The continuing war on cash…

Special interests, government insiders, and the financial elite have a plan to seize control of America’s money

 

In March 1933, Henry Morgenthau Jr., chairman of the Federal Farm Board, was sent a short memo titled “Memorandum on Banking Reform.”

It was signed by Frank Knight (the acknowledged author of the memo), Garfield Cox, Aaron Director, Paul Douglas, Lloyd Mints, Henry Schultz, and Henry Simons. All of them were professors at the University of Chicago.

The memorandum advocated for full-reserve banking (FRB) in the U.S. monetary system. U.S. currency would be backed only by government debt, not bank debt (loans issued by commercial banks to private citizens and companies).

It wouldn’t nationalize the U.S. banking system. But it would nationalize the nation’s money supply.

Under this kind of system, banks could no longer “create” money by lending it into existence. Money creation would be the exclusive territory of the government of the United States.

In this system, the key government agencies could not create money through new lending. They would do so through new spending (on priorities determined by elected politicians).

They called it “The Chicago Plan.”

The most radical elements of the plan – which we’ll discuss shortly – were left on the shelf nearly a century ago.

But I believe it’s about to find a resurgence in modern America…

Before I show you what the implications of a modern Chicago Plan would be, it’s important you understand how money creation works today.

Despite what you may think, the central bank (the Federal Reserve) doesn’t print that much money. The vast majority of the money supply in the U.S. economy is grown by banks lending money into existence.

Commercial banks issue a loan, it appears in your account, and just like that… it’s money. From nothing, something! And then there was cash!

But here’s the other part of that process that most people don’t realize. When the banks issue a loan, they don’t have to have a dollar in cash in their vaults for every dollar in cash they lend. If they DID, then every loan to a new customer would be matched with an equal amount of savings already in the bank from another customer. That’s “full reserve” banking.

What we have today is called “fractional-reserve” banking. Why? The amount of cash savings actually held by the bank is only a fraction of the money lent by the bank. And for each dollar in saving deposits held by the bank (your money), the bank can lend up to $10 in new money (this is the secret magic of money creation).

It’s also what some people call “debt-based” money, because money is created when a new debt is born (in the form of a bank loan).

Proponents of the Chicago Plan contend that allowing banks to create credit in a fractional reserve system leads to credit cycles. And the credit cycle has booms and busts. The busts damage everyone, not just those who have borrowed and spent too much.

That’s a problem, they say. To circumvent it, there are those in power actively trying to end the banking system as we know it. They want to go back to the original idea of the Chicago Plan. And then they want to go one step further and replace America’s money with something else entirely.

The main feature of the Chicago Plan is that it moves credit creation from private hands to public (government) hands, with the average American unaware of who is really moving the government hands. Money isn’t lent into existence. It’s spent into existence.

You can imagine that he who does the spending in this system has great power. That’s exactly the idea!

Under the plan, instead of stimulating growth by changing the price of money for commercial banks (which is how monetary policy currently works with the Federal Reserve and interest rates), the government would “spend” money into circulation – on public works and infrastructure projects, for example.

The quantity of money in the economy would be determined by the government, not the commercial banks. And, at least in theory, the government would enjoy vastly lower levels of debt (both absolutely, and relative to GDP) in this kind of money system. Why?

In the current system, the US Treasury raises money by selling bonds to commercial banks or the Fed, paying interest to both. Money is created by borrowing. But again, it’s debt-based money. That wouldn’t happen in the new system. But what would the new money be backed by?  By government debt!

The term “full-reserve banking” implies every unit of currency is backed by an actual reserve. Some advocates of full-reserve banking (including a handful of Austrian economists) believe you could back the money with gold. Thus gold would be restored as the most important reserve asset in the world.

But if your agenda is to spend money into existence in unlimited quantities, you can also use government debt as a reserve asset. There’s a lot of it already. And you can always make more!

In fact, this is a key feature of the Chicago Plan. It’s full-reserve banking where the government does all the money creation, “backed” by government debt. The commercial banks merely provide payment services or pay interest on deposits. They are forced out of the debt-based money creation business (where all the profit is, of course).

According to the theory, this new American money system would accomplish three things…

  1. End the booms and busts of the credit cycle.
  2. Do away with bank runs (no need to get your money out of the bank if it’s fully backed).
  3. Eliminate the government’s debt problem. If money can be spent into existence, government borrowing and government debts are a thing of the past. If it needs more money, the government just spends it and “backs” it by issuing new bonds held by the central bank. The government could never be insolvent.

Does that sound like an improvement on the current system to you? To some people, it all sounds somewhat appealing, until you look closer…

Under the Chicago Plan, the government has “monetary sovereignty.” What is monetary sovereignty? It is the complete decoupling of money from anything real.

Let me explain what I mean and why that’s so important for the value of your savings and investments today.

Under the Chicago Plan, money doesn’t have to have its roots in real value-added labor. Money doesn’t come into existence because a tradesman has created something useful and sold it to someone else, requiring money to make the transaction.

