Unvaccinated Girl Dies After Australian Gov’t Denies Lifesaving Treatment Due to Vaccine Status
An unvaccinated teenage cancer patient was condemned to death by the Australian government after she refused to get double vaccinated and boosted with Covid-19 mRNA vaccines. Dazelle Peters, 17, who was diagnosed with leukemia four years […]
The post Unvaccinated Girl Dies After Australian Gov’t Denies Lifesaving Treatment Due to Vaccine Status appeared first on The People’s Voice.
Video: America First’s Nick Fuentes Kicked Out of TPUSA Conference
America First leader Nick Fuentes was prevented from attending a Turning Point USA conference for young conservatives Friday.
I got kicked out https://t.co/NrOWKC7mMk
— Nicholas J. Fuentes (@NickJFuentes) June 14, 2024
Footage shows the influential “groyper” surrounded by MMA fighter Jake Shields and others being informed by a security guard that he would not be allowed to enter the building hosting TPUSA’s Chapter Leadership Summit in Detroit, Michigan, with many asking which rule he violated.
TPUSA kicking out @NickJFuentes for being critical of Israel..? pic.twitter.com/c6as6Y0UVX
— Michael Rae Khoury (@Vltra_MK) June 14, 2024
“I’ve been informed to hold you down here,” a security officer told Fuentes.
At this point, another event organizer informed the group they’d be forced to issue a criminal trespass warning if they refuse to leave.
Fuentes argued he was being blocked from attending the event because it was run by Israel.
One of GenZ’s most influential AMERICA FIRST figures @NickJFuentes got deported out of GenZ outreach org TPUSA’s event in Detroit after attendees can clearly be seen welcoming him https://t.co/l5sjOIJb75
— Drew Hernandez (@DrewHLive) June 14, 2024
After being removed from the conference, Fuentes told reporters he believed he was kicked out for being critical of Israel.
Nick after being escorted out out Of TPUSA pic.twitter.com/dOM7qXqSH0
— Jake Shields (@jakeshieldsajj) June 14, 2024
Biblical Omen? Fly Pesters Biden During G7 Meeting
Joe Biden was repeatedly buzzed by a fly during the G7 summit, with one seen landing on the puppet president’s face during a lecture.
Joe vs The Fly pic.twitter.com/g7D7Mhn5ZD
— Karli Bonne’ ?? (@KarluskaP) June 13, 2024
The winged insects are believed by many Christians to be attracted to evil, with one of Satan’s high-ranking demons Beelzebub’s name literally translating to “Lord of the Flies.”
Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and ex-VP Mike Pence – all of whom hate former President Donald Trump — have all previously had bizarre encounters with flies.
Those flies know. pic.twitter.com/zfIsyZfwy7
— BossyMother (@BossyMother) June 14, 2024
During her failed 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary had a fly land on her not once, but twice.
Former Democrat President Barack Obama also had several run-ins with flies.
Infowars’ founder Alex Jones has famously noted Obama and Hillary were said to have smelled like sulfur, believed to be the scent of evil and demonic activity, based on reports from an insider.
The leftist media also made a spectacle of the moment a fly landed on former Trump Vice President Mike Pence during a debate, which in hindsight may have been prophetic.
The Biden campaign immediately seized on the opportunity to launch fly-themed merchandise on their store, including fly swatters and t-shirts.
Are the flies again warning of an evil entity?
Their Strategy In the War on Food
In my previous two articles, we covered the global war on farmers and the culprits behind this agenda. Today, we will dive into the tactics these organizations use to foist their dystopian vision on the rest of us.
Perhaps you remember Event 201, the pandemic simulation run in late 2019 that served as a dress rehearsal for the 2020 Covid response. Such simulations have been used in the War on Food as well. Take, for example, the Food Chain Reaction Game, a 2015 wargame that simulated the time period from 2020 to 2030. Cargill and the other participants have removed the Food Chain Reaction Game data from their websites, but Cargill’s version was archived by independent researchers, so you can still see it here.
