Must see from Denninger.... NSA Spying on us all...

Must See TV from Denninger

Ann Barnhardt Knocks One Outta Da Park... Believe me, if you're not paying attention, you will pay!

Negative Nominal Interest Rates: Highway to a Cashless, Statist Hell

I warned about this in part two of my 2.5 hour Economics Video Presentation back in November of ARSH 2012, and, sure enough, it has now happened. 

Mario Draghi, chief psychopath of the European Central Bank went full-stupid on June 5th and announced mandated NEGATIVE INTEREST RATES on the excess reserves of European banks held and the European Central Bank  (which is the equivalent of the Federal Reserve Bank in the U.S.).  What does this mean?  Click here to learn more...

As you can see in the article linked above and countless others, the publicly stated rationale behind this negative interest rate paradigm is “stimulus”.  If the banks have to pay to store cash, they will instead lend their excess cash out to customers rather than have a percentage  confiscated every month.  This is utter bee-ess on multiple levels.  These top-tier central bankers know that negative interest rates have NOTHING to do with stimulus, and will, in fact, lead to exactly the opposite.  In fact, they know that the inevitable outcome of negative interest rates is the complete nationalization of the banking sector and total governmental control of all capital flows – which means today a CASHLESS ECONOMY.  Yup.  If you’re interested, I’ll walk you through the chain of events and differentiate between the propaganda that will be used to justify this evil and the reality of how the world actually works.

Okay.  That’s easy to understand, right? Well, the propaganda coming from the Banksters and willingly regurgitated by the useful idiot class is that negative interest rates will absolutely, positively result in increased lending by banks and thus “economic stimulus”.  And bear in mind, they have been bleating EXACTLY the same line of crap in regards to “quantitative easing”.  They have been saying for YEARS that all of the money printing done by the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank would provide “stimulus” in the form of increased lending.  And, as we all know, that didn’t happen.  All that has happened is that the Banksters have taken the “new money” printed by the Central Banks and pumped it into the stock and derivatives markets, thus blowing a massive, unprecedented bubble.  But Joe Schmoe still can’t get a loan to open a business.  The evil, malignant Banksters KNOW that the whole stimulus meme is a lie.  The useful idiots are so indescribably stupid that they can’t comprehend simple logical progressions even when they have a current experiential dataset right in front of their faces that clearly demonstrates the fallacy: not only does QE and other forms of synthetic “liquidity boosting” NOT stimulate the economy, it actually depresses it even more.

Negative interest rates will be a cost to YOU in two ways.   Find out here, how and why.

This is a backdoor way of confiscating collateral from the people and using it to RECAPITALIZE THE BANKS.  And also pay the bankster oligarchs’ eight and nine-figure salaries and compensation packages, which, let’s be honest, is their top priority.  

Read more to understand the horror about to befall you...    Ann knows her shit and is more than willing to tell us all about it.    We should be listening...  Want to know more???   Click here.

Ann Barnhardt tells it like it is. Like it really is. Pay attention kiddies...

Well worth your time and trouble to read and understand.    There is not Right or Left.   Just Us or them.  


Much more wit and wisdom from Madam Barnhardt!    This lady rocks!    She is right on target.   Read more...Here!

Tomato Soup
      1.  Sautee a mess of onions until caramelized.  Season with salt and white pepper.  Add a mess of chopped, seeded, and (ideally) skinned, tomatoes.  Let it simmer for a spell.  Add enough beef or chicken stock such that the ‘maters can have a nice swim.  Let it simmer for another spell.  Whiz it until smooth in batches in a blender.  Careful.  It’s hot.  Add the whizzed-up slurry back to the pot and dump in a bunch of heavy whipping cream.  Add a fistful of chopped fresh basil.  Heat it back up, season to taste with salt and white pepper, serve with a sprinkle of parmesan cheese.
      Cooking without a precise recipe, as with the tomato soup above, builds character, self-reliance and the ability to think and act on one’s feet.  To paraphrase the old saying: Instructions will not be provided.  Neither will permission.
If you can’t make a darn tasty pot of soup out of tomatoes, onions and cream without dependence on a disembodied voice telling you what to do and how to do it down to the minutest detail, then you better check yourself.
Be a man.  Quit’cher whining.  Figure s*** out.  Get s*** done.
      2.  More on food and “picky eaters” of various stripes, this time from Orwell in “The Road to Wigand Pier”, circa ARSH 1937:
      For instance, I have here a prospectus from another summer school which states its terms per week and then asks me to say ‘whether my diet is ordinary or vegetarian’. They [Socialists] take it for granted, you see, that it is necessary to ask this question. This kind of thing is by itself sufficient to alienate plenty of decent people. And their instinct is perfectly sound, for the food-crank is by definition a person willing to cut himself off from human society in hopes of adding five years on to the life of his carcase; that is, a person out of touch with common humanity.

      Yup.  Tru dat.

      3.  In case y’all poor, deluded folks who still think that there is hope for Washington D.C., specifically in the person of Ted Cruz, I’d like to go ahead and bust your little bubble – not that you won’t just blow a new one.  But, here goes.  

      Repeat this over and over again until you understand:
Ted Cruz’ wife, Heidi, is a Goldman Sachs executive.
Ted Cruz’ wife, Heidi, is a Goldman Sachs executive.
Ted Cruz’ wife, Heidi, is a Goldman Sachs executive.
Ted Cruz’ wife, Heidi, is a Goldman Sachs executive.
Ted Cruz’ wife, Heidi, is a Goldman Sachs executive.
      A position to which she ascended immediately after coming out of the Bush-Cheney White House, specifically a seat on the National Security Council.  The same Goldman Sachs that is carrying over $48 TRILLION in derivatives exposure against an asset base of $89 Billion – levered up by a factor of over 500X.  She VOLUNTARILY associates herself with this.
      No, I’m sure you’re right.  I’m sure Ted Cruz is DIFFERENT.  I’m sure that the fact his wife is aGoldman Sachs executive has NO BEARING ON ANYTHING, and that he is as pure as the wind-driven snow.  Youbetcha.
EYEROLL.
      3A. In review, The Barnhardt Axiom:
Today, seeking and/or holding office, especially national-level office, is, in and of itself, proof that a given person is psychologically and morally unfit to hold public office.

Much more from Ann, right here!

We Know Best

Hillary Clinton might as well be Barack Obama in drag and whiteface. They have the same background, same beliefs, and same policies. A vote for Hillary will be a vote for four more years of Barack. Both capitalize on identity politics. They’ve spent most of their working lives in government and have a dripping disdain for the private sector. (Obama: “You didn’t build that!”; Hillary: “I can’t be responsible for every under-capitalized small business in America!” when informed Hillarycare could bankrupt many such businesses.) They champion a government take over of health care. With all their hearts they believe in government: more regulation, taxes, and redistribution to Democratic voters and donors. Their faith has been richly rewarded, in a monetary if not a spiritual sense.

The similarities go deeper. Despite their busy schedules, they find time to write self-justificatory, idea-lite books that many buy and most never read. They see their personas and policies in grandiose terms (“the politics of meaning”; “hope and change”), but on the ground, or what most people call “real life,” they demonstrate deficiencies: surrounding themselves with sycophants, bristling at dissent or criticism, and making remarkably maladroit statements (“... they cling to guns or religion...”;  “We came out of the White House not only dead broke but in debt.”). Fortunately for them, they are shielded by a fawning press that shares their politics, downplays their mistakes, and does not investigate their scandals.

As helpful as the press has been, Hill and The One’s ultimate shield is the 47 percent (give or take a percentage point or two). There is no surer way to doom a presidential campaign than to tell the truth, but Mitt Romney’s infamous remark got it right. Close to a majority of Americans receive sustenance from the government; Democrats are the party of government; people don’t vote against their meal ticket. The Democratic posture is cloyingly condescending, but transparent: we know best and you can’t make it without us. The more recipients believe that, the more inclined they are to vote Democratic. The Republicans adopt a Democrat-lite policy—if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em—never killing government programs (talk of rescinding Obamacare has already died down), settling for “reforming” them by spending a percentage point or two less than the Democrats. Those dependent upon the government prefer to sell their votes to genuine, not “me-too” Democrats.

The Republicans carry their own “we know best” baggage. Vietnam offered a number of lessons for politicians. If you need to lie to the country to gain its support for a war, you’ll eventually lose that support. Keep a tight rein on the intelligence agencies and don’t accept what they say as gospel. If the government you are allied with is corrupt and repressive, it will lose the support of its own people. Invading a country is relatively easy, compared to the political reconstruction, insurgencies, and guerrilla warfare that follow. Foreign war is a dangerous, time-consuming, expensive, and often dirty business, and the American people do not automatically rally around the flag or stay rallied. When we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, those hard won lessons were ignored; wishful thinking and we-know-best prevailed.

Americans have not rallied around never ending occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq—turning them into garrison states—to secure our tenuous victories, achieved at a cost of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. Nor have they rallied around our involvement in the rebellion against Bashar al-Assad in Syria, notwithstanding red lines, alleged chemical warfare, and the embarrassment of Putin pulling Obama from the hole he had dug for himself. The dream of a peaceful, democratic Middle East imposed by the US is dead. The most ardent proponents of intervention in Iraq limit their proposals to advisors, bombing, and intelligence, recognizing that as the outer limit of what the American people might support. (Proponents do themselves no favor letting I-know-best Dick Cheney argue their case.)

The war on terrorism’s national security apparatus obliterates personal privacy and constitutes a clear and present danger to our civil liberties. The “trust us” defense offered since Snowden’s revelations has been undermined by the programs’ breathtaking scope and intrusiveness, the failure to demonstrate any terrorist attacks thwarted, past abuses, and the obvious threat of future abuses.

The we-know-best cohort is now trying to convince us that people who have immigrated to this country, violating its laws, should be allowed “a path to citizenship.” It’s a matter of “love,” according to we-know-best Jeb, of the we-know-best Bushes. Open borders are incompatible with welfare states, as the current flood of immigrants from Central America demonstrates. They don’t all dream the same by-the-bootstraps American dream as Emma Lazarus’s “tired,” “poor,” “huddled masses”—many of them are looking for a handout. No secret why the Democrats favor immigration “reform”; Obama might as well be standing at the border handing out checks and Democratic voter registration cards as the 47 percent become the 48, 49, 50, and so on percent.

The Republican leadership, afraid to challenge the welfare state, is trying to bludgeon its members into party immolation. That leadership is now minus pro-reform Eric Cantor. Virginia Republicans didn’t buy the argument that a path to citizenship in exchange for phony promises of better border control would somehow, someday turn the Democrats’ second most reliable voting block into Republican stalwarts.

Nixing Middle East occupation and Syrian involvement, continuing uproars over the surveillance state and Obamacare, Cantor’s defeat...dare we hope that some significant portion of the American populace reject “we know best” and are ready to regain control of their own lives? If all we get in 2016 is a non-choice between a Bush and a Clinton, the answer is no. However, “we know best” will inevitably collapse under the weight of its own hubris.

Robert Gore, straightlinelogic.com, robertgore1@me.com

Please forward this article or the link to anybody who might enjoy it, and especially to those who won’t.

Just say “No!”.

And mean it.

No matter what.