And under the new system, money certainly doesn’t have to be anything physical and scarce, like gold.

Under the new system, money can be whatever the government wants it to be.

With a monetarily sovereign government calling the shots, money is literally no object. A monetarily sovereign government wouldn’t have to borrow anymore, or pay interest. To create money, it would simply spend it into existence. Voilà!

Think of all the jobs and incomes created when a monetarily sovereign government decides to spend trillions on new infrastructure and “nation building” projects.

This is Richard Duncan’s “creditism” without the need to borrow. It is economic growth without effort, wealth without labor, riches without risk.

If you think it sounds absurd, you’re not alone. But remember what’s at stake here: total control of American money, and through it, of the economy, and of you. And it’ll be accomplished by controlling the quantity of money through a central authority.

For an idea of what that might look like – and why it’s so dangerous to your cash and savings today – consider this quote from the innocuously titled “The Case for Unencumbering Interest Rate Policy at the Zero Bound.”

It was delivered by Marvin Goodfriend of Carnegie Mellon University at the Fed’s annual retreat in Jackson Hole, Wyoming in 2016 (emphasis added is mine):

The most straightforward way to unencumber interest rate policy completely at the zero bound is to abolish paper currency. In principle, abolishing paper currency would be effective, would not need new technology, and would not need institutional modifications. However, the public would be deprived of the widely used bundle of services that paper currency uniquely provides.

[…] Hence, the public is likely to resist the abolition of paper currency at least until mobile access to bank deposits becomes cheaper and more easily available.

First, we have a proposal for a new system in which only the government can create money. Next, the “experts” think the most logical way to “unencumber” ineffective monetary policy is to abolish cash.

Goodfriend, by the way, was nominated by President Trump to serve on the Federal Reserve’s seven-member Board of Governors. His nomination is currently awaiting action by the U.S. Senate.

Taken together, there is a real effort underway to do away with your individual economic liberty and your preference to hold cash in the face of interest rate uncertainty. “If that could be overcome,” Goodfriend seems to be saying, “then we could make you act the way we want you to.”

Am I exaggerating? Would Wall Street allow such a fundamental change to America’s banking system? Would the Fed really abolish cash? Is there a possibility of all of this becoming a reality?

It’s happening faster than you think.

For example, the Swiss recently voted on implementing a version of the Chicago Plan earlier this month. They ultimately voted it down, but the fact that such a plan was considered in the first place shows that this idea is coming back into the mainstream.

Also, keep in mind that the Swiss, due to their constitution, get to vote on these kinds of things. It’s a direct democracy, controlled at the local level. Top-down change – the kind of change which tends to benefit the elites and those in the shadows of power – is very hard to achieve in Switzerland. But in the United States…?

What would it take for elected officials, and the American voters, to decide that the banks can no longer be trusted? What would it take for politicians and voters to agree that it’s time to end “too big to fail” banks and change the financial system so “the people” (through their elected officials, of course) can be in charge of the money system?

A stock market crash?  Another “systemically important bank” collapse?  A sovereign debt crisis?

The catalyst could come from anywhere, or nowhere. And if you think it’s out of the realm of possibility, then you lack imagination, or an understanding of history.

In a world where government has unrestricted control of the money, and hiding physical cash is no longer an option (because cash has been abolished), there’s no end to what a monetary sovereign could force you to do.

Control of money is a massive political power. What would happen next?

Outlawing cryptos?

Forcing negative interest rates (effectively a tax on your savings)?

Banning the purchase of items that the government deems undesirable, like weapons, alcohol, or cigarettes?

These may seem far-fetched scenarios. But they are well within the realm of possibility for a government in complete control of the money in your account.

This was the plan in 1933. It almost happened. I believe it is the plan today. And I believe it WILL happen. Much sooner than you think. Which is why you must plan for it NOW.

This is not a theoretical debate. What, exactly, is at stake for you right now?

This idea of sovereign money appeals to central planners because with it, they have absolute authority and permission to try and solve any “problem” they deem a threat.

You are that threat, because you won’t do what you’re told. You won’t spend when you’re supposed to spend, borrow when you’re supposed to borrow. And you’re likely to hoard cash and real money (precious metals) in the face of low (or negative) interest rates. That makes you an uncompliant problem for the State to solve.

When you pair it with banning cash and going all-digital, you have nothing less than the complete loss of economic liberty and freedom of action in America. THAT’s what’s at stake here. Right now.

If you’re in a situation where you can only spend money when you’re allowed to spend money, or you can only spend money that they say is money, and you can only spend money when they think it’s okay, then you’re not free.

And to a lot of people, freedom still matters in America.

 

[From a recent communication by Dan Denning of BONNER AND PARTNERS]

 

…………………………………………………………

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Why a creation MUST HAVE a Creator…

A creation must have a Creator

Truly, the heavens declare the glory of God.

Every star we see is a burning mass of plasma, similar to the sun. Even so, our sun is not just any old star; 95 percent of all stars are less massive and smaller stars are found in abundance.  That is a very important consideration.

If the sun were smaller, then the habitable zone for Earth would be much further inward, and that would induce synchronous rotation. The gravity from a small sun would cause one side of the earth to continually face the sun. In other words, there would be no day and night, only boiling temperatures on one side, and freezing temperatures on the other.

Earth is about 93 million miles from the sun, and is situated in a very narrow band that supports habitability. If the earth were only 5 percent closer to the sun, it would become like the planet Venus, boiling hot and uninhabitable. However, if we were just 20 percent farther away, our planet would resemble Mars, freezing and still uninhabitable.

If Earth was on a very elliptical orbit around the sun, then it would be alternately too close and too far away for life to be sustained. Instead, we find that Earth has a nearly circular orbit, perfect for life. There can be no doubt that the earth occupies a favored position – the only known position in which human life can be sustained. It was created with a very definite purpose.

Thus says the LORD who created the heavens, God Himself who formed the earth and made it: He has established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited.  Not only that, but “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”  (John 3:16)

 

[From an article by David Rives, published by THE CREATION CLUB]

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  Since you are part of “the world” in that well-known verse above, just take out those two words and insert your own name.  The verse will now read, “God so loved (YOUR NAME) that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”  THAT is something to shout about!

 

………………………………………………………

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Trump not only reinforcing the strength of the US to the rest of the world, but also restoring its credibility in the Middle East

After three successive American Presidents had used a six-month waiver to defer moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem for more than two decades, President Donald J. Trump decided not to wait any longer. On December 7, 2017, he declared that the United States recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; the official embassy transfer took place on May 14th, the day of Israel’s 70th anniversary.

From the moment of Trump’s declaration, leaders of the Muslim world expressed anger and announced major trouble. An Islamic summit conference was convened in Istanbul a week later, and ended with statements about a “crime against Palestine”. Western European leaders followed suit. Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel said that President Trump’s decision was a “serious mistake” and could have huge “consequences”. French President Emmanuel Macron, going further, declared that the decision could provoke a “war”.

Despite these ominous predictions, trouble remained largely absent. The Istanbul statement remained a statement. The “war” anticipated by Macron did not break out.

The Islamic terrorist organization Hamas sent masses of rioters from Gaza to tear down Israel’s border fence and cross over, to force Israeli soldiers to fire, thereby allowing Hamas to have bodies of “martyrs” to show to the cameras. So far, Hamas has sent 62 of its own people to their death. Fifty of them were, by Hamas’s own admission, members of Hamas.

Palestinian terrorist groups fired rockets into southern Israel; Israeli jets retaliated with airstrikes. Hamas sent kites, attached to incendiary devices and explosives, over the border to Israel. So far, 200 of the fire-kites that Hamas sent have destroyed 6,200 acres of Israeli forests and farmland.

  • Trump has shown the strength of the United States and restored its credibility in a region where strength and force determine credibility.
  • Trump more broadly laid the foundation for a new alliance of the United States with the Sunni Arab world, but he put two conditions on it: a cessation of all Sunni Arab support for Islamic terrorism and an openness to the prospect of a regional peace that included Israel.
  • Secretary of State Pompeo spoke of the “Palestinians”, not of the Palestinian Authority, as in Iran, possibly to emphasize the distinction between the people and their leadership, and that the leadership in both situations, may no longer be part of the solution. Hamas, for the US, is clearly not part of any solution.
  • Netanyahu rightly said that Palestinian leaders, whoever they may be, do not want peace with Israel, but “peace without Israel”. What instead could take place would be peace without the Palestinian leaders. What could also take place would be peace without the Iranian mullahs.

Pundits who predicted more violent reactions have been surprised by the relatively quiet reaction of the Palestinian and Muslim communities. The reason might be called the “Trump Doctrine for the Middle East”.

One element of it consisted of crushing the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. President Trump had promised quickly to clear the world of what had become a main backbone of Islamic terrorism. He kept his promise in less than a year, and without a massive deployment of American troops. Trump has shown the strength of the United States and restored its credibility in a region where strength and force determine credibility.

Another element of it was put in place during President Trump’s trip to Saudi Arabia in May 2017. President Trump renewed ties which had seriously deteriorated during the previous 8 years. Trump more broadly laid the foundation for a new alliance of the United States with the Sunni Arab world, but he put two conditions on it: a cessation of all Sunni Arab support for Islamic terrorism and an openness to the prospect of a regional peace that included Israel.

Both conditions are being gradually fulfilled. In June 2017, Saudi Arabia’s King Salman chose his son Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) as heir to the throne. MBS started an internal revolution to impose new directions on the kingdom. The Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition, created on December 15, 2015, was endorsed by the United States; it held its inaugural meeting on November 26, 2017. In addition, links between Israeli and Saudi security services were strengthened and coordination between the Israeli and Egyptian militaries intensified.

An alliance between Israel and the main countries of the Sunni Arab world to contain Iran also slowly and unofficially began taking shape. MBS, calling called Hamas a terrorist organization, saying that it must “be destroyed”. He told representatives of Jewish organizations in New York that Palestinian leaders need to “take the [American] proposals or shut up.”

Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas was summoned to Riyadh twice — in November and December 2017; and it appears he was “asked” to keep quiet. Never has the distance between Palestinian organizations, and Saudi Arabia and the Sunni Arab world, seemed so far. The only Sunni Arab country to have maintained ties with Hamas is Qatar, but the current Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim ben Hamad Al Thani, has been under pressure to change his stance.

Immediately after President Trump left Riyadh, a third element emerged. The US presidential plane went directly from Riyadh to in Israel: for the first time, a direct flight between Saudi Arabia and Israel took place. President Trump went to Jerusalem, where he became the first sitting US President to visit the Western Wall, the only historical remains of a retaining wall from the ancient Temple of King Solomon. During his campaign, Trump had referred to Jerusalem as “the eternal capital of the Jewish people”, implicitly acknowledging that the Jews have had their roots there for 3,000 years.

After his visit to the Wall, President Trump went to Bethlehem and told Mahmoud Abbas what no American President had ever said: that Abbas is a liar and that he is personally responsible for the incitement to violence and terror. In the days that followed, the US Congress demanded that the Palestinian Authority renounce incentivizing terrorism by paying cash to imprisoned Palestinian terrorists and families of terrorists killed while carrying out attacks. President Trump’s Middle East negotiators, Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt made it clear to Palestinian leaders that US aid to the Palestinian Authority could end if the US demand was not met. Nikki Haley told the United Nations that the US could stop funding UNWRA if Palestinian leaders refused to negotiate and accept what the US is asking for. Since it was founded in 1994, the Palestinian Authority has never been subjected to such intense American pressure.

The fourth element was President Trump’s decision to leave the Iran nuclear deal. President Trump immediately announced he would restore “the harshest, strongest, most stringent sanctions” to suffocate the mullahs’ regime. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has since presented to Iran a list of 12 “basic requirements” for a new agreement.

President Trump’s decision came in a context where the Iran regime has just suffered a series of heavy blows: the Israeli Mossad’s seizure in Tehran of highly confidential documents showing that Iran has not ceased to lie about its nuclear program; the revelation by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of the Mossad operation, and the Israeli army’s decisive response to an Iranian rocket barrage launched from Syrian territory. By it, Israel showed its determination not to allow Russia to support Iran when Iran uses its bases to attack Israel.

Netanyahu was invited by Russian President Vladimir Putin to Moscow on May 9 to commemorate the Soviet victory over Germany in 1945; during that visit, Putin seems to have promised Netanyahu neutrality if Israel were attacked by Iranian forces in Syria. Putin, eager to preserve his Russian bases in Syria, clearly views Israel as a force for stability in the Middle East and Iran as a force for instability — too big a risk for Russian support.

In recent months, the Iranian regime has become, along with Erdogan’s Turkey, one of the main financial supporters of the “Palestinian cause” and Hamas’s main backer. It seems that Iran asked Hamas to organize the marches and riots along the Gaza-Israel border. When the violence from Gaza became more intense, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was summoned to Cairo by Egypt’s intelligence chief, who told him that if violence does not stop, the Israel military would carry out drastic actions, and Egypt would be silent. It could become difficult for Iran to incite Palestinian organizations to widespread violence in the near future.

It could become extremely difficult for Iran to continue financially to support the “Palestinian cause” in the coming months. It could soon become financially unbearable for Iran to maintain its presence in Syria and provide sophisticated weapons to Hezbollah. Turkish President Erdogan speaks loudly, but he seems to know what lines not to cross.

Protests in Iran have become less intense since January, but the discontent and frustrations of the population persist and could get worse.

The Trump administration undoubtedly realizes that the Iranian regime will not accept the requirements presented by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and that the harsh new sanctions might lead to new major uprisings in Iran, and the fall of the regime. Ambassador John Bolton, now National Security Advisor, mentioned in January that the “strategic interest of the United States” is to see the regime overthrown.

Referring recently to the situation in the Middle East and the need to achieve peace, Pompeo spoke of the “Palestinians”, not of the Palestinian Authority, as in Iran, possibly to emphasize the distinction between the people and their leadership, and that the leadership in both situations, may no longer be part of the solution. Hamas, for the US, is clearly not part of any solution.

No one knows exactly what the peace plan to be presented by the Trump administration will contain, but it seems certain that it will not include the “right of return” of so-called “Palestinian refugees” and will not propose East Jerusalem as the “capital of a Palestinian state”. The plan will no doubt be rejected by both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas; it already has been, sight unseen.

