Supreme Court Bombshell Decisions Due June 13th


Posted originally on Jun 7, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Supreme Court BW

The Supreme Court has 28 decisions still remaining, and there are a lot of really important cases that will shape history. The next opinion day will be June 13; this 2023-2024 term ends on June 28th. Buried within these 28 cases is the only one regarding deference to agencies known as the Chevron decision. Many hope that will be overruled, which will be a victory for the private sector, as well as the rulings on the abortion pill mifepristone. However, the political game changer will be former President Donald Trump’s presidential immunity. The court heard oral arguments in Trump v. United States on April 25.

DJIND D Array 6 6 24


It’s going to be a real legal mess, to say the least. I noticed that we had a Directional Change show up for announcement day – June 13th. That is very unusual, for it is the FIRST time I have ever seen the computer highlight on a Supreme Court announcement day. The Panic Cycle on the 17th is also showing up in the Euro.

UBCBT D Array 6 6 24

However, the FOMC meeting at the Federal Reserve is on the 11-12th. When we look at the 30-year bond, we can see a Panic Cycle and a Directional Change for the 12th. The computer has been able to forecast even FOMC meetings. Interestingly, we also have a panic cycle showing up on the 12th in some European markets. Add to this mess, we have the EU elections on June 9th.

The decision, especially on the Trump Immunity case, may have the biggest impact. Many people thought that the Supreme Court would remand it and instruct the district court to parse what is and what is not an official act. If the Supreme Court was going to do that, it would have a quick decision. This opens the door to two possibilities.

(1) The court will state that Trump has virtually absolute immunity. That is probably the wisest decision that would wipe out all cases against Trump. If this is NOT done, then there will be a very dangerous precedent, and you can bet that denying that immunity to Trump can then be used against Biden and even Obama if he intervenes in the current election. Granting virtual absolute immunity will save the USA from weaponizing the DOJ and transforming the nation into a banana republic. You can bet WHATEVER they have done to Trump, the other side will do to Biden et al.

(2) The Special Prosecutor has NO jurisdiction to do what he is doing. He was not appointed by Congress nor confirmed. He was a special appointment by the DOJ, and he actually does not even fall under prosecutorial immunity himself. That would be a valid decision that would end the Washington and Florida cases.

They Are Coming for Alito and It Has Nothing to Do With Upside Down Flags


Posted originally on the CTH on May 19, 2024 | Sundance 

You are not going to like this, and most will say I’m nuts. However, with more than a dozen years of crazy “right-wing conspiracy theories” proven out in real time, I hope the long-time readers will adjust their perspectives and affairs accordingly.

The IC is coming after Judge Sam Alito, but not because of his non pretending, general J6 disdain, solid grasp on the fraud that is Joe Biden, or his wife having an upside-down flag (although the non-pretending aspect is very troubling for them). No, the IC has been coming for Justice Alito since Chief Justice John Robert’s internal court counselor’s lead office staff, Sheldon Snook, the husband of Mary McCord, leaked the Alito decision [Dobbs Decision] overturning Roe and sending the abortion issue back to the states.

The Sheldon Snook leak, hidden by Justice Roberts due to the origination from his office, is the structural compromise within the court that gives the IC leverage over the third branch of government.  In a strange situation, Judge Alito appears to be holding the line and forcing the IC to come out of the shadows after him.  My hunch is he’s just had enough.

There was a recent decision by the Supreme Court to validate the funding mechanism for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a racketeering operation of government created by Elizabeth Warren {GO DEEP – AMY HOWE} {GO DEEP – Background}.

The CFPB is supposed to protect consumers from predatory financial systems.  That was the selling point. However, the CFPB is paid by (read “funded by”) the Federal Reserve to protect the interests of the U.S. dollar reserve system; that’s the deep state motive (you’ll see why later).  The other motive is the CFPB blackmailing the financial sector to support Democrat operations and policies – or else [we’re not supposed to talk about that part].

What few people paid attention to recently, including Amy Howe of SCOTUS blog, was….  the 7-2 decision not only approved the funding mechanism as constitutional (it’s not), but the high court also reversed itself on the 2020 decision about the constitutionality of the CFPB itself.  Why reverse itself in only four short years?  That’s where you need to see the leverage and insert John Roberts hiding the Sheldon Snook leak.