In the simulation, the decade brought “two major food crises, with prices approaching 400 percent of the long term average; a raft of climate-related extreme weather events; governments toppling in Pakistan and Ukraine; and famine and refugee crises in Bangladesh, Myanmar, Chad and Sudan.” When the game ended, its organizers had imposed meat taxes in Europe, capped CO2 emissions, and instituted a global carbon tax. The time period of the Food Chain Reaction Game handily coincides with the 2020 Covid crisis and ends with the culmination of Agenda 2030. If you don’t think those dates are significant, you aren’t paying attention.
The parties behind this simulation include the World Wildlife Fund, the Center for American Progress, the Center for Naval Analyses, and Cargill. Note the participation of US military and intelligence-linked organizations in this simulation, much as they appeared throughout the Covid power grab. Cargill, as I mentioned before, is one of the most powerful members of the global Big Ag cartel and have excelled in crushing independent farmers globally to establish total control of the food supply. The Center For American Progress is a Soros and Podesta-affiliated think tank.
The World Wildlife Fund has a shady Malthusian history dating to its eugenicist founders like Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, co-founder of the Bilderberg Group; transhumanist Julian Huxley (brother of Brave New World author Aldous Huxley); and Britain’s Prince Philip, who said he wanted to be reincarnated “as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.”
Note that the measures these conspirators concocted – meat taxes and a global carbon tax – have nothing to do with increasing the food supply to end famine – much as Event 201’s participants obsessed about vaccines and controlling misinformation rather than providing effective early treatment for disease. To state the obvious, neither simulation is really about solving hunger or viral contagion. They are designed to game out how to ram an agenda down the throats of an unwilling populace.
Both exercises are classic examples of Hegelian Dialectic, the problem-reaction-solution strategy whereby a problem is created or used to stimulate public demand for a solution. The solution always involves pre-planned actions or legislation that never would have passed public approval before the problem was created. To quote Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s Chief of Staff, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste. By that I mean, it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
The goal of the Food Chain Reaction Game simulation and the global elites who share this vision is simple but devastating: the controlled demolition of the current food supply and supply chain network – not to end factory farming and replace it with regenerative, earth healing agriculture – but to replace it with a global, centralized, fully surveilled, and tightly controlled food system based on lab-created and industrially processed so-called foods, with little dietary choice and abysmal health outcomes for all but the elites, using climate change as the excuse for it all.
As Bertrand Russell predicted, diet will not be left to individuals, but will be such as the best biochemists recommend.
If you’re new to this topic, you may feel that statement is hyperbolic. It is hard to grasp that there are people planning something this far-reaching and diabolical – it’s as far-fetched as a network of global elites using a lab-escaped virus as an excuse to destroy the economies of the world and forcibly inject billions with experimental poisons. But it is reality, and as the quotes from Bertrand Russell and Monsanto’s CEO hint, this agenda has been in the works for decades.
In my next article, we will look at some of the publicly acknowledged projects that are in the pipeline for achieving this goal.
Breaking Exclusive! Tucker Carlson Breaks The Internet In Powerful Interview With Alex Jones
Questioning Modern Injection Norms
A recent medical study found an association between tattoos and malignant lymphoma, with a 21% increased risk of this type of cancer in tattooed persons. Published in the Lancet (oh, the irony!), the paper notes that tattoo ink contains known carcinogens. Nevertheless, the popularity of getting inked has skyrocketed in the past few decades.
Within living memory, the idea of having things injected into one’s body was generally viewed with aversion. The horror of intravenous drug addiction and the specter of AIDS both played a role in this. Still, there is a natural terror of having one’s skin penetrated that is – or at least was – inherent to the human psyche: consider the enduring popularity of vampire mythology as a staple of the horror genre.
Children in particular have always had a hatred of needles, and with good reason: first, it’s an obvious invasion of their physical person, and second, it hurts. Holding down a struggling child to inject them with a vaccine (often while insisting to them it’s for their own good) is a perennial litmus test for medical students as they decide upon their specialty of choice. After all, if you’re not willing to overpower young children and force needles through their skin, you’ll have a hard time making a living as a pediatrician.
In my estimation, human distaste for the hypodermic route of administration is both perfectly natural and adaptive to survival. The skin is the body’s largest and most important barrier to infection and injury, and any breach of it is potentially dangerous.
In nature, who tries to penetrate our skin? Parasites, poisoners, and predators, that’s who. Mosquitoes and other biting insects. Blood-sucking leeches. Stinging insects like hornets and wasps. Venomous animals, especially snakes. Large predators that will eat you if they can, from big cats to crocodiles to sharks.
