Tuesday, June 27, 2017


by -
Trump Administration
"Ah, I see your resume says that you are a billionaire - but can you use MS Word?"

During a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, President Donald Trump explained as to why he chose Wilbur Ross, a billionaire to serve as his Commerce Secretary. “I love all people, rich or poor, but in those particular positions I just don’t want a poor person,” Trump said.

He further added that Ross is far better suited for the position, as he is a billionaire, and would thus be honest to the people of America, as he “don’t want the money.”

“Wilbur is a very rich person in charge of commence,” said Trump. “That’s the kind of thinking we want. You know really. They’re representing the country. They don’t want the money. They’re representing the country,” Trump added.

These remarks came from President Trump, as he was touring the state of Iowa with agriculture secretary Sonny Perdue and Ross to mark his victory in elections held in Georgia. “We’re 5-0 in special elections,” said Trump in front of a boisterous crowd that packed a downtown arena. “The truth is, people love us … they haven’t figured it out yet.”

He praised his fellow Republican Ralph Norman, who won the special election by a very slim win, and went on to scorn the Democratic Party nominee Jon Ossoff by saying, they “spent $30m on this kid who forgot to live in the district.”

Addressing towards Gary Cohn, former Goldman Sachs president, he further argued, they had to “give up a lot” to take jobs in his administration. “This is the president of Goldman Sachs. Smart. Having him represent us. He went from massive pay days to peanuts,” he added.  And that, “these are people that are great brilliant business minds. That’s what we need. That’s what we have to have so the world doesn’t take advantage of us.”

by -

Obama is a few weeks away from leaving office and Donald Trump is helping him leave on a high point.

When Obama departs the White House on January 20th, he is likely going to leave after one of the strongest economic quarters during his eight years as president, but who is causing the boom?

After the stock market started the worst year in its history, it came roaring back only to lose the momentum and start to fall again starting in August. The troubles continued through the election.

Then something happened. Donald Trump was elected, and the stock markets responded in epic fashion by reaching its highest levels ever. Things turned around very quickly.

Black Friday shopping was up and people are spending again and a lot of it has to do with Trump and not Obama.

A Trump spending euphoria is spreading, as working class adults feel more comfortable with their financial future with the new president elect.

The incoming Trump administration isn’t just making America feel better about spending money; they are actually making a difference with jobs already, and that is fueling some of the euphoria.

Thursday, Trump and Mike Pence are heading to a Carrier facility in Indianapolis to announce that the heating and air conditioning manufacturer is going to keep 1,000 jobs in Indiana and not move them to Mexico as previously announced.

After Trump was elected, Ford also decided to keep the production of an SUV in Kentucky instead of moving it to Mexico.

As far as impact on the economy, the jobs are rather minimal. To the people that work in the factories saved by Trump, the jobs are very important.

The message that our economy is set to rise is resonating around the country and in the stock market.

If the Trump spending euphoria continues through the holiday season to wrap up the fourth quarter, Obama could have his best economic quarter in eight years. Something he can thank the president-elect for before ObamaCare is repealed in the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency.

Do you think Obama or Trump is fueling the “boom” in the economy? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

by -

The moment we have been waiting for, the election on Tuesday, could just be the start of the chaos that will follow.

The FBI building was vandalized with the word “corrupt” spray painted on the side. Two men were arrested Saturday for the crime, but they hit Trump International Hotel as well.

Painting “corrupt” on the side of an FBI building would be unthinkable a year ago, but now a lot of people on both sides feel the agency has been corrupted.

What does it say about rule of law in America when many citizens question the FBI’s intentions?

The popular feeling about the FBI and the growing hate for police from the left and minority groups, law and order is being threatened.

Law and order is just one part of the chaos, the economy looks like it will take a hit too.

The “Father of Reaganomics” made a startling claim about what will happen to the stock market after the election.

“The markets are hideously inflated… If you don’t sell before the election, certainly do it afterwards. Government is going to be totally paralyzed regardless of who wins. There could be a 25% draw down on the markets.”

Twenty five percent is huge. That would mean that the stock market would drop from close to 18,000 to 13,500. A drop like that could be devastating to an already struggling economy.

It won’t help that the country is so divided over this election; more people will be absolutely against an elected president than any other time in recent history.

On top of all of our problems, the world has some major problems too.

It has been reported that Russia is going to attack ISIS in Syria within 24 hours and Al-Qaeda wants to attack here. There are threats against New York, Texas and Virginia.

