Has the US Gone to DEFCON 3?


Armstrong Economics Blog/War Re-Posted Mar 26, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

NATO has effectively declared war on Russia hiding behind Ukrainian surrogates. Ukraine launched new versions of their marine drones in an attempt to sink the Russian Fleet base in Sevastopol. They were blown up just before hitting Russian ships as the Russians managed to intercept them. The Russians know that these attacks are carried out under NATO directives. Meanwhile, NATO has sent 300,000 troops to the border in Poland with Russia. They are strategically placed and could launch an invasion of Russia, which has been the plan all along. In Asia, the US routinely invades China’s claimed territory in the South China Sea simply claiming the US does not recognize China’s territorial border.

The US Administration has launched its early warning nuclear missile detection vessels from Pearl Harbor. The Neocons have been pushing for war very hard and the launching of these ships indicates that we are heading into a major nuclear crisis which may be up there with the 1962 Cubas Missle Crisis which by next year will be 2x Pi – 62 years ago. These Neocons have no interest in the nation, or the people, only their dream of destroying Russia and China and forcing Regime Change. They have pushed for endless wars and have NEVER won a single one so far. Their track record is horrible. But they have seized full control of the Biden White House.

Blinken has come out and said that Putin should be arrested and handed over to the ICC which has surrendered to his fellow Neocons. He knows that would provide World War III. This is their agenda. I have warned that the game of borrowing year after year with no intention of ever paying off the debt has come to an end. There is no outcome other than the default. They need war to cover up decades of fiscal mismanagement and they will get it.

Blinken has most likely taken the United States to a DEFCON 3 situation. US Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, a former adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, openly admitted before the Senate Armed Services Committee that Ukraine must win. This obviously is to use the Ukrainian people to accomplish this Neocon goal without US casualties as they have done in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, just to mention a few. He testified stating:

“The reasons for this American interest are many. This war threatens the American-led
international order that our fathers and grandfathers painfully won in the Second World War, and
in the Cold War that followed. Our prosperity right here at home depends directly upon the
maintenance and perpetuation of that order, with America in a leading role. We cannot be secure
in that position while Russia pursues a war of aggression that overturns the global order,
destabilizes commodities markets, and renders food-supply chains unstable. The fact that Russia
does so as a strategic ally and partner of America’s number-one rival and threat, the People’s
Republic of China, only accentuates the danger. Make no mistake: weakness against Russian
aggression is weakness against the Communist-Chinese threat. We know from history that the
dictatorial powers watch and learn, to discover just how far they can get: and we know that
Russian victory in Ukraine today almost certainly means war for Taiwan tomorrow.”

The problem is that the US has back-tracked on the one-China policy under Biden and that is what has suddenly put Taiwan in danger. But to think if Putin wins then China will take Taiwan is nonsense. China has been slapped in the face and it will take Taiwan regardless of what transpires in Ukraine. If anything, it would make more sense to wait for NATO to engage Russia and then move against Taiwan.

It is very clear that the Neocons have taken the US military most likely to DEFCON 3, which is generally seen as a standby level of alert, and it is the highest level of alert during peacetime.

CNN is Dying – Thank God!


Armstrong Economics Blog/Press Re-Posted Mar 24, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: Marty, You have a bigger readership than CNN. They dropped to 80,000 primetime. I think you are well beyond 600,000 these days. Maybe put in an offer to buy CNN for $1.49 and hire all new staff and Socrates should get his own show.

WL

REPLY: That is just amazing. I think the price is too high. It should be negative. You fire all the leftist pretend journalists and they will be in court the next day. So there would be a huge amount of liquidation costs. They would have to pay me to take over CNN and even then I think the lights should just be turned out and start fresh with something new. This is just another example of WOKENESS and how it is destroying everything it touches. Quantification, competence, and experience are no longer required for jobs in any company that is WOKE. They are all at the end of the day destined for bankruptcy. In the media, the truth has been sacrificed for fake news to manipulate people’s opinions and steer the country to its doom.

In Germany, being pro-COVID and pro-war, the press is being viewed as part of the whole agenda against the people. There are people now attacking the journalists for hiding the deaths from the vaccines. Many see the press as just evil. Some are still caught up in the vaccines and refuse to admit that there are even side effects. They have lost all sense of honor and independence. It is no longer bout truth, it is just pushing an agenda.

