Red Pill Expo, Part 2

Amazing interviews with:

  • Gun Owners of America Founder Larry Pratt
  • The amazing Liberty superstar Jordon Page
  • Brilliantly talented Actor/Poet/Comedian Benny Wills
  • Legal Defenders of Private Property Rights Cavalry Group, Mindy Patterson
  • Champion against Agenda 21, Tom DeWeese
  • Financial & Real Estate Wizard, Russel Gray

Absolutely something for EVERYONE!

Alternatively you can listen to this edition of the”KrisAnne Hall Show” on YouTube

Supreme Court Opinion on California Abortion Notice Law Unintended Consequences

Supreme Court Opinion on California Abortion Notice Law May Have Unintended Consequences
By KrisAnne Hall, JD

In a case titled NIFLA, ET AL. v. BECERRA, the supreme Court is asked to opine on whether Beccera’s injunction to stop enforcement of California’s FACT Act should be granted or not. California’s FACT Act requires pro-life clinics to inform their clients on how and where to get abortions. This government forced message, Beccera claims, is unquestionably contrary to their practices and beliefs and is therefore a violation of their freedom of speech. The supreme Court rightly agrees with Beccera and grants the injunction and sends the case to the lower courts to finish its legal process.

This is a victory for freedom of speech and also for the unborn’s right to life.  However, it may have some unintended consequences for pro-life supporters. Justice Clarence Thomas writes in the majority opinion:

“Content-based regulations “target speech based on its communicative content.” As a general matter, such laws “are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.”

Thomas remarks that California’s licensed notice is a content-based regulation of speech.  Since this particular notice is forced upon clinics like Beccera’s, who are morally opposed to abortion, this particular notice only serves to “alte[r] the content of [their] speech.”

Justice Breyer, writing for the dissent, claims that the government has traditionally held the power to regulate speech through professional licensing and this case should be no different. However, Justice Thomas reasons that speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by “professionals” therefore the California law cannot force pro-life clinics to include government scripted instructions about abortion. Justice Breyer remarks in the dissent that this opinion, depending upon how it is applied, could have widespread ramifications on many laws currently in place requiring certain businesses to supply clients with government scripted notices. This point made by Breyer is where pro-life advocates may find that they have won this case, only to lose another.

Many States have laws on the books that require abortion clinics, both public and private, to provide brochures on alternatives to abortion. Many States have laws forcing these abortion clinics to provide ultra-sound services along with instruction about the developmental stages of the baby in the womb. These are also government scripted notices forced upon these clinics contrary to their practices and beliefs. If these abortion clinics were to challenge these laws forcing the pro-life message, under this precedent the high Court would also have to overturn those pro-life message laws.

This judicial tit for tat is what happens when people use the force of government to promote personal messages. As Thomas so clearly points out in the majority opinion, the pro-abortion proponents could easily inform the women about its services “without burdening a speaker with unwanted speech,” most obviously through a public-information campaigns. To be consistent in their opinions, the majority would have to say the same thing about government forced pro-life practices and messages.  This means that both parties will have to use non-governmental methods to inform the public about their services rather than relying on the force of government to promote their message.

The irony is that the supreme Court seems unanimous to a certain degree that freedom of speech deserves the highest level of protection, however, the life of an unborn child does not.

Red Pill Expo

Today we have a show dedicated to the awakening!  Meet many of the amazing speakers from the Red Pill Expo in Spokane, Washington

Alternatively you can listen to “Red Pill Expo by KrisAnne Hall” on YouTube

Destruction By Degrees

There is a big fight going on in the Senate over your Rights. Have you heard? The Supreme Court has voted against the Constitution. Do you know how? Is Florida Confiscating guns without Due Process? All this will be clear after you hear The KrisAnne Hall Show.

Alternatively you can listen to this edition of The KrisAnne Hall Show on YouTube

America's Constitutional Crisis

What did the supreme Court really say about baking cakes? What do the courts say about your right to video public officials, what does your government say?  What about Presidential tariffs and sanctuary cities?   The answers to the questions, and many more, can only be truthfully found when we put aside the dictated narrative and mainstream rhetoric.  Today we deal with these issues from their real constitutional and lawful foundations… the only way they should be addressed.

Alternatively you can listen to this edition of The KrisAnne Hall Show on YouTube

Feds Admit Manipulating Americans With Propaganda

Former State Department Official: The Federal Government Using Propaganda on Americans – And This is Why

By KrisAnne Hall, JD


Richard Stengel, a former high-level U.S. government official, head of the office for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs at the State Department from 2013 to 2016, former editor of Time Magazine, and a regular pundit on MSNBC, said in April of 2018, at a Council on Foreign Relations forum about “fake news,” that he supports the use of propaganda on American citizens.  He then continued and said;

“Basically, every country creates their own narrative story and, you know, my old job at the State Department was what people used to joke as the ‘chief propagandist’ job.”

Keep in mind, that in 2013 Congress passed legislation allowing the federal government to fund and create propaganda they knew could be used to manipulate Americans on American soil.  This legislation was called The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, sponsored by Mac Thornberry (R-TX), that failed in 2011 when it was submitted on its own.  But in 2013 Thornberry and his co-sponsors buried this legislation in the NDAA of 2014, where it was surreptitiously passed.

The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act overturned a prohibition against domestic propaganda that had been in place since 1948.  This act was passed as a result of a series of events in American history that drew the concern of those who wanted to secure a free press and the freedom of speech of the American people.  The concern began when Woodrow Wilson established the Committee on Public Information through an executive order with the purpose of influencing American public opinion toward supporting the US involvement in World War I. The man appointed to be the chairman over this committee was George Creel, a well renowned investigative journalist and editor of the Rocky Mountain News.

In 1942, FDR established the United States Office of War Information by executive order to “truthfully inform” the American people about the government’s efforts in World War II.  FDR appointed Elmer Davis, a well-known CBS News analyst, as director of OWI.  Davis’ job was to coordinate information from the military and mobilize public support of the war.  OWI was to create an avenue for the government to develop and disseminate the information that they believed people needed to know about the war.

“Our job at home is to give the American people the fullest possible understanding of what this war is about …not only to tell the American people how the war is going, but where it is going and where it came from.” Elmer Davis. AP/Wide World

In 1946 Rep. Sol Bloom (D-NY) introduced a bill that would grant the Secretary of State the power to give monetary, service, or property grants to nonprofit public and private corporations to prepare and disseminate informational materials.  Although this act was intended to disseminate information abroad, there were no limitations to keep it from being used upon the American people and opposition began to form.  After having lived through two regimes of government propaganda and having seen the effects of such government propaganda machines as Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, Congress decided this was not something they wanted to engage in.

An AP Press Release stated “government cannot engage in news casting without creating the fear of propaganda which necessarily would reflect the objectivity of the news services from which such news casts are prepared.”

The Bloom Bill passed the house but failed in the Senate.  In 1948, the Smith-Mundt Act was passed with three key limitations on the government.  The first and most well-known restriction was originally a prohibition on domestic dissemination of materials intended for foreign audiences by the State Department.  This restriction has been supported by the courts even in the face of freedom of information act challenges.  In November 1996 the federal District Court in Washington, D.C., decided that the material under the Smith-Mundt Act is not to be available, applying the Freedom of Information Act’s Exemption 3 to block access.

The Smith-Mundt Act is now found in 22 USC 1461-1a titled, Ban on domestic activities by United States Information Agency. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act changed all of that.  This act does several very destructive things.  First, it puts the President’s Board of Broadcasting Governors on the same level of authority as the Secretary of State.  The Board of Broadcasting Governors is an independent government agency whose members are appointed by the President and whose sole function is to create American propaganda and disseminate this propaganda abroad.

The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 created a limitation for propaganda to be released in the United States. If such propaganda was requested, the information could not be released until 12 years after its publication. This was an additional protection established so that this government created information could not be used to influence current public opinion.  The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, eliminated that protection.   The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act not only legitimized the heinous manipulation of mainstream media, but allowed Congress to fund it with tax-payer dollars

In 2011, I wrote a detailed analysis of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act and its potentional dangers.  In spite of our concerns, many congressmen were adamant that this legislation would not be used to spend tax dollars to create propaganda to be used domestically.  They told us it would just be used to create propaganda on foreign soil, nothing to worry about.

Six years later, did a former State Department Official just admitted he created and used domestic propaganda, and believes it’s the right thing to do?  We don’t need to be concerned, right?  They are just trying to keep us safe.

Supreme Court & Baking Cakes

Supreme Court And Baking Cakes: Not About Religious Liberty

By KrisAnne Hall, JD


The supreme Court of the United States rendered its opinion on a highly anticipated case regarding the right of a baker to refuse to design and create a wedding cake for a gay marriage ceremony based upon his religious convictions.  However, for the SCOTUS, this appears not to be a case of religious freedom, but one of unjust government discrimination.

The History

Jack Phillips, a practicing Christian, often refused to design and create baked goods based upon his religious beliefs.  His store was closed on Sundays and other Christian holidays, he refused to create or design desserts for Halloween, and he refused to make desserts that contained alcohol.  Mr. Phillips did not refuse to serve the same-sex couple who later filed a complaint.  He only refused to design and create a cake for their wedding.  He remarked that he would be happy to design and create cookies, birthday cakes, shower cakes, or brownies, just not a wedding cake due to religious objections.  The same-sex couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the

commission, after several hearings, decided that Mr. Phillips violated Colorado’s public accommodation laws by refusing to create and design this wedding cake for the same-sex couple.  The Colorado commission did not accept Mr. Phillip’s defense of religious conviction.  Members of the commission, on record and as justification for their decision, mocked Mr. Phillip’s beliefs and compared his religious convictions to slavery and to the Holocaust.  The supreme Court found in favor of Mr. Phillips in a 7-2 opinion, based particularly on the statements of the Colorado commissioners.

There are some very significant points that must be made to clarify this carefully written opinion.  Because of the great public anticipation over this case, there will be a tendency to make more of what was said than was actually said and mischaracterize the magnitude of this decision.

  1. Not a Matter of Freedom of Religion

The court did not render its opinion on the basis of religious freedom.  They did not declare that private business owners are free to discriminate based upon religious beliefs.  As a matter of fact, they said the opposite.

“It is the general rule that [religious and philosophical] objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny 

protected persons equal access to goods and public services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.” (Page 9)

“Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.” (Page 10)

Mr. Phillips made multiple statements asserting his refusal to make the cake was based upon religious conviction.  However, it seems the Court only references these objections for the purpose of condemning the Colorado commissioners’ apparent discriminatory statements voiced against Mr. Phillips.  This Court never asserted that Mr. Phillips was justified in his refusal based upon his right to religious freedom.  It is not clear that this is an overall victory for private business owners or Christians to publicly maintain their convictions.

  1. Clergy Cannot be Compelled

The court took time to clarify that it should be “assumed” that “when it comes to weddings”, “a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral 

and religious grounds could not be compelled to perform that ceremony without denial of his or her right to the free exercise of religion.”  (Page 10)  It seems interesting that the Court feels that it should be obvious and therefore not questioned that a professional clergy maintains full right to expression of their freedom of religion but a baker does not.  It would seem that the court sees the possession and expression of fundamental rights like freedom of religion as inherent in a profession rather inherent to all persons.

  1. It’s Not Freedom of Religion, It’s Freedom from Discrimination

This Court did not declare that Mr. Phillips’ personal religious objections justified his refusal to bake this cake.  Instead they took a safer and more politically correct approach by finding that the Colorado commissioners’ statements applied the Colorado public accommodation law in a discriminating and biased manner.  The Court says “the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws.” (Page 3) However, the government cannot use Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs as the basis for the application of their laws.  Justice Kennedy points out that when commissioners on the Colorado board made statements describing Mr. Phillips’ faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use,” and equating his refusal to design and create a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage to the acts of slavery and the holocaust they began down the path of discriminating against him.  In addition to these condemning statements, the Colorado commission had, at the same time, determined that three other bakers could refuse to bake cakes critical of gay marriage, contrary to their secular convictions, making clear their bias and discriminatory application of this otherwise “neutral” law.  The majority opinion determined that it was this discriminatory act by the Colorado commission that required the court to overturn this case.  Again, for the majority opinion, this appears not to be a case of religious freedom of expression, but one of unjust government discrimination.

  1. Not Legal Yet

The Court, almost in passing, also mentioned that Mr. Phillips’ may have been justified in his refusal to design and create this wedding cake, because Colorado had not legalized gay marriage yet.  His refusal, at that time, was not only in compliance with State law, but also a refusal to participate in an illegal activity.  Perhaps Kennedy added this point of fact as a way of publicly saying to business owners in States who have legalized gay marriage, you have no argument to withhold your services if State law compels service.

  1. What About Freedom of Speech?

There is one aspect of personal rights the majority opinion mentions but strangely never fleshes out; the matter of freedom of speech.  The majority court introduces the question; Is the government’s law forcing Mr. Phillips to design and create a cake contrary to his personal message, a violation of freedom of speech?  But then, in what seems to be a lapse of concentration, the majority opinion never answers this question definitively.  It isn’t until we get to Justice Thomas’ concurrence that we find a truly worthy discussion of this important element.  Thomas’ opinion on the matter of freedom of speech is so thorough and so supported by precedent it makes one wonder why the majority court refused to give this topic its due consideration.  Justice

Thomas points out that it is well within the history of the supreme Court to support the expression of offensive beliefs in the name of freedom of speech.  After all, he reminds us, if the burning of a flag or a 25 foot cross (Virginia v. Black), or designing and creating “a film featuring Klan members brandishing weapons and threatening to ‘Bury the niggers,’ (Brandenburg v. Ohio) are all protected speech, then surely designing and creating a cake ought to fit these categories as well.

By the terms laid out by Justice Thomas, this case should have absolutely been decided in favor of Mr. Phillips on the merits of freedom of speech.  Why the majority court would introduce this element, and then not complete its thought on the matter is puzzling.  Why the majority court would choose a single justification for their opinion when they could have had two compelling arguments is equally puzzling.

  1. The Dissent

One final matter worth discussing is the dissent written by Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor. Not surprisingly, Ginsburg feels that this case should have been decided in favor of the same-sex couple.  However, her argument against the majority opinion is so weak it makes clear her bias.  She does not address the fact that gay marriage was illegal at the time Mr. Phillips refused to design and created the cake.  She does not even broach the freedom of speech aspect.   Instead she asserts that the biased statements of a few commissioners against Mr. Phillips, during a government hearing in judgment of Mr. Phillips, do not rise to the level of “hostility” toward Mr. Phillips and therefore cannot be the justification for overturning this case.  Apparently, Ginsburg believes in a lower standard of discrimination for government than private citizens by claiming that these clear and impermissible words of hostility placed on the record by members of the commission and used as justification for their decision were not an exercise of content discrimination, yet the baker refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage, that was currently against the law, and violated his religious beliefs was discrimination.

TSA Secrets Violating Rights

TSA Secrets Violating Rights

By KrisAnne Hall, JD


According to a memo received by the New York Times (, in February of this year the TSA has developed a brand new “secret watch list.”   This list is for special people who don’t necessarily qualify for the big “No Fly” list, but for people individual agents of the TSA feel have been “offensive” or have created “challenges to the safe and effective completion of screening.”  So if you don’t like where the agent’s hands are roaming, or you question a TSA agent’s authority, motives, or honesty, you get to be on this new list.

According to the memo and anonymous TSA agents interviewed by the New York Times, being on this list allows other TSA agents to identify you as a “problem.”  The TSA claims the list cannot impel “extra screening” at checkpoints, but those of us who fly often know how ridiculous it can become when you are “randomly chosen” to for extra screening.

The feds already have multiple “watch lists” and being on this new list won’t put you on the “no fly” list, so why does the TSA need a new super-secret one? Kelly Wheaton, a T.S.A. deputy chief counsel says the TSA needs a list for passengers who have been demonstrably unruly at, or near, checkpoints.  Matthew F. Leas, a T.S.A. spokesman, said in an email to the NY Times, that the agency “wants to ensure there are safeguards in place to protect Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) and others from any individual who has exhibited disruptive or assaultive behavior at a screening checkpoint and is scheduled to fly.”

According to the NY Times, Federal security directors, top T.S.A. security officials at airports and top Air Marshals supervisors can nominate individuals to be put on the watch list. Only the T.S.A. administrator, his deputy and the top two officials at the agency’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis may add or remove people from the database.  The interesting thing, from a Constitutional standpoint, is that there is no notice given that you are being put on a list, and no apparent way for you request to be removed from this list.  If the government can secretly put an American on a list that could lead agents to identify that American and impose regulations or even lead to some kind of discriminatory activity, this is a violation of every American’s Right to Due Process; Rights that are expressly enumerated in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments.

Another serious Constitutional problem is that there is absolutely no oversite.  Congress is not privy to this list.  Congress is not establishing the policies that get someone on the list, nor have they established that people are noticed and a procedure to petition to be removed.  This is truly pure arbitrary power resting in the hands of individual agents.  This not a new dynamic, however, for the TSA and Congress, it is actually a designed one.

Most Americans do not know that the very congressional act that created the TSA, also established that airports could replace federal TSA agents with private security two years after the law was enacted.  However, in January 2011 when over 16 airports had “tried” to opt out, TSA refused to leave these airports and the director of the TSA put a “freeze” on the airports’ “ability” to opt out, Violating the very Act that created the TSA.  When the TSA violated this Act with their policies and actions, Congress didn’t step up and remind them of the existing law.  Instead, Congress passed a new law, HR 658, reasserting the “right” of the airports to opt out of TSA screeners and required the TSA to notify all airports of this “right.”  Yet, in a questionable move by Congress, within HR658, Congress gave the Secretary of Homeland Security, the directing agency over the TSA, the authority to approve or deny an airport’s “request” to transfer to private security screening.  In summary, Congress told the airports they had a “right” to opt out of federal screening and then put the TSA in charge of approving or denying this “right.”  If the TSA has the authority to approve or deny their own employment, then the airports do not possess a RIGHT to transfer to private screening, they merely possess a privilege granted by those they wish to remove.  Would that not mean that by all form and function, our airports are now occupied through force by the federal government?  That, by definition, is despotism.

Unfortunately, this point is proven by the fact that in 2011 Texas lawmakers attempted to pass a law outlawing TSA pat downs. The FAA responded immediately by threatening to turn Texas into a de facto “No Fly Zone” if the law was signed. Of course, Texas backed down.  If the federal government can deny a State’s right to internally govern itself, this is a violation of the delegation of powers expressly enumerated and a violation of the reserved powers of the States expressly identified in the 10th Amendment.

Representative Bonnie Watson Coleman, Democrat of New Jersey, said during a House homeland security subcommittee hearing. “What I don’t want — what I think no American would want — is an excuse for unfair, secret profiling that doesn’t even offer a chance for people to contest their name appearing on such a list…I am concerned about the civil-liberty implications of such a list.”  Hugh Handeyside, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Washington Post, the policy gives the agency wide latitude to “blacklist people arbitrarily and essentially punish them for asserting their rights.”  WE ALL should be concerned about the implications of a single agent, within a federal agency, possessing unlimited and unchecked power!  Those who fought for the foundations of America lived through a nearly identical exercise of federal power.  For those living under British Rule in 1761, they called these laws, “the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law-book.”  If you would like a history refresher, so you can see the alarming parallels with today’s TSA, you can read this article on the history of our 4th Amendment.

There is no constitutional authority for the TSA to exist, much less wield unchecked power within the states.  This unconstitutional agency was created by Congress through the pretense of “national security” and it is failing miserably.  According to the LA Times, ( and watch-dog James Bovard of USA Today, “the Department of Homeland Security concluded last year that TSA officers and equipment had failed to detect mock threats roughly 80% of the time.  In Minneapolis, an undercover team succeeded in smuggling weapons and mock bombs past airport screeners 95% of the time.  An earlier DHS investigation found the TSA utterly unable to detect weapons, fake explosives and other contraband, regardless of how extensive its pat-downs were.”  Americans have been deceived into trading their essential liberties for a completely non-existent security. We have a private or state option that would likely be more effective and one that could more closely overseen through the states.

Congress has created this monster. They have made TSA above check and balance, above the law and Congress, and above the Constitution itself: not only the 4th Amendment, but also the 1st Amendment, 6th Amendment, 7th Amendment, 8th Amendment, & 10th Amendment.  It is time for the American people to stand up to Congress, the DHS, and the TSA and assert our Right to keep ourselves “secure.”  It is time Americans replace this ineffective, intrusive, and secretive unchecked system with one that follows the law and the Constitution and where the States protect the internal security of the people and the feds are limited to the specifically enumerated powers.

Get the book “Sovereign Duty” to learn what the designers of our Constitution wanted Americans to do when their federal government became bloated and out of control.  Find this book on Amazon, Books-A-Million, Barns & Noble, Wal-Mart, and many other merchants.

The Enlightenment of Experience

Alexander Hamilton said that experience is the oracle of truth. Patrick Henry said we have one lamp by which our feet are guided, the lamp of experience. Today, it seems, some chickens are coming home to roost and KrisAnne gets the opportunity to say, “history told you so.”

Alternatively you can listen to this edition of “The KrisAnne Hall Show” on YouTube

Lower Inflation But Why Don't You Have More Money?


I would like to introduce to you, as a guest author, a friend of mine, Victor Sperandeo, also known in his world as “Trader Vic.”  I recently asked him a question, “Why do we hear that the economy is improving but it seems like Americans still do not have ‘extra’ money to spend.  Victor answered my question, by sending me this article and teaching me an economics lesson.  I am sharing this lesson with you, because I found it so educational.  Hope you learn something, too.

Victor Sperandeo serves as the President and CEO of Alpha Financial Technologies, LLC (AFT), is a founding partner of EAM Partners L.P. (EAM), and serves as the President and CEO of its general partner, EAM Corporation.  Victor Sperandeo is a trader, index developer, and financial commentator based in Dallas, Texas. He has over 45 years’ Wall Street experience trading both independently and for many notable investors.  Mr. Sperandeo is widely regarded as an expert in commodities, particularly in the energy and metals sectors. His market crash prediction during the September 1987 Barron’s interview earned him great recognition and highlighted his deep understanding of financial markets.   Author of three books detailing his philosophy: Trader Vic — Methods of a Wall Street Master, Trader Vic II — Principles of Professional Speculation, and Trader Vic on Commodities: What’s Unknown, Misunderstood, and Too Good To Be True    2008 Inductee into the Trader Hall of Fame by Trader Magazine and included on Ziad Adelnour’s list of top 100 Wall Streeters


Inflation: Why Hasn’t It Increased?

By Victor Sperandeo


I want to discuss why inflation hasn’t increased during the past decade. Ironically, inflation has decreased to 56-year lows during the period from 2009 to 2017.  During this time U.S. debt virtually doubled, with M-2 compounding at 6% from December 2008 to April 2018. The Federal Reserve and leading economists have said they don’t know the answer.

To have inflation commodity prices must perform better.  Commodities are non-correlated to stocks and bonds while they are highly correlated to inflation, volatile interest rates, and high or rising GDP growth rates. All of these were at historic U.S. 240-year lows over the last 9 years.  Using the CPI to represent inflation, inflation made continuous new lows ending in 2017 at a compounded rate of 1.61% on a ten-year rolling annual basis. The five-year rolling annual rate also made new lows but has since recovered by 7 basis points. Since 1961 the five-year low was 1.36% (2012-2016), but now from 2013-2017 is 1.43%.

The reasons for the decline in these economic barometers were the policies of President Obama.  The “change” brought to the nation included increased regulations (see Todd/Frank), higher taxes for everyone (see the end of the Bush tax cuts in 2012), and the creation of Obamacare, a.k.a. the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  The ACA was effectively a huge tax on the middle class disguised as an insurance policy, which was then redistributed to the lower class, who got health care insurance policies at way below the market prices, by subsidizing the insurance companies. As a consequence, Obama transformed America into a virtual Corporatist/quasi-Socialist State. Today the U.S. is essentially an oligarchy of party leaders and federal judges, who are controlled and heavily influenced by multinational corporations, and outside special interests. They operate much like cartels. In short, we now have government similar to that of a banana republic.

Therefore, with 0% nominal Fed Funds rates for seven years and three large Quantitative Easing (QE) programs, combined with an increase in the Federal Reserve Balance sheet from $800 billion to $4.5 trillion, why isn’t inflation at least approaching historic compounded levels of 3.10% that were seen between 1913 and 2017? The primary reason is: when you execute extraordinary amounts of printing of paper money via QE, i.e. buying government debt, and other assets, such as mortgages, the cash created “out of thin air” goes only to the very few investors who own those assets in large quantities. No inflation occurs,

as those investors don’t spend that money, but rather invest it in assets such as equities, real estate, other debt, and art.  Prices for these assets rose to historic levels as a consequence. This is called “wealth creation” instead of inflation.  This Fed monetary and tax policy is also encouraging corporate stock buyback programs, which caused the velocity (or turnover) of money (via M2) to decline to the lowest level in 60 years, or 1.4 times. This, coupled with a lack of investment in new plant and equipment – causing capital expenditures to decline – resulted in a major decline in productivity to 0.7.  That in turn had led to stagnant medium incomes over the last 20 years. (This doesn’t even take into account the Free Trade thinking that caused the 19.8 million manufacturing jobs to decline to 11 million since NAFTA was enacted.)

If the bulk of people don’t get the money, they can’t spend beyond their revolving credit card limits. Household non-revolving credit debt (house equity and auto loans) is at record highs as of January 2018.  Total household debt is $13.2 trillion, also a new record. Credit card interest rates average 19.9% and range from 9.9% (often only as a promotional rate) to 29%. Contrast this to corporate debt which despite being at record levels costs around 3% to 3.25% on seven-year term debt.  This is the rate corporations are paying to borrow money to buy back stock. Inequality exponentially increases while the middle-class standard of living steadily declines; meanwhile low but steady inflation still takes its toll (for which nobody blames the Federal Reserve?).

Since 2008, “financial repression” has been in effect with interest rates below inflation. This is why stocks go up but no major actual inflation occurs. In effect, it is a method of government theft of individual savings; inflation is a stealth tax.  So, people hoard more as they earn less and their savings decline. For

example, the 90-day Treasury Bill yield at the end of March was 1.71%, while the CPI was +2.36% year over year.  This makes government and corporate borrowing virtually free. Historically (since 1926) T-Bills have traded at a compounded rate of 70 bps above CPI, not 75 to 50 bps below CPI. This is what is meant by “Government is created to serve the rich, while enslaving the poor.”

Moreover, these increases in government debt are not sustainable.  This is an existential threat to our Constitutional Republic’s political structure. Normally a nation with a printing press never defaults by bankruptcy, but rather by hyperinflation. This in turn historically has led to authoritarian dictatorships (see Napoleon and Nazi Germany). I should also mention these schemes of “Universal Basic Income” such as Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is proposing would most likely cause hyperinflation, as people would get free money estimated at $36,000 a year per family, and certainly they would spend it.

In June 2017 the CBO projected that total stated debt would grow to $30.7 trillion in 2028 (up from the current $21 trillion).  However, in March 2018 that estimate was increased to $33.2 trillion, or an additional $254 billion per year.  Interestingly, they also raised their revenue estimate over the same period by over $1 trillion (even after the latest tax cuts).  So, these higher debt projections already take into account increasing revenue!  This assumes no recession during the period, which I estimate would increase debt by additional $12 trillion (making US debt $45 trillion). Not to mention our unfunded liabilities which could be anywhere from $100 trillion to $220 trillion in ten years going forward.

It should be noted that the longest recovery since 1854 – when the NBER began to keep track of such statistics – was 120 months.  We would reach 121 months in our current recovery in July 2019.  To think (via the CBO projections) the US can go 10 more years in recovery (for a total of 227 consecutive months) is like assuming the US will win the lottery; it may not be impossible, but it is highly unlikely. That is, unless you’re a politician (or the CBO) who lies for a living. Certainly, the borrowed times we live in will not be the future we assume we know?

At the bottom line are two fallacies. The first is the idea that paper money wealth will protect you, and what you see in asset prices around the world is accurate. Interest rates are manipulated by governments to the extremes in the history of civilization.  Therefore, we come to the second fallacy: the belief that prices are real.

How is this mindset allowed to persist, and why is this growing danger consistently ignored? This kind of thinking is based on “perception policy” to keep the sham going.  The situation was best described by Ayn Rand in her novel The Fountainhead: “The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident, which everybody has decided not to see.