News

‘This dinner continues to haunt me. They all seemed so… normal.’

A former CNN correspondent recounted a horrifying experience where she had dinner with friends and their neighbors — who turned out to be fans of former President Donald Trump.

Ex-fake news reporter Michelle Kosinski said she’s “haunted” by the story she shared on X this past Sunday, where she recalled dining with old friends at an upscale Florida neighborhood who’d invited “well-educated, successful” neighbors, only to gradually learn they were Trump supporters.

“A few weeks ago, I had dinner with a few couples, friends of friends, all American,” she wrote. “All were well-educated and successful in careers. They seemed great! On the surface. For like an hour.”

Kosinski noted she first sensed something was amiss when some Ivy League alums at the dinner expressed reservations about sending their own children to Ivy League universities.

“[T]hey were adamantly NOT letting them apply to any ivies. And were weird about explaining why. Though the kids were double legacies. Okayyy… moving on…” Kosinski wrote on X.

She also thought it was weird some dinner guests were using air quotes when discussing “climate change.”

“Again, these are otherwise smart people. Not scientists, clearly. But educated,” Kosinski wrote, adding, “And the dude took seething umbrage when my friend mentioned the damage Trump had done and vowed to continue to do.”

Kosinski claimed Trump-supporting dinner guests changed subjects when they received pushback from other guests, claiming they backed down because “They realized they would be eviscerated on all idiotic points, especially on the economy” — however, most Americans would agree the economy was doing better under Trump.

“As it went on, my friends and I realized we were surrounded by otherwise carefully closeted MAGAts,” Kosinski continued, adding, “It’s funny how the extremist or just wrong beliefs can’t help but leak out, even when you least expect them, and from people you least expect. They are out there.”

The ex-CNN correspondent went on to say “this dinner continues to haunt me.”

“They all seemed so… normal,” she wrote, adding her friends were previously unaware of their neighbors’ politics.

Kosinski went on to claim the closeted Trump supporters were wrong to keep their political beliefs close to the vest, and that they should be open to debate.

However, X users informed Kosinski she was in the wrong for wanting people to out themselves politically, so deranged liberals can seize on them with their false worldviews.

Maybe you are deficient and incapable of mentally modeling people different than you as anything but a caricature?

— ? Aristophanes ? (@Aristos_Revenge) May 6, 2024

Your language “othering” those with different opinions reveals you as the true monster that you pathologically pretend to “resist”.

You are the type of person who would cheer at the unvaccinated being carted off to camps, with a self-righteous, deranged sneer.

We see you now ?

— foundring ?? (@foundring1) May 6, 2024

This whole thread is so embarrassing…for YOU.

Get out of your liberal la la land, take off the mask and come up for air.

Trump Derangement Syndrome. Get help.

— Tomi Lahren (@TomiLahren) May 7, 2024

“This dinner continues to haunt me”

You desperately need to engage with people outside your bubble if divergent views “haunt” you.

— i/o (@eyeslasho) May 6, 2024

Responding to one critical X user, Kosinski noted without a hint of irony that patriotic Americans should not want to “vote for career fraudsters who are willing to lie tens of thousands of times, sexually abuse women, and steal” — characterizations she didn’t realize perfectly describe Joe Biden.

Incidentally, Kosinski is the same fake news correspondent who was ridiculed online after reporting for NBC’s Today Show from a row boat during floods in New Jersey, where two men walked into frame showing waters were only ankle-deep and ruining her attempt at making the floods seem more deadly.

I would have left the table, gotten in my canoe, and rowed back home. pic.twitter.com/T14WZxv9kr

— Lou Perez (@TheLouPerez) May 6, 2024

---

The globalists are increasing their attacks on Infowars and the stakes have never been higher!

Please consider donating and visit InfowarsStore.com for merch, nutraceuticals and survival gear.

---

---

The establishment is determined to shut down Infowars because it’s the tip of the spear in the information war against the New World Order — share this critical link!

Alex Jones talks about the CIA’s plan to shut down Infowars and what you can do to stop it!

