justice Department, as you know, on Friday decided not to prosecute the former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, or social media director, Dan Scavino, for refusing to cooperate with your committee. We know the committee said that was puzzling. Is it your understanding that- that these men are immune from all prosecution?
REP. SCHIFF: No, they’re not. And it is very puzzling why these two witnesses would be treated differently than the two that the Justice Department is prosecuting. There is no absolute immunity. These witnesses have very relevant testimony to offer in terms of what went into the violence of January 6, the propagation of the big lie, and the idea that witnesses could simply fail to show up. And when the statute requires the Justice Department to present those cases to the grand jury, they don’t, is deeply troubling. We hope to get more insight from the Justice Department, but it’s a- I think, a grave disappointment, and could impede our work if other witnesses think they can, likewise, refuse to show up with impunity.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is it because these two men had such close proximity to President Trump? Is the executive privilege argument actually applying here?
REP. SCHIFF: That- that shouldn’t be the explanation here because of course there are great many things these witnesses can testify with no even plausible claim of executive privilege. They were both involved in campaign matters. They both have documents that they could offer. None of this is protected by privilege and the idea that you can simply refuse to show up rather than show up and say as to this question, I’m going to exert a privilege, that just invites others to be in contempt of Congress or be in contempt of judges around the country, in other courtrooms, and I think it’s a very dangerous precedent to set.
MARGARET BRENNAN: New York Times was first to report, CBS has confirmed, that Mike Pence’s chief of staff, Marc Short, actually warned the Secret Service and the lead agent protecting the vice president the day before January 6 that he thought the president would turn on the vice president and that it would pose a direct security risk. We know Mr. Short plans to testify himself before your committee. Is that sufficient? Do you need to hear from the Vice President?
REP. SCHIFF: Margaret, we’re not commenting on specific witnesses so I can’t confirm or deny who will appear before us. I can say that certainly one of the themes that we will be fleshing out is the- the fact that in advance of the 6th, that there was an understanding of the propensity for violence that day, of the participation of white nationalist groups, of the effect that the continued propagation of this big lie to rile up the country and rile up the president’s base was likely to lead to violence. So you will see that theme among the narratives that will be exhibited during these hearings. But as to a particular witness, I really can’t comment.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But if you don’t deliver a bombshell on Thursday, don’t you run the risk of losing the public’s attention here?
REP. SCHIFF: Our goal is to present the narrative of what happened in this country, how close we came to losing our democracy, what led to that violent attack on the 6th? The American people, I think, know a great deal already. They’ve seen a number of bombshells already. There’s a great deal they haven’t seen. But perhaps most important is the public hasn’t seen it woven together, how one thing led to another, how one line of effort to overturn the election led to another and ultimately led to terrible violence, the first non peaceful transfer of power in our history. So we want to tell that comprehensive narrative, and we’re aiming at people and audience, frankly, that still has an open mind about these facts. We want to counter the continuing propagation of big lies. And that’s- that’s what our goal is.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about inflation, which is a problem throughout the country. The San Francisco Fed said that the American Rescue Plan contributed about three percentage points to inflation. It’s not the primary driver, but a contributor to it. In hindsight, do you think Democrats should have structured that $2 trillion package differently? Should it have been smaller?
REP. SCHIFF: No, I don’t think so. And of course, there have been other studies that have reached the- the opposite conclusion that it had an even more minimal impact on inflation. What I do think is the cause–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –It’s a non-political group, you know that.
REP. SCHIFF: Well, no, I understand that. But again, there are studies that show that it had a negligible impact on inflation as well that are also very credible. I think the- the reality is though, and this- this I think is borne out by all the evidence, is there was a global inflationary pressure, global problem with supply chains. Our economy, in fact grew so fast the in United States that that problem is particularly acute, because the demand when we emerged, you know, so quickly from the pandemic, and grew so many jobs, the- the disparity between that demand, and the supply was so pronounced this to lead to this inflation. But people are suffering from it. We’ve got to attack it in every way we can. I think, sadly, the Republicans are getting in our way, because they would rather have the issue of inflation, then really do something about it to help the country and this is what we’re confronting in Congress, and what the administration is battling against.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the administration seems to also be making some foreign policy decisions that keep inflation in mind as well. We know the president is preparing to travel to Saudi Arabia this summer. And he’ll meet with the royal family, including potentially Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince, who U.S. Intelligence said issued that order to kill or capture a US-based writer named Jamal Khashoggi. This is what you said in February of 2021.