And of course, other humans with their weapons.
In nature, the consequences of having one’s skin pierced are serious and potentially deadly.
Obviously, large-scale hemorrhage can result in death. However, dangerous infections of many kinds can also result from even a small breach in the body’s integument.
For example, malaria, an infectious disease caused by a single-celled animal (protozoan), and still a leading cause of death in the developing world, is contracted via mosquitoes. Lyme disease, caused by the probably laboratory-altered bacteria Borrelia Burgdorferi and ubiquitous in the United States, is transmitted by tick bites. More mundane perhaps, but just as dangerous, virtually any open wound, if neglected, can become infected by numerous bacteria – or even fungi – and result in sepsis and death.
So why are we so eager to have our skin penetrated these days? Tattoos, body piercings, injection pharmaceuticals, and of course vaccines are all much more prevalent today than even a few decades ago.
Tattoos not only are much more common today, they are also much more extensive, often covering entire limbs, or even entire people. I have yet to diagnose a case of tattoo-induced lymphoma, but I have seen several nasty cases of tattoo-induced cellulitis, and in the old days, Hepatitis C infections with no other known risk factor.
Body piercings have followed the same pattern as tattoos: more of them and more extreme examples. Ears with 10 earrings each. Nose piercings, both in the nares and the septum. Eyebrows, lips, tongue (it enhances certain types of sexual stimulation, or so I have been told), nipples, navel, and of course, genitalia. And I’m sure I am forgetting something.
Today, many commonly used drugs are injection-based. Numerous immunomodulators for autoimmune diseases are given by injection, such as Humira, Enbrel, and Skyrizi, among others. Some have black-box warnings for life-threatening side effects. They sell like hotcakes anyway.
Injection hormonal medications such as anabolic steroids and Human Growth Hormone (HGH) are frequently used – and misused – to promote muscle growth, enhance athletic performance, and prolong youthfulness. Conversely, testosterone suppressors such as Lupron are injected into prostate cancer patients and men wishing to transition into women.
Insulin has been around for about 100 years, and for most of that time, it was the only injection medicine for diabetes. Nowadays, following the explosion in prevalence of type-2 diabetes, a number of new injectable diabetes medications have reached the market. They have proven extremely popular (and profitable) and are now being used for non-diabetic diagnoses as well, most notably for weight loss.
The diabetes drug semaglutide has become so popular as a weight loss treatment that
- It goes by three trade names (Ozempic and Wegovy are the injectable versions. An oral preparation is known as Rybelsus.)
- It has transformed its manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, into the most valuable company in Europe, with a market capitalization bigger than the entire economy of its native country of Denmark.
- Its availability hampered by intense demand, a black market has developed around the so-called “skinny jab.”
To summarize the current state of injectable medications: if you’re a man, and you want to be more of a man, there’s a shot for that. If you’re a man, and you want to be a woman, there’s a shot for that. If you’re a fat man and you want to be a skinny man, there’s a shot for that, too.
Last but not least, there are the vaccines.
Since the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA) was signed by President Reagan, forever protecting vaccine manufacturers from liability, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of vaccines brought to market. This is reflected in the number of vaccines added to the CDC vaccine schedules, with the number of vaccines on the CDC Child and Adolescent schedule rising from a mere 7 in 1986 (how lucky we were!) to a whopping 21 in 2023.
The Covid mRNA injections have upped the ante for repeated jabs – to an extreme degree. Some patients who actively sought every recommended booster dose over the last three years have received 6 or 7 total Covid shots by now.
Big Pharma clearly views the mRNA platform as a plug-and-play model for numerous new medications. Furthermore, while actually gene therapies, the mRNA products are actively billed as “vaccines” to keep them under the NCVIA anti-liability umbrella.
On its own website, Moderna describes a pipeline of mRNA vaccines currently in development for Influenza, Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), Cytomegalovirus (CMV), Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV), Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Norovirus, Lyme disease, Zika virus, Nipah virus, Monkeypox, and others.
With the current H5N1 alarmism currently in play, promoted by Covid figures such as Deborah “Scarf Lady” BIrx, the game plan is clear.
