Posted originally on the CTH on January 18, 2024 | Sundance
Many people are heralding this speech given by Javier Milei as a confrontation to the mindset of the World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos.
Because so many people made a similar assertion, I had to listen to it twice, because I just didn’t get that takeaway. I still don’t. The first 10 minutes is an academic review of the history of free-market capitalism; the latter 10 minutes decries the failures of those economic systems who attempted socialism, including his own homeland of Argentina.
While the last half of the speech is strong, factually good pushback against the academic socialistic mindset, he never really addressed the issue that is at the core of modern, Western, economic corruption – the merge of the corporation and the state.
Capitalism vs Socialism was a debate well covered during the Soviet era and subsequent collapse of the Berlin wall. The 2020’s challenge is entirely different, fascism.
Traditional Fascism was defined as an authoritarian government working hand-in-glove with corporations to achieve totalitarian objectives. Essentially, a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, using severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
That governmental system didn’t work in the long-term because free people rejected government authoritarianism; so, we went to war and killed the fascist support system. Fascist governments collapsed, and the corporate beneficiaries were nulled and scorned. Then along came a new approach to achieve the same objective.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) was created to use the same fundamental associations of government and corporations. Only this time the corporations organized to tell the governments what to do. The WEF was organized for multinational corporations to assemble and tell the various governments how to cooperate to achieve control.
Fascism is still the underlying premise, the WEF just flipped the internal dynamic.
The assembly of the massive multinational corporations, banks and finance offices now summon the government leaders to come to their assembly and receive their instructions. Some have called this corporatism. However, the relationship between government and multinationals is just fascism essentially reversed with the government doing what the corporations tell them to do.
President Javier Milei is participating in the corporate control system; after all, he’s a politician attending a conference organized by corporations. Extolling the virtues of massive multinational monopolistic corporations, while pretending some form of “free market” system still exists, just seems esoteric (borderline obtuse) to me.
Yes, socialism sucks and always fails. However, in the modern era it is corporate/government fascism that leads to naive support for socialism in a misguided effort to break that public/private partnership.
Milei also held meetings with British foreign minister David Cameron and was “set for a head-to-head with International Monetary Fund (IMF) chief Kristalina Georgieva, after Argentina struck a staff level agreement last week to salvage its $44 billion loan program with the fund.”
WATCH FOR YOURSELF – “Argentina’s libertarian President Javier Milei praised free markets and slammed socialism at Davos on Wednesday (January 17) during the first overseas tour for the self-proclaimed ‘anarcho-capitalist,’ who is battling to fix a major economic crisis at home. During his speech, Milei focused on the role of the state across a wide range of activities, which he said amounted to levers of control rather than allowing citizens the freedom to prosper through their own efforts.”
If you are short on time, start at the 10:00 minute mark.
I’ll watch it again in the morning, and see if I can find this incredible economic bravery that everyone is talking about. Maybe I just missed it because the translation is a little challenging to keep in flow.
Anthony Blinken appears on CBS Face the Nation to discuss the U.S. response to the Israeli war against Hamas terrorists. Margaret Brennan clutches her pearls and gives her best defense of Hamas/Palestinian terrorists. But the babies and the children, or something; all of that is propaganda. WATCH:
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We go now to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who is at the State Department. Good morning to you, Mr. Secretary.
SECRETARY OF STATE ANTONY BLINKEN: Morning, Margaret, good to be with you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Tension is very high in the region. Are you changing your security posture? Are you pulling any US personnel out of the area?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: Margaret, we are concerned at the possibility of Iranian proxies, escalating their attacks against our own personnel, our own people. We’re taking every measure to make sure that we can defend them and if necessary, respond decisively. Not at all what we’re looking for, not all we want, but we’ll be prepared, if that’s what they choose to do.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So it sounds like quite possibly pulling people out. In terms of the threat from Iran, you just referenced there, President Biden in his Oval Office address said that the U.S. would hold Iran accountable. What does accountable mean?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: Well, what you’ve seen already, Margaret is very- a very clear message from the President, backed up by the deployment of two of our largest aircraft carrier battle groups, to make sure that it’s clear. No one should take advantage of this moment to escalate to further attacks on Israel or for that matter attacks on us, on our personnel. And this is not by way of, in terms of what we’re doing by provocation, it’s designed to deter, designed to make clear that no one should use this moment in any way to escalate. No one wants a second front, a third front, and at the same time, we want to make sure that our own people in the region, wherever they are, are safe and protected, and that we’re in a place as we are to respond decisively if we need to. The President’s been clear about that, both in what he said and in what we’re doing.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We’ll stay tuned. In terms of what’s happening in Gaza. I know there are an estimated 500-600 Americans there. There are only two ways out. One is through the Rafah gate to Egypt. It does not appear any Americans have made it out that way. There’s also another Erez Crossing into Israel. Is there any chance Israel lets some of those Americans out or Egypt allows some of those Americans in?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: We have- you’re exactly right. We have several hundred Americans and other nationalities, other civilians from- from other countries who want to leave Gaza. We’ve had people come to Rafah, the crossing with Egypt. And to date, at least, Hamas has blocked them from leaving, showing once again, its total disregard for civilians of any kind who are- who are stuck in Gaza. This is something that we’re working, again, virtually every single day. We have in the- right now in the region on the ground, one of our most experienced diplomats, David Satterfield, working with the different governments concerned with- with Israel, with Egypt, to make sure that we’re ready to be able to get people out, assuming Hamas lets them move. So really, the ball is in Hamas’ court, in terms of letting people who want to leave, civilians from third countries including Americans get out of Gaza.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Just to be clear, you’re saying Hamas is preventing Americans from leaving Gaza?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: That’s correct.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And there are no US personnel who are able to help on the ground?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: We have U.S. personnel on the other side of the border in Egypt, consular personnel who can immediately help and assist those Americans who want to leave. We’re working this very, very actively every day, including with partners who may have influenced connections with Hamas that we don’t have, to make sure that people can get out. So we’re tracking this. We want to make sure it happens.
MARGARET BRENNAN: In terms of the Americans who are believed to be unaccounted for or potentially hostages. Does Hamas have all of them or do other militant groups have them?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: Look, you’ll understand I can’t speak to the – to the details of this. We’ve been engaged from virtually the first day of this. I don’t want to be clear when it was clear that Hamas had taken men, women, young children, elderly people hostage, including Americans. It was really gratifying. Yesterday, I got a chance to speak to the two Americans, the mother, daughter, Judith and Natalie Raanan, who were released. I spoke to them. We are very appreciative of the assistance that we got from the Government of Qatar, to make sure that they could get out and now soon be reunited with their families. We’re hopeful that- that others follow. It is imperative that every single hostage, every single hostage of whatever nationality, be released immediately and without condition.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But the Israeli invasion appears imminent. Have you asked the Israeli government to delay in order to give you more time to broker the release of these hostages?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: First, step back for a second, because it’s important to remember what happened. It’s incredible how quickly that gets lost because it was only a couple of weeks ago that Hamas invaded Israel with its terrorist fighters and slaughtered – and I use that- that word very deliberately- slaughtered so many people again, men, women, young children, babies, old people, you name it. And they continue to rain rockets down on Israel when I was there. A few days ago, we were in the bomb – we were- we had to take shelter a couple of times, because of incoming rockets from Hamas. So, my point is this, no country- no country can be expected to tolerate this, to live with this. And as we said, from the start, Israel has both the the right and even the obligation, not only to defend itself, but to try to make sure that, to the best of its ability, this can’t happen again. So, we talked to the Israelis about what they’re- what they’re planning. We give them our best advice. It’s important, as we said, not only what they do, but how they do it, particularly when it comes to making sure that civilians are as protected as they possibly can be in this crossfire of Hamas’ making. We want to make sure that humanitarian assistance gets in and both countries care deeply about the- the hostages. There are many, many Israelis who are hostage and of course, hostages from other nationalities. So we’re working to do everything we can, using whatever levers, partnerships, relationships, we have to get them out. Israel is doing the same. But in terms of what we’re talking to Israel about in their- with regard to their military operations, it really is focused on both how they do it, and how best to achieve the results that they seek.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, let’s talk about how they do it. You’re right to lay out just how absolutely horrific that attack was two weeks ago. Turning the page to what has happened during the following two weeks, UNICEF says 1,524 children have been killed in the Gaza Strip during these bombings. Why isn’t the US calling for at least a temporary ceasefire?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: First, Margaret, when I hear the stories, when I see the pictures of young children, who have lost their lives in this conflict of Hamas’ making- whoever they are, wherever they are, whether they’re Palestinians, whether they’re Israelis, whether they’re- they’re Jews or Muslims. It hits me, and I know it hits virtually everyone right in the heart. And that’s why it’s so important to do everything possible to protect them, and why it’s so important to do everything possible to get assistance to those who need it. Food, medicine, water-
MARGARET BRENNAN: So why not ask for at least a temporary pause in the bombing–
SECRETARY BLINKEN:
We’ve seen-
MARGARET BRENNAN: — as was proposed at the UN this week?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: We’ve seen first of all that, in order to get assistance in. We’ve had, we’ve had that happen. And you saw the first 20 trucks go in yesterday, I expect more will follow today and the day after that. We want to make sure that we have sustained delivery of food, medicine, water, the things that people need. At the same time, I said something a minute ago that- that we have to- we have to remember. Israel has to do everything it can to make sure this doesn’t happen again. Freezing things in place where they are now would allow Hamas to remain where it is and to repeat what it’s done sometime in the future. No country could accept that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: One of my colleagues, who is on the ground in Israel and has traveled to the West Bank conducted an interview with Mr. Mustafa Barghouti, a Palestinian politician, I’m sure, you know. He said he doesn’t understand why President Biden, when he was in Israel, did not say “enough is enough. You wanted to respond and you responded, you killed 4,000 Palestinians. Stop.” Instead, you’re encouraging a ground invasion. How do you respond to “enough is enough?”
SECRETARY BLINKEN: “Enough is enough” should have been the case with- with Hamas two weeks ago. It would be good to hear the entire world speaking clearly, and with one voice, about the actions that Hamas took, about the slaughter of people, about the fact that that should be absolutely intolerable, unacceptable to anyone, anywhere, any country, any people. Second, as I said, for- for a country to not only not respond- it’s not about responding. It’s not about retaliating. It’s about defending Israel from these ongoing attacks. As I said, the rockets continue to this day. And it’s about taking the steps necessary to try to make sure, to the best of Israel’s ability, that this can’t happen again. Now, as we said, very clearly, the President’s been very clear about this- how Israel does that matters. Making sure that to the greatest extent possible civilians are protected. Civilians are deliberately put in the crossfire by Hamas. Hamas undertook the slaughter. It knew Israel would have to respond and yet all of its people, its senior leaders, its weapons, its tunnels, all are co-located in residential buildings. They’re buried underneath hospitals and schools. It knew that in Israel’s necessary response, civilians would be caught in that crossfire. It’s the last thing we want to see. It’s imperative that every step be taken to protect them. But what does anyone expect Israel to do? It can’t allow the situation to continue. No country can live like that. So that’s what’s- I think, in the minds of Israelis right now. Again, we’re speaking to them, as I said, about how they do it, and also how they can best achieve the results that they seek.
MARGARET BRENNAN: In terms of US interests in the region, one of America’s closest allies, the King of Jordan, gave an impassioned speech saying “Palestinian lives seem to matter less than Israeli ones. Our lives matter less than other lives, the application of international law is optional and human rights appear to have boundaries based on races and religions.” That’s a warning from one of America’s closest friends in the region, that this is a dangerous message to be sending and it could have blowback. Are you concerned?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: Margaret, every life- Palestinian, Israeli, Jewish, Muslim, Arab, every life has equal worth. When I see the reports, when I see the photographs, when I hear the stories of young children, Palestinian children, who’ve been killed or injured, it hits me right in the gut too. Just as it does, when I hear- when I see these other stories, wherever it is. We had, here in our own country, a little boy, six-years-old, Wadea, in Chicago, who was viciously murdered, apparently, because he was Palestinian American. A little boy, six-years-old, didn’t do anything to anyone. I feel that strongly across the board, no matter where it is. But this is on Hamas. And the fact is, Hamas doesn’t represent the Palestinian people. It doesn’t represent their just cause, it doesn’t represent their aspiration, and legitimate aspiration for a state of their own. On the contrary, it does everything to make life worse, and more miserable for–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Does the US assess that it is actually possible for Israel to destroy both Hamas as an entity and its ideology. Is it actually a military possibility?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: So, you make a very good point, Margaret. And I think it’s important to focus on that, too. There’s the military aspect of what Israel needs to do and try it- and try to make sure this doesn’t happen again. But you’re exactly right. The best way, the only way to defeat an ideology, no matter how warped, and the case of Hamas, it’s about as warped as it possibly can be, is to make sure that there is a better, a clearer alternative for people. And that alternative is very clear. And it’s very stark. We have on the one hand, countries throughout the region who want to come together, to integrate, to normalize relations, and to lift up the rights of the Palestinian people, to be able to have a future where they work together, go to school together, do business together, travel to each other’s countries. That’s one vision. The other vision is the vision that Hamas has: death, destruction, nihilism, darkness. Now, the responsibility that those of us who believe in the first vision have is to do everything possible to make it real, so that people not only see it, but they can achieve it. That’s exactly what we were working on before this horrific attack on October 7th. And that’s the vision that we need to get back to. But at the same time, we also have to deal with the fact that Hamas represents an active, ongoing threat, and that has to be dealt with too.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mr. Secretary, thank you for your time this morning.
A prosecutor launched a criminal case Friday against Argentina’s frontrunner in this month’s presidential elections, accusing Javier Milei of deliberately causing a drop in the Argentine currency when he encouraged citizens not to save in pesos. What the United States has done to Donald Trump has set the standard for the world. We will see more and more weaponizing of criminal law against political opponents. Everything is simply collapsing as we head into 2032.
The prosecutor has launched this criminal case against Argentina’s frontrunner in the presidential elections, accusing Javier Milei of deliberately causing a drop in the Argentine currency when he encouraged citizens not to save in pesos. Our computer clearly shows that this is a global trend to the dollar, and there is by no means a unique issue in Argentina.
President Alberto Fernández had called for the investigation in a complaint claiming that the right-wing populist candidate was trying to scare the public and that his actions were “a severe affront to the democratic system.” Prosecutor Franco Picardi sent the case to a corrupt federal judge María Servini, who accepted Fernández’s accusation that claimed Milei and other candidates in his party were inciting public fear. Never have I ever heard such a crazy theory of manipulating a currency by a political comment. This came on target for a Panic Cycle here in October.
During the 1960 US election, they attributed a current panic to Kennedy, but they did not criminally prosecute him. He said: “Now on the question of gold. The difficulty, of course, is that we do have heavy obligations abroad, that we therefore have to maintain not only a favorable balance of trade but also send a good deal of our dollars overseas to pay our troops, maintain our bases, and sustain other economies.”
Fewer than one in four Americans (24%) want President Joe Biden to run again, according to a poll published on August 17th by the Associated Press. Even 55% of Democrats do not think he should run. As far as his approval rating is concerned, he remains one of the most unpopular presidents in American history. Meanwhile, he has allowed the Republican presidential front-runner to be charged criminally, who is now under indictment for 91 felonies in four criminal cases. RFK, the Spectator, proclaimed that “everything about him screams amusing sideshow rather than [a] serious contender.” They reduce him to “the country’s most prominent antivaxxer — a fringe role almost by definition.”
They seem oblivious to all the people who have been injured by the Pfizer vaccines and those who died. My own lawyer took the shot to show he could travel, got the blood clots, and now his doctor warns he should not fly. My neighbor had COVID-19 and was forced to get the vaccination to go on a cruise. The next day, the ambulance rushed her to the hospital, where she almost died at the age of only 27. Another man who works for me and his entire family gets seriously ill from any vaccine. These pro-vaccine people are ruthless, untrustworthy, and brainwashed. They should all be deported to California. We are NOT all clones. I hate to tell them there is NO constitutional authority to force medical treatment on any citizen.
The word circulating is that the Democrats are not very happy about the Big Guy. They are searching for a replacement, but the Neocons need another stooge. It cannot be someone anti-war. That is why they must defeat Trump, which will not be easy – they have made him an international martyr. I believe that the Neocons will assassinate Trump before his hand every hit the book to be sworn in. They will blame China to justify that we should wage war on China.
The Democrats are totally out of control. These charges against Trump are solely to interfere in the 2024 election. They are absolutely desperate to impose their tyranny and overthrow the people’s rights. This is only going to lead to the collapse of the United States. They have gone to the Supreme Court asking them to ORDER the lower court to allow TV cameras in and broadcast Trump’s trial like a soap opera to convince people not to vote for Trump. This proves this whole thing is to interfere in the 2024 election, which is frightening since our computer forecast that the 2024 election will never be accepted, which was 5 years ago.
As a student of Constitutional Law, I have read Blackstone, Coke, and Monesque. What they are doing to Trump is such a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause because the courts have been so PRO-GOVERNMENT against the common people that the prohibition against being put in Double Jeopardy demonstrates the true tyranny that the American Legal System has devolved to. By creating numerous agencies, each passes a law prohibiting the same crime. The Supreme Court has refused to honor the spirit of the Founding Fathers, and the worst example is 91 felony counts against Trump for the same pretend crime.
Let’s say that three agencies outlaw killing your spouse. Each agency could then charge you with murder. Two out of three juries find you innocent. The third is pressured by the judge and rules in favor of the government. They will not be Double Jeopardy since they allow the definition of an offense to be a statute rather than the actual crime it is supposed to outlaw. Never in history have so many agencies and states been allowed to create a plethora of statutes prohibiting the same conduct that has allowed them to charge Trump with 91 counts for the same conduct. This is as if someone shot the same person and killed them, but they charge them for each bullet he fired as a separate murder, but there is only one person.
Many have written in and said I would have made a great Constitutional lawyer. If I had chosen such a path, they would have charged me with 91 counts of contempt and imprisoned me for life without a trial. I do not tolerate fools or tyrants. The concept of Double Jeopardy has a long history, but the American courts have seriously abused its development. Its meaning has been distorted to hand the government limitless power.
The English view of Double Jeopardy, under the influence of Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634) and William Blackstone (1723-1780), meant that a defendant at trial could plead former conviction or former acquittal as a special plea in bar to defeat the prosecution. ( Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 32–36 (1978), and id. at 40 (Powell, J., dissenting); United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 340 (1975))
In this country, the common-law rule was, in some cases, limited to this rule. However, in other cases, it was extended to bar a new trial even though the former trial had not concluded in either an acquittal or a conviction. The constitutional prohibition against Double Jeopardy was intended to protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense. Blackstone in his Commentaries, greatly influenced the Founding Fathers when they adopted the Constitution. Blackstone wrote:
“. . . the plea of auterfois acquit, or a former acquittal, is grounded on this universal maxim of the common law of England that no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offence.” id/Blackstone’s Commentaries 335.
If we look at the Supreme Court ruling BEFORE with this plethora of statutes and agencies, we find the same view was taken in Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, at 85 U. S. 169 (1873):
“The common law not only prohibited a second punishment for the same offence, but it went further and forbid a second trial for the same offence, whether the accused had suffered punishment or not, and whether in the former trial he had been acquitted or convicted.”
“The prohibition is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy; and the accused, whether convicted or acquitted, is equally put in jeopardy at the first trial.”
Before the court turned pro-government in the 20th century, it was being put in jeopardy twice, not that you could create ten statutes for the same crime. The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State, with all its resources and power, should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for the same conduct, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense, ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity.
The New Hampshire Constitution pt. I, art. 16 was adopted in 1784 and preceded the US Constitution, and it included a bill of rights that included the new nation’s first Double Jeopardy clause, stating: “No subject shall be liable to be tried, after an acquittal, for the same crime or offence (sic).” The Supreme Court of New Hampshire construes the Double Jeopardy prohibition of the state’s constitution to bar successive trials regardless of the identity of the initial prosecuting authority. State v. Hogg, 385 A.2d 844, 847 (N.H. 1978). The New
The text of the Constitution is also silent on many fundamental questions of constitutional law, including questions that its drafters and those ratifying the document could not have foreseen or chose not to address. Nonetheless, the philosophy behind the Fifth Amendment has long been settled, as stated in US v Ball back in 1896. Thus, it is one of the elemental principles of our criminal law that the Government cannot secure a new trial by means of an appeal even though an acquittal may appear to be erroneous. This has been the standard held in US v. Ball, supra; Peters v. Hobby, 349 U. S. 331, 349 U. S. 344-345 (1955). Cf. Kepner v. United States, 195 U. S. 100 (1904); United States v. Sanges, 144 U. S. 310 (1892).
We are looking at constructive amendment of the Constitution that there is ABSOLUTELY no possible way that the Founding Fathers would have allowed the same conduct to violate a multitude of statutes that would allow the government 91 chances to convict Trump for the same conduct. Not even the tyranny of King George III ever dared to get around the Double Jeopardy Clause in this manner. It is an embarrassment to the United States to the world.
Article VI, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution (Article VU, Claus 2) prohibits no state from writing any law that overrules the federal law. Hence, no state may charge Trump for the very same conduct that he stands charged in a federal court. The Framers of the Constitution were silent on this idea of Dual Sovereignty in criminal law, and no court can rule in that favor without the 50 states having a go at the same conduct. Naturally, the Supreme Court would never entertain that argument because it would actually benefit the people – not our tyrannical government abuses. When 2032 comes, and we get to rewrite the constitution, there should NEVER be allowed multiple prosecutions for the same conduct regardless of how many sovereigns they want to pretend to exist.
The elevation of Double Jeopardy to fundamental status by its inclusion in several state bills of rights following the Revolution demonstrated its restraint against this type of abuse by the government. The Bill of Rights, which had been adopted at the New York Convention and transmitted to Congress with its ratification of the Federal Constitution, included a declaration that.
“no Person ought to be put twice in Jeopardy of Life or Limb for one and the same Offence, nor, unless in case of impeachment, be punished more than once for the same Offence.”
James Madison’s version of the guarantee, which was introduced in the House of Representatives, and it read:
No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or trial for the same offense.
What we do know from the “intent” is that some Members opposed this proposal because it could be construed to prohibit a second trial after a successful appeal by a defendant. They viewed that as problematic. First, they argued that such a rule could constitute a hazard to the public by freeing the guilty. Second, they reasoned that prohibiting re-trials after successful appeals might make appellate courts less likely to reverse improper convictions (id/1 Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)). Ultimately, the language, barring a second trial, was dropped in response to these concerns. However, in Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 40 (1978) (dissenting), Justice Lewis Powell attributed this failure to broaden the Double Jeopardy Clause to incorporate the common law rule against the dismissal of the jury before the verdict, which remains a question the majority passed over as being of academic interest only.Id. at 34 n.10. This was what I mean that the Supreme Court has allowed the abuse of the Double Jeopardy Clause to the detriment of the nation, which we are now witnessing with Trump.
Unfortunately, we no longer believe in liberty in the United States. The same conduct may violate the laws of two different sovereigns, multiple agencies, and countless statutes that criminalize the very same thing by rephrasing it in myriad ways. This has allowed a defendant to be charged innumerable times until the government wins. The Trump cases will be the epitaph of the United States and the Rule of Law. It is over. We must wait for the body of liberty to be cold before she is buried.
After the Death of Nero and the Civil War that engulfed the Roman Empire, here we have the coin issued by one of the contenders, Vitellius, with the coin declaring the Restitution of Liberty.
COMMENT: You are just a Trump supporter. The 2020 election was not rigged. Get over it.
WH
ANSWER: I’m sorry you refuse to look at it objectively. I was asked to put in $10 billion, and they were rigging the 2000 Russian election. I said no, and I paid the price. Here is a tape of former CIA Chief James Woolsey admitting that the CIA has rigged elections. As he says: “Only for a very good cause. In the interest of democracy.” He also refused to say they no longer interfere in foreign elections. If you think for one second that the 2020 election was fair, you are a fool. The Neocons got rid of Trump and immediately began to wage wars. They took out Kennedy because he, too, was against the war. Johnson took us right into Vietnam.
I will be shocked if Biden does not win in 2024. They Want this War at all costs.
They are attacking RFK as well – this is NOT just about Trump.
The Neocon Robert MacNamara apologized for being WRONG, and 58,000 Americans died then, and how many millions of Vietnamese? He admits it was a civil war, the same as Ukraine. Russia is supporting the Donbas, and we support Kiev. These Neocons have never won a single war since WWII. They have lied about every last war to get us involved. I feel sorry for you. You have been subjected to their brainwashing, and eventually, you will open your eyes and realize this is all about their power and preventing outsiders from coming to Washington to play in their sandbox. I understand when you are part of the herd, you will never listen to others. You have to open your mind and cross that boundary voluntarily. You cannot be forced.
Look at the movie Oppenheimer. You will see what they did to him.
I have said that the reason they indicted Trump’s valet as a co-defendant in the Mar-a-Lago, was to pull the standard “extortion” where he is to perjure himself for the government or face 120 years in prison. This is how they win Conspiracy Cases. Federal Judge Jed. S. Rakoff wrote a book on the extortion process – WHY THE INNOCENT PLEAD GUILTY AND THE GUILTY GO FREE.
They cannot win a conspiracy case without extorting someone to testify against their target. That was the problem they had in my case, there were no co-defendants. Both Trump’s case and the state of allegations against the Biden family from whistleblowers illustrate how the Rule of Law in the United States no longer exists. This is the final straw behind the collapse of the United States. The allegations against Assistant U.S. Attorney for Delaware Lesley Wolf claims that she warned Hunter Biden’s attorneys about potential scrutiny on a storage unit the first son used. For the prosecutor to call and warn Hunter’s lawyers where the IRS wanted to look for the smoking gun is just unimaginable. This has become a shit show and whatever integrity the United States once had in support of life, liberty, and happiness being the beacon of freedom to the world no longer exists.
Then we have this Special Prosecutor using a pro-government grand jury in Washington to indict Trump when the case would have to be brought in Florida under the venue requirement of the Sixth Amendment, which is a constructive amendment of the Constitution. The King would indict you in London, then transport you back to London for a trial because the American colonists would have delivered a fair verdict. This is why the Sixth Amendment clearly states:
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
This is precisely where this Special Prosecutor is going. Indicting Trump in Washington where the grand jury will be more likely than not government employees and Democrats, but the venue clause requires Trump to be charged where the crime took place and that is Florida. Smith is doing the EXACT same thing that the King of England did for which we had a Revolution.
They did not prosecute Richard Nixon and they did not prosecute Bill Clinton when they also had him on perjury charges. Hillary’s private servers with classified documents were set up so her emails would not be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act had they gone through the State Department, which was obstruction of justice. Nobody was ever charged because it would have resulted in civil unrest since the country would be divided. This time, they just do not care. It seems as though they KNOW this will cause civil unrest and they want that to unfold so they can justify even more crazy actions of locking us down again.
30 years ago, Washington was always corrupt. The difference was they at least tried to hide it. Today, they no longer care what you think because they will rig the election and you are no longer needed. The corruption is just open and they are laughing at us all the time as we are a gaggle of fools.
The one thing many people are noticing is that tensions are rising. People are frustrated. Some are stabbing people in shopping malls all of a sudden and others get killed over a parking spot. The COVID lockdown has unhinged many and society is becoming more hostile year by year. This is also a precursor to the rising civil unrest we see coming.
These are forecasts made years in advance. We had a serious Directional Change in 2022 and we were expecting a rise in 2023 with this all exploding by 2025. These people really think that they can do whatever they want because we will shut up and do as we are told. This is going to erupt and this 2024 election will be rigged and the entire world will know that because they no longer care to even hide their agenda.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 9, 2023 | Sundance
I have been researching the MACRO economic dynamic in Russia quite deeply for the past six months. Essentially looking to discover not only what impact the western imposed sanctions might be having, but more broadly looking to see what happens to self-sustainability when essentially locked out from the world of commercial imports.
The research is fascinating, not simply because it is a unique opportunity, but also because national economic issues play a big role in the overall social dynamic. That said, I can say the social aspect is stunningly more interesting than the data driven outcomes. When you really dig deep into actual life of the ordinary people in Russia, far away from the geopolitical contexts, you get an entirely different perspective. My worldview of the average Russian person/family has completely changed.
There is a really good thread on how the western sanctions against Russia are having a much lesser impact than initially thought [SEE HERE]. On the economic side, one thing I would point to is how the economy is essentially an outcome of two facets: (1) the internal production strength, and (2) the service side of the ledger.
The author makes the accurate point that from a production side perspective, Russia actually has a larger economy now than Germany, the largest EU nation. The cause for this is “autarchy” or self-sufficiency. Indeed, as the timeline of the sanctions closes in on the second year completing, the Russian production economy is even stronger than when the sanctions began. Quite simply, they are making even more of their own goods now.
The sanctions hit what would typically fall into the service side of the economy, as well as financial and economic roadblocks. However, that aspect of the Russian economy was much smaller than most suspected and there were sanctions going back to 2014 which made the outcome of the 2022 western imposed restrictions less impactful.
I will be finishing my review of the economic data once Q3 is over, that will give me an entire year of data to share. However, the social stuff is even more fascinating.
I have a new understanding of why former NSA contractor Edward Snowden was so comfortable using Russia as the place to hide after his release of classified intelligence showing how the U.S. government was spying on Americans via social media and metadata collection.
I have mostly been looking at three areas in Western Russia. Kazan, Moscow and St Petersburg (formerly Leningrad). Of the three generally large metropolitan areas, St Petersburg is by far the most interesting. It’s beautiful there and the city is alive and vibrant.
In many ways you might compare Russia in 2023 to the USA in/around 1988. Life is just not complicated and far more socially engaged.
I’ll have more on this later, but if you are ever bored check out the Russian YouTubers who livestream broadcast “a day-in-the-life” type of activity. The infrastructure is in generally good repair, the people seem warm and friendly and there is a strong social value placed on family and kids.
There are certainly negatives and the cultural dynamic of the former USSR is still evident. Technologically they are somewhat behind in some details, but the overall cohesion of their value system is something I did not fully appreciate until I started down this road of research.
I can see why the average Russian could be wide-eyed during a visit to the USA and fascinated with the overall quality of life that might be considered indulgent. However, I can also see how reciprocally the average American could be wide-eyed and smiling at the overall sense of the Russian people.
Strip out the politics, and we are all much more similar than we are different.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 9, 2023 | Sundance
What do Pakistan’s Imran Khan, Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, USA’s Donald Trump, Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Mexico’s Lopez-Obrador all have in common?
First, they are all strong nationalists. Second, the U.S. government has either influenced the removal and judicial incarceration or is currently seeking the removal and judicial incarceration of each of them.
As the U.S. State Dept. (Tony Blinken), USAID (Samantha Power) and CIA (Director Burns) conduct influence operations around the world to advance the interests of the multinationals; newly released diplomatic cables from inside Pakistan reveal the U.S. influence effort to remove former Pakistan President Imran Khan.
It sucks to wake up every day and accept the USA are the bad guys.
THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT encouraged the Pakistani government in a March 7, 2022, meeting to remove Imran Khan as prime minister over his neutrality on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, according to a classified Pakistani government document obtained by The Intercept.
The meeting, between the Pakistani ambassador to the United States and two State Department officials, has been the subject of intense scrutiny, controversy, and speculation in Pakistan over the past year and a half, as supporters of Khan and his military and civilian opponents jockeyed for power.
The political struggle escalated on August 5 when Khan was sentenced to three years in prison on corruption charges and taken into custody for the second time since his ouster. Khan’s defenders dismiss the charges as baseless. The sentence also blocks Khan, Pakistan’s most popular politician, from contesting elections expected in Pakistan later this year.
One month after the meeting with U.S. officials documented in the leaked Pakistani government document, a no-confidence vote was held in Parliament, leading to Khan’s removal from power. The vote is believed to have been organized with the backing of Pakistan’s powerful military. Since that time, Khan and his supporters have been engaged in a struggle with the military and its civilian allies, whom Khan claims engineered his removal from power at the request of the U.S.
The text of the Pakistani cable, produced from the meeting by the ambassador and transmitted to Pakistan, has not previously been published. The cable, known internally as a “cypher,” reveals both the carrots and the sticks that the State Department deployed in its push against Khan, promising warmer relations if Khan was removed, and isolation if he was not. (read more, including cable)
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 