REP. SCHIFF ON MSNBC IN FEBRUARY 2021: I think he should be shunned. I think he should be- I don’t think the president should talk with him. I don’t think the President should see him.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Should the President still go to Saudi Arabia and meet with the Crown Prince?
REP. SCHIFF: In my view, no. I wouldn’t go. I wouldn’t shake his hand. This is someone who butchered an American resident, cut him up into pieces and in the most terrible and premeditated way. And until Saudi Arabia makes a radical change in terms of human rights, I wouldn’t want anything to do with him. Now, I understand the degree to which Saudi Arabia controls oil prices. I think that’s a compelling argument for us to wean ourselves off of reliance on foreign oil and on oil more globally, so we don’t have despots and murderers calling the shots. But no, I wouldn’t go and- and If I had to go to the country for some other reason, I wouldn’t meet with the Crown Prince, I think he should be shunned.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So there is no way to justify a trip like this, if it is an attempt to get Saudi Arabia to put more oil on the market and lower gas prices?
REP. SCHIFF: Well, in my view, we should make every effort to low- lower oil prices, but going hand-in-hand to someone who’s murdered American resident would not be on my list. And I would want to see Saudi Arabia, lower their oil prices- or increase their production rather. I’d want to see them make changes in their human rights record. I want to see them hold people accountable, that were involved in that murder, and in the torture of other detainees before I would extend that kind of dignity to Saudi Arabia or its leadership.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Chairman Schiff, thank you for your time today. We’ll be right back. [LINK]
The Canadian National Post has reported on the rising concern that the World Economic Forum is making all the calls as to what the Canadian government should do. They admitted that this question has “gained remarkable currency among Canadian[s]” particularly since the events of the Freedom Convoy. While they concluded that the WEF is not controlling Canada, implying this insanity is all the brainchild of Trudeau, they admitted that “it’s not entirely crazy to jump to the conclusion that an international cabal of ultra-elitists is secretly pulling the strings on world affairs (particularly when they keep claiming as much).”
I recently finished another documentary where I was actually asked: “Would you debate Schwab?” I answered “Yes!” I explained that throughout my career, I have been butting heads with academics worldwide. The ONLY one I met who was actually interested in how the world functioned was Milton Friedman who I cherish his autographed photo I keep on my shelf – not a bust Lenin as is the case with Schwab, which really is on his shelf.
I was impressed with Milton Friedman who came to listen to me speak in Chicago. When I was finished, he came up and said: “Hello. I’m Milton Friedman. That was the best speech I ever heard.” I was probably the largest foreign exchange adviser in the world. That is what made my company so famous. I have told the story before that prior to 1985, I was in Geneva having lunch with the head of one of the major banks in Switzerland. I had prepared a list of names like European Advisers I was going to open an office in Europe. I asked his advice on what name to use. He told me to name one European analyst. I was embarrassed for I could not. I apologized and said I’m sure there must be, but I just did not know of any. He chuckled and said there were none.
He then explained to me how currency had become political so no analyst working for a bank would dare say that their currency would decline. That would have been a political statement against the government. After World War II, politicians used their rise in the currency as a political validation that their policy was correct and so vote for them.
He said to me, that the reason everyone uses you is that you “do not give a shit if the dollars goes up or down!” He explained to me why we had become so big on a global scale. As an American, saying the dollar would decline or rise was not a political assault upon the government. Nobody ran for office claiming the dollar was up against the Mexican Peso so vote for me! They would have e been laughed off the stage. It was another lesson in life that you cannot judge others by yourself.
As fate would have it, I had a client who was a senior VP at Franklin National Bank, which was once the United States’ 20th largest bank. Most people have no idea but in 1951, it was Franklin National Bank in Long Island, New York, that issued the first card that most resembles today’s general-use credit cards. For the first time, customers could purchase items and pay them off quickly or be charged interest if the debt carried over. Participating merchants had to pay a fee for each card purchase. By 1952, about 28,000 customers and 750 businesses had signed up for the card which eventually became the Mastercard. The concept started spreading that same year when a bank in Michigan licensed the charge card program from Franklin. The idea was so popular, that in 1958, American Express launched its first charge card.
