Millionaire Biden Treasury Secretary Yellen Gaslights Americans On High Grocery Bills
Biden administration Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who was worth an estimated $20 million three years ago, told a Yahoo Finance reporter this week she hasn’t noticed the insane hike in grocery prices.
REPORTER: “Have you been to the grocery store lately?”
YELLEN: “I sure have. I go every week.”
REPORTER: “It’s sticker shock, isn’t it?!”
YELLEN: “No!”
*Her net worth is $20 million pic.twitter.com/NcuEXhY9M0— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) June 26, 2024
Asked if she’d been to the grocery store lately, Yellen answered, “I sure have. I go every week.”
“It’s sticker shock, isn’t it?” asked the Yahoo journalist.
However, Yellen surprisingly replied, “No.”
Meanwhile, grocery prices under the Biden administration have risen around 20%.
During another portion of the interview, Yellen suggested Donald Trump’s tax cuts resulted in “an enormous increase in the deficit and lowered tax revenues below historic norms,” adding, “I think it’s responsible for many of the problems that we face now with our fiscal trajectory.”
???♀️? ~ ~ Janet Yellen says Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is “responsible for many of the problems that we face now . . . .” Credit: @DailyCaller pic.twitter.com/rug4VL0S2B
— Mary (@matjendav4) June 26, 2024
On Wednesday, Yellen’s economist husband George Akerlof joined fifteen other economists in a letter warning another Trump administration might “stoke inflation.”
Sixteen of the world’s most notable economists — all Nobel Prize winners — are warning that former President Donald Trump could stoke inflation if he wins the presidency in November and moves forward with his economic plans. https://t.co/JRbXTuje2F
— CBS News (@CBSNews) June 26, 2024
The Yellen interview and letter signed by her husband are just fearmongering attacks on the Trump campaign by establishment hacks in the field of economics.
Disgusting: Whoopi Goldberg Spits On ‘View’ Set After Saying Trump’s Name
The View co-host Whoopi Goldberg made an obscene gesture during a recent broadcast in reference to presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
Claiming Joe Biden will know how to handle Trump during the upcoming debate despite the former president’s masterful argumentative skills, Goldberg went on to grotesquely spit after mentioning the former president’s name.
YOUR REACTION: Whoopi Goldberg Spits After Saying Trump’s Name On the Air. WATCH pic.twitter.com/pM2mjCUlIk
— Simon Ateba (@simonateba) June 25, 2024
Goldberg’s latest anti-Trump antic comes as she delighted earlier this week in CNN shutting down Trump campaign press secretary Karoline Leavitt during an interview on Monday.
CNN’S KASIE HUNT ENDS INTERVIEW WITH TRUMP SPOKESPERSON: #TheView co-hosts react to the CNN anchor ending her interview with Karoline Leavitt when she wouldn’t stop attacking debate moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash. https://t.co/cVclFZQmjA pic.twitter.com/b1wRwAOirO
— The View (@TheView) June 24, 2024
Covid Ushered In Internment Camp Complex
While the world was under lockdown, while the world was being injected with a poison that murdered roughly 30 million people according to insurance actuaries, the NWO-infiltrated governments of the world were building internment camps for its peasants.
Biden’s Blarney on Bank Fees
On January 14, the White House issued an emotionally charged bulletin on overdraft fees. It outdid itself, packing the release with vituperative claims that overdraft fees were sneaky, hidden, just plain wrong, and exploitative, that they raked in excessive profits for the wealthy and padded the banks’ bottom lines, all at the expense of hardworking families.
“Junk fees may not matter to the very wealthy, but they matter to most folks in homes like the one [Greek, Jewish, and Puerto Rican] I grew up in,” Joe Biden said in March. “They add up to hundreds of dollars a month.”
In his homage to class warfare, and imaginary ethnic experiences as a child, Biden promised in a January 2024 presidential statement to curb or slash junk fees in banking: “This is about companies that rip-off hardworking Americans simply because they can.”
He claimed that Republicans defend exploitative fees, give way to wealthy and big corporations, and undermine competition among banks, punishing hardworking families. It is an election year; expect more blathering.
The administration postulates that junk fees amalgamated with greedy profits are at the root of impoverished, oppressed Americans. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) director Rohit Chopra provided this declaration of war: “Today’s rule ends the era of big credit card companies hiding behind the excuse of inflation when they hike fees on borrowers and boost their own bottom lines.”
This inflation deflection is playbook propaganda. This is not a campaign trail whopper from President Pause, whose staff must clean up what he meant. This is an official communiqué of the White House, written by staff, reviewed before release, and echoed in other pronouncements. It is composed of four shameful lies and a storm of curated half-truths designed to condition headline grazers that federal intervention is necessary.