2017 SCOTUS had issues with the CFPB’s constitutional structure.  2020 SCOTUS still has issues with the CFPB’s constitutional structure.  2024 SCOTUS suddenly says ‘all good’ to CFPB funding and constitutional structure.  What changed?  Court is compromised by hiding the Dobbs leak.

However, Justice Alito…. same justice who wrote the Dobbs decision….  wrote the dissenting opinion on the CFPB construct (joined by Gorsuch).

AMY HOWE – In his dissenting opinion, Alito rejected Thomas’ recounting of history, arguing that the drafters of the Constitution “would be shocked, even horrified, by” the CFPB’s funding scheme. Offering his own detailed version of history, Alito concluded that “centuries of historical practice show that the Appropriations Clause demands legislative control over the source and disposition of the money used to finance Government operations and projects.”

But the CFPB’s “unprecedented combination of funding features,” Alito wrote, “affords it the very kind of financial independence that the Appropriations Clause was designed to prevent. It is not an exaggeration to say that the CFPB enjoys a degree of financial autonomy that a Stuart king would envy.”

And that autonomy, Alito continued, “has real-world consequences.” Alito noted several “major” changes to consumer protection law that the CFPB has recently announced, including guidance indicating that financial institutions should not deny credit to consumers based on their immigration status, as well as a proposed rulemaking to cap overdraft fees and remove medical bills from credit reports. “These may or may not be wise policies,” Alito concluded, “but Congress did not specifically authorize any of them, and if the CFPB’s financing scheme is sustained, Congress cannot control or monitor the CFPB’s use of funds to implement such changes.” (MORE)

Alito is correct, but that’s not the core issue.

The CFPB is funded by the federal reserve, and will be a key player in the implementation of the dollar-based Central Bank Digital Currency (D-BCBDC).   Likely, the CFPB will be the authorizing agency for the major banks that will facilitate digital currency transactions; this puts the CFPB in the position of power with the mechanics of central control. This is why Senator Elizabeth Warren is the key player in both the CFPB (she created it) and the currently ongoing legislation against crypto currency.

The D-B CBDC is almost certainly going to happen.  Too much blood and treasure (NATO push + Ukraine use) has been shed to construct the financial walls that support it (Russian sanctions). Additionally, the issues are too complex for the average person to engage in opposition.

In related news, just as Australia was the tip of the spear in the COVID-19 vaccination enforcement effort, so too is the nation down-under the leading organizer of the digital identity that forms the baseline for the digital currency distribution model.

AUSTRALIA – […] The Digital ID Bill 2024 and Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2024 passed through the House of Representatives on the evening of 16 May in what the Department of Finance is calling a “milestone for the program”.

“This provides certainty for the expansion of the Australian government digital ID system and for providers and services to apply to join the government’s system. An economy-wide digital ID system will provide many benefits to Australians by improving privacy and security when interacting online,” the department said in a statement.

“It will also strengthen the voluntary Accreditation Scheme for digital ID service providers that wish to demonstrate compliance with best practice privacy, security, proofing and authentication standards, providing Australians with more choice of secure and trusted providers.”

Once the act comes into effect, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be the digital ID regulator, with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner regulating the privacy aspects of the new system. (read more)

As most will remember, the European Union has already constructed their digital identity via the mandated COVID-19 Passport process.  For the key components, the EU is already digital id compliant thanks to COVID.

The Russian sanctions were not created to block the Russians.  The Russian sanctions were created to wall-in the West.

There are now networks of people who operate in various places that create proactive financial mechanisms for what you might call, “financial preppers.”

These people and groups set up bank accounts in foreign countries for you; they organize addresses (needed), phone numbers (needed), and create accounts that you can access that are outside the control of the dollar-based financial system.  You can even get an official passport in the process.

These people also sell hardware [to support the phone numbers (really digital ids)] that is completely different from what exists behind the wall of the yellow zone.

How many Americans know that an iPhone-15 sold in the USA is completely different from an iPhone-15 sold outside the yellow zone? Meaning, the internal hardware is different.  How many Americans know that?

How many Americans know that an iPhone-15 sold inside the USA has different originating software than an iPhone-15 sold outside the USA?

How many people know that when you purchase one of these “ghost phones”, the data network automatically identifies the disparity when the phone crosses into the yellow zone, and shortly thereafter the cellular network transmits a software update to bring the “ghost phone” into USA (yellow zone) compliance?