The German mainstream media will also cheer on sending German boys to their death in Ukraine all because that is their directive. They seem to care nothing for society whatsoever and cannot see past the end of their nose. I do not understand how they can look at themselves in the mirror every morning.

If you have any children, tell them to stay away from joining any mainstream media. It will ruin their lives forever for when the dust settles, the people will remember who they were that sent the world to its destruction.

the 1933 Bank Holiday – Can it Happen Again?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Banking Crisis Re-Posted Mar 23, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Marty there are a lot of people who seem to be trying to create a panic. Some are claiming the stock market will plunge by 50%. Others are saying nothing will survive other than gold. It seems like none of these people have any sense of what is really unfolding. They were saying the same thing for different reasons before the banking crisis. Can you offer any historical perspective?

Thank you. You seem to be the only real source these days.

Pete

ANSWER: The Bank Holiday took place the first week of March 1933. It began with governors closing down the banks in their states. Once one began, like COVID rules, they quickly jumped on the bandwagon. As reported by March 4th, 1933, some 41 states had already declared a banking holiday. Back then, the president took office in March – not January. Thus, Roosevelt was sworn in on March 4th, 1933. As the new president, FDR delivered what is arguably his best-known speech.

“So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is…fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.”

The following day, Roosevelt declared a national banking holiday on March 5th, 1933. Then Congress responded by passing the Emergency Banking Act of 1933 on March 9th, 1933. This action was combined with the Federal Reserve’s commitment to supply unlimited amounts of currency to reopened banks. Back then, they effectively created a de facto 100% deposit insurance and this was before the FDIC was created.

However, what the history books have omitted because it revealed the real reason for the major banking crisis, was the confiscation of gold precisely as Germany did in December 1922 seizing 10% of all assets which unleashed hyperinflation in 1923.

In Herbert Hoover’s memoirs (1951), he documents the fact that Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) played a very dirty game of politics. There were rumors that FDR would confiscate gold in 1932 BEFORE the election. These rumors spread and people ran to banks to withdraw their funds. The night before the election in 1932, FDR denied that he would do such a thing. After FDR won the election, the real bank panic began. FDR would not take office until March 1933.

The run on banks began as the Great Depression started. In 1929 alone, 659 banks closed their doors due to mismanagement and speculation. Ironically, to save money on paper, it was also in 1929 when the currency was reduced in size to save money. This time, they want to move to digital and save 100% on printing money. Here in 2023, the failures are due to the WOKE agenda which has deprived the banks of risk management rather than speculation.

However, as the 1931 Sovereign Debt Crisis hit, the number of bank failures skyrocketed. Goldman Sacks and others were selling foreign bonds to Americans in small denominations., As Europe began to default, US banks holding foreign debt and individuals in need of cash led to a banking panic for external reasons. Here is a chart showing the listing of bonds on the NYSE. We can easily see the collapse in the bond market thanks to the 1931 Sovereign Debt Crisis.

By 1932, an additional 5,102 banks went out of business. Families lost their life savings overnight. Thirty-eight states had adopted restrictions on withdrawals in an effort to forestall the panic. By March 4th, 41 states had declared a bank holiday shutting down banks. Bank failures increased in 1933, and Franklin Roosevelt deemed remedying these failing financial institutions his first priority after being inaugurated.

However, it was actually the election of FDR that started the banking crisis post-1931. Hoover pleaded with FDR to please come out and address the gold confiscation rumors. People had been hoarding their gold coins fearing the rumored confiscation. Despite Hoover’s plea for FDR to come out and deny the rumors after the election, he remained silent. Given FDR’s manipulation of Japan and the attack on Pearl Harbor which he appeared to instigate with sanctions confiscating Japanese assets in the USA, denying the sale of any energy to Japan, and then threatening to use the fleet to block them from buying fuel from anywhere else, They Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. There were Senate investigations afterward about FDR’s role because the US had already broken the Japanese code and knew in advance about the attack on Pearl Harbor. He did that to force the US into World War II.