Covid was not an aberration. Covid was a dress rehearsal.
By the way, many vaccines contain aluminum. Aluminum is an established neurotoxin. But don’t worry, Mommy. Kids are resilient, remember?
Many vaccines contain thimerosal. Thimerosal is a mercury compound. Mercury is an established neurotoxin – the cause of the Mad Hatter’s madness, as mercury was used in the making of felt. Long before Lyme, Connecticut became famous for its eponymous disease, hat-making center Danbury, Connecticut was known for the “Danbury Shakes.”
But don’t fret, Mother. Vaccines are safe and effective by definition, remember?
Patients were told that the Covid mRNA injections did not contain potentially carcinogenic SV40 DNA. Of course, now we know they are contaminated, and as cancer diagnoses increase, especially in the young, patients are told, just as they were regarding myocarditis, to believe the ‘experts’ rather than their own lying eyes.
But the final frontier of jab-happiness has arrived when the pregnant woman is invited to the party.
Historically, pregnant women were universally and correctly viewed across medicine as extremely vulnerable to iatrogenic (treatment induced) injury. As a result, they received maximum protection from it – meaning they received the absolute minimum possible treatments and interventions.
To this old-fashioned – or perhaps just old – doctor, the fact that pregnant women are now recommended to receive both the Covid-19 mRNA jabs and the new RSV injection is proof positive that:
- The pre-Covid standard of primum non nocere (“first, do no harm”) in medical ethics is dead and buried. Let the buyer beware.
- The priority of the medical industry must be assumed to be the promotion of an agenda, policy, and/or product, rather than the well-being of the individual patient, until proven otherwise.
Before I am accused of calling for the outlawing of all hypodermic needles and the banning of every parenteral medicine, I will clarify both what I am saying and what I am not.
Certainly, there are legitimate uses for injection medicines. An obvious example: countless type-1 diabetics have been able to live full lives due to the presence of insulin in the medical pharmacopeia. Were injection insulin not available, many millions would have died over the past century. Similarly, intravenous medicines have saved many millions as well, especially critically ill and hospitalized patients.
There is unquestionably a role for injection medications. But there are risks and harms, both known and unknown, to their use. The current mindset, which appears to be ‘If there’s a medical issue, there’s a shot for that,’ is deeply problematic.
A shot in the arm is to some extent a shot in the dark. In general, the 3 most common types of non-intravenous injections are intradermal, subcutaneous, and intramuscular. With proper technique, a skilled doctor or nurse can do whichever one is called for, with a high degree of precision.
However, potentially harmful mishaps do occur, such as accidental intravascular injection (directly into a blood vessel). Having inexperienced and/or minimally trained persons such as pharmacists, pharmacy assistants, medical assistants, and even totally non-medical persons perform injections, as happened widely during Covid, increases the risk of complications.
Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of this injection-based mindset of health care is the flawed view of reality it creates. The obesity epidemic is caused by excessive calorie intake, grossly unhealthy diet, and lack of physical activity. It is not the result of a population-wide Ozempic deficiency.
We have an immune system for a reason. The human immune system has served our species well throughout our existence on earth. It is competent, capable, and breathtakingly complex – far beyond the understanding of Anthony Fauci and Stephane Bancel, I should add. It does not help the immune system, or us, to hyperstimulate it dozens and dozens of times during childhood with injection after injection, only to suppress it in later life with even more injections when it has been driven haywire.
The human immune system does not need a crude, laboratory-made primer for every antigen it faces. I know there’s no money in this approach, but nevertheless: leave it be. Let it do its job.
Likewise, we have skin for a reason. It is present to shield the interior of our bodies from harmful elements in the outside world. When we violate that shield, we subject ourselves to dangers that are obvious (such as bleeding) and to dangers that are invisible (infections, toxins, and assaults on the immune system). If you don’t think the skin is a complex immunologic organ, just ask any piercing enthusiast with a nickel allergy, or better yet a few of the Covid jab recipients who developed Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (here, here, and here).
The current, extremely blasé attitude of today toward this important aspect of bodily integrity, as promoted both by Big Pharma/Big Medicine and our culture as a whole, is a big mistake.
