9 votes

World Bank insider and whistle blower Karen Hudes pulls back the big curtain for the American People.

Karen Hudes has worked at the world bank for many years. She is now coming out with the most explosive understanding of what is going on at the top of the banking pyramid.

In Jekyll Island, Griffin goes into great detail describing the history of the inner circle that runs the world economy. Hudes is now exposing what is going on today and ties together the major economic and global events. This is the most important disclosure in decades, this is big!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYlMDrig1Hc

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

.

I heard a presentation by a whistleblower that was more involved with the global banking program that Karen Hudes. It is pretty much blatent what the centralized banks are doing. They will self-destruct. It is our job to inform as many people as possible of who is responsible for the crash. And to have fun and creative actions in the process. This is the most important part.

Facts and Fictions

The facts were well understood by some people in history.

The facts are well understood by some people today.

The facts will be well understood by some people in the future.

The fact that people have, are, and will increase the standard of living and lower the cost of living because some people know the facts is one of those facts.

How, factually, do people increase the standard of living and lower the cost of living?

More people gain access to the facts.

Is it factual that non-fraudulent money is purposefully removed from many people by a few people?

Example:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

That is fraudulent money defined as a mathematical measure of fraudulent money working as fraudulent money works in time and place, working dynamically.

So Karen Hudes offers some facts concerning an obvious, accurately measurable, set of future possibilities; she says in few words is a fork in the road.

1.
The modern version of the Dark Ages.

2.
The modern version of the Renascence.

In more specific terms there are studies done by people who are modern specialists in cutting edge calculations of future possibilities. This should not be hard for people to understand because the same type of competitive calculation is done by any insurance company as actuary analysis of risks, which is simply a means by which current investments are based upon cost/benefit studies based upon past experience.

The information exists, and it is not a sound bite, not something easy to read, not something easy to know, like someone saying that we, people, are at a fork in the road.

The Dark Ages can be seen as much higher costs of living and much lower standards of living world wide, due to a continuation of the World Money Fraud Domination.

That means, in real terms, that people will not gain access to non-fraudulent money in our future, because that is the path taken by the people of the world.

Modern Dark Ages occur because people do not gain access to non-fraudulent money, world wide, and therefore trade, and all the advantages of trade, does not occur as compared to the other path that can be taken.

Modern Renascence occurs in the future of mankind as people regain control of non-fraudulent money, and so their earnings are no longer flowing to the few criminals who maintain that fraudulent money, and therefore trade, and all the advantages of trade, work to increase standards of living, and lower costs of living, compared to the continued subjugation of the people of this planet by the few people running the criminal money fraud system.

Instead of this:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Instead of that, which is already dead, instead of that farce as the official account (an obvious fraud), there will be two extreme possible futures expressible in words.

1.
Modern Dark Ages, Currency Wars, Trade Wars, World Wars, scarcity of everything, no non-fraudulent money, no trust, no division of labor, no specialization, no economies of scale, no increase in standard of living, only decrease in standard of living, no decrease in cost of living, only increase in cost of living, until the darkest of times before a return to some opposite PATH whereby people will begin again to use non-fraudulent currency (including money).

2.
Modern Renascence, No Currency Wars (instead currency competition whereby one competitor offers higher quality and lower cost money, and that better non-fraudulent money gains market share, until some other currency competitor raises the bar), No Trade Wars (because trade wars or "protectionism" occurs because of currency wars), no World Wars (because world wars are caused by trade wars), abundance of everything that people want and are willing to work to trade for, because now people keep what they earn, because now people use non-fraudulent currency, and now people gain access to higher scales of division of labor, specialization, and economies of scale, and now, instead of lower standards of living in the future, now there is higher standards of living in the future, and now instead of lower costs of living in the future, now there are higher standards of living in the future.

How?

If the criminals are no longer in charge of the world, forcing people to use the fraudulent money, forcing people by fooling people, like all the readers on this forum who are fooled, and all the people who read this forum who are fools, and all the people who read this forum who know better, forcing everyone, by fraud, forcing everyone by threat of violence, forcing everyone by aggressive violence, NO LONGER in charge, when the criminals are no longer in charge, then competitive forms of money are allowed to flood the market.