Netanyahu rightly said that Palestinian leaders, whoever they may be, do not want peace with Israel, but “peace without Israel”. What instead could take place would be peace without the Palestinian leaders. What could also take place would be peace without the Iran’s mullahs.

It should be noted that on December 7, 2017, when Donald Trump announced the transfer of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem, the leaders of the Muslim world who protested were mostly Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Iran’s Hassan Rouhani. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Oman did not send representatives to the Islamic summit conference in Istanbul. When the US embassy in Jerusalem opened its doors on May 14, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Gulf emirates were quiet.

On that day, Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron repeated what they had said on December 7, 2017: that the embassies of Germany and France in Israel would remain in Tel Aviv. Macron condemned the “heinous acts” committed by the Israeli military on the Gaza border but not aggression of Hamas in urging its people, and even paying them, to storm Gaza’s border with Israel.

If current trends continue, Macron and Merkel could be among the last supporters of the “Palestinian cause.” They sound as if they will do just about anything to save the corrupt Palestinian Authority.

They are also doing everything to save the moribund Iran “nuclear deal,” and are deferential to the mullahs’ regime. During a European summit held in Sofia, Bulgaria, on May 16, the Trump administration was harshly criticized by the European heads of state who argued that Europe will “find a way around” US sanctions and “resist” President Trump. European companies are already leaving Iran in droves, evidently convinced that they will be better off cutting their losses and keeping good relations with the United States.

On June 3-5, Benjamin Netanyahu went to Europe to try to persuade Merkel, Macron and British Prime Minister Theresa May to give up backing the Iran nuclear deal. He failed, predictably, but at least had the opportunity to explain the Iranian danger to Europeans and the need to act.

As Iran’s nuclear ties to North Korea have intensified in the last two years — Iran seems to have relied on North Korea to advance its own nuclear projects — the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula that might have begun with the Donald Trump-Kim Jong-Un meeting in Singapore on June 12, clearly will not strengthen the Iranian position.

European leaders seem not to want to see that a page is turning in the Middle East. They seem not to want to see that, regardless of their mercenary immorality, of their behavior staying on the page of yesterday, is only preventing them from understanding the future.

 

[From an article by Guy Milliere, published by Gatestone Institute]

 

………………………………………………………

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A classic story offers a classic illustration

The classic story:

An elderly teacher on a rare (for him) airline flight found himself seated next to a prominent liberal politician. They exchanged pleasantries and the teacher looked forward to a period of catch-up reading time.

Soon after the plane took off, one of the teacher’s students who was sitting a few rows back got up and began waiting on the teacher with great enthusiasm.  Sir, let me take your shoes…here is a pair of slippers. I know how your feet tend to swell. Here is a sandwich…I know how you dislike airline food.

The politician couldn’t help but notice the attention his seat-mate was getting. “That’s really amazing…I’m so impressed with your son. I have four grown sons, and they never do anything for me. How do you get him to serve you so diligently?”

The teacher answered, “Actually, he’s one of my students. If he were my son, you would have really seen some service. But you must not blame yourself. Your sons are faithful to your teachings, and my sons — and students — are faithful to my teachings. It is really quite simple. You made the decision to teach your sons that you are descended from apes. That means you are one generation closer to the ape than they. And that also means it is only proper and appropriate that you acknowledge their status and serve them. I chose to teach my sons that we were created by Almighty God Himself, and this puts me one generation closer to Him than they are, which means it’s appropriate for them to treat me accordingly.”

Scripture tells us that God links the concept of respect for the elderly with reverence for Him. They are directly connected. God is, after all, called “Ancient of Days” in the Bible (Daniel 7:13). The elderly in our families are usually the best teachers, since they have the most experience. But successful teaching requires willing teachers as well as receptive learners. And that requires commitment from both the teacher and the student.

 

[From an article by Joel Hilliker appearing in The Philadelphia Trumpet]

 

………………………………………………………

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The intersection of politics, science, faith, and reason…or Liberals Against a Magnificent Economy, otherwise known as LAME

To elect more Democrats liberals need a crashing economy, but the quickest and surest way to crash the economy is to elect more Democrats

 

It seems the Republican National Committee (RNC)’s cash advantage over the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is even more pronounced than the numbers – $43.8 million to $3.4 million – indicate.  As long as Democrats like Nancy Pelosi vainly ignore, downplay, or even badmouth good to excellent to record-breaking (in more ways than one) economic numbers – and in the process beclown themselves – the RNC will have to spend next to nothing when it comes to creating ads for the midterm elections.

Pelosi, in particular, is the gift that keeps on giving to the GOP.  Cementing herself as one of our nation’s most morally and economically ignorant citizens, just prior to the GOP passing – and President Trump signing – sweeping tax reform legislation in December of last year, Mrs. Pelosi went on a historically foolish rant.