ISIS wants to kill Americans on Election Day.

The Department of Homeland Security is weighing options to take over the elections on Tuesday.

CIA is talking about attacking Russia online if they tamper with our elections.

If we can make it through the election and pick a president, then that could be when the real fun starts.

Our trust in law and order, our democracy, media and our elected officials is reaching an all-time low and that could spell disaster.

We are living in a dangerous time. Regardless of who wins, things are going to get worse before they get better.

Do you think everything will be peaceful after the election or do you expect chaos? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

by -

One thing that Obama loves to bring up while on the campaign trail for Hillary is how well the economy is doing.

He says that they brought the economy back from the brink and saved us from the housing bubble that popped in 2008.

The truth is, the economy is not doing well and Obama has helped inflate a new bubble that will crash soon, despite how well the economy is doing in Obama’s eyes.

Here are top 10 reasons why the economy isn’t as good as Obama and Hillary keep saying it is.


by -

During the RNC, people tuned in to hear speeches that painted out economy a lot different than the Democrats did this week. Who is right?

Donald Trump focused on the almost $20 trillion in debt that America has right now. A number that has almost doubled since president Obama took office.

President Obama and Hillary mentioned that the stock market is at an all time high and the economy is better under the Democrats.

A common phrase during the convention was, “don’t you remember the mess that Republicans got us into before Obama took over?”

Who is right? Is the economy doing well? The simple answer is no, the economy is not doing well, but the stock market is at an all time high.

The democrats don’t want to admit that the economy is experiencing almost no growth and major indicators for a recession are starting to alarm professionals.

Just this week we got a lot of numbers and it isn’t good. Durable goods orders, manufacturing data, business spending, and restaurant revenue are all seeing steep declines.

The trade gap has increased dramatically and homeownership in America is the lowest it has been since 1965. What is going on?

The Federal Reserve head, Janet Yellen spoke on Wednesday and the FED decided that the economy was so bad that it couldn’t raise rates, not even a quarter. The FED has not raised rates since back in December and then the stock market had the worst January in history.

If you watched the DNC you would think that none of these numbers are correct, but they are. There are steep declines and problems in several industries, this isn’t just a hiccup in the economy, and it looks like a recession.

The last thing that Hillary needs right now, other than an indictment, is for the economy to take a major turn for the worse. If we see a selloff like we did last August or a worse one, the tides could really change in this election.

Trump will be able to hit Hillary hard and paint her as a third term Obama. If the economy does start to dip into recession and the American public starts to get nervous, then we could major selloffs and that would almost solidify a Trump presidency. No wonder the democrats are telling us everything is great.

How do you feel that the economy is doing? Let us know in the comments below.

by -

With economic uncertainty growing worldwide, Texas is making a move to secure its own finances. The state owns some 5,600 gold bars currently held at an HSBC bank facility in New York City. In June, the Texas legislator passed and governor Greg Abbot signed a bill that mandates the construction of a secure facility in-state to house the bullion, and bring it all back.

When former governor Rick Perry started pushing for the move publicly, speculation started up about the motivation behind it. The Washington Post was among the first out of the gates to speculate that Texas is contemplating secession, and compared the initiative to Germany’s recent request for removal of their state-owned gold from New York.

Other outlets speculated that the move is simply a hedge against coming inflation, designed to keep the state solvent even if other states and businesses collapse under the weight of a sinking dollar.

In truth, the state’s goal may be even more ambitious than that – Texas may be angling to create a currency that competes directly with the dollar.

The author of the bill, state Representative Giovanni Capriglione, spoke frankly about part of his plan. “I would like to see this all come together so we become a commodities hub for the continent,” he said. “I think we’re just perfectly situated.”

Governor Abbot pointed out the unique position Texas was placing itself in when he signed the bill. “With the passage of this bill, the Texas Bullion Depository will become the first state-level facility of its kind in the nation, increasing the security and stability of our gold reserves and keeping taxpayers funds from leaving Texas to pay for fees to store gold in facilities outside our state,” said Abbot.

The other part of the plan is to allow depositors of precious metals and other commodities write checks against the value of their deposits. Texas has always been uncomfortable with Fiat money, as the state’s repeated election of End The Fed author Ron Paul to congress demonstrate. In that light, the creation of a hard, commoditized currency in Texas makes perfect sense.

