Billionaire ‘I Don’t Want a Nation of Thinkers I Want a Nation of Workers’ Housing Unaffordability Impacts Your Future – Problems, Causes, Cures Buffett-Gates Tips U.S. MHVille Analysis MHMarkets


65 to 70 percent of the country consistently say in polling that the nation is on the wrong track. A famous billionaire will be cited below who said the paraphrased headline remark: ‘I Don’t Want a Nation of Thinkers, I Want a Nation of Workers.’ There is plenty of blame to go around, but let’s save blame or embarrassment for another time. The first step in problem solving is understanding the problem, said Zig Ziglar. The genius Albert Einstein shared two related quips. “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” Einstein also said: “If I had an hour to solve a problem, I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about the solutions.” That can be rephrased like this: to keep doing the same things the same way fits the popular definition of insanity.

Understanding is necessary to properly solve a problem, any problem, period.  Those points are true for the growing problem of a lack of affordable housing in the U.S. These notions are also true for a broader range of human experiences, as this foundational news-analysis will explore.


Part I – What Fortune Said About Affordable Housing Crisis

According to a new report on left-leaning Fortune: “What the Fed did,” Redfin’s CEO Glenn Kelman said, “will have a 30-year tail on it. There’s going to be low supply for a long time to come unless America really gets [religious] again about building houses.” Also per that same source are the following insights.

QuoteMarksLeftSideThe Federal Reserve has a dual mandate: maximum employment and price stability. When inflation began creeping up (eventually hitting a four-decade high), the Fed took action. The Fed raised interest rates 11 times in less than two years, and as a result, mortgage rates skyrocketed. The historically low mortgage rates people were used to, were gone. So anyone who locked in a below-market rate, or were simply mortgage free, held onto their homes because to sell would mean giving up an insanely low rate that may never return.

What that’s done is exacerbate an existing housing supply crunch. The country is missing anywhere between two million and seven million homes. The lock-in effect only made that worse by curbing for-sale inventory, despite there being some demand. The housing market froze, and existing home sales fell to their lowest point in almost 30 years. Things have improved since, but we’re not in the clear by any means, and there will likely be reverberations felt across the housing market for decades,” wrote Alena Botros. She quoted Kelman saying the following.

“We need more listings, especially of single-family homes,” he said. “Consumer demand is still strong enough that prices keep going up. Home affordability is the big issue for almost every homeowner and every potential homebuyer. We need more supply.”

Botros’ report on Kellman’s take dovetail in several respects with another report that MHProNews recently covered. The right-leaning Daily Signal, Center Square pointed to similar facts and factors that have led to the dramatic increase in housing costs. As their report indicated, would be homeowners need 80 precent more income to qualify today than they did just 4 years ago.  While these facts create potential opportunities for manufactured housing (see the first report below for details), that potential is obviously not being properly tapped.  The evidence for that is found in the facts produced that reveal how new HUD Code manufactured home production crashed for some 15 months before that sharp slide finally flattened out and slightly rose year-over-year in January 2024. Note that while Botros pegged that housing shortage at 2 to 7 million units, based on an array of previously cited sources MHProNews suspects that the shortage is more in the 6-to-10-million-unit range.  But in any event, there is widespread agreement that the shortage is massive. As the report linked here reveals in a brief summary of cited sources, conventional construction alone cannot close that housing gap. At this moment in time, the only proven technology that can close the housing shortage gap in a cost-effective fashion in a sufficient volume is HUD Code manufactured homes. Which means that the manufactured home industry’s poor performance is all the more troubling. Spotlights ‘Inflation Woes’ Study – ‘Would Be Homeowners Need 80% More Income to Buy Than 4 Years Ago’ But Incomes Up Only 23 Percent, More MHVille Facts with Analysis; MHEquities Fall



Part II – Progressives and the Lack of Progress in Affordable Housing 

Another quick example will help set the table for what follows. For decades, there have been those in power who have said that the problems we face are so complex that we need bigger government and more taxed and borrowed money to do the required fixes. We as a nation needed experts, or so the “progressives” have often claimed.

  • But if that were true, then why is it that with bigger promises, plenty of experts, and record spending, the current party in power has only delivered worse outcomes for the vast majority of the U.S. population?
  • Another question ought to be: who benefits from the status quo? The answer will seem obvious to some, but MHProNews will spell it out.

Before proceeding, let’s note as a useful disclosure that MHProNews’ parent organization is managed by political independents, who for over a decade have not been registered with either major party, nor any minor ones. That isn’t said to encourage others to be independents, because frankly, depending on a person’s state, there may be advantages to be registered with this or that party. Being an independent politically is simply a fact to be considered in digesting what follows.

That said, an author on Forbes aptly noted that before you even start Einstein’s 55 minutes, someone must: “First, prepare yourself, physically, intellectually, and emotionally.” Here is what that remark should mean.

You may find that your beliefs are being confirmed in this report with analysis. If so, fine. But if you find that some aspect of your thinking is revealed as flawed based on evidence, known facts, and clear thinking, guess what? Some degree of change will be needed. As a disclosure for new readers, this writer had to make several changes over the years, based on new evidence and understanding.

To paraphrase an old adage: “If I can change my thinking and behavior, then you can change your thinking and behavior too.”

  • Why is it that the so-called Establishment elites are benefiting from the past few years, when Democrats – who currently dominate the federal government – promised a more equitable society?
  • Did you see the rich actually being taxed more during the first 3 plus years of Biden-Harris, as Democrats have talked about doing for years on end?
  • Did you see the poor or working classes benefit more in the last few years?
  • Nor are social problems limited to Democrats. There is at least periodic help for Democrats from some so-called “establishment” or RINO Republicans too. Some more definitions and linked evidence to these points will follow later in this article that may clarify notions for those who might benefit from them.



The Biden-Harris ticket made numerous promises in the runup to the 2020 election.  But what has been the obvious outcome? After three full years in office, from sources that span the left-right spectrum, the facts are clear. The rich have gotten richer, even though Democrats claim to be the party of the poor, minorities, disadvantaged, retirees, and the working class. The majority of Americans are effectively poorer. The ability to buy an affordable home has been undermined, as sources cited in Part I above demonstrated.

Most of the population, regardless of political – or no political party affiliation – have suffered under so-called “Bidenomics.” Who says? Even left-leaning sources such as FactCheck.


“The income needed to comfortably afford a home is up 80% since 2020, while median income has risen 23% in that time,” the report states. That equates to $47,000 more than four years ago.
“Home shoppers today need to make more than $106,000 to comfortably afford a home,” according to the report. “That is 80% more than in January 2020.” – per the Center Square on 3.14.2024 based on Zillow Research. Note: depending on your browser or device, many images in this report and others on MHProNews can be clicked to expand. Click the image and follow the prompts. For example, in some browsers/devices you click the image and select ‘open in a new window.’ After clicking that selection you click the image in the open window to expand the image to a larger size. To return to this page, use your back key, escape or follow the prompts.


Bidenomics and Biden-Harris policies feature higher prices, higher interest rates, more overseas conflicts, largely open borders, massive levels of illegal immigration, rising federal debt, and more money being spent on federal debt service. Because the dollar has been untethered to a gold or silver standard for decades, what is commonly called the effects of ‘inflation’ – more specifically, a loss of purchasing power for the ‘paper’ dollar – has become a common feature of U.S. society. Other nations may have similar issues.


Bigger and Smaller Trends Impact Everyday Americans, Including Migrants

That noted, each one of those megatrends undermine working people in numerous ways. But let’s focus on migrants for a few moments, which currently is a top issue in the U.S., per public opinion polling.

  • Millions have entered the U.S. illegally since Biden-Harris took office.
  • Some migrants crossing the southern border with Mexico die making the trip.
  • Numbers of those migrants are raped.
  • Some of those illegal immigrants are forced into sex or drug trafficking. These are well established facts.
  • Regardless of sanctuary city, state, or de facto federal policies, the fate of those illegal migrants is quite different – more precarious in some ways – than those who have entered the U.S. legally.

So, while a lure has been created using nonprofits, social media, and other mechanisms that has attracted millions into entering the U.S. in the past 3 years, the more honest migrants (because some have reportedly been released from jails from countries like Venezuela) are seemingly pawns in what might be called a big shell game.

So, don’t let some talking heads or social media posts try to persuade you that it is ‘compassionate’ to hurt your fellow citizens – who are footing the bill for the costs of these trends. Meanwhile, millions of those migrants are also suffering as a result of this deceptive scheme too.

Furthermore, those illegal immigrants are potentially going to be deported at some point in time.  All of the costs, social risks, and ripple effects of this ‘opening’ of the border that occurred as a result of dozens of executive orders signed by Joe Biden reversing Trump-era border policies could end up for naught for those who have been ‘compassionately’ lured into making the treacherous trip to the U.S.A.

Additionally, there is evidence that people on the terrorist watch list, military age single men, people with various illnesses that would normally be screened out by a normal legal immigration process before being allowed into our country.

Note that the fact that numbers of Blacks, Hispanics and others who may have a lower income and less resources recognize that this steady flow of migrants appear to be hurting their interests should not be overlooked. For a variety of reasons, the traditional Democratic coalition is under pressure in 2024, again per surveys from left- and right-leaning sources.

To better understand the shell game that has been played for years, some pull quotes from various other writers will follow. As with anyone or organization quoted on MHProNews, it is important to separate the proverbial wheat from the chaff.



The ancient wisdom of separating the wheat from the chaff is Biblical. But separating the proverbial wheat from the chaff is also practical. An evidence-based case can be made that with every source, this principle should be applied. What is chaff should be identified and not “consumed” or followed. What is of value should be kept and is worthy of digesting, keeping, or applying. It should be obvious that if the beliefs of faith are true then they are also pragmatic and useful. MHProNews Note: depending on your browser or device, many images in this report and others on MHProNews can be clicked to expand. Click the image and follow the prompts. For example, in some browsers/devices you click the image and select ‘open in a new window.’ After clicking that selection, you click the image in the open window to expand the image to a larger size. To return to this page, use your back key, escape or follow the prompts. In some cases, you may need to download the image and open it (again, follow the prompts or options on your device.


Hundreds of billions of dollars annually are being spent by federal officials, under the Biden-Harris era policies that routinely reversed policies during the Trump Administration.  Those hundreds of billions could be saved or put to other issues.

It is your future. The future that you, your friends or loved ones will have shall been determined in part by what is done, or not done, today.

Don’t turn your eyes or close your mind to the insights and realties being described. Closing one’s eyes to reality isn’t safe, it is dangerous. It also plays into the hands of the very people who seek to manipulate trusting souls.




While MHProNews and MHLivingNews have reported on these topics off and on for years, it is useful to see what others have said about these issues.

In no particular order of importance are quotes from the following. While most of the following are recent articles, some are flashbacks to the Obama-Biden era. Meaning, these are not new developments, but rather the woes of the past few years make them fresh or even urgent insights for those who want to change course. Insights from the political left and right will follow.

  • “Our Fake, Fake, Fake World” by J.B. Shurk.
  • Oxfam and Noam Chomsky recaps.
  • Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) insights.
  • Celebrity Democratic Millionaires.
  • “How Did The Democrats Become The Party Of The Rich?” By Steven F. Hayward.

MHProNews will provide those excerpts in a somewhat different sequence than what those bullets shown above reflect.


Part III

To set the stage for what follows, some definitions, promised above, are useful. This first Q&A is from 3.16.2024 at about 4:42 AM ET using the balanced or “blue” setting on Bing’s AI powered Copilot. That is our standard use of Copilot. This is a fresh thread, not a continuation of another one.


> “Bing, is it fair to say that left-leaning tends to be more Democratic in orientation, and that right leaning tends to be more Republican or conservative?”

BingCopilotAI-Screen1.3.2024MHProNewsCertainly! The distinction between left-leaning and right-leaning ideologies in politics is often associated with specific orientations:

  • Left-leaning beliefs tend to be liberal, emphasizing an expanded role for the government. Advocates of left-leaning policies often prioritize social equality, environmental protection, and social safety nets. They believe that society is best served when the government actively addresses issues such as income inequality, healthcare access, and education. Left-leaning individuals may align with the Democratic Party in the United States.
  • On the other hand, right-leaning beliefs tend to be conservative, emphasizing individual rights, limited government intervention, and free-market principles. Right-leaning individuals prioritize personal freedoms, economic liberty, and traditional values. They believe that a smaller government is more effective and that individual responsibility should play a central role. Right-leaning individuals may align with the Republican Party in the United States 12.

It’s important to note that political ideologies are multifaceted, and there can be variations within each category. Additionally, the terms “left” and “right” can mean different things in different contexts, so it’s essential to consider the specific issues and policies when discussing political leanings. Understanding these distinctions helps us engage in informed discussions and make well-rounded decisions. 🗳️🌐

Learn more

With that backdrop, let’s dive into a prior Q&A with Copilot to gather insights from both the left and the right. Keep in mind that for time, about 65 to 70 percent of the population believes that the nation is on the ‘wrong track.’ That may imply that there is room for common ground.


2) In a Q&A with left-leaning Bing AI powered Copilot are the following insights.

> “Oxfam and Noam Chomsky in Requiem for the American Dream both seem to point a finger at the wealthy, the 1 percent, the billionaires, their corporate, big tech, and big media interests. Provide a snapshot of their respective thoughts.”

BingCopilotAI-Screen1.3.2024MHLivingNewsCertainly! Let’s delve into the perspectives of Oxfam and Noam Chomsky as portrayed in Requiem for the American Dream:

  1. Noam Chomsky:
    • Chomsky, widely regarded as one of the most influential intellectuals of our time, reflects on the current state of inequality in the United States.
    • He observes that while the Great Depression was a challenging period, there was a sense of hopefulness because people believed things would improve. However, today’s inequality is unprecedented.
    • The extreme wealth disparity primarily stems from a tiny fraction of the population—the top 1/10th of a percent—who possess immense riches.
    • Chomsky emphasizes that this inequality not only perpetuates injustice but also corrodes democracy. The American Dream, once associated with class mobility, has eroded. Workers could previously aspire to decent jobs, homeownership, and education for their children, but these opportunities have collapsed1.
    • He describes a vicious cycle: Concentration of wealth leads to concentration of power, which, in turn, influences legislation to further increase wealth concentration. This cycle undermines democracy and favors major corporations1.
  2. Oxfam (as represented in the documentary):
    • Oxfam, an international confederation of charitable organizations, focuses on global poverty and inequality.
    • Their analysis aligns with Chomsky’s concerns about wealth concentration.
    • Oxfam highlights the alarming fact that a small group of billionaires holds an extraordinary share of the world’s wealth.
    • They emphasize the need for systemic change to address inequality, including fair taxation, corporate accountability, and policies that benefit the majority rather than the super-rich.
    • Oxfam’s work aims to raise awareness and advocate for policies that promote economic justice and reduce disparities23.

In summary, both Chomsky and Oxfam underscore the urgent need to address wealth inequality and its impact on society, democracy, and the American Dream. …”


3) From the left-leaning Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), which produces “Inequality” are these insights.

> “Okay. The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) produces a report and hosts a website called “Inequality.” What are some key points from that organization and how do they compare with what Oxfam and Chomsky has said?”

BingCopilotAI-Screen1.3.2024MHLivingNewsCertainly! Let’s explore the key points from the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), as well as how they compare with the perspectives of Oxfam and Noam Chomsky:

  1. IPS (Institute for Policy Studies):
  1. Oxfam and Noam Chomsky:

In summary, while IPS provides detailed research on executive compensation and wealth gaps, Oxfam and Chomsky share similar concerns about inequality and its impact on society. All three entities call for policies that promote economic justice and reduce disparities. …”


4) So, there are several common points between what the above left-leaning sources – Oxfam, Chomsky, and IPS – have observed as to causes of U.S. ills. Each has advocated for certain solutions, which it should be noted, may or may not prove to be actual solutions. New readers, MHProNews and/or MHLivingNews have reported on these and others, as may become apparent as this article develops.

That said, let’s pivot to the next factual insights.

> “Celebrity Net Worth did a report entitled the Top 50 Richest Democrats. Provide several examples, with 10 to 15 of the wealthiest Democrats.”

BingCopilotAI-Screen1.3.2024MHLivingNewsCertainly! Here are 10 of the wealthiest Democrats, along with their estimated net worth:

  1. Teresa Heinz Kerry: A Portuguese-American philanthropist, heiress, and businesswoman. She has a net worth of $750 million. Teresa Heinz Kerry is the widow of John Heinz, a primary heir to the H.J. Heinz company1.
  2. Jane Harman: The former U.S. Representative from California’s 36th Congressional District. Her net worth is estimated at $500 million1.
  3. Herb Kohl: An American businessman and politician. He has a net worth of $400 millionHerb Kohl is the owner of the Milwaukee Bucks NBA team1.
  4. Jared Polis: An American politician, philanthropist, and entrepreneur. His net worth is approximately $400 millionJared Polis is one of the richest politicians in America1.
  5. Al Gore: A former senator, Vice President, environmental activist, and entrepreneur. His net worth is $300 millionGore served as Vice President under Bill Clinton1.
  6. John Kerry: An American politician and diplomat. His net worth is $250 millionKerry is known for being a Senator and the 68th United States Secretary of State1.
  7. John K. Delaney: An American politician and businessman. His net worth is estimated at $230 million1.
  8. Mark Warner: An American politician who has a net worth of $215 millionWarner has served as a senator from Virginia since 20081.
  9. Maria Shriver: An American journalist, author, and former First Lady of California. Her net worth is $200 million1.
  10. Scott Peters: An American politician with a net worth of $200 millionHe is currently a United States Representative1.

These Democrats have achieved significant wealth through various avenues, including business, politics, and philanthropy. 🏦🌟

For more details, you can explore the full list on Celebrity Net Worth1. 📊🌐 …”

Note this remark by Copilot: “These Democrats have achieved significant wealth through various avenues, including business, politics, and philanthropy.” That last point is often overlooked, how ‘charitable’ giving by the wealthy may in some respects increase their wealth.


5)  Before proceeding, let’s note that MHProNews doesn’t necessarily agree that the above are the wealthiest Democrats, but the information is per Celebrity Net Worth.  That noted, here are two more items about wealthy Democrats that may surprise some.

> “How much is Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi worth, per that same source?”

BingCopilotAI-Screen1.3.2024MHLivingNewsCertainly! According to Celebrity Net Worth, here are the estimated net worths of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi:

  1. Hillary Clinton:
  2. Nancy Pelosi:

Both Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi have achieved substantial wealth through their political careers, investments, and other assets. 🏦🌟

For more details, you can explore the full source on Celebrity Net Worth 1. 📊🌐…”

Keep in mind that it was widely reported when the Clinton’s exited the White House that they were ‘broke.’ True or exaggerated, the Clintons became wealthy in the years since. Recall that line from #3 above: “These Democrats have achieved significant wealth through various avenues, including business, politics, and philanthropy.”



> “A decade ago, Forbes published an article entitled “How Did The Democrats Become The Party Of The Rich?” Provide some insights from that op-ed.”

BingCopilotAI-Screen1.3.2024MHLivingNewsCertainly! Let’s explore insights from the Forbes article titled “How Did The Democrats Become The Party Of The Rich?” and compare them with the perspectives of Oxfam and Noam Chomsky:

  1. Forbes Insights:
  2. Comparison with Oxfam and Noam Chomsky:

In summary, while Forbes provides insights into the changing composition of the Democratic Party, Oxfam and Chomsky offer broader critiques related to wealth, power, and economic justice. …”


7)  Note that the abbreviation MHI below is not the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI), but is rather Median Household Income.  That said, consider the following.

> “You linked an article [above] from Unherd that was also about the Democratic Party becoming the party of the wealthy. Who was the author of that article and what are some insights from that op-ed?”

BingCopilotAI-Screen1.3.2024MHLivingNewsCertainly! The article titled “How the Democrats Became the Party of the Rich” on UnHerd was authored by Matthew Thomas. Let’s delve into some key insights from that op-ed:

  1. Shift in Class Composition:
  2. Reasons for Change:
    • Two perspectives explain this shift:
      • Cultural Aesthetic vs. Economic Agenda:
        • Some argue that the cultural aesthetic of liberal professionals has become toxic among voters without a college degree.
        • Others believe the Democratic Party lost credibility with working-class voters by failing to pursue a robust economic agenda.
      • Centrist vs. Left Approach:
        • The former perspective suggests Democrats should move toward the center on culture.
        • The latter urges them to move left on economics.
    • Ideally, Democrats should address both aspects to regain their appeal across different demographics1.

In summary, the article highlights the gentrification of the Democratic Party, the changing voter base, and the need for a balanced approach to address economic disparities and cultural concerns1. …”


Again, keep in mind that MHProNews is not necessarily endorsing the views of the suggested “solutions” of these various quoted sources. Rather, the initial purpose here is to simply lay out the thinking of these various cited sources. Because many point to some very similar foundational issues that are grounded in observable facts, rather than mere opinion.

That noted, MHProNews will now present some human (this author) sourced quotes as follows.



The right-leaning Forbes article noted above entitled “How Did The Democrats Become The Party Of The Rich?” was authored by Steven F. Hayward.

Consider the following pull-quotes from Hayward’s article in Forbes.

QuoteMarksLeftSideIn the economic crisis of the 1930s, the rich hated FDR. Most of today’s rich love Barack Obama—so much so that Washington D.C. area airports ran out of space to handle all of the private jets flying in the well-heeled for both of his inaugurals. Forget the “limousine liberals” of the 1960s and 1970s, sending their own kids to private schools while advocating forced busing for everyone else; behold today’s burgeoning class of “Gulfstream liberals,” who jet about the globe while fretting about global warming.

What accounts for this astonishing state of affairs, and what does it mean for our politics in this age of supposed concern over economic inequality?”

QuoteMarksLeftSide…labor unions (along with trial lawyers) still provide the majority of the Democratic Party’s campaign funds and organizational muscle on election day, but it is the super rich of Silicon Valley and Wall Street, combined with the super rich of Hollywood, who command the priority attention of Democratic Party leaders these days. Of the ten richest zip codes in the U.S. eight gave more money to Democrats than Republicans in the last two presidential cycles. President Obama doesn’t go to union halls to host fundraisers; he goes to posh Wall Street townhomes, the Hollywood hills, or to Tom Steyer’s house in Pacific Heights. Steyer, a billionaire investor and wannabe George Soros, is the perfect model of today’s rich liberal, and shows where the balance of power on the Left rests today. Organized labor wants the Keystone pipeline built; Steyer, who imbibes deeply the green Kool Aid, is adamantly against Keystone. Note who Obama is siding with.”

Hayward then pivots to specific billionaires well known to regular readers of MHProNews/MHLivingNews. Warren Buffett and William “Bill” Gates III.

QuoteMarksLeftSideYes, but haven’t many of the leading plutocrats, such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, embraced higher income taxes? Yes, they have, but one important fact has escaped notice: higher income tax rates will not touch the bulk of the fortunes of today’s plutocrats, for the simple reason that the great bulk of the accumulated wealth of Gates, Buffett, Silicon Valley and Wall Street consists of appreciated asset values—not ordinary income. Few seem to be aware that most of this wealth has never been taxed, and in the case of Buffett and Gates, who are taking advantage of the charitable foundation laws, will never be taxed.”

Note Hayward’s insightful sentence: “Few seem to be aware that most of this wealth has never been taxed, and in the case of Buffett and Gates, who are taking advantage of the charitable foundation laws, will never be taxed.”

Back to more pull-quotes.

  • “Most of today’s super rich liberals are financiers and entrepreneurs, like Google founders Larry Page and Sergei Brin.”
  • “…today’s elitist, technocratic liberalism appeals to their superficial intellectual vanity. As a one-time critic of the new super rich once put it, “they found it hard to imagine that there might be any social ill that could not be cured with a high SAT score.” (That critic was Barack Obama, in The Audacity of Hope.)”

An arguable weak point in Hayward’s article is this on why Democrats aren’t calling for a ‘wealth tax.’ Since that article, some of the same people he noted that hadn’t – Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders – have done so. But what is missing from Hayward’s article are words like paltering, preening, and projecting.

Let’s pause and emphasize the following from Hayward’s column.

“…haven’t many of the leading plutocrats, such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, embraced higher income taxes? Yes, they have, but one important fact has escaped notice: higher income tax rates will not touch the bulk of the fortunes of today’s plutocrats, for the simple reason that the great bulk of the accumulated wealth of Gates, Buffett, Silicon Valley and Wall Street consists of appreciated asset values—not ordinary income. Few seem to be aware that most of this wealth has never been taxed, and in the case of Buffett and Gates, who are taking advantage of the charitable foundation laws, will never be taxed.”

Now, recall the point made by Copilot in #3 above again, quoting:

These Democrats have achieved significant wealth through various avenues, including business, politics, and philanthropy.”

From #5 above:

“Both Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi have achieved substantial wealth through their political careers, investments, and other assets.”

A picture ought to be emerging for keen minded readers, but MHProNews will spell it out. There are apparent intersections between big business, big media, big tech, big politics, big philanthropy, the tax code and wealth generation. Despite the fact that scores of Democrats talk about taxing the wealthy, it becomes apparent that the ‘rich are getting richer’ and the middle and lower classes ‘are getting poorer.’

To those point, the quotes from the next article specifically mentions projecting.


9) In an article on right-leaning American Thinker entitled: “Our Fake, Fake, Fake World” bJ.B. Shurk. In a bio on the right-leaning Federalist, where he is a contributor that is likely self-authored, J.B. Shurk is described as “a freedom-minded, anti-establishment, sometimes unorthodox, committed generalist and a proud American from Daniel Boone country.”

MHProNews notes again that in the above, or the articles and sources quoting below, it should not be construed that quoting the sources implies an agreement with all that they have said, written, or done.

That said, some pull quotes from Shurk. Bold is added by MHProNews.

QuoteMarksLeftSideAmerica’s commitment to individual liberty, private property, and free speech once distinguished it from all other countries in the world.  When it began betraying those commitments and exporting a brand of “rules-based international order” scarcely different from those devised under monarchical empires of the past, it became a global ambassador for fake freedom.”

QuoteMarksLeftSideThe men who changed the course of human history with the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights understood that the promotion of learning across all social classes simultaneously promotes individual liberty over government tyranny.  Destroying a ruling class’s monopoly on knowledge destroys its monopoly on power.

Note that knowledge is the key here — not the mere obtainment of some fancy degree.  Neither Abraham Lincoln nor Thomas Edison had much in the way of formal education, but both were highly educated men who profoundly shaped this country.  Mark Twain’s humorous wit is not less remarkable because he never attended high school, nor is the prose of John Steinbeck or William Faulkner less incisive because neither finished college.  Degrees mean nothing if the knowledge that they represent is fake.”

QuoteMarksLeftSideFake educations and fake degrees have instead produced a society ill-equipped to fight for individual liberty against the threats of resurgent government tyranny.  Fake experts maintain authority only when citizens lack the intellectual discernment to object.  It’s as if the government’s funding of fake intellectuals has been part of the “progressive” plan all along.”

  • “The government’s stranglehold over thinking people is already crumbling.”

QuoteMarksLeftSideVladimir Lenin ominously boasted, “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”  John D. Rockefeller selfishly insisted, “I don’t want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers.”  These sentiments have destroyed American genius and resiliency for the last century, and the harm that they have caused cannot be undone overnight.  A nation taught not to think for itself is a nation that knows no other course of action than to obey.”

QuoteMarksLeftSideLong-slumbering populations awaken from their State-induced hypnotic trance much like a hungry bear does from hibernation — shaky at first but ferocious in short order.  Just as Central European countries trapped behind the Iron Curtain rebelled against the fake premises of Soviet communism, freedom-minded peoples of the West are already rebelling against the fake premises of the World Economic Forum’s “climate change” communism and “build back better” buffoonery.  They will not eat the bugs or censor their own speech.  They are not willing to let Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, and other fake experts control their lives with CBDCs and digital IDs.  They are not willing to live in a national security surveillance State that provides their children with fake futures.  …”

Shurk said at the top of his article the following.

QuoteMarksLeftSideWill our historical era be remembered as the “Age of Fakes”?  We have fake news, fake meat, fake elections, fake genders, fake vaccines, fake budgets, fake democracy, fake truths, fake hate, fake Russian collusion, fake insurrections, fake climate emergencies, fake freedoms, fake outrage, fake speech crimes, fake money, fake justice, fake intellects, fake women, fake borders, fake wars, and even a fake president.  In some ways, it is a very silly time to be alive.

So much of our fake world has been built on two monstrously fake foundations: fake progress and fake liberalism.” Shurk noted during his article that Gallup surveys reveal that unhappiness is growing around the world, not just in the U.S. He noted too that if these technocrat elites and all of the ‘things’ that modern society were obviously not making people happier. He closed by saying: “This fake “new world order” is not making anybody happy, and as people begin thinking for themselves, they are learning to disobey.”


10) Let’s make a few points based on Shurk’s observations and quotes. In no particular order of importance:

First, it was this quote:

John D. Rockefeller insisted, “I don’t want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers.” One need not agree with the remark or the sentiment to recognize that the billionaires in the ruling class don’t want We the People to think clearly and critically for ourselves. That should tell us that we need to do exactly what they don’t want us to do.

The above was paraphrased in the headline.

Shurk points to education that can either foster critical thinking, or it can be used to undermine critical thinking in favor of what might be called the ‘ruling class.’

Destroying a ruling class’s monopoly on knowledge destroys its monopoly on power.

Consider how the above sheds light on a pull quote that MHProNews/MHLivingNews has used for years from the acclaimed documentary drama: Shadows of Liberty.




11) In fairness, it isn’t as if Shurk (from the right), or Glover (from the left), are the first to make such observations. But each has arguably offered Americans a keen insight that ought not be forgotten.

Let’s tarry a bit and note that our society has become a society of sound bites, memes, and often hyper brief social media posts. There is a place for brevity. But by its essence or nature, a brief remark is obviously not a detailed one. Article like this put meat on the bones and offer people facts and insights that connect the dots on pithy remarks.  Note that as MHProNews has been periodically reporting, in deep dive articles like this one, it is surprising how the site data reveals that these longer articles are popular with readers. MHProNews went from doing often paragraph length, or a few hundred-word length articles, to articles in recent years may be thousands of words. Our audience, people like you, have responded with more reading, with more clicks through to the additional linked content.

That suggests a hunger to better know and understand our world. It is good for those who do so. Because, as we’ve mentioned several times – as critics of much of Warren Buffett’s business, political, and philanthro-feudalistic tactics, he is correct about some things. Reading is one of them. Buffett reads for hours daily, or so he says. There are good reasons to believe that is largely true.  It is said he reads about 5 to 6 hours daily.


Not long after what is now called MHProNews originally launched approaching 14 years ago, this platform encouraged readers to invest ten to fifteen minutes a day in reading. Fast forward to 2023, and there is evidence that thousands of readers may be spending 30 minutes to an hour or more reading reports and analysis on MHProNews daily. To be able to compete successfully with Buffett and those who follow his moat and other tactics, it is just common sense that the more you know, the better you understand and the more likely you can establish plans that can successfully navigate the threats that are apparently posed by Buffett, his brands, and their allies.

Part IV Additional Information with More MHProNews Analysis

At about 9:41 AM ET, MHProNews asked Bing’s AI Powered Copilot the following in a new thread. That fact check by Copilot was for everything above.  Note that Copilot is correct in saying that a factual inaccuracy exists in information about a statement made by George W. “Mac” McCarthy, a point that MHProNews itself reported on, McCarthy confirmed, and which Copilot also cited in its response. Meaning, the Copilot fact check is reasonably insightful.


Copilot, I’d like you to scan this article linked here and see if you find any factual errors or out of context quotes.

BingCopilotAI-Screen1.3.2024MHLivingNewsI appreciate your request to verify the factual accuracy of the article. Let’s examine the content from the provided link.

The article titled “Billionaire Said, ‘I Don’t Want a Nation of Thinkers, I Want a Nation of Workers’ – Housing Unaffordability Impacts Your Future – Problems, Causes, Cures – Buffett, Gates Tips on U.S.” discusses housing affordability and quotes attributed to a billionaire. Here are the key points:

  1. Factual Error Correction:
  2. Context and Accuracy:
    • The article discusses housing affordability issues and the impact on the future. It highlights quotes from notable figures like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.
    • While the article does not appear to contain any out-of-context quotes, it’s essential to critically evaluate the context and sources of information when interpreting statements made by public figures.
  3. Additional Considerations:
    • When assessing any article, it’s crucial to verify information from reliable sources and cross-reference data.
    • If you have specific concerns about other quotes or factual claims within the article, I recommend examining the context and checking reputable sources for accuracy.

In summary, the article contains a corrected factual error related to mobile home parks, but no out-of-context quotes were identified. Always exercise critical thinking and fact-checking when reading any content. If you have further questions or need clarification, feel free to ask! 😊

Learn more

mas kovach mhpronews shopping with soheyla .jp

Get our ‘read-hot’ industry-leading 

get our ‘read-hot’ industry-leading emailed headline news updates

Scroll to Top