On October 8, 1974, it collapsed in obscure circumstances, involving connections to the Italian Michele Sindona who was alleged to be a Mafia banker. It was at the time the largest bank failure in the history of the country. Because I knew futures and international finance, I was asked to take a look at the problem the bank had. The bank failed on a 10% move in the Italian Lira. Nobody seemed to understand international finance back then. Currency futures began trading on May 16th, 1972 following failed negotiations to reestablish a fixed exchange rate system. Thus being a trader, my client Walter Zenergle, asked if I could take a look at the problem. it was clear, that nobody yet understood about hedging risks except those of use who were traders.
The academics dealt in theory. Traders had to learn from their mistakes. After the failure of Franklin National Bank, it seemed that whenever there was an issue with currency, I seemed to get the call. When the Asian Currency Crisis hit in 1997, I was asked to come to Bejing to meet with the central bank. I was surprised that they had not called in some academic from Harvard. But went I got there, I discovered they had sent their people to work around the world on trading desks. They then returned to run the central bank. When I was asked by guys in the Fed and the US Treasury what was my impression of the Chinese central bank, I responded: “I was impressed. They only hired people with experience.”
The problem with academia has always been that it is entirely theory without any real-world experience. That is what impressed me about Milton Friedman. He came to listen to me speak to LEARN what was happening in the real world. Milton had said to me also that day, that I was doing what he only dreamed about. In 1953, he proposed a floating exchange rate system whereby the free markets would impose checks and balances against the policies of the government. Nilton has been the ONLY academic I have ever met that bothered to investigate rather than theorize as did Marx and even Keynes and certainly Schwab.
Unfortunately, Trudeau is listening to Schwab. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand as well as Europe are following the directive of Schwab. He is NOT in actual control. But the people running these political bodies are kissing his ring as if he is the godfather of economics.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 4, 2022 | sundance
During press remarks yesterday, Joe Biden implied that Ukraine may need to cede territory in Eastern Ukraine to Russia as part of a “negotiated settlement.”
The statement came at the end of remarks centered around the May jobs report and Biden’s claim that U.S. consumers were in the best economic position of the past decade, therefore the government must begin increasing direct subsidies to offset energy costs and massive inflation pressure. When Biden was asked, “does Ukraine have to cede territory to achieve some peace?”he stated:
[Transcript] – [F]rom the beginning, I’ve said and I’ve been — not everyone has agreed with me — nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. It’s their territory. I’m not going to tell them what they should and shouldn’t do.
But it appears to me that, at some point along the line, there’s going to have to be a negotiated settlement here. And what that entails, I don’t know. I don’t think anybody knows at the time.
But in the meantime, we’re going to continue to put the — the Ukrainians in a position where they can defend themselves. Thank you all so very much. (link)
It has been obvious from the outset that annexing Eastern Ukraine, the region containing a majority pro-Russia population, was always the intended objective of Russian aggression. With Biden making this admission public, it raises the question then why did we agree to send $40 billion?
Russia’s hold on the Eastern Ukraine Donbas region is now essentially complete. This is the area that had been in a state of civil war since 2008, and the Russian annexation would essentially bring that conflict to an end.
Any Ukraine-Russia negotiation would come down to Ukraine acquiescing to the territory already lost. It’s not like Russia is going to give it back. The “negotiated settlement” amounts to the Ukraine and western NATO alliance admitting Russia has accomplished its intended objective.
It seems doubtful that Joe Biden sought approval from the U.S. State Dept, CIA and Senate Foreign Relations Committee, specifically those who are conducting this proxy war, prior to this statement.
In a deleted video posted on the World Economic Forum’s website, the group praised the lockdowns for offering a quiet atmosphere.
The dystopian post-apocalyptic setting certainly seemed quiet at times. Here is what the latest lockdown sounded like in Shanghai for those who have already forgotten:
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 3, 2022 | Sundance
Peter Navarro was the former Senior Trade and Economic Advisor to President Trump and a staunch critic former of U.S. policy toward China. The January 6th Commission demanded all his documented communication with President Trump and anything that might be related to the authorities of the J-6 Committee. Navarro did not comply with the Democrat subpoena from the committee.
Attorney General Merrick Garland, acting on the authority of Joe Biden, instructed the FBI to arrest Peter Navarro and bring him to federal incarceration.
Put in more clear terms, Joe Biden is arresting his political opposition for failing to reveal confidential and privileged communication with the former President.
Democrats are using the FBI as the federal police agency to arrest their political opposition. This is happening right now.
This is happening in the United States of America.
Think about it.
(VIA NBC News) […] Navarro, 72, was indicted by a federal grand jury on Thursday for contempt after snubbing a subpoena from the House committee investigating Jan. 6 seeking testimony and documents.
Court documents indicate that the government requested that Navarro’s indictment be sealed until his “arrest operation is executed.” The U.S. Attorney’s Office told NBC News that Navarro “is in custody pending the court appearance” later Friday. (read more)
The @FBI took Navarro into custody this morning and he’ll be in court in approx 30 mins. https://t.co/cZs93TnJPE
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 3, 2022 | Sundance
There was a really bizarre dichotomy on display today within the teleprompter script prepared for Joe Biden to use.
Dear Leader took to the microphones to brag about his economic accomplishments and remind Americans how all good thinking people should be feeling:
“Since I took office, families are carrying less debt; their average savings are up. A recent survey from the Federal Reserve found that more Americans feel financially comfortable than at any time since the survey began in 2013.”
Do you hear what he is saying? Americans have less debt, their savings are up, and they are more comfortable financially today than ever before.
If those remarks were based on reality, then why was the following segment stated exactly 52 seconds later in the same script?
…”one way we can make things a little better for families is by helping them save on other basic items their family needs on a monthly basis, like their utility bills, their Internet bills, their prescription drug bills, and other costs like housing. My goal is to make sure that at the end of the month families have a little more breathing room than they — than they have now.” (link)
These are not two different speeches; these are two paragraphs a few moments away from each other in the exact same speech. [Full Transcript Here]
This speech should ring massive alarm bells, not because of what is being said – but because the people behind Biden are just phoning in the propaganda now and not even trying to hide it or give the illusion of a president in control. No president, in command of the office and the issues, would read those two paragraphs of a prepared speech and not point out the literal hypocrisy his handlers were telling him to read.
Full Remarks, filled with denial, lies and some of the weirdest gaslighting to date.
.
Examples from speech:
…”The price of gas is up $1.40 since the beginning of the year when Putin began amassing troops at the Ukrainian border. This is the “Putin price hike.”
Example #2:
…”Putin’s war has raised the price of food because Ukraine and Russia are two of the world’s major breadbaskets for wheat and corn — the basic product for so many foods around the world.”
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 3, 2022 | Sundance
The Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) has released the May jobs report {DATA HERE} showing a net 390,000 jobs added overall.
The leisure and hospitality sector gained 84,000, as restaurants and hotels appear to be recovering from the massive pandemic losses. However, within the reporting there is concern about the sectors that are now showing signs of increased employment weakness, including 61,000 job losses in retail.
The unemployment rate remains the same at 3.6% in May. About 330,000 people joined the labor force, however the participation rate remains below prepandemic levels.
Most analysts like the Wall Street Journal are explaining the contradictory sector specific numbers by saying, “Consumers, who loaded up on goods such as televisions and furniture early in the pandemic, have started to shift their spending to in-person services such as travel or restaurant meals.” While there may be some truth to that outlook, it appears that most macro-perspectives are still discounting the extreme increases in price that are now baked into this new ‘transitional economy.’
Consumer purchasing is very prioritized because food, fuel, energy and housing are now eating up much more of the average person’s paycheck. People cannot pay 30 to 50% more at the gas station and grocery store and still retain disposable income for durable goods purchases. That’s the basic issue.
The durable goods sector shows the contraction in employment due to the loss in disposable income.
Here’s the main graphic [Table-B] showing where the jobs are being gained and where the jobs are being lost.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 3, 2022 | Sundance
Democrat House of Representatives member David Cicilline (Rhode Island) delivered remarks during a congressional hearing about the second amendment rights of Americans. Within his prepared remarks Representative Cicilline says the quiet backroom part out loud and introduced the modern democrat perspective on the constitution. WATCH:
.
When people show you who they are, what their priorities maintain and how they structure their outlooks, it is generally the best idea to accept it.
If constitutional rights are “bullshit,” then what control mechanisms remain to restrain excessive government power?
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 