The natural routes of entry into the human body, be they for food, air, or reproduction, do not include penetrating the skin. This mode of introduction of foreign material is inherently unnatural, abnormal, and potentially dangerous. When truly necessary and properly performed it should be used, but when unnecessary it should be avoided.
When you recoil at the thought of a needle penetrating your skin and injecting you with something, this is a normal, sensible, and self-preservatory reaction. You may note that this aversion to needles is similar to how you would feel about a mosquito, a leech, a snake bite, or even a knife in your back. This is not a coincidence.
Parasites, poisoners, and predators come in many sizes, shapes, and species. Become as knowledgeable as possible about anything you allow to be done to you. Listen to your own God-given body. Trust your own instincts. Learn to say no. Protect your bodily integrity. Protect yourself.
Breaking Exclusive! Tucker Carlson Breaks The Internet In Powerful Interview With Alex Jones
The Real Story Behind the Fed’s “Soft Landing” Narrative
The Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) yesterday left the target policy interest rate (the federal funds rate) unchanged at 5.5 percent. The target rate has now been flat at 5.5 percent since July of 2023—as the Fed waits and hopes that everything will turn out fine. In his prepared remarks at Wednesday’s FOMC press conference, Powell continued with the soothing message he has generally employed at these press conferences over the past year. The general message has been one of moderate but sustained growth, and an economy marked by “strong” employment trends and moderating inflation.
Powell then combined this view of the economy with a general narrative on Fed policy in which the FOMC will hold steady until the committee believes that inflation is returning to the “long-run target of two-percent inflation.” Once the Fed is “confident” that the target inflation level has been secured, then the Fed will begin cutting the target interest rate, and this will then send the economy back into another expansion phase.
Through it all, Powell and the FOMC insist that there will be no significant bumps in the road and a “soft landing” will be achieved. That is, Powell and the Fed repeatedly tell the public that the Fed will thread the needle of pulling down price inflation while also ensuring that the economy continues to grow at solid rates while employment remains strong.
But there are two problems with this narrative: The first is that the Fed has never actually managed to pull this off—at least not at any time in the last 45 years. In actual experience, this is what happens: the Fed denies there is a recession approaching well until after the recession has begun. Then, the Fed cuts interest rates after unemployment has already begun to march upward.
The second problem with the narrative is that the Fed is not motivated simply by concerns over the state of employment and the economy. Yes, the Fed would have us believe that it cares only about an unbiased reading of economic data, and that Fed policy is guided by this alone. When the Fed claims to be “data driven” this is what it means. In reality, the Fed is deeply concerned with something else entirely: keeping interest rates low so that the federal government can continue to borrow enormous amounts of money at low yields. The more the federal government adds to its enormous debt, the more pressure there will be on the central bank to keep rates low and send them lower.
Yes, it’s true the Fed fears price inflation because price inflation causes political instability. When this fear wins out, the fed lets interest rates rise. But, the Federal Treasury also expects the Fed to keep interest rates low for the elites in the federal government who never tire of deficit spending. When the “need” for deficit spending wins out, the Fed forces interest rates down. These two goals are directly opposed to each other. Unfortunately, if the Fed has to choose between the two, it is likely to choose the path of lower interest rates and rising price inflation.
How “Soft Landings” Really Happen
Let’s first look at the “soft landing” myth. Talk about “soft landings” have been common in the mas media since at least the recession of 2001. As late as July of 2001, for example, Bloomberg authors were speculating about how soft the soft landing would be. It eventually turned out there was no soft landing and the Dot-Com bust soon followed.
“Soft landing” talk was even more prominent in the lead-up to the Great Recession. As late as mid-2008, months after the recession had already begun, fed Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke was predicting a soft landing and that there would be no recession at all. In that recession, the unemployment rate reached 9.9 percent.
We see this all at work again right now. A look at the Fed’s Summary of Economic Projections (SEP) shows that Fed officials are committed to claiming there will be no recession and economic growth will continue on a slow, steady, and positive trajectory. Yes, the SEP suggests the Fed will soon begin to lower interest rates, but in this fantasy version of the economy, that will be followed by continued economic growth and stable employment.