Awash in hyperbole and hypocrisy – remember, she leads the party that stands for, among other immoral outrageousness, the “right” to kill the most helpless and innocent among us, the “right” for boys to take trophies from girls, and the legal redefinition of the oldest institution in the history of humanity – she accused Republicans of embracing “moral obscenity and unrepentant greed.”

Blind to her extreme “plutocracy hypocrisy,” the 78-year-old grandmother, who’s been in Congress for over 31 years and has a reported net worth of over $100 million, claimed that a vote for the GOP tax bill was “a vote to install a permanent plutocracy in our nation.”  Forgetting that she represents those who hate our Founders and our military and those who think children are a “punishment,” Mrs. Pelosi also claimed that the GOP tax bill “does violence to the vision of our Founders” and “disrespects the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform.  And it betrays the future and betrays the aspirations of our children.”

After the GOP tax bill went into effect and businesses and corporations started shelling out large bonuses and raises, Mrs. Pelosi then had the difficult duty of pretending these were not really good things.  Her “crumbs” comments have already come back to haunt her, and they should continue to do so.

Nancy Pelosi is far from alone in her efforts to keep the American electorate from believing what they are seeing when it comes to the U.S. economy.  Chuck Schumer echoed her “crumbs” comment; Debbie Wasserman Schultz joined in the “Liberals against a Magnificent Economy” (otherwise known as LAME – I hear they’ll be opening for Madonna soon) chorus; and, naturally, the establishment media aided and abetted these absurd attempts at deceit.

Along with trying to put increased wages in a bad light, Pelosi and her ilk also had the unenviable task of convincing Americans that more jobs is a bad thing.  While trying to distract from record employment numbers, Pelosi attempted to disown the health care debacle that continues to plague millions of Americans.  In other words, along with convincing American voters that increased wage and jobs numbers are somehow “fake news,” Democrats are also hoping to dupe us into forgetting that it is they who wrecked our health care system.

The awesome May jobs report gave the left-wing media another opportunity to remind us how smart they are and how stupid President Trump is.  They did about as well as they usually do.  CNN’s Don Lemon said, “There’s no question today’s job report is good news, including the news that we’re as close as we’ve ever been to full employment in the black community.  But what’s full employment without full respect?”

As Andrew Klavan aptly put it, “Don apparently thinks Americans don’t respect all black people.  Who’s going to break the news that it’s just him we don’t respect?”  Instead of the great news on jobs, NBC wanted to focus on – and pretend it wasn’t the only one focused on – Trump’s “premarket tweet.”  CNN’s chief national correspondent, John King, dared everyone to find a president of the United States prior to Trump “talking about, tweeting about, communicating about the unemployment report before it came out.”  Someone took his dare and proved him laughably wrong.

Things have gotten so good economically – or bad, depending on your election hopes – and so deep is the left’s hatred for Trump and his administration that liberals have stooped to “a pox on you and your economy!”  On a recent episode of his Real Time show, Bill Maher declared:

Can I ask about the economy?  Because this economy is going pretty well.  I feel like the bottom has to fall out at some point.  And by the way, I’m hoping for it.  Because I think one way you get rid of Trump is a crashing economy.  So, please, bring on the recession.  Sorry if that hurts people, but it’s either root for a recession or you lose your democracy.

Actually, it’s a republic – if we can keep it.  And as is sometimes attributed to Ben Franklin himself, when the people find they can vote themselves money – as often happens when there is a ballot cast for a Democrat – that will herald the end of the republic.  In other words, Maher and his minions face a political Catch-22: to elect more Democrats, liberals need a “crashing economy,” but the quickest way to a “crashing economy” is to elect more Democrats.  Good luck with that, Bill.

Maher’s selfish drivel was upstaged only by that of Robert De Nero – I mean “Niro.”  (Sorry, I sometimes confuse vulgar, debauched Romans.)  With his epic rant, De Niro and his enthusiastically approving audience at the Tony Awards again reminded us – as if we needed reminding – of where hedonistic Hollywood stands on the political and moral spectrum.

Whether it’s De Niro or Samantha Bee, Joy Behar, Susan Sarandon, Chelsea Handler, Lena Dunham, J.K. Rowling, Jennifer Lawrence, Jimmy Kimmel, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Danny Glover, Michael Moore, Seth Meyers, Stephen Colbert – the more they insist on displaying their ignorance and lack of tolerance by ranting to anyone willing to listen, the more they remind us why Trump was elected and why liberals and liberalism have been so widely rejected.

 

[From an article by Trevor Thomas, published by AMERICAN THINKER]

 

……………………………………………………….

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

What is driving the huge increase in America’s suicide rate…and why do Mainstream Media outlets not want you to know about it?

The direct connection between suicide and depression medications: Use of anti-depressants raises the risk of suicide.

On average, 123 Americans commit suicide every single day, and suicide has now become the 10th leading cause of death in the United States.

But among Americans between the ages of 10 and 34, it is the second leading cause of death.

