Remember The United State’s Banker’s Death Cross: It Is Now Upon Us ~ Keynesian Economics Of Deception ~ Unreported Blowback Of $12.8 Trillion Bank Bailout.

The Hour is now late, when the SMAVG 50 ( Short Term – fuchsia colored line) Crosses down and below the SMAVG of 200 (Long Term), you have a Death Cross.

This means The United States will begin its new financial reality, unless something like the passage of the Glass Steagall Act 1489, and/or more consumption (buying) of silver by The American citizen takes place.

By The 50 (New Productivity) giving way to the established 200 (Bilking By Bailout Bubble Scheme), The United States Is Entering The World Of Massive Inflation. Gold/Silver are the ‘Bobbers’ that will keep people financially afloat through this massive inflation. At the other end of the tunnel, we will see America return to Austrian Economics Of Capitalism (Growth). Many politicians imo, will be found legally corrupt to answer charges – with one helluva wake of destruction behind their paths.

Both would basically call the short of Rothschild’s derivatives and put him and his Keynesian Economics of deception out of business (big time).

It would be the just punishment for attempting the over throw of Austrian Economics (Capitalism) by Keynesian Economics (pump/dump schemes & bailouts) which only enrich by bilking, the world’s richest like Rothschilds, Hedge Funders, Soros, Bloomberg, Rockefeller, etc etc.

The market is now at a very simple crossroads: bonds are pricing in the hyperdeflation that the global depression brings in, while gold is pricing in response to that hyperdeflation, which is nothing but print, print, print money into the commodities market.

Obama Assures America’s Slavery To Rothschild’s Banking System: By Printing $110 Billion New USD Per Month And Injects It Into The Commodities Market.

Gold – also at a record: 

The modus of this criminal venture is disarmingly titled ‘New Keynesian Economics’. Its been done to many Countries for example; Argentina, China, India, Israel, Greece, Iceland, Russian Empire. Now the last Visage of Pure Power & Freedom The United States, stands in British Monarchy‘s way to gather them all together for subjugation ~ disarmingly titled New World Order. They do this by contriving chaotic situations and then bet short/hedge against recovery via Keynesian Economics ~ thus bilking billions from nation states.


RUSH: Liberals are up in arms over my analysis of Keynesian economics, and when they cry like stuck pigs over something like this, you just know I’ve gotten it exactly right.  Last night on Hardball Chris Matthews spoke with TIME Magazine senior correspondent Michael Crowley and Chicago Trib columnist Clarence Page about the unemployment rate and the Tea Party.  And Matthews said, “Michael, the stimulus program, about $800 billion to 900 billion was a waste, it didn’t bring the economy back, and they got a good argument with that because when you have a nine-plus percent unemployment rate, how can you claim you turned the economy around?  It’s simple crayon level thinking.  It works, doesn’t it, the Tea Party argument?”

CROWLEY:  The experience of the stimulus was a big setback for Keynesian economic theory because it’s hard to explain to people that it might have really prevented things from getting a lot worse and so the Rush Limbaughs of the world point to the unemployment rate and say that the thing was a complete waste that didn’t work, but I think there’s also another trademark there, it’s a kind of conspiratorial aspect.  It’s that this is a cover story for eliminating capitalism and big government running amuck.  It’s a lie, basically, it’s a valid economic theory, but Rush Limbaugh is turning it into — they’re trying to hoodwink you and lie to you.

RUSH:  No, no, no.  All I said was that Keynes is being bastardized by you people.  Keynes didn’t set out to destroy the US economyObama is.  Keynes, his idea was not to destroy capitalism.  Obama is, Obama’s professed as much.  Crowley finished with that, Clarence Page jumped in, said this.

PAGE:  Rush is making up facts like he often does.  The fact is we didn’t spend enough money on the stimulus.  So what’s the Tea Party solution?  Pull more money out of the economy, obviously that’s gonna bring more recession, possibly depression, and Rush Limbaugh is completely oblivious.

