Pennsylvania Senate Candidate Kathy Barnette appeared on Fox News Sunday with Shannon Bream to answer questions about her prior positions, statements and current candidacy. Barnette has climbed in the polls and is in a tight race for the PA senate seat.
There has been an onslaught of criticism and critique in opposition to Kathy Barnette. Many political followers are concerned she might win the primary but then get crushed in the general election due to inflammatory statements in her past. This interview was a great opportunity for her to calm the nerves of republican primary voters and instill confidence. Unfortunately, Barnette did not do well in this interview. WATCH:
Shannon Bream was fair and gave Barnette plenty of time to explain her positions. Pennsylvania voters will need to make their own decisions. Trust your instincts; if you sense sketchy, it is likely because sketchy exists.
In the second segment of the interview with Maria Bartiromo, Devin Nunes and Kash Patel discuss the trial of Michael Sussmann which begins tomorrow. {Direct Rumble Link}
Ultimately the issue in the Michael Sussmann trial is quite simple:
Did the DOJ and FBI know the material Michael Sussmann was giving them came from the Hillary Clinton campaign?
We all know the answer to that question, of course they did. However, there has been –and continues to be– a game of grand pretense from the DOJ/FBI group where they pretend not to have known.
Two groups: the “insider group” (DOJ/FBI) and the “outsider group” (Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, Clinton campaign, Sussmann, Elias, Mook, etc).
Claiming the DOJ and FBI were duped, is the government firewall that protects the inside group. However, this claim is now against the interest of Michael Sussmann who has been accused of false representation and lying to the FBI about the provenance of the information he provided.
Fox News Maria Bartiromo interviewed Devin Nunes and Kash Patel ahead of the trial for Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann which begins tomorrow. The interview breaks down into two segments, the first segment outlines the discussion of Elon Musk purchasing Twitter. {Direct Rumble Link} WATCH, Part I
The issue of ‘bots’ operating on the Twitter platform is an interesting aspect when you consider the cost of platform operation.
On one hand, extensive auto-generated ‘bots’ would be an issue of cost and data-processing, a net negative. On the other hand, the use of bots would be a manipulative practice for the creation of false impressions to generate advertising revenue.
If the scale of data-processing was subsidized, an outcome of a network of data processing centers -clouds- linked to government resources, the bots would not be an issue for the operation. Despite the false impressions generated, bots would, however, under this weird situation, be useful for the manipulation of the conversation. At the root of Elon Musk’s line of inquiry is the need to discover if this suspicion is true.
NBC is promoting their contracted poll today [pdf HERE] around the lesser-important voting issue of abortion. However, before getting to the poll it is worth noting again who they contracted with. Inside the article you will note this sentence, “[…] who conducted this survey with Democratic pollster Jeff Horwitt of Hart Research Associates.” If that name sounds familiar, that’s because it is the same ideologically aligned polling outfit who spent six months creating the ultra-MAGA branding campaign for Anita Dunn and the White House {link}.
The abortion polling is irrelevant to the issue of larger public opinions of the Biden administration. On abortion, 10% of polled respondents say they are single issue voters [respondents = 790 RV’s, (79 single issue)]. Out of 79 single issue voters, 22% list abortion as their top priority. So, out of 790 registered voters, 17 view abortion as their single issue to vote on. That’s the scale being overemphasized.
On the larger issues of voter priorities, the economy dominates with 40% responses. Additionally, the polling identifies 39 percent of Americans approving of President Biden’s job as president, versus 56 percent who say they disapprove. 75% say the country is heading in the wrong direction, and only 16% saying the country is on the right track. That’s the bigger headline. WATCH:
Appearing on Face the Nation (FtN) Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein discussed his views and perspectives on the economy overall and U.S. inflation specifically. Undoubtedly Blankfein has access to resources and analysis far beyond CTH scope; however, despite a statistically factual contracting GDP, Blankfein is claiming to see overall demand side inflation remaining in the macro economy.
Perhaps that view might still be true domestically on the service side (it certainly isn’t on the trade side), but demand driven inflation does not appear visible on the goods side of the economic ledger. What is clearly present as the price driver is “production side inflation,” the costs to create goods and bring them to market. If you look at economic activity in units instead of dollars, the units are contracting.
The demand for goods is now focused almost entirely on priority or essential purchases like housing, energy, fuel and food. The price for those essential products is driven by production costs, which are a direct outcome of the energy policy, environmental policy, regulatory policy, and to a lesser extent trade policy, of the Biden administration. Blankfein is pretending not to know things… WATCH:
Putting housing aside due to investment purchasing of real estate, if Blankfein was correct, and demand was still driving inflation, then a massive deflationary cycle would be coming as a result of lowered consumer purchasing of goods. There isn’t any chance we are going to see “deflation” in the next several years. [We will likely see housing prices collapse, but not consumer goods.]
Inflation is being driven by production costs, and there is no end in sight to the production cost increases as long as the crew behind Joe Biden keeps strangling the U.S. energy sector…. and then compounding the domestic price issue by creating incentives for energy exports (vis-a-vis EU sanctions). The production inflation is a purposefully inflicted wound on our economy. Production inflation is avoidable.