That’s not what happens in real life, though. Note, for example, that over the past 30-plus years, that Fed rate cuts did not cap off a “soft landing,” but actually preceded the most vigorous period of job losses. As can be seen in the graph, cuts to the federal funds rate come several months before sizable increases in the unemployment rate. Sharp rate cuts began in 1990, for example, and the 1991 recession soon followed. Similarly, the Fed began to cut rates in late 2000, and then the unemployment rate soon accelerated upward. This again happened in 2007 when unemployment began to mount shortly after Fed rate cuts.
I’m not saying that the cuts to the federal funds rate caused rising unemployment, of course. I’m saying that the Fed knew there was no soft landing in the works, and knew that recessions were on the way. That’s why the Fed hit the panic button when it did, and cut rates in hopes of shortening the coming recession.
This reality makes it clear that there is absolutely no reason to believe Fed claims that it has everything under control, and that rate cuts will come only after the Fed has tightened just enough to rein in inflation without popping the many bubbles that fueled employment and consumer spending in the lead up to the recession.
In summary, this is how it has really worked: fearful that inflation is getting out of control, the Fed will raise the target interest rate and generally “tighten” monetary policy. Through it all, the Fed will insist there is no recession on the horizon and that a “soft landing” is in the works. Eventually, however, it becomes clear that the economy is substantially weakening and the Fed has been either lying about the economy or has been simply wrong. At that point the Fed then then does what it always does (in recent decades) when it fears a recession: it loosens monetary policy in hopes of blowing up a whole new series of bubbles to create a new boom period.
This is far cry from the sedate, measured, and perfectly controlled story of monetary policy that the Fed would have us believe.
The Fed Exists to Keep the Federal Government Funded with Easy Money
The second problem with Powell’s narrative is that the Fed is not motivated simply be concerns over the state of employment and the economy. While it would be nice to think the Fed is primarily concerned with the “everyman” and his job prospects, the reality is that the Fed is very much concerned with keeping borrowing costs low so that Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, et al, can keep buying votes and fueling the warfare-welfare state with enormous amounts of deficit spending.
Keeping borrowing costs low—by forcing down interest rates—is now more important than it has been in many decades. Over the past four years, the total federal debt has skyrocketed by 11 trillion dollars from $23 trillion to $34 trillion. In an environment of near-zero interest rates, this might be manageable. However, when this kind of debt is combined with rising interest rates, interest payments are rapidly rising and consuming ever larger portions of the federal budget. If the regime is not careful it could face a sovereign debt crisis.
When the Fed is able to force interest rates down without fear of runaway inflation, rising debt is not much of an urgent problem. As we can see in the graph, a rapidly rising federal debt did not lead to sizable growth in interest costs in the wake of the Great Depression. That, however, was during a period of very low interest rates. Since 2022, however, Interest costs on the debt have rocketed upward as the Fed has been forced to allow interest rates to rise.
In fact, interest costs have more than doubled since 2021. Yet, we’re not even seeing the full impact of mounting debt combined with rising interest rates. Interest costs over the past few years have been kept somewhat under control by the fact that federal debt does not mature all at once. In 2024, however, nearly 9 trillion dollars worth of federal debt will mature. That will need to be replaced with new debt which will need to be paid off at higher interest rates (i.e., at higher yields) than the maturing debt. Combined with the $2 trillion or so in new debt that will be added in 2024, the Federal government will need somebody to buy more than 10 trillion dollars worth of federal debt. That a whole lot of debt and the Fed will be expected to help the federal government somehow keep interest rates from rising further. This will require the Fed to enter the marketplace and buy up large amounts of debt in order to push down yields.
In other words, political realities will mean the Fed will have to embrace new rate cuts whether price inflation is at the two-percent goal or not. The Fed will say that price inflation has hit the “target” regardless of whether or not that is the reality. Since the Fed now defines its two-percent target in terms of averages and long-term trends, the Fed need only say that it has determined that the “trend” points toward falling price inflation.
Then, voilà, the Fed can get to doing what really matters to the federal government: laundering federal deficits by forcing down interest rates.
Yesterday, Jay Powell performed the usual song-and-dance that is the foundation of the central bank’s political legitimacy: claim it is skillfully managing the economy while claiming to be deeply concerned about the daily struggles of ordinary people who face the ravages of price inflation. The reality behind this routine is something very different.
Breaking Exclusive! Tucker Carlson Breaks The Internet In Powerful Interview With Alex Jones