The problem with Karen Hudes, and her story line, is that she is under the impression that Gold is the only hope of man, or some other such concept, whereby the same old lie works the same way.

There is only ONE solution.

That is a lie. The ONE solution is called Free Markets, or Liberty, or Freedom, or whatever is, in time and place, MANY SOLUTIONS, whereby each individual can pick the better solution to fit their individual problems.

The ONE LIE is Crime, and Crime is not a solution, Crime is Crime.

So...

If Gold, or Gold Backed Money (redeemable in Gold) is added to the current supply of ONLY FRAUD MONEY, then that has to be done in such a way as to EXPOSE the FRAUDULENT TAX.

If Gold floods the world economy what happens to the world wide price of Gold?

If Gold floods the world economy who is given the Gold first; who gives the Gold to who gets the Gold?

Use your own brain.

If Gold floods the world economy through pay checks ONLY.

What happens?

If Gold floods the world economy through non-interest bearing loans, ONLY, then what happens?

If Gold floods the world economy by dumping gold into the streets of the worst places where the worst people have taken over those people in those places, then what happens?

Where is the Gold right now?

Are those the best people? Did those people collect all that Gold in a way that constitutes moral virtue; in other words did those people who have all that Gold get that gold honestly, did they earn it according to non-criminal means?

If all the Gold, or all the treasures of human kind, are now held, and kept out of circulation, by a very few people, and there are two roads ahead, then those two road ahead can be seen in this light.

A.
Those few criminal people grow even more powerful in the future while those many victims grow even less powerful in the future.

More of this:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Worse than that, worse than that because those few criminal people buy World War III, so as to maintain their fraudulent money system, and they cause Russia and Nato to fight, while China is held back to take over the War Debt Collection Agency, or World Reserve Fraud Currency Power, or World Bank now based in China.

That is the Dark Ages warned of by that sweet little lady; who may or may not have all the facts lined up, and she admits as much.

Instead of more of this:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Instead of more of that, in a new Asian based currency FRAUD POWER, instead of that, there is a flood of POWER no longer kept secret, kept out of the hands of the competitors, whereby the criminals are no longer in charge, and the criminals no longer avoid accurate accountability concerning precisely how much they stole from specific people in time and place.

So the stolen loot returns back to the victims who had their earnings stolen from them.

How does that happen?

Anyone who paid interest on a loan can reasonably receive back to them what was stolen from them.

Anyone who paid Federal Income Tax, which was, is, and will be a crime in progress, unless it is stopped by defenders, anyone having paid will have their earnings returned to them, as part of the process of regaining Liberty in our time, in our country.

So added to investors investing their earnings are such things as more employers seeking employees to help them compete in a new age of NON-FRAUDULENT, NON-ANTAGONISTIC, Competition, free markets, where the demands are met with competitive supplies, including the supply of job opportunities.

The opposite of a criminally run government power, and the opposite of a criminally run money power was known, is known, and can be known, if people want to know better.

If people prefer abject belief in falsehood without question, then that is what they will get.

http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm

__________________________
First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.
_____________________________________________

The answer to a criminal money monopoly is not another, "better," criminal money monopoly.

If Karen Hudes is offering the nuts and bolts of both the problem, and ONE solution, then she may not understand the problem well enough to be an authority on THE solution.

Free markets.

Joe

Wow, that was a mouthful. But

Wow, that was a mouthful. But yes, I agree with every word, I think... :)

Bitcoin certainly has changed a lot of the perspective of money

The last words here should be something along the lines of:

Power needs to be distributed by means of virtue not fraud, force or aggressive coercion.

Telling words.

When someone (you for example) add fraud to the list, that is more virtuous, more accurate, than leaving fraud out of the list.

Coercion, as a word choice, to me is a mouthful of bullshit; on the other hand.

Crime 101
a.
Deception by criminals upon victims
b.
Threat of violence (which can be deceptive or true) by criminals upon victims
c.
Aggressive violence (coercion is deceptive in my view) by criminals upon victims.

Fraud is the most powerful addition to the crime problem faced by potential victims because the victims are often fooled into believing that the criminals are the ones who defend the victims.

Joe

Ye I wasn't entirely true

Ye I wasn't entirely sure about exactly which terms would be best used in that sentance. I use the excuse that English is my second language, and I am sometimes something of a moron. Coercion shouldn't be on the list I guess because coercion wouldn't be a problem without government and with a properly fully functioning free market (including currencies)

Or am I completely missing your point here?

Virtue is self evident?

If someone insists upon telling me what I think, telling me that my thoughts are wrong, based upon their previous claim that they misundersand my offer of words, then that is a self evident contractiction offered by the "critic" of me personaly, or the words I offer.

You, on the other hand, offer qustions in cases of possible misunderstanding. To me that is self evident virtue.

You offer an olive branch, a bridge, an solution to possible problems, a method of avoiding miscommunication.

That is an example of the free market of ideas as it works in time and place.

Thanks, if I miss your point, forgive me please, it is not for lack of effort on my part.

The word coercion, in English, is used by some people as a synonym for crime. If it is used by some people for a synonym for crime, then my point offered in response to the use of coercion as a synonym for crime is to ask for clarification.

Do you mean crime?

If you mean crime, then why use the word coercion?

I can coerce someone with the force of my words while I avoid any resort to deception, threat, or violence.

I can say, hey, look, if good people do nothing, then evil will grow exponentially more powerful than good.

Where is the source of deception?

Where is the source of threat?

Where is the source of violence?

Not me, not the power of the words I use, the words I've read, the words I repeat, so am I guilty of coercion?

Technically, yes, I am guilty of coercion?

Someone was unaware of how good people doing nothing is a prime CAUSE of crime, and now they are coerced by me or the words I offer or the words I repeat?

Where crime is profitable, because good people do nothing, criminals grow more powerful as they feed upon the innocent, and that factual, accurate, accounting, damns me as one of those people who coerce other people into viewing life more accurately?

Coercion, if it is used instead of the word fraud, or instead of the word extortion, or instead of the term false advertizing, or instead of the word crime, is problematic; so why choose that word?

Why continue to use that word after that word is shown to be clearly problematic?

Why not, as you do, offer free market, competitive, accurate, useful, alternative method of negotiating non-crimnal, non-antagonistic, peaceful, meaningful, mutually beneficial, equitable, exchanges of words?

"Or am I completely missing your point here?"

Absolutes may exist in fact, as an accurate accounting, but in this context the use of absolute wording, if I may offer, is somewhat misleading.

I may not, or it is very likelty that I do not, completely understand, absolutely, what you intend to convey with words.

I can ask questions.

Did you intend to ask if we are absolutely seeing the same exact point precisely in the same way from our two separate viewpoints?

I think that you are a very good advocate for Liberty, free markets, and peaceful coexistence; and as such your example can be utilized by other people to help in gaining access to very powerful market advantages such as division of labor, specialization, and economies of scale; whereby those economic (free market) advantages offer people cooperating leverage in gaining higher standards of living and lower costs of living at competitive rates compared to the alternatives, such as those alternatives knowable as crime, or worse, crime made legal.

Is a more accurate viewpoint coercive?

Joe

I have no need to find

I have no need to find enemies here. I am here to learn. I have though had a drink or two, or three... So my natural stupidity may be greater than I expect or want.

"I can say, hey, look, if good people do nothing, then evil will grow exponentially more powerful than good."

I would not call it coercion. I would call it rhetoric. You are using words to make me do something, non-specified, but you are not making me do something that I do NOT want to do. If I didn't want to do it I wouldn't, and your rhetoric failed.

I see nothing wrong with you using non-aggressive, words to make me do something. If you added, do this or I do that to you, then you are being aggressive, coercive.

I am using the wiki definition of coercion: the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner

The reason I used the word coercion, I think, was because I wanted to add the state-perspective. The state, government rule, is naturally coercive and has no part in the world that I am looking for.

Miscommunication is a rule, not an exception?

"I would not call it coercion. I would call it rhetoric. You are using words to make me do something, non-specified, but you are not making me do something that I do NOT want to do. If I didn't want to do it I wouldn't, and your rhetoric failed."

I do not wish to, want to, intend to, desire to, make anyone do anything.

Why would anyone, anywhere, anytime, think that my intentions are not what my intentions are in demonstrable fact?

My intentions are fair notice.

My intentions are due diligence.

My intentions are to do the right thing when I believe that I can do the right thing.

My intentions are to do offer a competitive viewpoint that may or may not inspire someone else to offer their competitive viewpoint, and I am far and away past any expectation of ever finding someone who will see my viewpoint as a competitive viewpoint worthy of a challenge in their viewpoint, since miss-communication is by my measure the rule, not the exception.

The exceptions are relatively rare, relative precious, and a learning experience for me, if not for anyone else.

"I see nothing wrong with you using non-aggressive, words to make me do something."

I see your viewpoint having nothing to do with me. If there is someone, anywhere, who is using whatever you think is rhetoric, to make someone do something, then that someone is not me, so you are commenting on a viewpoint that is foreign to me, and it may be a worthy subject to consider, a challenging viewpoint to discuss, but it is not my viewpoint, so what is the reasoning for your viewpoint being in any way connected to me?

Are you claiming that my intentions are to make someone do something?

If that is your claim, then your claim is false in reference to me.

"If you added, do this or I do that to you, then you are being aggressive, coercive."

If I am being aggressive, with words, or with physical intent to injure someone physically, then that can be a fact of the matter.

How is someone going to reasonably know if that is a fact of the matter?

You tell me that if I add "do this or I do that to you," then I am being aggressive, coercive, then I have a hard time connecting your claim to the actual fact of the matter.

Specifics help.

This one, this one with a name, in this time, in this place, as a matter of fact, was aggressive, coercive, to this one here, right here, at this time, and then we can both reason that out as being a matter of fact; otherwise, it appears to me that you are defining the meaning of rhetoric by example.

I do not, as a matter of fact, agree with this stuff you call rhetoric, but your example may be shown as rhetoric existing as a matter of fact?

Your example offers an example of rhetoric in time and place as you produce it?

"I am using the wiki definition of coercion: the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner"

I have tried to offer specific terms, and specific definitions to the web page wiki, and whoever controls that, as a matter of fact, censored my efforts.

Why should I trust wiki for anything at all?

If you can demonstrate what you mean by coercion, then I can offer a demonstration of what you mean by coercion, and if our viewpoints agree, then we can, as a matter of fact, agree on that definition.

If your definition of coercion works only in cases that you use it in, and it does not work in cases where the word fits into another situation, then your word definition may not be a very accurate one, as a matter of fact.

"The reason I used the word coercion, I think, was because I wanted to add the state-perspective. The state, government rule, is naturally coercive and has no part in the world that I am looking for."

The word State, if it is a synonym for crime, is in that way, as a matter of fact, a thin veil covering up the fact of the matter, which is that crime exists, and the criminals hide behind that thin veil.

So...why use a different word if you are, as a matter of fact, aiming to identify a crime in progress?

As to the topic, and your reserved agreement with my wordy response, the shorter version of a viewpoint of Karen Hudes is one of caution concerning the amount of information offered that is accurate relative to the amount of information offered that is either false on purpose, meaning Karen Hudes knows that she is lying, or the information offered is false without her knowing that it is false.

She makes the connection between American producers who earn equitable compensation for their work, yet their earnings flow through the criminal monopoly organization into the IRS, The FED, The World Bank, the International Monetary FUND, the Bank of England, and then on to the Vatican and the Jesuits.

If that is false, then it can be proven to be false, so why is there no trial?

If someone, anyone, convicted of smoking a joint, is sentence to 20 years hard labor, rape, torture, loss of life, for that offense in a trial, so called, then why are these obvious paper trials (following the fraudulent money to the frauds who profit from their work) not followed trough from accusation, to discovery, to trial, and then to sentencing just like any other average Joe?

Joe

You speak in a manner that is

You speak in a manner that is very difficult to grasp the true meaning of your words. It is therefor very difficult to have a meaningful back and fourth with you. I, after your last reply, have a very hard time understanding your true meaning. I would say that you are using some kind of confusing rhetoric, either with intent or without, I will not say which. But if you cannot communicate in a clear manner then I have nothing more to say. More words are not more intelligible from my perspective.

I never made any claim to your intentions, I never meant to implicate you in my examples. But you said: I can say, hey, look, if good people do nothing, then evil will grow exponentially more powerful than good.

That is painting a picture that is not directly connected to anyone in the discussion. I was elaborating on that picture. I never said that you, in person, said it to me to make me do something.

Anywho... find a way to be more intelligible then we can continue this until then if you are only looking to "catch me in error" in some way that is not productive, gnite.

For anyone else

Not for someone who wishes to NOT speak clearly.

The following sentence conveys accurate meaning:

"I do not wish to, want to, intend to, desire to, make anyone do anything."

What that means, in English, is that I, Joe Kelley, do not wish, want, intend, desire, or in any way design my investments in time and energy to make anyone do anything.

The reason, in English, for me not wanting, wishing, intending, desiring, or in any way having any intention to spend, waste, employ, use, consume, my time and energy making anyone do anything is because that would be wrong for me to do such a thing even if it was in my power to do it.

If that is not easy to see, easy to understand, and easy to know, then perhaps the problem is the medium of exchange because the fact of the matter is easy to see, easy to understand, and easy to know for me.

So ends my version of free market offers of ideas in this non-competitive example of a discussion?

Note the question mark.

Written by bastue, directed at me, who is Joe Kelley:
"You speak in a manner that is very difficult to grasp the true meaning of your words."

Which words are difficult?

"You speak in a manner that is very difficult to grasp the true meaning of your words."

My speech:
Why would anyone, anywhere, anytime, think that my intentions are not what my intentions are in demonstrable fact?

That is a sentence in English. That is a direct question, in English. For those who do not speak English, that may be difficult to grasp, as to the true meaning of the words.

"Why," is a questioning word, asking for reasoning.

The comma before the ending quotation mark after "why," is grammatically correct in English.

The word choices "would anyone...," is a challenge offered to other people other than me, asking other people other than me, as for their reasoning, as to "why would anyone...," do something.

On and on, as an explanation, if there is a desire to know, the intended meaning of words.

"But if you cannot communicate in a clear manner then I have nothing more to say. More words are not more intelligible from my perspective."

When falsehood is the operating principle, more words are required, since the first lie requires an exponentially increasing number of lies required to cover up the first one.

That above is a stand alone sentence, in English, to be understood, or to be ignored, confused, misread, etc.

bastu wrote:
________________
I never made any claim to your intentions, I never meant to implicate you in my examples. But you said: I can say, hey, look, if good people do nothing, then evil will grow exponentially more powerful than good.

That is painting a picture that is not directly connected to anyone in the discussion. I was elaborating on that picture. I never said that you, in person, said it to me to make me do something.
__________________

If you speak about unknown people, unidentified people, ambiguous people, not known people, fictitious people, nebulous people, masked people, hidden people, unnamed people, those people, they, the other people, some people who may exist, some people existing but not accurate accounted for, then saying so, before pointing at them, pointing at "they," before speaking about "them," and before speaking about "they," may be a good idea, if the idea is to avoid miscommunication.

If the idea is accurate accounting then a name of someone who is this, or who is that, as you say, as you speak, can remove some room for miscommunication?

Note the question mark.

"Anywho... find a way to be more intelligible then we can continue this until then if you are only looking to "catch me in error" in some way that is not productive, gnite."

The subject matter has to do with specific information offered by someone who is named Karen Hudes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdo6aLEzPfE

If that too is "intelligible", to anyone, then they can try calling her up?

Joe

Have you read "Creature from Jykell Island" by GE Griffin"?

As a well respected researcher and author who profusely and redundantly documented his work, Griffin confirmed there is indeed an inner circle that seeks to dominate the world. Hudes' claims in this video clip line up with and confirm Griffin's book.

If you have evidience or a source that can debunk Jekyll Island, I would like to see it. And, if you haven't read his book, then you are not qualified enough to even merit a discussion.

My guess is, you haven't, if not, don't even bother.

Is she not a paranoid schizo.

No, offense but I swear someone got into her psych history ?

She believes that there are two types of human species

You can find it on youtube. She tried to clarify but it just confused me more.

Séamusín

Have you ever seen the skulls

Have you ever seen the skulls with elongated heads? That is the other human species she refers to. I saw a 2 minute video on YouTube, after watching the first one posted to this thread, where she explained it.

...

Every time that someone asks

Every time that someone asks her to clarity anything she goes into a crazy rant where she says very little in many words. She has never been able to prove anything that she says except on economical subjects where other researchers like Griffin, Still, Chomsky and many others already have done the research. She hasn't made any research of her own but credit other peoples words as her own. This is why she cannot clarify what she says and why she cannot provide any proof on subjects that could be seen as controversial.

I believe she gets most of her stuff from Icke, which should make you question her sanity. If Icke/Hudes could prove anything in some manner I would be over the moon. Until then she is done.

Yep

She recently said there is a second species on Earth called Homo Capensis. They live in the Vatican, and beings of this species have been seen in attendance at very high-powered meetings. Sounds nuts.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

Not for nothing...

But that notion is in the Bible... "the wheat and the weeds"...

Does sound crazy.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

right

It is Nuts until she can provide some kind of proof of her claims.

I keep trying to convince myself that Hudes is a real truth

teller, and while my personal research is consistent with most of what she exposes, her conehead comments and her views about not being interested in prosecuting the financial criminals if and when all of the fraud and rigging is laid bare makes it tough for me to use her as a reliable source.

She might be telling the truth...like I said, most of her stuff checks out....but she also is virtually a text book definition of what a controlled oppositon would look like.

For sure her revelations about the big headed second species that control the money system from behind the scenes (or under the vatican) did nothing but make her look a bit aloof. Extraordinary claims require extraordianary proof...absent that proof, she would have been better off just remaining silent about that issue...true or not.

So, I continue to follow her and have corresponded with her directly via email but I take the things she says in which I can find no other backup source documention with a block of salt lick.

She seems credible to me

plus she has access to information they we do not.

Then there should be no

Then there should be no problem to prove her claims, something she is unwilling to do. So what's the point?

controlled opposition is very

controlled opposition is very much what I feel like she is. As I said above I listen to what she has said about economics a lot of it collaborated by other sources with proof. But I still want proof of everything else she says. Without proof she is just a crackpot.

I am not the one who has to have proof that she is wrong she is the one who has to prove that she is right.

No thank you, she craycray

No thank you, she craycray

I see the trolls are out early. Do yall get paid overtime?

?

If you have some substantial reasoning behind your position let's see what you got! As I figured more NSA nothing.

Nop

Nope, not a troll.. Just conscious about Karen. I admire her work on the economics side and take some of that to heart, but she is utterly clueless on about everything else. And she LOVES to talk about everything else than economics, she never provides any proof, never does anything to improve her credibility like; fact-check, being truthful about her own mistakes or compartmentalize herself to her own expertize.

This is why soooo many interviewers, podcasters, tv-personalities and the like have abandoned her as a subject. The one exception of course is Gary Franchi who have the same characteristics as Karen. I did listen to the interview and did find it a little bit more sane than earlier interview but I could still find many factual errors that Karen espoused that Gary should know very well not to be true, unless he is an idiot, but he did not do anything to correct her.

In short: She has had her 5-min of fame and she blew it. Sorry to see that some people cannot understand that and immediately resort to name calling and belittling. I for one am done here. I hope you will be done too.

Check earlier comments from me about Karen too see the natural progression of my dissatisfaction about her.

Thank you and good day, sir.

Don't throw "troll" out so casually.

He has a different opinion than yours. It doesn't make him a paid shill.

Ralph must have many accounts

Ralph must have many accounts created before the shutdown of -13

Nope, but when the trolls took over and tried to

dumb down the discussion, I took a three year vacation. When I checked back in, to my surprise it looks like the NSA has only increased it's anti-freedom activites.

However, I often wonder how American traitors can participate is such un-American activities and still sleep at night. Is money your only guiding principle and purpose of life? Boy, what a sad state you are in.

Well if you think i am some

Well if you think i am some kind of NSA operative you are sorely mistaken. And your insinuation in an earlier comment that I am one and your non-critical, non-questioning, view on Karen tells me that you're too far gone into the rabbit hole for any reasonable discussion

bastu, I appreciate your efforts

On this thread.

"I'm Ron Paul." - Ron Paul