That interview is Wall Street gaslighting to a Main Street audience. I don’t like it one bit.
BASELINE – Boil all international and geopolitical issues down to their common denominator and everything, E.V.E.R.Y.T.H.I.N.G., every issue, every discussion, every policy, every position, everything -all of it- circles around economics. Everything is secondary to the underlying economics of every single issue. Power or weakness, famine or war, peace or conflict, master or servant, culture or crisis, growth or collapse, the entirety of everything -including the foundation of freedom- centers around the economics. There are trillions at stake.
In this interview Finland’s President Sauli Niinistö made some very interesting remarks when asked about his decision to reverse the long-established geopolitical position of Finland and join the “western alliance,” vis-a-vis NATO.
Listen carefully [01:44] when President Niinistö explains why. Niinistö explains he did not, and does not, consider Russia a threat; however, “what we see now, Europe, the world, is more divided. There’s not very much room for ‘non-aligned,’ in-between. So that was also what we are thinking.” WATCH:
In March of this year CTH noted, “this intentional global cleaving, using the opportunity created by the Ukraine crisis, is going to be the major story of this year. This global splitting can be looked at in multiple ways, but the overarching story is the ramifications of two global trade relationships.”
Two world groupings. One group, oil-based energy (traditional, grey on map below), and one group GREEN energy (the build back better plan, yellow on map). It is not accidental these two groups hold similar internal geopolitical views and perspectives, hence, their alignment or lack thereof with the sanctions against Russia.
In April India said it was hoping to expand its wheat exports from 7 million tons to 10 million. However, as precarious winter wheat harvests reflect lower outputs, they are reversing position and will now block any wheat exports in order to ensure their own supply.
INDIA – […] The announcement drew sharp criticism from the Group of Seven industrialized nations’ agriculture ministers meeting in Germany, who said that such measures “would worsen the crisis” of rising commodity prices.
“If everyone starts to impose export restrictions or to close markets, that would worsen the crisis,” German Agriculture Minister Cem Ozdemir said at a press conference in Stuttgart.
Global wheat prices have soared on supply fears following Russia’s February invasion of Ukraine, which previously accounted for 12% of global exports.
As more data leading to increased scrutiny surfaces, Neil Oliver (U.K.) and Mark Steyn (Canada) discuss the continued suppression and censorship of any COVID discussion that is antithetical to the official position of western government.
The suppression/censorship of reasonable discussion is a unique element of the COVID framework that has been maintained for well over two years. As the danger and fear have subsided, one must reasonably ask why the continued need for this level of control?
Comrade dissidents, in his weekly monologue Neil Oliver draws attention to the World Health Organization (WHO) effort to assemble the Global Pandemic Response Treaty, a collective pact with the industrious mission to control the threat of human parasites.
As Oliver notes, the objective of the W.H.O. mission is to coordinate a whole-of-planet approach, by giving instructions to all governmental signatories for how to best manage the problematic behavior of free-range citizens. People are the dangerous carbon they seek to mitigate. WATCH:
[Transcript] – “Anyone remember voting for the World Health Organization to take control of our lives? No? Me, neither. And yet here we are, teetering on the brink of joining most of the countries of the world in surrendering our national sovereignty under the terms of a proposed new pandemic treaty.
Once British ink is dry on the necessary paperwork, we and most of the rest of the billions living on planet earth will, in the event of another pandemic, take our instructions not from politicians we actually voted for – and could, hypothetically at least, have the option of getting rid of – but from the unelected, faceless, bureaucrats of the WHO.
This is no conspiracy theory, by the way. No tin hats required. This is real and happening now. And a whole lot of people would rather you weren’t paying attention.
As we contemplate the massive $40 billion transfer of U.S. taxpayer funds to Ukraine, a few things need to be emphasized.
First, congress has decided to pay the salaries, benefits and pensions of Ukraine political officials and citizens. As U.S. citizens try and figure out how to afford housing, gasoline, food and basic goods, congress has decided to subsidize another country. That’s the first point.
Second, as to the pragmatic question of “to what end?” There was a critical point made last week by Defense Intel Agency (DIA) Director Lt. Gen. Scott Berrier, that not a single media outlet or politician discussed. During his briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Berrier was asked “can Ukraine win” the conflict against Russia?
Lt. General Berrier replied: “That is a difficult predication to make. I think where the assessment is at, is a prolonged stalemate should no factor change on either side. In other words, the Russians continue to do what they’re doing, and we continue to do what we are doing for the Ukranians.” WATCH:
The Pentagon assessment is the best that can be achieved is a stalemate. Billions of billions of dollars being poured into Ukraine, and the most likely outcome is a stalemate. More people killed, an endless need for continued money to be poured into the ‘war’, and the best possible outcome is a stalemate.
So, riddle me this, why isn’t the U.S. policy position advocating for Zelenskyy and Putin to enter negotiations for a resolution?
What possible U.S. interest can be advanced, knowing the only outcome is a stalemate, where people are killed on either side and money spent on a proxy conflict that ends in loggerheads at some distant point months from now?
Also, why has no U.S. media outlet or pundit played the remarks and assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency, so that the American people can understand the intent of U.S. policy?
