Posted originally on the conservative tree house on August 29, 2022 | Sundance
During his opening monologue tonight, Tucker Carlson becomes the first mainstream pundit to point out the lies in the central bank argument.
The federal reserve and EU central banks claim they are raising interest rates to stop inflation by slowing demand. A demand side approach. However, it isn’t demand driving inflation; it’s the cost of energy driving inflation. That’s a supply side issue.
The central banks cannot admit what they are doing, or people would catch on. They are intentionally reducing economic activity in order to support having scarce energy production. WATCH:
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on August 29, 2022 | Sundance
Kamala Harris was asked today about who will be paying for the massive student loan forgiveness and bailout program. She never answered the question but chuckled her way through a social justice and equity response, or something…. WATCH:
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on August 28, 2022 | Sundance
Comrades, the dissident messenger known as Joe Dan Gorman has surfaced again, just long enough to transmit another Tokyo Rose’ broadcast in a coded frequency only receivable by patriots with a funny bone. This natural coded messaging ensures communists and leftists are incapable of receiving it.
The August edition comes from deep in the underground bunker of the Rebel Alliance. Pull out those super-secret decoder rings, and enjoy the transmission before the deep state satellite interception trucks show up on your driveway…
There is NOTHING that the politicians EVER say that is the truth. Hiring 87,000 new IRS agents is NOT to go after billionaires as they claim. There are ONLY 614 billionaires in the United States. Clearly, you do not need 87,000 new agents to hunt down billionaires – they are coming after you!
There is no loose change in taxes the higher you go up in income. You then need professionals to handle the taxes and they cross every “t” and dot all the “i”s. They are targeting anyone with an LLC and will challenge all expenses. Don’t forget, if you go to dinner with a client, you can only write off 50% of the expense. Of course with COVID, we have a whole new crisis in taxes. The commuting costs evaporated working from home. What about writing off a portion of the home now if you no longer go to the office? Suddenly, COVID really complicated things over the past two years. Even if your house burns down, the IRS denies a tax deduction for the loss. Protesters against the IRS are just coincidently targeted for audits – purely coincidental. Obama used the IRS to target the Tea Party. The DOJ waited two years and then quietly dismissed any criminal charges against IRS agents. This is what we will expect for now they will target also protesters in climate change.
They do not need 87,000 new agents, armed to the teeth, to hunt down just 614 billionaires. It made good press, the same as when they introduced the income tax back in 1913 as SWORE on the soul of the dead mother and all their relatives, it would not apply to the rich. Small business and climate protesters will be the people targeted by the IRS.
Remember the cops raided the wrong house, killed the guy, and then they claimed he was an UNDOCUMENTED alien who had no Constitutional Rights, and thus it was OK to kill him. How about the wrong house raid where they kill the man and his dog but then kill a cop responding to a break-in – remember that one? There are so many where the cops storm the wrong house, the resident this it’s a break-in and defends himself only to be shot dead. I’m sure we will all sleep well knowing 87,000 IRS agents, armed to the teeth, are being trained to storm houses and released on society after 3 months worth of training.
In Canada, Trudeau is arming climate change police to do the same thing. Let’s face the facts. We the people are now the enemy – not Putin! This is the consequence of Marxism. We are nothing more than economic slaves.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on August 26, 2022 | Sundance
When Chairman Powell says things are really, really going to suck as monetary policy tries to support Biden’s goals to reduce energy supplies, will people believe him?
The agenda of the federal reserve was clearly outlined today in the remarks from Chairman Powell in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. The Fed chair is trying to manage the economic policy transition by reducing economic activity to match intentionally diminished energy supplies. Lowering economic activity drops demand for energy. Unfortunately, as admitted by Powell today, this means a period of “some pain” for Americans as the central banks join together in an effort to lower consumption. WATCH:
What does “some pain” mean? It means lower incomes, higher prices, lowered standards of living and more scarce resources. During this transition to owning nothing and being happy about it, the pain is your wealth being stripped as the economy is intentionally diminished.
We will not be able to afford much; we won’t be able to afford the foods we want; we will not be able to purchase anything except the essentials, and those essentials will cost much more; we won’t be able to vacation, travel, or enjoy recreational activities; we won’t be able to afford any indulgences; but at the end of the process, we will learn to live more meager existences based on lowered expectations needed for sustaining the planet. Pay no attention to the elites who don’t have those concerns, comrade.