In a strong signal that the state does in fact intend to compete with the Federal Reserve’s currency, the bill included strong language to protect the depositors’ interests. It states that no “governmental or quasi-governmental authority other than an authority of [Texas]” can take, regulate, move, or confiscate the commodities.

There are still logistical hurdles to overcome. The state has to determine a spot for the depository, and find a company to run it. In order to boost investor confidence, Texas also intends to have its facility certified by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, COMEX. State officials also expressed hope that one of the larger existing banks will sign on to help facilitate the system.

If everything goes as planned, Texas will offer greatly expanded liquidity to people with large amounts of precious metals, and the state’s “don’t mess with Texas” image will attract investors away from other options for their commodity storage.

That should be good news for the state’s economy.

by -

There’s the run-of-the-mill Democrat politician who doesn’t understand the free market. And then there’s Bernie Sanders, the self-proclaimed “socialist” who represents Vermont in the U.S. Senate.

Sanders, 73, is technically an independent but caucuses with the Democratic minority in the Senate. He’s also running against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President—so far, her only announced major challenger.

Here was Bernie Sanders’s ridiculous comment on CNBC about how deodorant is causing American children to go hungry:

“If 99 percent of all the new income goes to the top 1 percent, you could triple it, it wouldn’t matter much to the average middle class person. The whole size of the economy and the GDP doesn’t matter if people continue to work longer hours for low wages and you have 45 million people living in poverty. You can’t just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country.”

Sanders—as a U.S. Senator, one of the most powerful people in the nation—seems to think that, because some corporation is making money off of deodorant, that’s somehow a net negative for the entire economy.

Newsflash: if there was only one type of deodorant, the only impact it would have on children would be to increase starvation—because the jobs that a business creates while trying to build a competitive product would be gone. And most people would smell substantially worse because, without any competition, the sole remaining deodorant company would be able to charge virtually anything they want for a stick.

Sanders—who, arguably, is the most liberal elected official in America—shows the logical flaws in the Democrats’ complete misunderstanding of economics that’s not always immediately evident, because he takes it to such a leftist extreme. The economy is not a finite pie: when the rich do better, they’re not taking that money directly from the poor. There’s not an exact amount of money that everyone’s fighting for.

In fact, when the rich get richer, everyone gets richer. The rich don’t stuff money in their mattress: their millions and billions get reinvested through the economy, which creates jobs and makes everyone richer.

Unfortunately for “socialists” like Bernie Sanders, if he’s President, we’ll all be worse off economically—rich and poor alike. And we’ll all smell a lot worse, too.

by -

In an extreme effort by the Global Warming / Greenhouse Gas / Fossil Fuel crowd to discredit yet another source of clean, safe energy to run American industry, run cars and heat homes, one member of the “envirodoom” movement says the fracking industry will employ women in record numbers – as hotel maids and prostitutes.

This is the informed view of University of Pittsburgh biologist Sandra Steingraber – a member of “New Yorkers Against Fracking” – who describes the fight over fracking as a feminist issue.

According to Steingraber, who supports a statewide ban in New York on hydraulic fracturing to access previously unrecoverable oil and gas deposits, says:

“Fracking as an industry serves men. Ninety-five percent of the people employed in the gas fields are men. When we talk about jobs, we’re talking about jobs for men, and we need to say that…”

“The jobs for women are ‘hotel maid’ and ‘prostitute…” “So when fracking comes into a community, what we see is that women take a big hit, especially single women who have children who depend on rental housing.”

Fracking industry supporters may have given Steingraber’s opinion too much respect when they pointed to a 2014 report from the American Petroleum Institute that found women filled 226,000 oil, gas and petrochemical industry jobs – or 19 percent of the jobs created.

The report says:

“[W]omen are employed across all job categories, including professional and managerial, office and support, and blue-collar…”

Undeterred, Ms. Steingraber’s speech entitled “Fracking is a Feminist Issue: Women Confronting Fossil Fuels and Petrochemicals in an Age of Climate Emergency” comes after Texas anti-drilling activist Sharon Wilson compared fracking to rape in a March 30 post on Twitter and her blog.

“Fracking victims I have worked with describe it as a rape. It is a violation of justice and it is despoiling the land,” Ms. Wilson said in her blog, TXSharon’s BlueDaze. “Victims usually suffer PTSD.”

Industry supporters say that opponents a trying to cast fracking as a “man-only” industry because the drilling process itself is physically demanding. In North Dakota, the industry built communities nicknamed “man camps” for workers unable to find housing in the sparsely populated state.