RUSH:  Where is the Tea Party saying pull more money out of the economy?  You know what he means by that?  He means spending cuts.  To him, spending cuts are taking money out of the economy.  He is.  I’m telling you he is that wrong.  He is that uninformed.  The Tea Party wants the private sector flooded with money.  Their own.  They want to keep what they are earning, and they want more people to start working and keep what they earn.  The Tea Party is desperate for the private sector to have gobs and gobs of money.  They don’t want to take more money out of the economy.  It is the government taking money out of the economy.  But to Clarence Page — remember, this is the discussion of Keynesian economics — to Clarence Page and this Michael Crowley guy, government spending is money in the private sector, and it’s not because for government to put it in the economy it has to first take it from the economy, because government doesn’t produce anything.  Government doesn’t have a dime until it takes it from somebody.  So maybe they’re this stupid.  I just profess to believe that they have been ill-educated, they’re just wrong and don’t know it.

BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH: So my analysis of Keynesian economics has thrown these people for a loop. You just heard Clarence Page basically say that the Tea Party wants to take money out of the private sector, and he means by that the Tea Party is for spending cuts.  Money in the private sector equals government spending.  I don’t know where Clarence Page went to school but this is what he was taught.  I know it’s unfathomable, Snerdley.  That’s what he believes. 

The government’s God, the government’s the beginning and end, it’s the end-all to all the problems.  But haven’t we just found out, we just learned today with government numbers that the gross domestic product was far worse in the last two and a half years than what we have been told?  The GDP has been revised down hugely.So how did government spending of more than a trillion dollars work?


And all they have left to say is, well, we didn’t spend enough.  It’s like saying the Soviets didn’t spend enough, and they say that FDR didn’t spend enough.  If he had spent more, it wouldn’t have taken World War II.  The New Deal didn’t get us out of any depression.  It made it worse.  You and I both know, you take money out of the private sector — look, this is fundamental.  This is not even arguable.  The government doesn’t have a dime until it either takes it from somebody who’s earned it or prints it.  The government doesn’t produce wealth.  The government redistributes it, confiscates it, taxes it, what have you.  But for the government to put a dollar into the private sector — i.e., government spending — it has to take it from the private sector first.  It’s a wash.What the Tea Party’s opposed to is precisely that.


The Tea Party wants tax cuts, an end to burdensome regulations, you know, get the EPA out of everybody’s hair, end the drilling moratorium, basically turn the entrepreneurs of this country loose and let ’em start producing things.  And you will get economic growth and you’ll end up with more government revenue to boot because you’ll have more taxpayers paying taxes, therefore the federal Treasury will swell.  Ronald Reagan cut taxes.  Liberals hate this.  Ronald Reagan cut taxes, and the amount of revenue to the Treasury doubled in eight years, taking the top marginal rate from 70% down to 28%.  It really isn’t complicated, but these people have been taught wherever they went to college, wherever they went to school, people they have been hanging around with, the government is the center of the universe, that whatever the private sector has is because government’s good graces put it there, and that’s what they genuinely believe.


And so any time you make government smaller, you are making the country smaller, you’re making the economy smaller.  This is what they believe.That’s why there’s no compromise.  The only thing is reeducation camps for them or defeating them, and I’m not a big fan of reeducation camps.  We don’t have the time.  We just have to defeat them.  Here, listen.  Let’s go to CNBC.  We got a montage here.  The unemployment numbers came out and these people are singing the praises of Obama and the government and, of course, CNBC and the government are corporate cronies, Jeff Immelt and so forth.  Now, listen to this montage.  It’s stupefying.  None of the stimulus has worked.


The GDP today is smaller than it was in 2007.  We have had QE1, QE2. We’ve had the Fed spending money. We’ve had the government spending money. We’ve had stimulus after stimulus after stimulus, and it hasn’t worked, and listen to this montage.INSANA:  We need more stimulus.TERRANOVA:  There is some fiscal policy stimulus that can be enacted.PISANI: Some kind of stimulus will be happening.GRIFFETH:  The markets could look to the Fed for more stimulus.GEIST: Pass another stimulus plan.O’HALLORAN: Some type of stimulus program.TODD:  They would like to throw in some stimulus.

VELSHI:  There should be further stimulus.

ROUBINI: We should have additional fiscal stimulus.