Emergency Alert! Deep State Plan To Shut Down Infowars Exposed pic.twitter.com/s4BPJW8lWa

— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) May 7, 2024

---

“Thankfully, nobody was injured, in what is believed to be a targeted attack with no wider risk to the community,” Greater Manchester Police says in statement.

Shocking footage out of the UK circulating on social media shows a migrant livstreaming himself shooting up random houses in Manchester on Tuesday.

Video shows a group of migrants speaking their native language while one prowls the street in Oldham holding a beer bottle in one hand and a loaded firearm in the other.

He soon approaches one flat, presumably of another migrant he knows, and fires several rounds into it after first trying to kick down the door.

Welcome to “Modern England”.

Oldham to be precise, as imports drunkenly FB live themselves shooting at houses. pic.twitter.com/kzxLkEJpDF

— Tommy Robinson ?? (@TRobinsonNewEra) May 7, 2024

Police in forensics gear later descended on the scene and an investigation is underway, according to Manchester Evening News.

Nobody was injured in what Detective Inspector Clare Harrison described as a “targeted attack.”

Greater Manchester Police also issued the following statement:

An investigation is taking place following reports of a firearms discharge at an address on Prince Edward Avenue, Oldham, this morning (7 May 2024).

Officers were called to the scene at around 1am, where they were able to confirm that a discharge had taken place. Thankfully, nobody was injured, in what is believed to be a targeted attack with no wider risk to the community.

Many on social media panned the UK over the incident given the country had banned firearms.

Fake news. Guns are illegal in England.

— The Texorcist (@Thetexorcistxp) May 7, 2024

Weird…thought you couldn’t have guns like that in England. @metpoliceuk care to clarify??

— The Crazzzy Conservative (@canderson93) May 7, 2024

Again banning legal firearms seemed to really work for taking the illegal firearms off the streets…

— rant-A-holic (@Rant__A__Holic) May 7, 2024

I thought guns were outlawed in England? I guess it only applies to certain groups.

— ?? Robert Spudis ?? (@SpudisRobert) May 7, 2024

I thought England was safe from gun violence??? They all say that only happens in America

— Dave Burke (@Berklyhunt11) May 7, 2024

They also criticized UK authorities for their careful effort not to highlight the apparent migrant involvement in the shooting.

Let me guess, the police have said that shooting at houses in Oldham can have very different meanings. ?

— Lee Hurst #VoteAnyoneButLibLabConGreen (@LeeHurstComic) May 7, 2024

They don’t speak English. They display their behaviour to intimidate people. That’s one instance that compels native Brits to say “We want our country back”.

— Mendy Howe (@MendyHowe12) May 7, 2024

Oh, look, the multi-culturalism and integration are going splendidly!

— RedSword (@RedSword666) May 7, 2024

Mostly peaceful shooting of houses.

— Ross Baines Art (@RossBainesArt) May 7, 2024

This comes days after a dual Spanish-Brazilian national fatally attacked a 14-year-old boy with a sword and injured at least four other people, including two police officers.

The people of the UK are defenseless against these heinous attacks because the government outlawed firearms — leaving only the criminals to be armed.

---

Follow Jamie White on X | Truth | Gab | Gettr | Minds

Financial freedom is under attack as central banks prepare centralized CBDC system — economist Kirk Elliot breaks it down.

Alex Jones talks with economist Kirk Elliot about the financial state of the world and plans by global central banks to impose a CBDC system that would eliminate financial freedom.

Breaking! Private Bank Accounts To Be Seized Under CBDC Global Currency Plan pic.twitter.com/n5uk7xI6HM

— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) May 7, 2024

---

How Do US Current Account Deficits Arise?

One hears little today of the US “twin deficits,” a phrase familiar during the 1980s when the US had consistently run both federal budget deficits and international trade deficits. Economists hypothesized at that time that there was a theoretical and/or empirical relationship assuring the two deficits’ increasing or decreasing together.

How Do Federal Budget Deficits Arise?

Annual federal budget deficits exist whenever federal spending exceeds annual tax revenue. The US has consistently run these deficits in most of the postwar period, except during the Clinton administration in the 1990s. Fiscal year 2001 was the last time the US federal budget was in surplus.

The fiscal year 2023 budget deficit was $1.7 trillion, with tax revenue at $4.4 trillion and federal spending at $6.1 trillion. The deficit through the first half of fiscal year 2024, which ends September 30, was $1.1 trillion, with receipts at $2.2 trillion and outlays at $3.3 trillion. In order to finance these budget deficits, the US Treasury issues massive amounts of US Treasury bonds, adding every year to the total outstanding federal debt. 

How Do US Current Account Deficits Arise?

Annual current account deficits occur when the US sends more funds abroad than the country receives from sources abroad. The largest item in the current account is trade (exports and imports), in which the US has run a deficit every year since 1975. 

The other item in the current account is non-trade-related income flows between US residents and residents of other countries. These income flows include remittances from Americans and immigrants to entities abroad, as well as Americans’ tourist spending abroad. Mexico, China, India, and Philippines are the leading destinations of US remittances.

The US trade deficit was nearly $1 trillion in 2022, but then fell to $773 billion in 2023. This deficit varies every calendar quarter, and from year to year, often because of irregularly-timed exports of big-ticket items such as Boeing jets, and large regular imports of items such as oil, foreign machinery, pharmaceuticals, industrial supplies and car parts. 

The largest US trade deficits are recorded with China, Mexico, Vietnam, Canada, Germany, Japan and Ireland. The largest trade surpluses are with the Netherlands, Hong Kong, Brazil, Singapore, Australia, and the UK. The US’s top trading partners are Canada (15 percent of total US trade), Mexico (14 percent of total, and China (13 percent of total).

The Twin-deficits Significance in the 1980s

The twin deficits hypothesis arose to explain the experience of the US during the 1980s. Observers noted that federal budget deficits and trade deficits rose and fell together, although whether there were a causal relationship in the movements of the two deficits was unclear.

At that time Americans were particularly concerned about federal budget deficits as Congress enacted the Economic Recovery Tax Act in 1981 but the Reagan administration did not cut federal spending commensurately. Some economists at the time wondered if the observed twin deficit model might assist countries control their government budget deficits. The thinking was that reducing the US trade deficit could also lower budget deficits, assuming a genuine linkage between the two deficits.

Note, however, that by the 1990s the Clinton administration brought the federal budget into surplus territory, yet the current account deficit continued into negative territory, calling into question the twin deficits hypothesis.

The Twin Deficits Narrative

The twin deficits explanatory narrative runs thusly: persistent current account trade deficits since 1975 have caused US trading partners to accumulate large amounts of US dollar-denominated foreign exchange, which were then invested in assets such as US Treasury bonds, land and other US real assets, producing capital account surpluses to offset current account deficits. 

US trading partners have historically been comfortable investing in US Treasury debt, which is AAA rated, the highest level given by ratings agencies such as Moody’s and Standard & Poor. China, Japan, UK, Belgium and Luxembourg are the leading foreign countries holding US Treasury debt.

Might the Twin Deficits Provide Policy Guidance Today?

With today’s concern again over large federal budget deficits and all-time high federal debt, could the twin deficits hypothesis apply today? That is, would reduced current account trade deficits enable the US to constrain its federal budget deficits? 

When the US runs both federal budget deficits and current account deficits, in effect the US federal government is borrowing from foreigners (who buy US Treasury bonds and other US assets) in exchange for imported foreign-made goods. Phrased another way, the US exports bonds (IOU pieces of paper) and imports foreign-made goods for domestic consumption. 

While this exchange of pieces of paper (bonds) for foreign-made goods can be sustained, many Americans are probably quite satisfied with the results. As a nation, Americans love to consume, including imports, whether it’s $5,000 Hermes handbags from France or cheap knickknacks from China. They treat shopping as a national pastime, their motto being “Shop till you drop,” they often find it difficult to save some of their incomes for retirement or other distant future events, and readily incur personal debt (for example, on credit cards) in order to indulge their consumerist urges.

Americans’ Low Personal Saving Rate and Other Complications

But the mirror image of Americans’ consumerism is their low personal saving rate, which has hovered recently around 3 to 5 percent of GDP, and briefly as high as 32 percent in April 2020 during the pandemic when they received generous federal “stimulus” payments but had few opportunities to spend them. This contrasts markedly with China’s consistent saving rate of 40-50 percent of GDP, and Japan’s rate of about 25 percent.

Large continuing current account trade deficits are not sustainable in the long run if they increase foreign ownership of US federal debt. When foreigners own US federal debt, interest payments on this debt represent income flows leaving the country, adding to the current account deficit.

If the entire US federal debt were internally owned by US citizens, on the other hand, income flowing abroad would not be a major issue. Some Americans would simply owe US debt interest payments to other Americans, representing an internal redistribution of income from those US taxpayers who own no US bonds to other Americans who do own US bonds.

Beginning this year, the US has begun paying more interest on its federal debt than it spends on national defense. As interest rates are now more normalized at higher levels than a couple of years ago, these interest payments will only increase over time. And some portion of these interest payments flow to foreign owners of US debt. A larger debt, moreover, can be serviced only through more federal borrowing or higher net exports. And for net exports to rise, all else equal, the value of the dollar must decline and/or US workers must become more productive.

Is There a Future for the Twin Deficits Hypothesis?

Consider that one or more of the following structural or cyclical changes must occur for the twin deficits hypothesis to assist the US control its current federal budget deficits, and thus its ability to reduce its outstanding federal debt: 

* Americans would uncharacteristically need to increase their saving rate, ideally providing sufficient domestic saving to purchase the new federal debt required to finance federal spending, thus reducing reliance on foreign investors.

* Tax revenues would need to increase, leaving Americans with less disposable income overall, likely causing politically divisive income distributional effects.

* Imports would need to fall, and/or exports increase, to reduce US trade deficits.

* The US dollar may need to depreciate relative to other currencies, raising questions about the Federal Reserve’s responsibility to support the USD’s stability.

A moment’s reflection reveals the limited prospect of these changes occurring. Underlying these potential changes, moreover, lurk possible immigration statutory or policy changes that might reduce current labor market tightness, thus inviting unemployment and recession that the Federal Reserve would feel obligated to respond to.

A Final Note on the Twin Deficits Narrative

This now-abandoned hypothesis from a bygone era is a reminder that economic models come and go. Yet conceivably it could emerge in some form during this current era of historically large US federal budget deficits.

Interestingly, there is no commentary in the literature about possible twin surpluses in federal budgets and trade balances. Perhaps that is because such joint surpluses have not existed in the US over any periods of time. Or perhaps it is because economists realize that there is neither a theoretical nor empirical basis for the twin deficits hypothesis, nor any basis for the existence of twin surpluses either. 

If Americans are genuinely concerned about its federal budget deficits (and/or its current account trade deficits), they are well advised not to rely on the possibility of twin surpluses any time soon. Like the Easter bunny and the Tooth Fairy, twin surpluses are almost certainly a fantasy that wouldn’t absolve the US of the hard work required to clean its fiscal house and restore responsible federal spending.

---

EMERGENCY FINANCIAL NEWS: Economist Warns The Collapse Has Already Begun – Will Be Worse Than The Great Depression

---

Since CBDCs and the idea of a “cashless society” are mostly about increasing centralization and control on the societal and individual level, it’s easy to see how they might be accompanied by new legislation banning precious metals investing and other non-state-approved financial activities.

With the eventual introduction of central bank digital currency (CBDCs) now seemingly inevitable, there are a lot of directions central banks could take with their digital currency projects that would have dramatic implications for the price of gold.

Touted for their “convenience” and “efficiency,” the endgame of digital currencies is not only achieving greater power over the currency but also a means of surveilling and micromanaging the personal finances of each individual. Owe taxes or a parking ticket? It could be automatically deducted. Does the Fed think it needs to cool inflation? Deduct money straight from people’s accounts, or impose a daily spending limit. The possibilities for control and profit are endless, and too tempting for control freak bureaucracies and amoral tech companies to ignore.