Anachronistic dialogue from the 2010 Consumer Protection Act, passed after the major recession, contained three invasive banking regulations. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Dick Durbin as well as their tribe imposed more regulations on banks. Debit card charges, credit card premiums, and banking fees came under attack. This recent bombast is taking thirteen-year-old banking practices and attacking them as current 2024 procedures. The next target is buy-now-pay-later offers from retailers.
A common, working definition of propaganda is the “dissemination of information—facts, arguments, rumors, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion. It is conveyed through mass media.”
Faustian reporting by mass media is the echo chamber for the lies and curated half-truths influencing public opinion. Using headline news captions from this presidential statement, main street media outlets parroted the allegations. MSNBC, CNN, Axios, the Associated Press, the New York Times, CNBC, Barron’s, and the Wall Street Journal reported “facts” from the release without comment at the time.
Four lies, or abject confusion, comprise the alleged savings for typical families. The new rules would supposedly save a typical family $150 a year for a total of $3.5 billion every year and encourage competition.
Reporters seeking a byline repeated logical impossibilities as factoids, inviting a click past the paywall. The media stories all contain a “could” clause, which are word bunkers to hide in when information blows up the original statement. The claims were all modified in the last lines of the articles: CNN used “potentially, as much as”; Reuters said, “could save”; AP used “could lower”; CBS used “could limit”; and so on.Hannah Arendt wrote in “Lying and Politics” that “the trouble with lying and deceiving is that their efficiency depends entirely upon a clear notion of the truth that the liar and deceiver wish to hide. In early 2022, the CFPB published a report that families who pay “junk” fees pay $150 a year. The CFPB had isolated a cohort of families for this application. Typical families do not pay overdraft fees. The word “typical” substitutes for the report’s “who pay” phrase to imply broader perils to a larger cohort. This reworded statement is a lie.
The current overdraft charges are an average of twenty-seven dollars. To reach $150 for a typical family, it would need six violations. Claiming an average fee savings of $150 per year, the typical family rescued by the act gains three dollars a week.
The savings claimed are worth nine eggs a week at my grocery store, so tighten your belt for one less soufflé this week. It does not impact the 21 percent rise in the entire typical market basket for all typical consumers.
“Banks are hiking fees” is the second lie. According to the CFPB reports, bank fees have decreased over the last four years, dropping over 50 percent for the period of 2019–23.
The third lie is about the overdraft and nonsufficient-funds charges. Account holders claim that the charges are a surprise. Banks contract with consumers to cover insufficient funds. This is not an arbitrary action by the bank. All banks use CFPB wording in their contracts. Account holders agree to overdraft actions instead of an exchange refusal. Overdraft fees have dropped in two years from thirty-three to twenty-six dollars, and further reductions will occur.
That Republicans undermine bank competition is the fourth lie. Major banks have adopted features that prevent overdrafts. The more common service is waiving fees or reducing them to ten dollars if there is a linked account (savings) to the checking or debit account. This benefit is offered by eight of the top ten banks. Multiple overdraft charges for the same day are waived. Other banks allow a dollar amount overdraft, most often fifty dollars.
These improvements are from competition between banks. Banks also compete on banking services such as phone apps, interbank cash machine costs, and maintenance fees. This competition will continue to cut costs as the recent charges are adopted by more of the banking community.
In Weapons of Math Destruction, Cathy O’Neil addresses bellicose campaign fallacies. She posits that comparisons and conclusions drawn from sloppy math are destructive. We need to view the remainder of this campaign fallacy in the context of Weapons of Math Destruction: “Problematic mathematical tools share three key features: they are opacity (opaque), scale (difficult to contest) and damage.”
The greatest weapon is using curated data to create “averages.” The widespread repetition by the media gives scale to the underlying fallacy, making it difficult to contest.
Opacity and unregulated analysis appear frequently, encouraging us to think the consumer is at the mercy of banks and needs federal rescue. By shifting the comparisons in CFPB databases, mathematical congruence between reports is impossible. We could try to relate the weaponized numbers to validate the claim of saving $3.5 billion. However, it is all blarney. The purpose of these misstatements is to bewilder or condition the public to accept more controls.
Cohorts are contradictory. An estimated twenty-three million people pay overdraft charges. The twenty-three million annual number is 27 percent of all families.A later report claimed that 9 percent of account holders who had more than ten overdrafts annually paid 80 percent of the combined fees, or $720 dollars each. Are overdrafts affecting a small or large subset of all families?