Suicide increasing in America

It wasn’t always this way.  Suicide rates used to be much, much lower.  If you can believe it, suicide rates in the United States “have risen nearly 30 percent since 1999” according to the CDC…

Suicide rates in the U.S. have risen nearly 30% since 1999, according to a report released Thursday from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Suicides increased in both men and women, in all ethnic groups and in both urban and rural areas. Suicide and “self-harm,” a category that includes attempted suicides, cost the nation $70 billion a year in medical care and lost work time, the CDC says.

The CDC says that rates have increased “among both sexes, all racial/ethnic groups, and all urbanization levels”, and so this is not just a trend that is affecting one particular demographic group.  And virtually all age groups are seeing major increases as well.  For example, hospitalizations for suicidal thoughts and attempts at children’s hospitals approximately doubled over a recent 7 years period…

At children’s hospitals across the country, hospitalizations for suicidal thoughts and attempts doubled from 2008 to 2015, according to a study published last month in the journal Pediatrics. The highest increases were seen among teens ages 15 to 17 years old.

Middle-aged Americans are also seeing a stunning rise in suicides.  According to the CDC, the suicide rate for Americans from the age of 45 to the age of 64 is rising faster than for the general population as a whole

Earlier research showed that suicides among middle-aged men and women climbed at a higher rate than the overall population. Suicide among men aged 45 to 64 increased 43% from 1999 through 2014. The suicide rate uptick was even higher among women in that age group, though more men died from suicide, the CDC said.

So why is this happening?

History tells us that suicide rates tend to go up during economic recessions, but we are not in a recession at the moment.

According to NBC News, researchers have found that people that kill themselves tend to have certain things in common…

  • 42 percent had a relationship problem
  • 28 percent had substance abuse issues
  • 16 percent had job or financial problems
  • 29 percent had some kind of crisis
  • 22 percent had a physical health issue
  • 9 percent had a criminal legal problem

But those problems have always existed in our society and many others.

To find the truth, we need to go down a rabbit hole, and it’s a rabbit hole that mainstream media doesn’t want to talk about.

The use of antidepressants and other mind-altering drugs is absolutely exploding in our society.  According to Time Magazine, the use of antidepressants rose almost 65 percent between 1999 and 2014…

A new report from the National Center for Health Statistics shows that from 2011 through 2014, the most recent data available, close to 13% of people 12 and older said they took an antidepressant in the last month. That number is up from 11% in 2005-2008.

The most recent numbers have increased by nearly 65% since 1999-2002, when 7.7% of Americans reported taking an antidepressant.

And numerous scientific studies have shown that there appears to be a link between antidepressant use and suicide.  In fact, the biggest review of clinical trials ever conducted found that the use of antidepressants “doubled the risk of suicide” for those under the age of 18…

Antidepressants can raise the risk of suicide, the biggest ever review has found, as pharmaceutical companies were accused of failing to report side-effects and even deaths linked to the drugs.

An analysis of 70 trials of the most common antidepressants – involving more than 18,000 people – found they doubled the risk of suicide and aggressive behavior in under 18s.

If you have ever been on any of these drugs, then you already know that they can really mess with your mind, and they can result in people doing some very irrational things.

In the recent suicide case of Kate Spade, we do have confirmation that she was taking antidepressants.  The following comes directly from her husband’s statement

She was actively seeking help for depression and anxiety over the last 5 years, seeing a doctor on a regular basis and taking medication for both depression and anxiety.

We also know that Anthony Bourdain, who took his life recently, struggled with depression as well

The television host also discussed thoughts of depression. In a 2016 episode of Parts Unknown, Bourdain traveled to Argentina for psychotherapy — something widely popular in the country.

“Well, things have been happening,” he says on camera. “I will find myself in an airport, for instance, and I’ll order an airport hamburger. It’s an insignificant thing, it’s a small thing, it’s a hamburger, but it’s not a good one. Suddenly I look at the hamburger and I find myself in a spiral of depression that can last for days.

Considering the fact that he had been dealing with incidents of severe depression for many years, could it be possible that Bourdain was also taking antidepressants?  Of course the mainstream media is never going to address this link, because they do not want to harm their relationships with the big drug companies.  Try counting in an average hour of watching TV the number of drug ads you see. You know, those “ask your doctor if XYZ is right for you” ads.  You already know you see a lot of them (if you haven’t been virtually anesthetized by now by the sheer numbers of these ads).  It is television’s major source of revenue, and broadcasters will never do anything that might endanger that.  Today, the pharmaceutical companies spend more than 6 billion dollars a year on advertising.

This means there are 6 billion reasons why mainstream media does not want to tell you the truth, and because they won’t tell you the truth many more Americans are going to needlessly die in the years ahead.

 

[From an article published by The Economic Collapse Blog]

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  If you know someone who you think might be considering suicide, please ask that person to call us directly, or email us, using the contact info below. We’ll do all we can to help.

 

…………………………………………………….

