Joy Villa, the singer and songwriter who blew the media’s’ minds when she wore her custom-made dress that had the famous “Trump-Pence: Make America Great Again!” slogan on it to the 2017 Grammy Awards, DESTROYED the media yet again.
In an appearance on Fox Business, Villa takes on the infamous Hollywood, Liberal hacks in the media and more importantly, the celebrities who force their liberal ideologies on others. In the interview, Villa says, “[Emmy’s are] a bunch of Hollywood elitists, talking about Hollywood elitists, talking about how great Hollywood elitists are.” She took them on in response to the Emmy’s, which was all just a pro-liberal, anti-conservative night for the actual elite.
— FOX Business (@FoxBusiness) September 18, 2017
Like and Share to SHUT THE HOLLYWOOD ELITE UP!
You Might also like
By Chelsea Betonie — 7 months ago
ROTHSCHILD PUBLICATION PREDICTS SINGLE WORLD CURRENCY WILL BE PUT IN PLACE AS EARLY AS 2018; HELLO NEW WORLD ORDER
The Rothschild-controlled Economist magazine published an article 30 years ago that highlighted the proabability of a world currency by the year 2018.
Thefreethoughtproject.com reports: One must also keep in mind that the controlling interest of The Economist is held by the powerful Rothschild family, who regard themselves as the “custodians of The Economist magazine’s legacy.” In essence, the magazine operates as a quasi-propaganda arm for the Rothschild banking empire and related businesses and, is in many ways, meant to prime the pump of public opinion for the globalist agenda to be implemented.
The excerpt below appeared in the print magazine on January 9, 1988, in Vol. 306, pp 9-10.
Ready for the Phoenix
THIRTY years from now, Americans, Japanese, Europeans, and people in many other rich countries, and some relatively poor ones will probably be paying for their shopping with the same currency. Prices will be quoted not in dollars, yen or D-marks but in, let’s say, the phoenix. The phoenix will be favoured by companies and shoppers because it will be more convenient than today’s national currencies, which by then will seem a quaint cause of much disruption to economic life in the last twentieth century.
At the beginning of 1988 this appears an outlandish prediction. Proposals for eventual monetary union proliferated five and ten years ago, but they hardly envisaged the setbacks of 1987. The governments of the big economies tried to move an inch or two towards a more managed system of exchange rates – a logical preliminary, it might seem, to radical monetary reform. For lack of co-operation in their underlying economic policies they bungled it horribly, and provoked the rise in interest rates that brought on the stock market crash of October. These events have chastened exchange-rate reformers. The market crash taught them that the pretence of policy co-operation can be worse than nothing, and that until real co-operation is feasible (i.e., until governments surrender some economic sovereignty) further attempts to peg currencies will flounder.The New World Economy
The biggest change in the world economy since the early 1970’s is that flows of money have replaced trade in goods as the force that drives exchange rates. as a result of the relentless integration of the world’s financial markets, differences in national economic policies can disturb interest rates (or expectations of future interest rates) only slightly, yet still call forth huge transfers of financial assets from one country to another. These transfers swamp the flow of trade revenues in their effect on the demand and supply for different currencies, and hence in their effect on exchange rates. As telecommunications technology continues to advance, these transactions will be cheaper and faster still. With unco-ordinated economic policies, currencies can get only more volatile.
In all these ways national economic boundaries are slowly dissolving. As the trend continues, the appeal of a currency union across at least the main industrial countries will seem irresistible to everybody except foreign-exchange traders and governments. In the phoenix zone, economic adjustment to shifts in relative prices would happen smoothly and automatically, rather as it does today between different regions within large economies (a brief on pages 74-75 explains how.) The absence of all currency risk would spur trade, investment and employment.
The phoenix zone would impose tight constraints on national governments. There would be no such thing, for instance, as a national monetary policy. The world phoenix supply would be fixed by a new central bank, descended perhaps from the IMF. The world inflation rate – and hence, within narrow margins, each national inflation rate- would be in its charge. Each country could use taxes and public spending to offset temporary falls in demand, but it would have to borrow rather than print money to finance its budget deficit. With no recourse to the inflation tax, governments and their creditors would be forced to judge their borrowing and lending plans more carefully than they do today. This means a big loss of economic sovereignty, but the trends that make the phoenix so appealing are taking that sovereignty away in any case. Even in a world of more-or-less floating exchange rates, individual governments have seen their policy independence checked by an unfriendly outside world.
As the next century approaches, the natural forces that are pushing the world towards economic integration will offer governments a broad choice. They can go with the flow, or they can build barricades. Preparing the way for the phoenix will mean fewer pretended agreements on policy and more real ones. It will mean allowing and then actively promoting the private-sector use of an international money alongside existing national monies. That would let people vote with their wallets for the eventual move to full currency union. The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right is today. In time, though, its value against national currencies would cease to matter, because people would choose it for its convenience and the stability of its purchasing power.
The alternative – to preserve policymaking autonomy- would involve a new proliferation of truly draconian controls on trade and capital flows. This course offers governments a splendid time. They could manage exchange-rate movements, deploy monetary and fiscal policy without inhibition, and tackle the resulting bursts of inflation with prices and incomes polices. It is a growth-crippling prospect. Pencil in the phoenix for around 2018, and welcome it when it comes.
Only ten years later, in 1998, The Economist was once again engaging the public in an effort to forward the globalist agenda, with an article entitled “One world, one money.”
Very much in line with the 1988 piece, the publication attempts to explain why a much more centralized and controlled system would be beneficial to the global economy, while wholly ignoring the fact that such a centralized global currency would be a massive coup for the international banking cartel, and the Rothschild banking empire’s financial bottom line.
Additionally, it must be noted that the creation of a global currency would give an inordinate amount of geopolitical capital to unelected international bankers, and subsequently take power away from the citizens of each nation and their respective governmental representatives.
Does anyone really want international bankers to have such a vast amount of political power on top of the massive financial influence and sway they already hold in the halls of power?People want more say in their own lives, not having policy dictated to them by international banksters and bureaucrats.
Control over a nation’s money supply is, for all intents and purposes, the lifeblood of a state’s sovereignty – without this independence, the state only exists in name but is subservient to supranational powers whose interests lie outside of domestic and national political/economic concerns.
“GIVE ME CONTROL OF A NATION’S MONEY SUPPLY, AND I CARE NOT WHO MAKES ITS LAWS,” said Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty.
Although the Rothschild family now generally keep a very low public profile, they still have significant business operations across a wide spectrum of sectors. While you may not find any one particular Rothschild on the Forbes’ most rich list, the family is estimated to control $1 trillion dollars in assets across the globe, thus having a strong voice across the geopolitical spectrum that many perceive as a hidden hand manipulating events silently from behind a veil of secrecy and silence.
Are you starting to get the picture?
By Manly Man — 1 month ago
Infamous hacker, named Guccifer 2.0 hacked his way into the Clinton Foundation databases and uncovered some of the most damning evidence to date of the Clinton corruption. Here’s his message below and he got impatient and did some digging himself.
“Many of you have been waiting for this, some even asked me to do it. So, this is the moment. I hacked the Clinton Foundation server and downloaded hundreds of thousands of docs and donors’ databases.”
When Barack Obama demanded that congress approves more bailouts in 2009-11, it seems the big banks through the Clinton Foundation offered kickbacks to Democratic politicians, including crooked Hillary, to make sure the bailout was approved.
Somehow crooked Hillary also aided the big banks to bribe Democrat politicians. Guccifer wrote, “DEMOCRATS FUNNELED TARP FUNDS BACK TO THEIR PACS! That’s taxpayer bailout money that went right to the pockets of Democrat PACs!”
Yup. That’s right. Our money went right to the Democrats and their shady, back handed, back alley deals with the big banks. How are these people still running this country?
“Hillary Clinton and her staff don’t even bother about the information security. It was just a matter of time to gain access to the Clinton Foundation server. It looks like big banks and corporations agreed to donate to the Democrats a certain percentage of the allocated TARP funds.”
This is exactly why we cannot allow this kind of corruption and fraudulent practice to continue in Washington. America is floundering and we have only the Democrats to thank. – Proud Cons
By Manly Man — 6 months ago
While mainstream media outlets continue to attack Melanie Trump, another former First Lady comes to her defense with words of praise.
Laura Bush has first hand experience with the difficulties surrounding life as the FLOTUS and since vacating the position has chosen to stay out of the limelight regarding the performances of her predecessors, until now. In a recent interview with CNN, Laura Bush presented an attitude of admiration when discussing Melania Trump and the fabulous job she is doing so far.
Every First Lady has an important ‘project’ that tends to be their sole purpose while trailing their husbands in terms of political campaigns. Hillary focused on healthcare, Michelle focused on health and nutrition for America’s youth through school meal plans and Laura Bush focused on literature and libraries. Now it’s Melania’s turn and media scrutiny is bursting as is typical with anything regarding the First Family.
While Laura Bush is known for keeping to herself regarding these topics, her norm changed when Melania came into the picture because despite the stellar job she is doing, and try to remember she is a foreigner who barely speaks the language, media outlets continue to display purely negative reporting and Laura strongly disagrees.
“I just think she’s doing a lovely job,” Bush told CNN as reported by the Washington Examiner, “She’s a beautiful woman. She’s a wonderful representative for the United States.”
Laura said she has spoken to the Trump’s when she visited for tea and wishes them the “very, very best.”
“I know what it’s like to live there,” she added, “I know how difficult every decision is and what the scrutiny is by everyone that has an opinion, every single person has an opinion on the people that live there, and I’m certainly aware of that.”
Take a look, Hillary and Michelle, because that’s is the classy way to treat a women taking on a difficult role that you yourself struggled with, and without an unfounded level of criticism that make matters even worse.