It was in his character to remain silent and create the worst banking crisis in history before he was sworn in as president. FDR was a radical socialist and many viewed that he admired Lenin. If it were not for Mr. Jones exposing the truth behind Stalin, even the corrupt New York Times journalist promoting Stalinism was meeting with FDR. The run on the banks became massive when FDR won the election on November 8th, 1932. FDR allowed the banking system to implode with people rushing to withdraw the money in gold coins.

At 1:00 a.m. on Monday, March 6th, 1933, President Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2039 ordering the suspension of all banking transactions, effective immediately. Roosevelt had taken the oath of office only thirty-six hours earlier.

The terms of the presidential proclamation specified:

[N]o such banking institution or branch shall pay out, export, earmark, or permit the withdrawal or transfer in any manner or by any device whatsoever, of any gold or silver coin or bullion or currency or take any other action which might facilitate the hoarding thereof; nor shall any such banking institution or branch pay out deposits, make loans or discounts, deal in foreign exchange, transfer credits from the United States to any place abroad, or transact any other banking business whatsoever.

For an entire week, Americans would not have access to banks or banking services. They could not withdraw or transfer their money, nor could they make deposits. The entire economy ran simply on cash in your pocket.

While the first phase of the banking crisis unfolded after 1929 due to speculation losses (hence Glass–Steagall Act), then the second phase was the 1931 Sovereign Debt Crisis, it was the third phase with the election of FDR that led to thousands of banks failing as there was a mad rush to withdraw your gold coin. But a new round of problems that began in early 1933 placed a severe strain on New York banks, many of which held balances for banks in other parts of the country. About 4,000 banks failed during this period alone bringing the total to over 9,000.

Much to everyone’s relief, when the institutions that could reopen for business on March 13th, 1933 saw depositors standing in line to return their stashed cash to neighborhood banks. Within two weeks, Americans had redeposited more than half of the currency that they had withdrawn post-FDR’s election on November 8th, 1932. This would prove to be a sneaky trick of FDR to get people to redeposit all the gold coins they had withdrawn – as we are about to explore.

The stock market was also ordered closed when FDR came to power. With the cleverness of a real con artist operating a Ponzi Scheme to gain the confidence of the people, FDR needed the gold coin to be deposited for Phase 4 of the banking crisis. On March 15th, 1933, (The Ides of March), the stock market was allowed to reopen. On the first day of trading, the New York Stock Exchange recorded the largest one-day percentage price increase ever.

The week before the closure, the Dow Jones Industrials fell to 49.68. The week following the closure, the Dow rallied to 64.56 – a percentage gain of virtually 30% over the banking holiday. The shorts who were better on the collapse of the market once it reopened were devastated. It was a major short-covering rally.

With the benefit of hindsight, the nationwide Bank Holiday and the Emergency Banking Act of March 1933, ended the bank runs that had plagued the Great Depression, but it also set the stage for the confiscation of gold. What you have to understand is that Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s (FDR) actions in 1933 were not directed simply at gold. He was embarking on what he called the New Deal, which was a Marxist Agenda that was very popular at the time. His New Deal would end austerity, whereby they were maintaining a balanced budget in the belief that they needed to inspire confidence in the currency.

It was this balanced budget philosophy that also inspired John Maynard Keynes who argued that in times of economic distress when the demand has collapsed, that is when the state needs to run a deficit and increase the money supply. There was a simultaneous international flight of capital from Europe to the United States in the face of European sovereign debt defaults.  That capital flight lasted for nearly two years until FDR won the election in 1932. There was much concern that Roosevelt would do what Germany did in 1922 in confiscating assets. That was the rumor about the possible confiscation of gold.

Milton Friedman criticized the Fed because the capital flows poured into the US but they refused to monetize it. We can see that as Europe defaulted on its debts in 1931, the capital rushed head-first into the dollar. Then we see that the dollar peaked in November 1932 with the election of FDR fearing that would weaken the dollar and exploit the economy. All this gold came to the USA pushing the dollar higher, but the Fed refused to monetize it, was Milton’s criticism. The backing of gold behind the dollar doubled in supply between 1929 and 1931.

So, you must separate gold and the devaluation of the dollar to comprehend what the issue was all about. FDR could have simply abandoned the gold standard, as did Britain, and not confiscated gold. However, that would have also been sufficient to end austerity. But the bankers would have profited and sold the gold overseas at higher prices. Roosevelt in his confiscation of gold was intended to deprive the private sector of profiting from his devaluation of the dollar which was rising the price of gold from $20 to $35. You must keep in mind that he even degraded Pierre du Pont (1870-1954) and called him the “Merchant of Death” because he produced arms for World War I and made a profit off of that war demand. Many saw Roosevelt as a traitor to his own class.

ExecutiveOrder-Gold-Confiscation

The confiscation of the gold was for two reasons. First, FDR was changing the monetary system from one where there was no distinction domestically from internationally to a two-tier system. Gold would freely circulate without restriction only internationally. Therefore, the confiscation of gold was altering the monetary system moving to a two-tier monetary system with gold only used in international transactions.

Consequently, FDR confiscated gold to move to a two-tier system and to deprive Americans of any profit from his devaluation. What FDR then did was confiscate gold from all institutions ordering them to turn over whatever they had. Ironically, this move was intended to target bankers rather than the public. FDR did not have people knocking on every door demanding all their gold. That is why there are plenty of US gold coins that have survived. If individuals possessed them rather than an institution, then they kept what they owned

Therefore, Roosevelt was able to seize whatever gold existed in banks. He declared all contracts void that had gold provisions for payment. It was in Perry v. United States – 294 U.S. 330 (1935) that the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress, by virtue of its power to deal with gold coin as a medium of exchange, was authorized to prohibit its export and limit its use in foreign exchange. Hence, the restraint thus imposed upon holders of gold coins was incidental to their ownership of it, and gave them no cause of action. id/P. 294 U. S. 356.

The Supreme Court held that it could not say that the exercise of this power by Congress was arbitrary or capricious. id/P. 294 U. S. 356. They held that even if the Government’s repudiation of the gold clause in the government bonds was unconstitutional, it did not entitle the plaintiff to recover more than the loss he has actually suffered, and of which he may rightfully complain. id/P. 294 U. S. 354. Therefore, the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, held:

“insofar as it undertakes to nullify such gold clauses in obligations of the United States and provides that such obligations shall be discharged by payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts, is unconstitutional. id/P. 294 U. S. 349.

Yet, swapping gold for dollars created no loss that was cognizable even though the taking of gold was unconstitutional. Clearly, the Supreme Court did not consider the loss in terms of foreign exchange. The Court reasoned:

“Plaintiff has not attempted to show that, in relation to buying power, he has sustained any loss; on the contrary, in view of the adjustment of the internal economy to the single measure of value as established by the legislation of the Congress, and the universal availability and use throughout the country of the legal tender currency in meeting all engagements, the payment to the plaintiff of the amount which he demands would appear to constitute not a recoupment of loss in any proper sense, but an unjustified enrichment.”

In my understanding of the law, those who argued before the Court made purely a domestic argument. A dollar was still a dollar in domestic terms so there was no cognizable loss and the Court did not reach the constitutional question. Had they argued that their loss was with respect to some debt owed in British pounds, they there was a loss. Purely domestically, the only loss would have been to inflation and the Court would never rule against the government on such an issue.

All of that said, there does not appear to be any historical precedent for the stock market to collapse by 50%, all tangible assets to turn to dust, and only gold will survive given a banking crisis where Biden and Yellen sit on each other’s hands and do nothing. Trust me. Every major Democratic donor will be screaming. And as for those claiming the Fed will reverse its position, say inflation is suddenly no longer a problem, and monetize everything in sight, this is even too big for the Fed. have to create QE and absorb all the debt, there to things have changed. If the Fed does that, it will also lose all credibility. It squarely understands that inflation comes from handing Ukraine a black check to the most corrupt government in the world. The Fed raised rates yesterday for it cannot back down. It is choreographing the best it can but the bankers do not listen.

If they simply stand behind all the deposits, then there will be no panic. That is what they did in 1933 and the market rallied in confidence thereafter.

The Fed Does Not Back Down


Armstrong Economics Blog/Interest Rates Re-Posted Mar 22, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: Marty, it’s refreshing to have Socrates that is totally unbiased. It projected continued rising rates into next year and the Fed just proved its point. It is not backing down.

Thank you. Socrates is very enlightening.

GS

ANSWER: I know there were a lot of talks that surely the Fed had to lower rates and start QE all over again. Most of those sorts of comments have no real experience in markets. They just mouth a lot of hot air. Perhaps instead of putting masks on cows, we should do that on the shills. The Federal Reserve had no choice but to raise interest rates although it was just by a quarter point. Not to do so and the Fed would lose all credibility and the market would then not take them seriously.

You MUST understand that this crisis has unfolded because too many banks were wrapped up in WOKE culture and hired people who were UNQUALIFIED to run risk management. Some were more excited about cross-dressing as a woman and winning the Rainbow award in banking than actually protecting the bank from the risk of rising interest rates.

In a statement released at the conclusion of the meeting, Fed officials acknowledged that recent financial market turmoil is weighing on inflation and the economy, though they expressed confidence in the overall system. “The US banking system is sound and resilient.” They had no choice but to make this statement.

“Recent developments are likely to result in tighter credit conditions for households and businesses and to weigh on economic activity, hiring and inflation. The extent of these effects is uncertain.”

The Fed is saying that their rise in rates will in fact reduce inflation and economic activity. The banks have this yield curve risk and that is different from the 2007-2009 crisis where the debt was based on fraud. Here, the debt is US Treasuries so they are not going bankrupt from that aspect, but it is a liquidity crisis.

If these people who scream loudly but know nothing really about finance keep up the nonsense, they will only add to the uncertainly. This inflation is accelerating thanks to the war.

Alvan Bragg & the Destruction of the United States


Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption Re-Posted Mar 19, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

If Donald Trump is arrested or even indicted by this personally motivated prosecutor in New York City, this is not just un-American for the ruling party to use police power to arrest its political rivals, the United States has fallen so far that there is no coming back. Ukraine routinely impressions political rivals because it is the most corrupt government in the world. The United States is no longer the beacon of liberty to the world – it is showing how corrupt the legal system has become. New York City is not the Big Apple, it is worse than the most corrupt legal system in any banana Republic. NYC has surpassed even Adolf Hitler’s most notorious court which had a 90% conviction rate. The Feds in NYC have exceeded 97%. Those that escape are by mistake or they mysteriously die.

Alvan Bragg, the vindictive Manhattan prosecutor trying to climb the ladder on the dead body of Donald Trump, actually came out and said like some tyrant: “We do not tolerate attempts to intimidate our office or threaten the rule of law in New York.” There is no Rule of Law in New York City. It is a complete joke and a fraud to even utter those words. What is next? Do they indict Trump for parking tickets for all his employees? Or perhaps he starts indicting people who bad-mouth NYC? This is the way these DAs rise to political power. They always look to charge someone famous and then run for political office.

Even Ramaswamy, the tech entrepreneur who recently declared his GOP candidacy, wrote on Twitter Saturday. “If a Republican prosecutor in 2004 had used a campaign finance technicality to arrest then-candidate John Kerry while Bush & Cheney were in power, liberals would have cried foul—and rightly so.” If anyone should have been criminally prosecuted it was Hillary for using a private email server to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act where people could have gotten her official emails and never knew about her private server. That impacted National Security – not hush money to a prostitute.

“This will mark a dark moment in American history and will undermine public trust in our electoral system itself,” Ramaswamy also wrote. “I call on the Manhattan District Attorney to reconsider this action and to put aside partisan politics in service of preserving our Constitutional republic.”

The Democrats have gone way too far. They have divided the United States and there is NOT going to be a return.  These forecasts I have relayed are those of the computer. They have never been my personal opinion. Forecasting war and that it would turn up in 2014 at the 2011 World Economic Conference was by no means possible from a human intuition perspective. In 2013, I was able to relay that the computer had targeted Ukraine as the hot spot for World War III.

The computer has also forecast that the United States would break apart and we would see a major separatist movement. I put that forecast out also in 2011. At no time did I ever expect that we would be the aggressor in this war, thanks to the Neocons, but also I never expected the Democrats to sink to such low a position of integrity that has rejected everything that this nation was constructed on.

All I can say, nobody has EVER beaten Socrates – NOBODY and that includes me. This does not give me pleasure or bragging rights. I had hoped that Socrates would have shown us the way to steer between the rocks immune to the Sirens as Ulysses on this voyage to a new world order, but one I see as freedom – not tyranny.

Unfortunately, we cannot tie Biden or the Neocons who control him to the mast in hopes that they understand that we have basic human rights not to be manipulated as their toy soldiers for their pleasure.

What will be – will be. All I can hope is that Socrates proves itself and perhaps after the crash and burn, someone, will have the courage to listen.

Censoring Social Media to Prevent Bank Runs


Armstrong Economics Blog/Censorship Re-Posted Mar 15, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

They censored social media to prevent the public from learning the truth about COVIDvaccines, and accompanying mandates. They censored social media to prevent the public from learning about Hunter Biden’s laptop before his dad could be installed at the POTUS. They censored anyone who questioned the election or Biden’s crime family and deliberately leaked Republican voter information. The extreme censorship on social media by biased fact-checkers expanded beyond the US. So it comes as no surprise that the government would like to censor “misinformation” that could lead to a bank run.

The people within the system know when a bank is failing, as we saw with SVB’s recent collapse.  Senator Mark Kelly (D-Arizona) asked the Federal Reserve, Treasury Department, and Federal Deposit and Insurance Corp (FDIC) if it would be possible to censor information that could lead to future bank runs. Kelly is denying the claims despite people on both sides confirming his question.

The government implements bots on social media to support its agenda. Elon Musk exposed Twitter prior to the takeover. Twitter admitted when filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that around 5% of its 300 million users are in fact fake accounts. Once Musk began to crack down on fake accounts, members of the Democratic Party saw sharp declines in followers.

Twitter quietly began to crack down on bots in April 2022, and some of the most followed accounts saw a significant drop in followers. Former President Obama once held the record for being the most followed man on Twitter with 131.7 million followers. After the algorithm changed, Obama lost 300,000 followers instantly. Pop singer Katy Perry, the third-most-followed account and an outspoken Democrat, lost 200,000 of her 108.8 million followers. Half of President Joe Biden’s 22.2 million followers are fake accounts. Based on the 2020 US Presidential Election, Biden should be the most popular president in history after securing more votes than any other president. “My strong intuitive sense is that having a public platform that is maximally trusted and broadly inclusive is extremely important to the future of civilization. I don’t care about the economics at all,” Musk said in April of 2022.

So Kelly’s proposal is not merely a method to avoid bank runs. This is infringing on our Constitutional right to the freedom of speech to control the masses via media. Let us not forget that nearly all social media platforms heavily lean left and support the same message.

Toxic Currencies – Good for the Yuan


Armstrong Economics Blog/China Re-Posted Mar 14, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

The Chinese yuan has out-traded the US dollar by volume for one of the first times in recent Russian history. The dollar was king in 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed, but that is no longer the case after Moscow branded the dollar a “toxic currency” along with the euro. Toxic currencies accounted for 87% of exports from Russia at the beginning of 2022, but this figure fell to 48% by the start of the new year. The Bank of Russia has reported that the proportion of USD/ruble pair in exchange fell to only 36% in February. The central bank is calling this a “broad structural transformation of the Russian economy.”

As “unfriendly countries” and their “toxic currencies” band together, those on the outskirts are winning. China has become the new go-to country for new trade partnerships as it bypasses Western-imposed sanctions. Toxic currencies represented 46% of imports in December 2022 but were at 65% in January 2022 before the war. In contrast, the yuan’s share rose from 4% to 23% during that time.

Those who were previously shunned from the big table are now pulling up a chair to discuss economic prospects with China. This will make it much easier to phase out toxic currencies because more people are willing to accept the yuan. The confidence in the yuan is growing. Everything occurring may seem odd, but it is precisely on target. As I mentioned in my report “China on the Rise,” China will dethrone the United States to become the world’s leading economic powerhouse by 2032. It’s just time.

Tucker Carlson Defends Himself Against DC Attacks – “We are learning who the liars are”…


Posted originally on the CTH on March 9, 2023 | Sundance

Tucker Carlson has been under blistering attacks from the administrative state in Washington DC, the professional media, Democrats and Republicans in congress as well as the agencies of the FBI, DHS and DOJ.  {Direct Rumble Link Here}

Mr. Carlson responded again tonight to the vitriol from the apparatus of government for his airing of the January 6th CCTV tapes and the fallout from the sunlight.  Extensive segment as aired – WATCH:


Florida Republican Bill Would Require Bloggers to Register with the State in Order to Criticize State Government Officials, Including Ron DeSantis


Posted originally on te CTH on March 2, 2023 | Sundance

Comrade ‘crackers‘, there were moments in the before time when many people, most believing the narrative engineering from the professional political media, thought Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy would be a voice for freedom and democracy.  However, those thoughts dispatched quickly when the actions of the former comedic actor showed a deep red totalitarian underbelly and opposition parties were made illegal, the state took control over all media and even religion was deemed adverse to the interests of the state.

History indeed rhyming, as the ‘new Ukranian democratic norms‘ merged with the totalitarian fiats and timing around the pandemic.

Perhaps we should not have been surprised given that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the entire European Union were quick to exploit the opportunity COVID-19 created.

Essential citizen definitions quickly promoted, digital identifies manifest, vaccine passports rushed to assembly, bar and QR code scans for human activity created gateways for permission granted by the state.  Meanwhile unregistered movement was restricted, quarantine camps set up and mandatory vaccine compliance was the law.

So, we travel 5,000 miles west from Ukraine, arrive in the sunshine state of Florida circa 2022/2023 and watch as State government takes control over private industry, new laws dictate rules upon local school boards, proposed laws now discussed to ban opposition parties, state officials inserted into newly created government agencies as monitors to regulate commercial activity, and then suddenly something within the latest development under Governor Ron DeSantis starts to rhyme with Ukraine.

FLORIDA – […] Senate Bill 1316: Information Dissemination, would require any blogger writing about government officials to register with the Florida Office of Legislative Services or the Commission on Ethics.

Yes comrade crackers, the skin of the state is so thin to criticism that words create harm against public officials and must be regulated.  Permission to criticize must now be requested and registered with the state government or face financial penalties.

[…]  In the bill, Brodeur wrote that those who write “an article, a story, or a series of stories,” about “the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, a Cabinet officer, or any member of the Legislature,” and receives or will receive payment for doing so, must register with state offices within five days after the publication of an article that mentions an elected state official.

If another blog post is added to a blog, the blogger would then be required to submit monthly reports on the 10th of each month with the appropriate state office. They would not have to submit a report on months when no content is published.

For blog posts that “concern an elected member of the legislature” or “an officer of the executive branch,” monthly reports must disclose the amount of compensation received for the coverage, rounded to the nearest $10 value.

Failure to file these disclosures or register with state officials, if the bill passes, would lead to daily fines for the bloggers, with a maximum amount per report, not per writer, of $2,500. The per-day fine is $25 per report for each day it’s late.

The bill also requires that bloggers file notices of failure to file a timely report the same way that lobbyists file their disclosures and reports on assessed fines. Fines must be paid within 30 days of payment notice, unless an appeal is filed with the appropriate office. Fine payments must be deposited into the Legislative Lobbyist Registration Trust Fund if it concerns an elected member of the legislature.

[…] Explicitly, the blogger rule would not apply to newspapers or similar publications, under Brodeur’s proposed legislation. […] Should the bill pass, it would take effect immediately upon approval. (read more)

Why would I provide the context of Ukraine for an outline highlighting the totalitarian mindset that is sweeping through Florida?

The answer is a very simple and visible connective tissue, a connection born from within the schools funded by George Soros, linking both the installation of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the branding, management and handling of a notoriously thin-skinned Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

.

.

RELATED – […] Despite the seemingly cordial tone of the interview, Mr. DeSantis at one point became irritated with his interlocutor.

Mr. Charter writes that when he asked Mr. DeSantis how he would handle American relations with Ukraine, the governor referred “to Biden being ‘weak on the world stage’ and failing at deterrence.”

Mr. Charter pressed for more detail: How would a President DeSantis handle the conflict in Ukraine?

“Perhaps you should cover some other ground?” the governor replied. “I think I’ve said enough.” (link)

Supreme Court Refused to Hear the Brunson Case As Expected


Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted Feb 22, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: Marty, you understand markets and the legal system. You were right again. The Supreme Court rejected the Brunson case.

KQ

REPLY: As I wrote before, this was an interesting argument, but it will be even more

“earth-shattering if the Supreme Court actually takes the case and rules on the validity of taking an oath of office.”

How can you support, and defend, the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic if you refuse to even investigate the claim?

US Supreme Court

Here is the real monumental problem. Does the Supreme Court act constitutionally or has it denied citizens the right to be heard as declared by the Constitution itself? This is why they fight to stack the Supreme Court because the law is just not the law. The real issue is the Judiciary Act of 1925 and the court itself.

I specialized, not just in history, but also in the rise and fall of nations. Historically, a collapse in the rule of law is a key element in the fall of nations. I studied law intensely and some lawyers will often call me on constitutional questions. Why? When you go to law school, you spend very little time on the Constitution. The bulk of law concerns statutory law which is everything written and passed by Congress from civil rights to Obamacare. Very few cases end up challenging the constitutionality of a statute. Instead, they merely challenge the unconstitutional acts of government agents such as police and politicians.

The Supreme Court held that the Constitution is negative, meaning it is a restraint upon government, in Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980). That means citizens cannot demand that government create any social program for there is no such Marxist component to the Constitution that people assume exists. There is no government obligation to pay for an abortion or a heart transplant.

I am going to make a statement here I have made to Constitutional lawyers that make their eyes pop out. The Supreme Court has no Constitutional right or permission to exercise “discretion” to hear a case. They must hear every case presented to them for that is dictated by the Constitution and cannot be circumvented by a statute written by Congress or by its own rule-making practice. No statute or rule can negate the constitution as defined by the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Paragraph 2).

The Supreme Court receives approximately 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each term (year). The court grants and hears oral arguments in about 80 cases per year in a country of over 300 million. That is outrageous and this practice denies the people the constitutional guarantee of a tripartite government (3 branches) with each branch acting as a check and balance against the others. Let’s review what the structure of government crafted by the Founding Fathers created.

Marshall John Chief Justice - 1

Chief Justice Marshall was held in the landmark case Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1 Cranch) (1803) in which he declared the role of the Judiciary branch. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” When the nation began, the Supreme Court justices rode on “circuits.” Each justice heard cases in their assigned circuits around the country for there were no circuit courts with federal judges. Article III, Section I, of the Constitution expressly states:

“The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” 

The Constitution guaranteed the Supreme Court. It gave the option to Congress to create inferior federal courts around the country, but this was by no means mandatory. The implications of this are quite profound for it means that Congress can close all the federal inferior district and appellate courts, but it cannot close the Supreme Court. The tripartite structure of government requires the Supreme Court – not inferior courts. Justice Reynolds explained this succinctly:

“The accepted doctrine is that the lower federal courts were created by the acts of Congress and their powers and duties depend upon the acts which called them into existence, or subsequent ones which extend or limit.”

Gillis v California, 293 US 52, 66 (1934)

Your constitutional right to be heard is being DENIED. That right is being circumvented by demanding you go to a district court judge, then appeal to that circuit court, and then apply to be heard as one of the 7,000+ petitions when they only accept 80. What if a child could not speak to his or her father and would only communicate with them through some nanny? Is there a relationship bond between the father and the child? Of course not.

Inferior courts are under no obligation to apply even a uniform legal code. Each has its own rules and precedents that are unique to each circuit. The law as practiced in New York is different than as practiced in California, Texas, or Florida. It is not all the same! There is no guarantee of EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW when these circuit courts are free to do as they like. The media never writes about this and does not find it strange that we have no unified rule of law in the United States. You have to get to the Supreme Court and they are supposed to take such cases to establish the law nationally when it differs among the circuits.

Chief Justice Marshall also held in 1821 a very important decision holding:

“If the constitution does not confer on the court, or on the federal judiciary, the power sought to be exercised, it is in vain that the act of Congress purports to confer it…” 

Cohen v Virginia, 19 US 264 (6 Wheat) (1821) id/324

Congress reduced the power of the Supreme Court by eliminating the constitutional status of the court by enabling them to decide to hear cases at their “discretion,” but that is totally unconstitutional for no statute can amend the Constitution. Any statute or rule created by Congress cannot circumvent the Constitution – PERIOD!

The Constitution ONLY created the Supreme Court. Congress created the statutory inferior court which can be closed at any time because they were NOT created by the Constitution. Therefore, it is blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Judiciary Act of 1925 to reduce the Supreme Court to one of discretion. That is a constructive amendment to the constitution which in itself is an act of outright rebellion.