STEIN: The fact that the tea partiers have taken away any stimulus is a bad thing.

RUSH:  So there you have it.  This is what they believe.  So now this unemployment news today, “All right, we’re coming back, the stimulus worked, now we need more.”  Folks, again, if the job universe were the same size today as it was when Obama was inaugurated, the unemployment rate today would be 11.3%.  This is a tweet factoid from Jim Pethokoukis at Reuters.  The unemployment rate is 9.1% because there are simply fewer jobs in the country to fill.  That’s the only way you can report an unemployment rate going down and that is to say there’s a smaller universe of jobs.


RUSH:  If government spending works, if Keynesian economic works, how come our economy is smaller today than it was in 2007?  How many trillions more in government spending have we had since 2007?  It’s like Obama actually said today at the Navy yard with the veterans, he actually said — I’m gonna quote him — said, “Extending unemployment benefits will create jobs right now.”  It will do the exact opposite.  It is a disincentive.  People now are unemployed for a record amount of time in this country, over 40 weeks.  A month shy of a year is the average time people are unemployed, and they’re all on unemployment benefits, except those who have expired.  Somehow this is creating jobs right now.

Read the Background Material…
• Reuters: More Evidence U.S. Economy Approaching Stall – James Pethokoukis
• CNBC: Beneath Jobs Report Surface Lies Some Ugly Truths
• Average Length Of Unemployment Surges To New All Time Record 40.4 Weeks – Tyler Durden 
• CNN: Food Stamp Use Rises to Record 45.8 Million
• Bloomberg: Payrolls Rise, Jobless Rate Falls, Concerns Ease
• AP: Unemployment Rate Dips, Economy Adds 117K Jobs

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

WHEN in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to desolve the political bands (of The British Monarchy – my emphasis) which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the seperate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.


Krugman Co-Constructs The Modus Operandi [Keynesian Economics] For Society To Be Ruled Under ==> Monarchy Serfdom – aka – Dictatorship – aka – Communism – aka – Socialism.

Yesterday, on ABC’s “This Week,” New York Timescolumnist Paul Krugman addressed the subject of escalating health care costs. He said, “Some years down the pike, we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes.”
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:
It was not necessary for Paul Krugman to “clarify” what he meant yesterday, but he took the opportunity to do so anyway on his blog. He wrote that “health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for—not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care.”
Indeed, he is calling for death panels. In fact, he even characterized his comments on “This Week” by saying that “the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on ‘death panels and sales taxes.'” (My emphasis.)
Krugman has written 19 columns mentioning “death panels,” almost all of them in a mocking tone. He has spoken of the “death panel smear”; the “death panel lie”; and the “death panel people” as being part of “the lunatic fringe.” Similarly, there was a New York Times editorial in September that took to task “the cynical demagoguing about ‘death panels.'” Two weeks ago Times columnist Maureen Dowd blasted those who engaged in “their loopy rants on death panels,” and one week ago Times columnist Frank Rich talked about “fictions like ‘death panels.'”
So it turns out that all along Krugman’s ridicule was just a smoke screen: he’s wanted death panels from the get-go. Whether he speaks for the editorial board, Dowd and Rich is not certain, but it’s time for them to stop the antics and tell the public what they really believe. Krugman has. Catholics, especially the bishops, would love to see them all come clean.
Jeff Field
Director of Communications
The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
450 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10123
212-371-3394 (fax)

Unalienable Rights – Absolute Rights – Natural Rights

The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable. Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356.

By the “absolute rights” of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the “absolute rights” of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect. People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123).

Chancellor Kent (2 Kent, Comm. 1) defines the “absolute rights” of individuals as the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights have been justly considered and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural, inherent, and inalienable, and it may be stated as a legal axiom [A principle that is not disputed; a maxim] that since the great laboring masses of our country have little or no property but their labor, and the free right to employ it to their own best interests and advantage, it must be considered that the constitutional inhibition against all invasion of property without due process of law was as fully intended to embrace and protect that property as any of the accumulations it may have gained. In re Jacobs (N. Y.) 33 Hun, 374, 378.

Related articles