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

 

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Obama’s “Deep State” anti-America crew now in full anti-truth mode

Deep State crew now totally anti-America AND anti-truth

 

The second in a series of highly anticipated DOJ Inspector General’s reports has not been released yet, but we now know a number of things about the finished product because those who have seen it, despite having to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), are leaking like mad and the Mockingbird Media is already, preemptively, trying to control what the narrative will be when it is released.

The first report, finished more than a year after the initial DOJ Inspector General was tasked to investigate a number of allegations, was publicly released in April 2018, titled “A Report of Investigation of Certain Allegations Relating to Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.” That report was 39 pages,  and concluded that McCabe had lied on a number of occasions, including under oath, to the FBI and to the Inspector General, and that he also participated into unauthorized leaking of information to the press. The Inspector General Michael Horowitz also sent over a criminal referral to the DOJ against McCabe.

The second report is said to focus on the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private unsecured email server when she was Secretary of State for the Obama administration. The statement by former FBI Director James Comey when he exonerated Clinton, as well as the two subsequent letters by Comey, one telling Congress additional emails had been found and were being investigated, and the final statement days before the 2016 presidential election exonerating Clinton once again, will all be in the second report.

In mid-May the Wall Street Journal reported the second phase release date was close as the IG had finished his investigation, and the subjects within the report had been notified, would have to sign a NDA, then could preview the report and be given a few days to craft a response to the IG’s conclusions, which would be added to the final product.

 

Anti-truth and anti-America.
Let The Leaks Begin: The first of the leaks about the upcoming report were handed to the propaganda arm of the deep state, the Washington Post, where we find out that this next report is nearly 500 pages “criticizing the Justice Department and FBI for their handling of the Clinton email investigation.”

They want people to think that President Trump is attacking all “federal law enforcement,” rather than just the members that we often refer to as the “deep state,” the anti-American crew that actively conspired, lied, and manipulated information, and are the subjects of the IG’s investigation into allegations of misconduct.

While the report is “exhaustive,” to use their words, and will cover issues, including some that have been exposed publicly over the last year, if president Trump reacts to Horowitz’s findings, he is “weaponizing” them and that is what the media wants the public to focus on.

They even use the example of McCabe informing the public after the first IG report was released that the former FBI deputy director had lied, under oath, about disclosures to the press. The President took to Twitter and said “DOJ just issued the McCabe report – which is a total disaster. He LIED! LIED! LIED! McCabe was totally controlled by Comey – McCabe is Comey!! No collusion, all made up by this den of thieves and lowlifes!”

Evidently that is the narrative they plan to run with, to ignore the information in the report and focus on how the president is attacking federal law enforcement if he dares to talk about the findings and the facts, because he is weaponizing them.

All the news that's fit to fake!The fake news media are already attempting to spin a report that has not even been released yet. They have spent more than a year attempting to downplay the misconduct of senior level federal law enforcement members, former and current. They have attempted to justify and excuse how politicized those same agencies were under the Obama regime, while portraying anyone that called them on it, conspiracy theorists playing partisan politics.

The IG report is about to expose exactly how “rigged” the system was. When that happens, expect us in the Independent Media to weaponize the heck out it against the deep state.

Many people have noted the bizarre number of former Obama Administration DOJ, FBI and Intelligence Community officials who have gone to work within the U.S. media apparatus in order to protect their interests.  Former CIA Director John Brennan now working for NBC; former DNI James Clapper now working for CNN; former FBI Chief Legal Counsel James Baker now working for Lawfare blog; former FBI Supervisory Special Agent Josh Campbell now working for CNN; former Obama adviser Ben Rhodes now working for MSNBC…. the list goes on. All with motives that are transparently political.  Notably absent is the hiring of any actual journalists.

All of these pre-positioned forces are defensive in nature. All of their collective narrative constructs come from a self-preservation instinct. The U.S. media has imploded onto itself and devolved into an Kafkaesque assembly of political narrative engineers churning out fake news 24/7.  What we are now witnessing is something far beyond Pravda and Baghdad Bob. What we now see is an even more severe distortion of media; an alternate reality created as if the Stasi and Tokyo Rose joined forces to take control of U.S. broadcasts.

It will be the job of Independent Media to “weaponize” the truth and get it out there because as the partial list above shows, the Mockingbird Media will be doing everything in their power to distract, spin and excuse the IG’s findings in order to assist the people who are right now engulfed in these scandals.

Recently we have seen the fake news media frantically trying to create false narratives, pushing old news claiming it was new to manufacture extreme outrage against the Trump administration, all in an attempt to preemptively distract the public from what is coming.

Fake news breaking...

When this new IG report comes out, there is going to be an all-out information war; in war the truth can, will, and should be weaponized against the people who are anti-truth and anti-America…Obama and his ridiculous deep state crew.

 

[From an article by Susan Duclos, published by ALL NEWS PIPELINE]

 

……………………………………………………….

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized