Follow him on RUMBLE
+
+
+
Former CBS News president Richard Salant (1961 - 64 and 1966 - 79) explained the major media's role: "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have." ...and to this very day most Americans haven't noticed they're being brained washed! ~ N. Hooben
Saturday, August 2, 2025
Friday, August 1, 2025
Thursday, July 31, 2025
How to create money out of nothing? We'll tell you how, but don't you try it.
July 29, 2025 | Sundance
This is one of those interviews that simply must be watched in its entirety. It’s long, almost 3 hours, but take the quiet time to watch and absorb the information provided by economist Professor Richard Werner.
Werner discusses something absolutely vital to understand about the nature of economics and the banking system that underpins it. You have often heard me say “there are trillions at stake” when describing the elements aligned against President Trump. Well, Werner gives context to what lies behind those trillions.
Nine years ago, as President Elect Trump won his first election, I wrote about the future of economics and the potential if a Main Street monetary and banking system was created. {GO DEEP} Richard Werner discusses the specific issue of how credit creation by regular banks actually creates money. He’s the first person I have seen speak who really gets it.
There are distinct differences between banks creating money for asset purchases (inflation), consumer purchases (inflation) and GDP growth (Main Street expansion). He simply nails it, and that is why he was put on the CIA radar.
When Werner speaks of the need for two distinct banking systems as a solution to the “inflationary” impact of money created for asset purchases vs GDP growth, he is specifically highlighting the difference between Wall Street money and Main Street money. This, in the largest measure, is exactly why President Trump and Secretary Mnuchin created the dual banking system. This is what led to the global pandemic as a tool to stop President Trump.
I cannot recommend this interview enough. However, don’t sell yourself short. Find a quiet place, quiet time, and take notes as you listen to Richard Werner outline the true and unspoken nature of how money is created.
When you understand what Werner is saying, everything the FED and Central Banks do starts to make sense. WATCH:
Behind what Werner is explaining you will find the motives to oppose President Trump. Werner doesn’t draw the connection to Trump’s policies, but when you hear him outline the history and the problem you will get it.
Wednesday, July 30, 2025
A look back at the rationale of thievery.
Source/Credit to: A PATRIOTIC ROTTWEILER
TWO AMERICAS --- IT IS DIVIDED BY THE DIFFERENCES IN EFFORTS
In early January 2014, Bob Lonsberry, a Rochester talk radio personality on WHAM 1180 am said this in response to Obama's "income inequality speech".
Two Americas
The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.
The America that works, and the America that doesn't.
The America that contributes, and the America that doesn't.
It's not the haves and the haven'ts, it's the dos and the don'ts.
Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society, and others don't. That's the divide in America.
It's not about income inequality, it's about civic irresponsibility.
It's about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office.
It's about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country. It's not invective, it's truth, and it's about time someone said it.
The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when president Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting "income inequality." He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that's not just.
That is the rationale of thievery. The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat.
That is the philosophy that produced Detroit. It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America.
It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.
The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victimhood and anger instead of ability and hope.
The president's premise - that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful - seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices.
By and large, income variation in society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences. Those who choose wisely and responsibly have far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure. Success and failure frequently manifest themselves in personal and family income.
You choose to drop out of high school and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.
You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course, you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course.
Two Americas
The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.
The America that works, and the America that doesn't.
The America that contributes, and the America that doesn't.
It's not the haves and the haven'ts, it's the dos and the don'ts.
Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society, and others don't. That's the divide in America.
It's not about income inequality, it's about civic irresponsibility.
It's about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office.
It's about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country. It's not invective, it's truth, and it's about time someone said it.
The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when president Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting "income inequality." He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that's not just.
That is the rationale of thievery. The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat.
That is the philosophy that produced Detroit. It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America.
It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.
The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victimhood and anger instead of ability and hope.
The president's premise - that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful - seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices.
By and large, income variation in society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences. Those who choose wisely and responsibly have far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure. Success and failure frequently manifest themselves in personal and family income.
You choose to drop out of high school and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.
You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course, you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course.
My doctor makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an inequality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant.
He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine.
Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.
It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom.
The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure.
The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime's worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions.
Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring equality of effort.
The simple Law of the Harvest - as ye sow, so shall ye reap - is sometimes applied as, "The harder you work, the more you get." Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society.
Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity.
He and his party speak of two Americas and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other.
America is not divided by the differences in outcomes, it is divided by the differences in efforts. It is a false philosophy to say one man's success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man's victimization.
What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He has fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That's what socialists offer.
Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow.
Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln's maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)