[Transcript] – POWELL: “At past Jackson Hole conferences, I have discussed broad topics such as the ever-changing structure of the economy and the challenges of conducting monetary policy under high uncertainty. Today, my remarks will be shorter, my focus narrower, and my message more direct.”
“The Federal Open Market Committee’s (FOMC) overarching focus right now is to bring inflation back down to our 2 percent goal. Price stability is the responsibility of the Federal Reserve and serves as the bedrock of our economy. Without price stability, the economy does not work for anyone. In particular, without price stability, we will not achieve a sustained period of strong labor market conditions that benefit all. The burdens of high inflation fall heaviest on those who are least able to bear them.
Restoring price stability will take some time and requires using our tools forcefully to bring demand and supply into better balance. Reducing inflation is likely to require a sustained period of below-trend growth. Moreover, there will very likely be some softening of labor market conditions. While higher interest rates, slower growth, and softer labor market conditions will bring down inflation, they will also bring some pain to households and businesses. These are the unfortunate costs of reducing inflation. But a failure to restore price stability would mean far greater pain.
The U.S. economy is clearly slowing from the historically high growth rates of 2021, which reflected the reopening of the economy following the pandemic recession. While the latest economic data have been mixed, in my view our economy continues to show strong underlying momentum. The labor market is particularly strong, but it is clearly out of balance, with demand for workers substantially exceeding the supply of available workers. Inflation is running well above 2 percent, and high inflation has continued to spread through the economy. While the lower inflation readings for July are welcome, a single month’s improvement falls far short of what the Committee will need to see before we are confident that inflation is moving down.
We are moving our policy stance purposefully to a level that will be sufficiently restrictive to return inflation to 2 percent. At our most recent meeting in July, the FOMC raised the target range for the federal funds rate to 2.25 to 2.5 percent, which is in the Summary of Economic Projection’s (SEP) range of estimates of where the federal funds rate is projected to settle in the longer run. In current circumstances, with inflation running far above 2 percent and the labor market extremely tight, estimates of longer-run neutral are not a place to stop or pause.
July’s increase in the target range was the second 75 basis point increase in as many meetings, and I said then that another unusually large increase could be appropriate at our next meeting. We are now about halfway through the intermeeting period. Our decision at the September meeting will depend on the totality of the incoming data and the evolving outlook. At some point, as the stance of monetary policy tightens further, it likely will become appropriate to slow the pace of increases.
Restoring price stability will likely require maintaining a restrictive policy stance for some time. The historical record cautions strongly against prematurely loosening policy. Committee participants’ most recent individual projections from the June SEP showed the median federal funds rate running slightly below 4 percent through the end of 2023. Participants will update their projections at the September meeting.
Our monetary policy deliberations and decisions build on what we have learned about inflation dynamics both from the high and volatile inflation of the 1970s and 1980s, and from the low and stable inflation of the past quarter-century. In particular, we are drawing on three important lessons.
The first lesson is that central banks can and should take responsibility for delivering low and stable inflation. It may seem strange now that central bankers and others once needed convincing on these two fronts, but as former Chairman Ben Bernanke has shown, both propositions were widely questioned during the Great Inflation period.1 Today, we regard these questions as settled. Our responsibility to deliver price stability is unconditional. It is true that the current high inflation is a global phenomenon, and that many economies around the world face inflation as high or higher than seen here in the United States.
It is also true, in my view, that the current high inflation in the United States is the product of strong demand and constrained supply, and that the Fed’s tools work principally on aggregate demand. None of this diminishes the Federal Reserve’s responsibility to carry out our assigned task of achieving price stability. There is clearly a job to do in moderating demand to better align with supply. We are committed to doing that job.
The second lesson is that the public’s expectations about future inflation can play an important role in setting the path of inflation over time. Today, by many measures, longer-term inflation expectations appear to remain well anchored. That is broadly true of surveys of households, businesses, and forecasters, and of market-based measures as well. But that is not grounds for complacency, with inflation having run well above our goal for some time.
If the public expects that inflation will remain low and stable over time, then, absent major shocks, it likely will. Unfortunately, the same is true of expectations of high and volatile inflation. During the 1970s, as inflation climbed, the anticipation of high inflation became entrenched in the economic decisionmaking of households and businesses. The more inflation rose, the more people came to expect it to remain high, and they built that belief into wage and pricing decisions. As former Chairman Paul Volcker put it at the height of the Great Inflation in 1979, “Inflation feeds in part on itself, so part of the job of returning to a more stable and more productive economy must be to break the grip of inflationary expectations.”2
One useful insight into how actual inflation may affect expectations about its future path is based in the concept of “rational inattention.”3 When inflation is persistently high, households and businesses must pay close attention and incorporate inflation into their economic decisions. When inflation is low and stable, they are freer to focus their attention elsewhere. Former Chairman Alan Greenspan put it this way: “For all practical purposes, price stability means that expected changes in the average price level are small enough and gradual enough that they do not materially enter business and household financial decisions.”4
Of course, inflation has just about everyone’s attention right now, which highlights a particular risk today: The longer the current bout of high inflation continues, the greater the chance that expectations of higher inflation will become entrenched.
That brings me to the third lesson, which is that we must keep at it until the job is done. History shows that the employment costs of bringing down inflation are likely to increase with delay, as high inflation becomes more entrenched in wage and price setting. The successful Volcker disinflation in the early 1980s followed multiple failed attempts to lower inflation over the previous 15 years. A lengthy period of very restrictive monetary policy was ultimately needed to stem the high inflation and start the process of getting inflation down to the low and stable levels that were the norm until the spring of last year. Our aim is to avoid that outcome by acting with resolve now.
These lessons are guiding us as we use our tools to bring inflation down. We are taking forceful and rapid steps to moderate demand so that it comes into better alignment with supply, and to keep inflation expectations anchored. We will keep at it until we are confident the job is done.” [Transcript End]
America has pledged to embezzle (donate) another $3 BILLION into Ukraine. The Associated Press claims that this money will be used for equipment and training Ukrainian troops. Additional NATO countries are also offering additional funds, such as Germany who pledged an additional $500 million to the proxy war. Yet, America is donating more money than any other NATO country to a non-NATO country. How does this benefit American taxpayers? Answer – it does not. It steals resources from our nation as the average American grapples with record-high inflation amid a recession that is expected to worsen into next year.
This is taxation without representation. Joe Biden is not reaching into his personal wallet to funnel money into Ukraine. The defense contractors, US and Ukrainian governments are finding a way to line their pockets with these large “donations.” America has already sent 19 packages of weapons from the Defense Department’s arsenal to Ukraine. So far, the US has sent $10.6 billion to Ukraine to fund what many are calling the new “forever war.”
The last US census stated there were 123.6 million households in the US. At $13.6 billion total, this means that every household in the nation could have donated $110 directly to Ukraine. Zelensky is basking in the funding and fame. He has indicated that he intends to provoke Russia and worsen relations. He originally wanted to protect the Donbas region, but now he also wants Crimea to be fully within Ukraine. There is no winning this war as it has become too profitable for the people behind the curtain.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on August 24, 2022 | Sundance
Buy votes, create disparity and divide people, that’s what democrat policies are designed to do. Joe Biden follows the playbook by cancelling $10k to $20k in student loan debt for those who have federal government loans. Students with private loans backed by the federal government are not eligible.
Additionally, Biden has extended the “COVID emergency payment moratorium” through the end of the year. No one with a federal student loan needs to restart paying until after the midterm election, in 2023. [White House Fact Sheet Here]
If the economy is doing so great, then why the need for bailouts?
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden on Wednesday announced his long-awaited plan to deliver on a campaign promise to provide $10,000 in student debt cancellation for millions of Americans — and up to $10,000 more for those with the greatest financial need — along with new measures to lower the burden of repayment for their remaining federal student debt.
Borrowers who earn less than $125,000 a year, or families earning less than $250,000, would be eligible for the $10,000 loan forgiveness, Biden announced in a tweet. For recipients of Pell Grants, which are reserved for undergraduates with the most significant financial need, the federal government would cancel up to an additional $10,000 in federal loan debt.
Biden is also extending a pause on federal student loan payments for what he called the “final time” through the end of 2022. He was set to deliver remarks Wednesday afternoon at the White House to unveil his proposal to the public.
If his plan survives legal challenges that are almost certain to come, it could offer a windfall to a swath of the nation in the run-up to this fall’s midterm elections. More than 43 million people have federal student debt, with an average balance of $37,667, according to federal data. Nearly a third of borrowers owe less than $10,000, and about half owe less than $20,000. The White House estimates that Biden’s announcement would erase the federal student debt of about 20 million people. (read more)
COMMENT: There has been and is increasing talk in all media of a coming ‘civil war’. Your article ‘Bidenomics & Vilification of Trump’ well explains the intentional polarization of the public and clearly states this will only end very badly.
The CW of 1861 Blue vs Grey, North vs South was a war of geography – of brother vs brother if one lived in a Blue state and the other in a Grey state. Armies were formed and deployed based on geography as much as ideology.
Now we have talk of a civil war between ‘patriots’ DJT supporters versus I guess the rest of everyone else, or so it is threatened to be by the media pundents and alarmists. But Martin, this smells like a classic psychological operation employing all of the media and a tiny element of probably paid for) violent extremists who like to dress in all black. But how many Karen and Kens (Ds) are there that would actually take up arms because they don’t like Trump? How many because they love their electric cars? Will they begin shooting neighbors because of global warming?
The D politicians have never been able to provide any positive based reasons why they should be elected – only that they are anti-opponent – that might get a few votes but will not create an army. Your neighbor may be a liberal voter but is he armed and ready to start killing for these reasons? I think not.
Except for the DS/WEF/Globalists gang and probably a number of their armed 3 letter agencies. They control the media, have the jails, and the domestic physical enforcement personnel. They can use the media to try and create chaos, to cause false flag events in their favor, and shape public thought, and intern “create a media based CW”. A Wag The Dog CW.
They are the opposition – the enemy – the real danger. Do their combined numbers who could and actually would take up arms against the pubic even come to 1% of the nation? I doubt it. Have a CW against this 1% and you could call it “the most civilized war a civilized society could possibly have”. IMO, this should be done by the professionals as soon as yesterday. Gitmo and military justice for treason.
Glenn
REPLY: History whispers to us from the past because the one thing that is constant has always been Human nature. It really does not matter whatever the issue might be. Perhaps the most dominant reason has often been religion. Nero used that to blame the Christians for burning down Rome. The Diocletianic or Great Persecution was the last and most severe persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire. This again was not out of personal hatred of Christians. This was after the Monetary collapse of Rome during the 260-268AD time frame. Diocletian (284-305AD) persecuted the Christians because the general belief was that the gods were causing Rome to collapse BECAUSE of the Christians who were disrespecting the gods.
There was another religion rising known as the Manicheans. Diocletian issued an edict in 302AD against them as well for the very same reason – they were offending the gods who were punishing Rome. They were founded in the Persian Empire known as the Sassanid Empire and were followers of the prophet Mani (216-c.276). This became another widespread religion that infiltrated Rome, India, and China. It was based on a dualistic theology in which the theory was that the universe was divided between the divine plane of light and our own material plane of darkness. The Father of Greatness was not omnipotent, but he ruled the realm of light. Its opposite, the material realm, was controlled by the King of Darkness. These two forces did battle on both a cosmic and a personal level. Thus, within each individual soul, there was a battle. Manichaeism was clearly influenced by several other religions including Buddhism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism.
So, no matter where we look in history, there is this eternal conflict between two ideas – left v right. The media is fueling the hatred of Trump and as we can see the new strategy is to hate Republicans for the November election when Trump is not running. But they are portraying him as evil and he now controls all Republicans so you better vote Democrat. That is the message being sent out all over.
Here is a coin of Postumus who led the separation of Spain, France, and Britain to exist the Roman Empire. First, he was not trying to be another general who conquered Rome. He was pushing for separation and his coinage declare that he was “restoring” the region to sanity and safety. This is the most likely way we will see the United States split as is the case in Europe which will probably precede. I do not see armed armies leading the charge, nor do I see your neighbor picking up a gun and storming your house because you are the evil opposition. They will probably not speak to you and that is how it will begin.
Armies are created by the rulers. They demonize their opponent to get the people to be willing to die on the battlefield for some noble cause. The US Civil War was promoted on religious grounds. There were slave owners who abused their slaves and beat them and the majority did not. The worst part of slavery was they could sell your wife or child. That was different from serfdom where you went attached to the land and could not be sold individually. The South fought over state’s rights which they want to deny today, but economically, slaves were valuable. It all began with indentured servants which were people in England sold to a plantation owner for their sentence of 2 or 5 years for a misdemeanor crime. That is why the Constitution forbids indentured servitude.
Ending slavery was taking away the workforce and it mean economic destruction. The vast majority of soldiers who fought for the South were not slave owners. They fought against Federalism that was dictating what their economy should have been. The vast majority of solider in the Confederate Army did not have the wealth to own slaves. They were very expensive. Historically, the US will split along the same lines. The middle of the country will join with the South up to Montana. This will divide the nation into three parts as what took place in Rome. The Pacific States will be California, Oregon, and Washington. I am surprised that the Washington States has not moved to rename itself Wokeville since GeorgeWashington inherited enslaved people at the early age of eleven and was therefore a slave owner. Thomas Jefferson also inherited slaves with his wife. They have removed his statues in NYC already! The man who wrote the Declaration of Independence.
I would not expect the separation to come by force of arms. We will see this rise to a voting issue on both sides. Already on the 2022 ballot will be a question to secede from the United States in Texas and California. There are people talking about it here in Florida. The more Washington tries to impose its dictates on the States, we will see the rise in calling for secession from US. This was to be a union that retained state sovereignty. That was the US civil war and it will be again – just a different issue from slavery to economic slavery, climate mandates, vaccine mandates, and who knows what’s next – chip implants?
The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health published a study that found the lockdowns were deadly. In fact, the lockdowns were 20 times more deadly than COVID. The lockdowns were a mass human experiment. There was no evidence that indicated this method would be effective. We saw the impact that the lockdowns had on the global economy, but their effects on the human mind are now coming to light.
“The comparative analysis of different countries showed that the assumption of lockdowns’ effectiveness cannot be supported by evidence—neither regarding the present COVID-19 pandemic, nor regarding the 1918–1920 Spanish Flu and other less-severe pandemics in the past. The price tag of lockdowns in terms of public health is high: by using the known connection between health and wealth, we estimate that lockdowns may claim 20 times more life years than they save. It is suggested therefore that a thorough cost-benefit analysis should be performed before imposing any lockdown for either COVID-19 or any future pandemic.”
Forcing people into isolation is a tactic used in prison for punishment. Everyone’s mental health suffered as life as we knew it simply halted. People lost their livelihoods, were unable to see loved ones, and were forced to tip toe around society when they emerged for essentials. Kids fell behind in school and socialization. One of the most deadly aspects, however, was the way healthcare facilities managed COVID patients.
“The lockdown policies had a direct side effect of increasing mortality. Hospitals in Europe and USA were prepared to manage pretty small groups of highly contagious patients, while unprepared for a much more probable challenge—large-scale contagion. As a result, public health care facilities and nursing homes often became vehicles of contamination themselves—to a large extent because of the lockdown-based emergency policy implementation.”
Governor Cuomo of New York tried to hide the deaths that occurred in nursing homes. Over 9,000 infected patientsin New York alone were discharged from hospitals and sent into nursing homes. This resulted in thousands of unnecessary deaths. No one was ever held responsible for that decision.
“Another comparison can be made if we remember that the average age of people dying of COVID-19 was around 80, with 3–6 QALY per death lost. Therefore, 500,000 QALY are equivalent to roughly 100,000 COVID-19 deaths. Even if we assume that lockdowns saved 1.5 daily deaths per million [20] for a whole year (365 days), after multiplying by 9.2 million (population of Israel) we arrive at about 5000 lives saved—just about 5% of the lockdowns’ human cost. In other words, it can be estimated that even if the lockdowns saved some lives, in the long term they killed 20 times more.”
There is no evidence to suggest that the lockdowns were effective. Even if the lockdowns worked as intended, they directly caused more deaths than they were intended to prevent.
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