Comparison predicates are incongruent. CFPB used opaque comparisons of unregulated averages to report that a quarter of the eighty-three million families making less than $65,000 frequently pay overdraft fees. Among households that made $30,000 or less, more than a third said that they had been charged an overdraft fee six or more times in 2022. Are those with lower income impacted, or are the fees profoundly affecting middle-income customers?
More confusion in propaganda supports a federal rescue.Fees and charges are dropping and will continue to shrink. The words “typical” and “average” will continue to misconstrue facts. Lies will resurface. Incongruent statements will suspend reason for emotive headlines.
Inflation squeezes the cash flow of lower-income and single families, pushing these families to overdrafts, but there is no relief in Biden’s baloney or Chopra’s calumny.
MUST WATCH: Dr. David Martin Interview — U.S. Gov. Is Coordinating A Depopulation Program Against The World
Banning Fossil Fuels Will Make Heat Waves More Dangerous, Not Less
On Sunday, activists from the environmentalist organization Extinction Rebellion stormed the green in the final, pivotal moments of the Travelers Championship, a professional golf tournament. The protesters tossed red and white chalk and smoke bombs before being tackled to the ground by police. The stunt came days after two protesters with the group Just Stop Oil, a youth-led offshoot of Extinction Rebellion, sprayed orange paint on Stonehenge.
The environmentalist protesters who do stunts like this are refreshingly honest about the destructive nature of their ambitions. They see the comforts and leisures of modern life as maladies to be eradicated in the name of saving the climate.
But while the means these protesters used in the two high-profile stunts last week have come under wide condemnation, the environmentalist ends of such groups enjoyed blind acceptance in the news media amid a couple dramatic heat waves playing out around the world.
Temperatures rose to record-breaking heights for June across the eastern United States late last week and over the weekend. The United Kingdom experienced a heat wave that, while mocked by many in the US for being laughably mild, brought temperatures far higher than the region is used to. Most dramatically, extreme heat killed over a thousand people during this year’s Hajj pilgrimage in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Overall, more than fourteen hundred temperature records were broken around the world last week.
The media has had a field day showing scary red maps and bringing on hysterical “experts” to terrify audiences into thinking it’s only a matter of time before we’re all roasting to death. Unless, we’re told, we “stop putting carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere,” as Bill Nye said in the clip linked above and the Extinction Rebellion protesters demanded on the eighteenth green on Sunday.
But if the goal is to avoid heat-related deaths, the worst thing to do is ban fossil fuels. Fossil fuels, through technologies like air conditioning and refrigeration, make us safer from heat waves like those experienced last week.
Air conditioning is an incredible invention that is too often taken for granted. Back in the 1840s, long before air conditioning, a Florida doctor named John Gorrie found that his patients recovered better from disease when placed in a cool room. Gorrie developed a system to cool hospital rooms, but it required huge blocks of ice to be cut and transported from frozen lakes and rivers in the northern states. Gorrie’s system made no sense logistically, but his method for cooling a room laid the foundation for what would become modern air conditioning.
Sixty years later, a New York engineer named Willis Carrier expanded upon Gorrie’s design by utilizing cooling coils to heat and cool air. These first air conditioning units took up an entire room and cost as much as $1.5 million each in today’s dollars. But as Carrier and his competitors raced to improve upon their designs, air conditioning units became smaller, more efficient, and more affordable.
A big problem with early air conditioning units was that the compounds they used as refrigerants, such as ammonia and propane, were toxic, flammable, explosive, and not very effective. Then, in 1928, Thomas Midgley Jr. and his team in the Frigidaire division of General Motors synthesized the first chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), which they named Freon.
The adoption of CFCs like Freon provided a major boost to air conditioning. In the 1930s, when the US experienced the most severe heat waves in its history, air conditioning units began to be installed in movie theaters. Around the same time, the first window-mounted units were developed. But it wasn’t until after World War II that air conditioning started to become affordable and compact enough to become a common fixture in American homes. By the 1960s, most new homes in the US had central air conditioning.
Air conditioning did not merely make life more comfortable; it saved lives. Heat-related deaths fell by 80 percent after the adoption of air conditioning. Regions like the arid Southwest and the humid Southeast became more inhabitable for more people.
But as Mark Thornton has pointed out, the benefits of air conditioning extend far beyond staying cool on a hot day.
Because architects no longer needed to rely on windows for ventilation, air conditioning allowed for larger, sturdier buildings that could extend higher than had ever been possible. These skyscrapers significantly increased the supply of housing and office space in urban areas without requiring more land. That meant the air conditioning making residences and offices more comfortable was also making them more affordable.
The cooling and dehumidifying effects of air conditioning also help conserve things like books and historical artifacts. Thanks to modern HVAC systems, every major city in the country can have libraries, archives, and museums. That wasn’t true before. In fact, Willis Carrier first invented air conditioning not to cool hot rooms but to prevent magazine pages from wrinkling for a Brooklyn publishing company.
Air conditioning has helped enormously with textile production, surgeries, plant and animal breeding, pharmaceuticals, and transportation—not to mention the preservation and transportation of food through refrigeration. It is also crucial for cooling the vast data centers that, together, power the internet.
That’s all to say that it’s hard to overstate how much the world we all live in depends on our ability to control our indoor climates, regardless of the outdoor temperatures. But these systems rely on two central components: energy and refrigerants. And both of these components have come under attack from environmentalists and their allies in government.
Environmentalists are very clear that they want the world’s governments to force their populations off fossil fuels. They fantasize about a world where, after a few cleverly concocted government policies are enacted, the world transitions to energy sources like solar and wind, the weather improves, and we all get to live in an egalitarian, plant-filled, postscarcity utopia.
But those ambitions will never leave the realm of fantasy. So-called renewable sources like solar and wind power cannot support the world’s population at the current level of development. At best, things like air conditioning—which requires a lot of energy—will become more expensive.
More likely, modern HVAC systems will become unavailable for large swaths of the population. Because, in addition to the effort to ban fossil fuels, today’s environmentalists have also set their sights on the refrigerants these systems rely on.
It began in the nineties when the world’s governments seized on a scare that CFCs were causing a hole in the ozone layer (which was essentially a complete hoax) to ban the refrigerant and force a transition to a worse alternative called hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). The coerced adoption of HFCs made refrigerators, air conditioning systems, and even asthma inhalers more expensive and less effective. That’s the big reason why, as Thornton pointed out in the article linked above, air conditioning’s march to affordability reversed course in the 1990s and now costs so much.
But it gets worse. The US government has already passed legislation to phase in a total ban on HFCs. Most bans are set to kick in over the next couple of years, but unlike the CFC ban thirty years ago, there is no clear alternative this time around. If it’s mentioned at all, the other options presented are the same toxic, flammable, inefficient compounds like ammonia and propane that were used in the early air conditioning units ninety-five years ago. Companies have begun hoarding HFCs as the phaseout progresses and, earlier this year, the first arrest was made for smuggling the refrigerant into the country.
As air conditioning becomes even less affordable and available, all the benefits outlined above begin to slip out of reach as well. Life grows more expensive because internet, food, and rent prices will rise as the supply of data centers, refrigeration systems, and urban housing takes a hit. And, ironically, the warmest parts of the country will become less inhabitable, not because of a change in the climate, but because so-called green policies are destroying our ability to make them livable.
So, in a sense, environmentalists are right when they warn that heat waves will become more dangerous. But it’s not because of small increases in their average peak temperature. It’s because of the environmentalists themselves.
MUST WATCH: Dr. David Martin Interview — U.S. Gov. Is Coordinating A Depopulation Program Against The World
Read SCOTUS Justice Alito’s Dissenting Opinion Criticizing Gov’t Effort to Control Free Speech in Monumental Case
Justice Samuel Alito delivered a blistering dissenting opinion in a recent 6-3 Supreme Court decision allowing the federal government to request social media companies to censor users.
While Justice Amy Coney Barrett argued in the court’s majority opinion the plaintiffs hadn’t established proper standing to seek an injunction against the defendants in Murthy v. Missouri, Justice Alito pointed out:
If the lower courts’ assessment of the voluminous record is correct, this is one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years.
“Freedom of speech serves many valuable purposes, but its most important role is protection of speech that is essential to democratic self-government… and speech that advances humanity’s store of knowledge, thought, and expression in fields such as science, medicine, history, the social sciences, philosophy, and the arts…,” Justice Alito wrote in the introduction of his 33-page opinion, joined in the dissent by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
Alito went on to note the case primarily dealt with censoring opinions and users during the Covid pandemic, and said while some “dangerous” speech may have been suppressed, undoubtedly valuable speech was also censored.
Alito highlighted previous rulings have established “government officials may not coerce private entities to suppress speech… and that is what happened in this case.”
“In sum, the officials wielded potent authority,” Alito concludes his argument. “Their communications with Facebook were virtual demands. And Facebook’s quavering responses to those demands show that it felt a strong need to yield. For these reasons, I would hold that [Plaintiff Jill] Hines is likely to prevail on her claim that the White House coerced Facebook into censoring her speech.”
Alito is himself currently at the center of a free speech dispute, with liberals demanding he recuse himself from pivotal cases involving former President Donald Trump after the SCOTUS justice was observed flying an upside-down American flag at his residence, as well as an “Appeal to Heaven” flag at his beach house.
Alito’s dissenting opinion begins on page 35 in the below document: