Everyone knows that gas prices have been climbing, with no end in sight. There's good reason to assume that the price will continue to spike above $10 a gallon sooner rather than later. Here's why.

Although the U.S. has stopped buying Russian oil, the challenge remains that Russia is one of the largest global producers and exporters of oil. There is no way to completely remove Russian oil from the market without sending oil prices much higher — perhaps to $200 a barrel.

Further, as oil prices go higher it increases the appeal of Russia’s oil. Right now, China and India, for example, have tremendous incentive to buy discounted Russian oil.

I believe that Robert Rapier is correct. And it's for that reason that oil will make it to $200+ per barrel. Russia is not going to stop what it's doing in Ukraine, until its objectives are met. Sanctions aren't going to have the desired effect on Russia, because Russia gammed this out a long time ago.

Of course the Legacy/Main Stream Media will blame all of this on Russia's invasion of Ukraine. When in reality, it will be politically-based economic policy that causes global economic destruction. Not Russia.

Things are going to get MUCH worse before they get better.

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

Abbott is the company that was shutdown by the FDA, after some babies became sick and two died from bacterial infections traced back to baby formula. The strange thing is that the offending bacteria -- wasn't found at the Abbott plant.

As parents across the U.S. are scrambling to find baby formula because of supply disruptions, the Food and Drug Administration announced Tuesday it would allow some formula products from the shuttered Abbott facility in Michigan to be released on a "case-by-case" basis.

In February, the FDA warned parents not to use certain popular powdered infant formulas manufactured at Abbott's Sturgis plant after receiving four reports of infants who were hospitalized with bacterial infections after consuming formula from the facility. Two of the infants died.

Abbott subsequently issued a recall of all potentially affected products manufactured at the facility and the FDA later shut down the plant after federal safety inspectors found Abbott failed to maintain sanitary conditions and procedures at the facility.

Last month, however, the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told NBC News none of the bacterial strains taken at the Abbott plant matched those collected from the infants, and the agencies haven't offered an explanation for how the contamination occurred.

For its part, Abbott says its formula “is not likely the source of infection,” though the FDA says its investigation continues.

When it comes to food products the FDA usually works very quickly. The FDA usually locates the source of a food born illness relatively quickly. Because of the manufacturing process, and the tracking that's required for baby formula and other foods, finding the cause is rather routine.

All of this seems fishy to me, because the bacteria that was causing illness, was not found at the Abbott plant. It's also strange because it would be unlikely for bacteria to be in sealed dry baby formula containers. These containers are heated to above 165ºF for 15 + minutes, to make sure that there is no bacteria in the formula.

This of course begs the question, where did the bacteria come from if it wasn't in the baby formula. It also begs the question, why would they allow distribution on a case by case basis if the FDA still suspected the baby food. The only other question is, if the FDA knows that the source of the bacteria wasn't the baby formula, why keep the plant shutdown?

Considering all of the other incidents to happen lately involving the food supply, the questions just keep coming. Why is all of this happening right now? How can we have 20 some-odd food processing plants burn down in (1) year? These are things that run 24-7 and have managed to keep running for years -- without fire incidents. The probability that this many strange things related to the food supply would happen within such a short period of time is HIGHLY unlikely.

Something isn't right...

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

It has been leaked (on purpose) that the SCOTUS will strike down Roe v. Wade. But there is a back story to this that is VERY important, and it has little to do with abortion.

When you watch mainstream TV. Most of the shows would have you believe that every other person in your neighborhood is gay or LGBTQ+. They want America to believe that the majority of the country are living like "Will and Grace." The old seasons, not the new anti-Trump episodes. but that is just not the case. The vast majority of Americans are straight.

Netflix and Disney are the biggest examples of this. They perpetuate a false narrative that many more people are LGBTQ+ than actually are. Why would they do this? Because it allows their narrative to work. Their narrative is false, and it relies on a constant barrage of propaganda to keep it alive. Roe v. Wade is another piece of propaganda. Yes, it is a real court ruling, but it's top-down legislating from the SCOTUS. And there's a very good reason why the left hangs on to Roe v. Wade so tightly.

The big secret is that the vast majority of Americans are actually against abortion. Striking down Roe v. Wade would put the issue of abortion back in the hands of the states. Individual states would draft legislation to address abortion rights. Why is that such a big deal? It's a big deal because the majority of states will vote to ban abortion, and the left KNOWS this.

This is also a big deal, because it will expose the lie. The lie that there are tons of people all over the country who are in favor of abortion. The left isn't truly interested in abortion, they could care less whether or not people choose to have children or not. However, they do care that one of their largest narratives might be proven false -- after almost 50 years.

Roe v. Wade is the corner stone to the SCOTUS legislating from the bench, creating rights that were never in The Constitution. That I believe is what they are most concerned about. They are concerned that they might not be able to use the court to "create" law.

The fact that we know more states than not are going to ban abortion; just adds to the failing of the narrative. Because when the American people see that the majority of Americans actually do not agree with abortion, it all comes falling down. Not only that, but people will be angry at the level of manipulation and deception. All of those people out there who are being paid to protest in front of the SCOTUS building, they will also be exposed.

How can you get that many people together to protest something -- when the majority of Americans don't support it? The short answer is you can't, unless you pay them. Roe v. Wade is basically the biggest "psyop" the left has been able to keep going, and for the longest time. When that falls, many more things will follow it.

Let's see how this plays out, or will the SCOTUS bend against the pressure of fake protestors?

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it, I'm looking for conversation... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

For the first time in American history, single family housing will become a depreciating asset.

Somewhere around 35% of the properties in our HOA are owned by some corporate property management company. I'm not sure how many of those companies are foreign owned or not.

I'm receiving around 2-3 calls a day from some place offering to purchase my home.

I really do think this is part of the whole, "You'll own nothing, and you'll be happy." WEF plan. If you pay attention, they say in the video clip that millennials are the prime market for these homes. Most millennials can't afford to buy a home now, because of the inflated prices. These companies are using their purchasing power to help drive up the cost of home ownership on purpose.

The Tricon CEO says that the corporate home ownership in the market is 2%, but that's not the real issue. The rental price inflation starts when property is over valued. This can not be by mistake. Why weren't they doing this right after the market drop? Right after 2008, when they could have purchased the homes at a much cheaper amount? But they didn't, at least not to the extent that they are doing it now.

These companies are using the money from "investors" to do this. Blackstone, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, these are some of the same companies that own the majority share of almost all of the companies in the world. This isn't done for investment, because if it were, the would be the world's worst investors. Why would you invest when the market is high? Unless THEY plan to drive the price even higher at some point.

Similarly, the inflated prices will drive increased property taxes, making home ownership even less attractive/attainable.

Owning a home will no longer be an "investment" because nearly all individual buyers will be priced out of the market. Once enough of the homes are owned by these multinational companies, they will essentially control the prices in the housing market entirely. They are all owned on the back-end by the same investors, so they won't compete against themselves, but they can keep the prices so high that individuals can't buy in. Selling a house will be like selling a car, you'll never get a good return on investment! These corporate property groups are like the Carmax of houses.

I believe this is absolutely intentional and designed specifically to keep individuals from owning property. This is a huge global racket designed to destroy American generational wealth. And the American people are getting the shaft!

This is no different than the death tax. The death tax hurts farmers the most, because they are land rich, so what does the IRS do? They tax the land after death, so the generational owners are forced to sell. And the same three companies are back funding "investment" firms that are buying up farm land as well.

NONE OF THIS IS COINCIDENTAL. For the longest time it seemed that way, because it could be explained away, but it's becoming more obvious by the day. Our own government -- our "elected" officials are quite literally selling the country out from under us!

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it, I'm looking for conversation... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

This has to be one of the most ridiculous pieces I've read in a while.

Americans who followed the four-day confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson last week were treated to a rare display of brilliance, principle and unflappability that demonstrate her fitness, to say the very least, to sit on the nation’s high court. The next step should be obvious and simple. Jackson should be confirmed without delay.

The nominee was forbearing and masterful in responding to the series of non sequiturs hurled at her during long days of questioning by a handful of strutting, preening Republican senators more concerned with the coming midterm elections and their social media mentions than with determining whether Jackson has the integrity and the intellect needed in a Supreme Court justice. Her testimony showed that she does, and her straightforward responses to questions about irrelevant political and policy matters showed the remarkable measure of both knowledge and patience that enabled her to be such a capable trial judge.

No current justice besides Sonia Sotomayor has served as a trial judge, leaving the court nearly bereft of an essential perspective on the judicial system's keystone element.

In many other ways, Jackson's experience is much like the justices she will be joining. She earned her law degree from Harvard, as did four of the current justices (four others got theirs from Yale). She clerked for a prior Supreme Court justice, as did five of the sitting justices. She worked for elite law firms and served as an appellate court judge.

This piece doesn't "read" like an editorial, it reads like someone did a copy and paste job from a "free resume" website.

It contains zero substance, and is designed to make the reader believe that when Ketanji Brown Jackson was questioned that she answered brilliantly. Not only that, but that she was asked irrelevant questions, because Republicans are worried about the midterms. Democrats are not concerned about the midterms, while their approval ratings continue to drop? That's what the article would suggest.

That's all you see, what I quoted above, unless you click a link to continue reading. How many people are going to click to continue reading? I'll give you a hint, not many. There's no substance in the first few paragraphs, why would anyone assume that there would be any additional substance in the rest of the article?

This "editorial" was specifically designed to put the idea in people's heads that Ketanji Brown Jackson is brilliant, and no further investigation is needed.

Ketanji Brown Jackson would be a horrible pick for the SCOTUS. The most obvious reason she should not sit on the SCOTUS is simple; the people who appointed KBJ wanted to use the federal government to force private businesses to comply with illegal mandates. Specifically mandates that required employees (belonging to companies with more than 100 employees) to take an experimental vaccine.

We know that the Biden regime wants to force vaccinations, and they went to court to fight for the right to use the federal government to force people to take experimental vaccines. Why would the Biden regime appoint a SCOTUS judge, who wouldn't support their agenda?

Nobody bets against themselves...

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it, I'm looking for conversation... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"