As countries like China implement their own CBDCs, buy more precious metals, and generally buck dependence on the US dollar for trade, Western central banks also feel like they have to compete in order to retain their power. That’s the essence of the other motivation for CBDCs — a currency race between East and West wherein the winner solidifies not only unprecedented control over its own citizenry but a place atop the global power structure for the next century or longer.

Since CBDCs and the idea of a “cashless society” are mostly about increasing centralization and control on the societal and individual level, it’s easy to see how they might be accompanied by new legislation banning precious metals investing and other non-state-approved financial activities. All they need is a severe enough financial crisis to provide the justification. After all, during the Great Depression, the federal government swiftly used an Executive Order to demand that citizens submit their gold to the Federal Reserve en masse.

And with new developments in crypto-tokenization technology and a brewing global financial crisis, the Tech-Banking-Political complex is preparing for what they collectively know will be a crucial window of opportunity to force their CBDCs down the throats of the people and make opting out from their new system after the fact nearly impossible.

Once their CBDC is rolled out, central bankers will have more ability than ever to manipulate the money supply and your personal finances according to their whims. This summary from a 2023 BIS report on the promise of CBDCs to increase the scope of central bank activities describes in (cheery banker-speak) the increase in power and control that central planners will grant themselves under a unified digital currency system:

“As well as improving existing processes through the seamless integration of transactions, a unified ledger could harness programmability to enable arrangements that are currently not practicable, thereby expanding the universe of possible economic outcomes.”

Zimbabwe’s new CBDC experiment uses an interesting ”gold-backed” approach, appearing on paper to be a combination of the traditional gold standard with digital currency tech. This is a promising approach, but to avoid being corrupted by authorities, it needs a protocol that makes it nearly impossible to fake a higher gold supply with tokens for gold that doesn’t really exist. Otherwise, its claims of returning to a “gold standard” are meaningless.

I wouldn’t expect a Western CBDC to contain gold backing or the protection of any kind of restrictive protocol, but I predict that in a centralized national or international digital currency system of any kind, central banks will still hold large amounts of gold in reserve. Just as Bitcoin isn’t truly “digital gold” but only numbers on a screen, bankers know they will still have to hold real money as an insurance policy.

The difference is, that banks could be the only ones who are allowed to hold gold, while broader society will no longer have access to cash. With all other potential options to opt out of this system fully digitized and prevented from competing with CBDCs, gold, and silver will become the only way to exist and transact outside the Central Bank’s digital control grid with any semblance of true freedom or agency. Black markets will have to turn to various forms of analog money, and gold and silver will rise as the top options.

Just look at the gold chart for 1933: When Executive Order 6102 demanded that citizens give up their gold, the price skyrocketed, never again returning to pre-1933 levels. A similar effect would occur from the announcement of CBDCs, phasing out of paper cash, and restrictions on private gold ownership:

Gold vs USD Pre and Post-Executive Order 6102

Some legislators are recognizing the CBDC threat and fighting against it, declaring CBDCs a threat and empowering precious metals holders. However, I’m not sure it will be enough to fight the CBDC tide being engineered by central planners. The system may begin as optional, but with the phasing-out of cash and other incremental measures, will eventually become permanent either through direct legislation or by making it totally impractical to resist.

If the architects of CBDCs can market their new system as the solution to an epic financial crash (of their own making), it will likely appear as a sign of stability that calms global markets, possibly causing gold and silver to drop. But as precious metals emerge as the best form of physical money in a tightly controlled, micromanaged financial dystopia, they’ll become the only way to make private or off-grid transactions, making them more valuable than ever — not only as investments, but a means of survival outside the fully-digitized fiat nightmare.

---

EMERGENCY FINANCIAL NEWS: Economist Warns The Collapse Has Already Begun – Will Be Worse Than The Great Depression

---