Steingraber was also criticized by the fracking industry for her role in a “peer reviewed” research paper supporting New York’s fracking ban while advocating said ban on the fracking process.

In an interview with Fox News, Steingraber said she had been “absolutely objective” in her review of the paper, whose authors included scientists openly affiliated with anti-fracking groups including Global Community Monitor and the Center for Environmental Health.

Writing in The Washington Times, Valerie Richardson said acting New York Health Commissioner Howard Zucker cited the paper during a December 2014 state cabinet meeting where he recommended a statewide fracking ban despite calls for the state to lift its moratorium on fracking to help economically depressed areas in upstate New York.

Predictably, Gov. Andrew Cuomo agreed to the statewide ban that garnered instant praise from Ms. Steingraber in a January 22 article for EcoWatch called “How We Banned Fracking in New York.”

It is not known whether Commissioner Zucker or Governor Cuomo took the loss of jobs in the prostitution and maid industries into account before making their decision to ban fracking in the Empire State.

by -

Barbra Streisand should really stick to singing–because her latest op-ed for The Huffington Post is straight out of Crazy World.

Her editorial, called “Have You Heard the Good News?” is a puff piece touting all the jobs that Barack Obama “created” over the last five and a half years.

Unfortunately, she gets just about every single fact wrong.

Streisand writes: “In the wake of the financial crisis, President Obama took the helm of a sinking economic ship and help to right it. The unemployment rate is now once again at pre-recession levels — the lowest in seven years (5.5%).”

Streisand, of course, leaves out some critical facts.

Like, for example, that there is the largest percentage of Americans not working in history. Just 62.7% of Americans have jobs–a truly shocking number for a nation that prides itself on hard work and entrepreneurship. The unemployment rate is 5.5% not because more people are back to work–but because so many people have given up hope and stopped looking for jobs, and aren’t even considered “unemployed” anymore.

She continues with her “good news”:

“President Obama’s Administration, with only opposition from the Republicans, has steadily helped put more than 11 million Americans back to work in the private sector.”

Except 11 million jobs simply isn’t enough–and, historically, that’s not nearly as good of a number as Barbra wants you to believe.

Ronald Reagan–who also inherited a broken economy–created 18 million jobs by this point in his presidency. Including, famously, 1.1 million jobs in just one month in 1983. And keep in mind that the population of the United States was substantially smaller back then.

Compare that to the anemic 127,000 jobs Barack Obama created last month–which isn’t even enough to keep pace with population growth, let alone grow the economy.

Barbra Streisand has a long history as a partisan mouthpiece for the Left, but this piece takes the cake. Americans certainly aren’t better off in the age of Obama–and Barbra’s either lying or living in a bubble. Or maybe both.

Babs, if you’re listening: stick to singing. Journalism just isn’t for you.

by -

The U.S. economy created 295,000 jobs in February, dropping the unemployment rate to 5.5%–the lowest its been since 2008, before the economic collapse.

But despite these numbers looking rosy on the surface, the fundamentals of our economy remain weak–largely because no one wants to work anymore.

And worse, as of February, our workforce participation has dropped even further–continuing its streak of hovering near historic lows. Based on the last few months of data, the workforce participation rate shows no sign of improving any time soon either.

As of now, workforce participation stands at a pathetic 62.8%.

That means, of the 250,000,000 Americans that could conceivably be in the workforce (Americans over the age of 16), only 147,000,000 are. More than 93,000,000 Americans of working age don’t have a job, and aren’t even bothering to look for one. They’re unemployed, but they’re not counted in the unemployment rate.

A 62.8% workforce participation rate isn’t just a bad number. It’s a historically bad number, just 0.1% off of the all-time low, a record which was set in 1978 at the height of Jimmy Carter’s “malaise” era of economic dysfunction.

As troubling as the low workforce participation rate is, it’s important to realize the economic repercussions. A 5.5% unemployment rate looks good on paper–but that low number is partially due to more Americans leaving the job force in February.

When 37.2% of Americans have given up looking for a job, or simply don’t want to work, even a 5.5% unemployment rate doesn’t signal a booming economy. Workers continue to be discouraged and demoralized by the Obama Recovery.

While the February employment numbers signal a cautiously optimistic direction overall, it’s important to remember that we’re not out of the woods: the economy has not bounced back yet.


Unstumpable Trump

Michelle Malkin, a conservative commentator, is of the opinion that MSNBC host Rachel Maddow can see black helicopters flying around her head. Talking to Sean...