How many Americans know phone apps, and internal app functions, can exist on phones outside the yellow zone that do not exist inside the yellow zone?

Example: use a ghost phone, and you can access a digital wallet in Telegram; you can transmit funds to other Telegram users. However, use a USA compliant phone and you cannot.  The function is there, but the service is, “not available in your area.”

Why?

It’s about control.

If you don’t update the software, the function exists inside the yellow zone.  However, update the software, and the function disappears.

This happens.

Another real-life example was recently missed by many people when the story of the Apple Watch Series 9 was found to have violated patent technology and was banned for sale in the USA. {STORY}

To get into legal compliance, Apple transmitted a remote software update disabling the function of the patent technology in the USA.  Again, for emphasis, only in the USA.   Bring your non-compliant Series-9 into the range of a wifi network, and bingo – auto-compliance.  I mention this story only to highlight a modern compliance capability that many people do not know exists.

In essence, your tech devices – and the capability therein – are different than an identical tech device sold outside the Western control zone.

♦ Technology is intertwined with Central Bank Digital Currencies.  Tech companies are regulated by the U.S/Western government, and the tech companies have to comply.  The regulatory compliance is part of the process of control.  There are regulatory walls around us that most do not understand.  The same regulatory principle applies to finance and banking. Hence, the origination motive of the yellow zone wall, built under the auspices of Russian sanctions.

Let me make one big point resoundingly clear. When the WESTERN Central Bank Digital Currency system begins, all forms of cryptocurrency will be blocked and made unlawful inside the Western zone – either by regulation or by legislation.

Let me repeat this.  Cryptocurrency in all forms will be banned.

Crypto is not technically a currency; it is a barter based on trust.  However, at a certain point (origination or end) crypto must have the ability to transfer into currency value. Dollars (or another currency) are needed to purchase BitCoin,…. or BitCoin eventually sold or exchanged for Dollars (or another currency).  [BitCoin only used as a familiar type of crypto.]  This process is where crypto gets blocked.

Ownership of Crypto may not be unlawful, but any effort to use Crypto as an alternate digital currency to exchange value will be unlawful once the dollar based CBDC is launched.

A fully implemented govt controlled central bank digital currency will not allow competition.  Alternate digital currency will be banned.

Ultimately, a dollar-based US-Central Bank Digital Currency, ie a “digital dollar,” is about control.

Every transaction has a unique digital fingerprint, and every digital dollar can be traced by the IRS to the digital id associated with it.

There is a BIG difference between electronic funds (current), and a digital dollar (future).

CFPB Background

CBDC Background

US Supreme Court Votes AGAINST the People – Invasion Continues


Posted originally on Jan 24, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Supreme Court Building

The Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling permitting the federal government to stop any attempts to control the crisis at the US-Mexico border. The initial case was in regard to the razor wire Texas implemented at its southern border, which now must be removed based on this ruling. This is an establishment issue that goes far beyond liberal policies.

Justices Roberts and Barrett sided with the liberals, while Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh dissented with no explanation. Our top court owes it to the people of America to explain why they are siding against us and ignoring the Constitution they have sworn to uphold.

The Supreme Court has removed your sovereignty at the state level. States no longer have the right to protect themselves from invasion.

Texas GOP Governor Greg Abbott does not seem to be backing down. Why do we have a National Guard in every state if the federal government can come in and tell them to stand down when enforcing state laws? Abbott’s camp explained that the “absence of razor wire and other deterrence strategies encourages migrants to make unsafe and illegal crossings between ports of entry” and the state “will continue fighting to defend Texas’ property and its constitutional authority to secure the border.”

Then you have videos of the US military escorting illegal migrants over the razor wire.

“The result of Texas’s position would be that States across the country could invoke their laws to impede the federal government’s exercise of its authority,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in court papers. So this goes far beyond even the border crisis. This ruling was meant to show the American public that they are at the mercy of the federal government. Again, we have just lost our sovereignty at the state level. They will look to this ruling in the future when states dare to defy Washington.

Migrant Detention Center

Section IV Article 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

The Supreme Court and everyone in Washington has turned Americans against one another. What will happen when the Texas National Guard refuses to back down? The mass invasion should be seen as an act of war. Section IV Article 4 states that the federal government must protect each state against invasion. Numerous states are firmly standing with Texas against the fed — Texas is not alone in this battle. WE THE PEOPLE are infuriated, and there is no way that this can end peacefully. Tensions are rising as we enter an extremely explosive year in politics.

High Court Drama – 19 States File Brief With Supreme Court Supporting Donald Trump Immunity Decision, Jack Smith Files Response


Posted originally on the CTH on December 21, 2023 | Sundance 

President Trump has asked the Supreme Court to allow the legal arguments with presidential immunity to follow the traditional path through the appeals court [pdf court filing].  Special Prosecutor Jack Smith wants to sidestep the appeals court and go directly to the Supreme Court for resolution.

As noted by Politico, President Trump’s lawyers “repeatedly warning the justices to avoid “haste,” Trump’s lawyers skewered Smith for taking extraordinary steps to preserve the March 4, 2024, trial date without detailing why taking the case to a jury just over two months from now is so critical.”  In essence, Jack Smith is trying to force a fast trial on schedule to gain maximum interference with the GOP primary election, while Trump’s lawyers are calling him out for it.

Jack Smith filed a response to the Trump filing, again reasserting, “the public interest in a prompt resolution of this case favors an immediate, definitive decision by this court. The charges here are of the utmost gravity. This case involves — for the first time in our nation’s history — criminal charges against a former president based on his actions while in office. And not just any actions: alleged acts to perpetuate himself in power by frustrating the constitutionally prescribed process for certifying the lawful winner of an election,” wrote Mr. Smith. “The nation has a compelling interest in a decision.”

Smith is worried the appeals court arguments and final decision will extend beyond the 2024 term of the Supreme Court, setting up a lengthy continuation of the DC case against Trump into October and November of 2024.   Trump’s team is saying the issues before the court are unprecedented and careful deliberation is needed.

To support the position of Donald Trump, 19 states filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court today [pdf Here].

[…] “In 234 years of American history, no President ever faced criminal prosecution for his official acts. Until 19 days ago, no court had ever addressed whether immunity from such prosecution exists. To this day, no appellate court has addressed it. The question stands among the most complex, intricate, and momentous issues that this Court will be called on to decide.

This Court’s ordinary review procedures will allow the D.C. Circuit to address this appeal in the first instance, thus granting this Court the benefit of an appellate court’s prior consideration of these historic topics and performing the traditional winnowing function that this Court has long preferred. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit has already granted highly expedited review of President Trump’s appeal over President Trump’s opposition, with briefing to be concluded by January 2, 2024, and oral argument scheduled for January 9, 2024.

The Special Counsel urges this Court to bypass those ordinary procedures, including the longstanding preference for prior consideration by at least one court of appeals, and rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon. The Court should decline that invitation at this time, for several reasons. (read more, pdf)

Making matters more complex for the high court to review, former Attorney General Edwin Meese III and law professors Steven G Calabresi and Gary S Lawson have filed a briefing as Amici Curiae (friend of the court, not connected to either party), [pdf HERE] challenging the legitimacy of the Biden appointed special counsel, Jack Smith.

[SOURCE]

Regardless of whether the Supreme Court wants to weigh in on these issues, they are going to have to respond. This is in addition to the Supreme Court ultimately having to determine how the insufferable Colorado lawfare ruling is going to stand.

The Robert’s led supreme court does not like issues involving the political dynamic; however, on these two issues they are likely going to have to choose. If they deny the Jack Smith request, the trial of Donald Trump could be delayed until the resolution of presidential immunity ultimately reaches them (after appellate court review). However, there is a strong possibility the appeals court will side with President Trump, and the appeal to SCOTUS will then come from Jack Smith.

Scalia & the Right to Secede


Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted May 15, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Marty; There are those who say Scalia was wrong for he claimed the civil war was correct and he changed the meaning of the Second Amendment. You are the real constitutional scholar on these issues. Is there a right to secede by a state? Did Scalia really change the Second Amendment?

Thank you so much for your diverse background.

Kirk

ANSWER: As far as the question of the Civil War, Scalia answered a question for a movie and it was simply a letter and not a court decision that he rendered. Saying that question was decided by the Civil War and that the precedent was that there is no right to secede was not his opinion, but the established law of the Court. Scalia could not respond otherwise for that was in fact the law, right or wrong. The decision of the Court was not Scalia’s. The argument for secession is not nearly as clear-cut as people think. The Supreme Court in 1869 ruled that secession is illegal.

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), was a case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869 where Texas sought to recoup its bond losses. The case involved a claim by the Reconstruction government of Texas that United States bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War. Texas filed suit directly with the United States Supreme Court under the Constitutional provision giving the Court original jurisdiction.

The court ruled that Texas had remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union. The fact that it joined the Confederate States and was at the time under military rule. Therefore, they decided on the merits of the bond issue. That is where the Court held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States. Consequently, that meant that all the acts of the legislatures within the Confederate states were “absolutely null” and void. Hence, that decision was mandatory or the US would have to also honor the bonds of the Confederate States. That is why the 14th Amendment was passed stating that the Confederate states would not question the debt of the North, but there would be no compensation for the debt of the South.

Therefore, those who ridicule Scalia are just typical soap-box lawyers who pretend to know things they do not. Scalia’s response was correct for that was the precedent and we see that the same position is taken in Europe. Once you join, there is no divorce. We see the war in Ukraine is also over the secession of the Donbas. This was the difference between Lenin and Stalin. Lenin believed that the states could secede from the federation and Stalin said no way.

Scalia is correct. The power of the federal government will NEVER acknowledge any right of any state to secede. Scalia said that the Civil War decided that issue which is correct because any secession today would also have to be by force of arms – not in some court.

What people seem to wrongly think is that Justice Antonin Scalia made some ruling on this subject. Scalia was responding to a letter from a screenwriter working on a comedy dealing with secession in 2006. Scalia wrote he could not imagine such a case ever reaching the Supreme Court. Scalia wrote in 2006:

“I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be.  Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment?

But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.”

Scalia said that the last attempt at secession also established a clear precedent.

“If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.” 

Scalia is correct insofar as Texas v White established that there is no right to secede. However, there is no strict construction of the Constitution to support that. Many historians and legal experts also say the Civil War clearly established there is “no right” to secede. However, that was by force of arms – not law! Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution lists acts that states cannot undertake, and secession is not on that list. That was a decision that was biased and necessary at the time to prevent having to pay the debts of the South. The real question is when the United States breaks up, I seriously doubt that it will be a legal case asking permission. I personally believe that the Constitution does NOT prohibit secession. That is simply the self-interest of Washington and thus the only real right will be by force of arms. Anyone who claims otherwise is a toss-up between an idiot and a fool.

As far as Scalia’s decision in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER back in 2008, his strict construction came shining through. Many people who want to eliminate gun ownership argue that bearing arms was only for a militia that has been supplanted by a standing army and therefore the Second Amendment is no longer valid.

It was Scalia who shot that argument down. He held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the 2nd Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts, and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. That shows what I am talking about with strict construction. The liberal view would have said the right was tied to a militia exclusively. He wrote:

” We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. “

So I do not see where anyone can say that Scalia somehow rewrote the Second Amendment to deny gun rights. All things, including speech, have limits and regulations. It is not free speech to yell fire in a movie theater. Judge Amy Coney Barrett has vowed to follow Scalia. It was Apprendi v New Jersey, the decision championed by Justice Scalia was based upon strict construction. Before then, it was Judges deciding facts – not juries. The denial of a right to a jury trial was common practice in the United States. It was Scalia who change the Judiciary and defended the people. No other judge would protect citizens and finally, Scalia was able to convince others that this was a violation of the Sixth Amendment. Anyone who disparages Scalia must be a leftist who loves government power. Scalia had no problem ruling against the government.

When I got to the Supreme Court, they ordered the government to explain how they were keeping me in prison on civil contempt without a trial indefinitely when the law, 28 USC 1826, said the maximum sentence was 18 months. They were rolling it every 18 months. Only when the Supreme Court ordered the government to respond, then I was released and they told the court the case was “moot” for I was suddenly released. Without Scalia, I would probably have died in prison. He at least stood up for the law and 18 months was one-term, not indefinitely, where the NY judges protect the bankers. Trump will NEVER get a fair trial in NYC. From what I saw with others, nobody gets a fair trial in the Second Circuit or State court. When my case began, my lawyer, Richard Altman, said NYC practices law differently. Boy was that an understatement. Nobody should do business with any bank domiciled in NYC.

Supreme Court Blocks Biden Administration Effort to Lift Title 42 Alien Expulsions, One Month After Biden Administration Extended National COVID Emergency


Posted originally on the CTH on December 27, 2022 | Sundance

The U.S. Supreme Court has blocked the Biden administration from lifting Title 42, which allowed Customs and Border Patrol to expel cross border migrants due to the COVID-19 emergency. [Background of Case Here]

In a 5-4 decision with Justice Gorsuch joining the liberal members, the Supreme Court ruled that Title-42 should remain in effect.  It wasn’t really a surprising decision if you think about the Biden administration hypocrisy.

On one hand the Biden administration extended the national COVID-19 emergency through April of 2023.

On the other hand, the same Biden administration was saying there was no COVID-19 emergency as the foundation for their effort to remove Title 42.

The Supreme Court seemed to recognize the inherent contradiction and applied a non-pretending logic.  If the national health emergency exists, then Title 42 still applies.  It’s really just a simple affirmation of Biden policy.  [Ruling Here]

WASHINGTON – In a blow to the Biden administration’s ability to set the nation’s immigration policy, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said the government could not halt the expulsion of migrants for public health reasons under the controversial Title 42 program.

That program, which has been in place since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, must continue while courts assess a lawsuit filed by Republican officials in 19 states who say that unwinding the Title 42 policy would unleash a national “catastrophe.”

The emergency intervention from the high court came days after the Trump-era program was set to expire. The justices announced they will hear arguments about the program next year, but limited their review to whether the conservative states may intervene in the litigation. Oral arguments are expected in February. In the meantime, expulsions will continue.

Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan would have denied the emergency request from the states and allowed the administration to lift the Title 42 policy. Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the court’s ruling Tuesday.

While the decision was a legal loss for President Joe Biden, the political implications were less clear: The administration’s effort to lift Title 42 has drawn sharp criticism from Republicans and uncertainty from some Democrats who fear border communities were not prepared for an influx of migrants. The Supreme Court’s decision appeared to defuse that situation for now, even as it left thousands of migrants in limbo. (read more)

Clarence Thomas Weighs in On Diversity


Armstrong Economics Blog/USA Current Events Re-Posted Nov 2, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

The Supreme Court is likely to rule that colleges may no longer consider race as a qualification for college applications. This has been a problem in America for many years as colleges aim to admit racially diverse incoming classes and overlook test scores in the process.

Even Elizabeth Warren falsely claimed to be Native American to gain access to a job at an Ivy League school, earning her the name of “Pocahontas.” The SCOTUS 6-3 conservative-liberal majority is reconsidering Affirmative Action in general. Justices Kagan and Jackson threw around the word “diverse” many times, but Clarence Thomas said that “diverse” has not been properly defined.

North Carolina Solicitor General Ryan Park told Thomas that diverse means “a broadly diverse set of criteria that expands to all different backgrounds and perspectives and not solely limited to race.” Thomas said he failed to see the educational benefits. “I’d like you to tell me expressly when a parent sends a kid to college that they don’t necessarily send them there to have fun or feel good or anything like that,” Thomas pressed. “They send them there to learn physics or chemistry or whatever their study. So tell me what the educational benefits are.”

When Park said that students perform better in a diverse environment, Thomas said he has heard “similar arguments in favor of segregation.” Thomas has long been a critic of Affirmative Action and believes it is in itself racist. He explained his beliefs in 2003:

“The Constitution abhors classifications based on race, not only because those classifications can harm favored races or are based on illegitimate motives, but also because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all.”

Do We Have Any Rights?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted Oct 16, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Hi Marty,

Is it still possible for the People to save the USA and revert it back to its original form, as was indented in the Constitution –  rights not enumerated to the Government, belong to the State or to the People?

I spend some time in the USA and in public high school. At no point, we were taught the Constitution and what it entails. That was in north Texas – open gun carry and very in favor of the constitution rights.

Texas high schools did not teach the Constitution nor the 2nd Amendment – that its purpose is not to give the right to bear arms but to DENY the Government the authority to infringe on People’s right to bear arms (the divine right).

The People no longer remember that the Founding Fathers saw the People as Sovereign with the Divine Right.

Can you opine on this, with the emphasis on the Divine Rights (inalienable rights) that were previously reserved only for the Kings and bestowed by the Church.

Cheers from Canada,
Lucas

ANSWER: The TRUE answer is we have NO RIGHTS whatsoever. The courts have turned everything on its head. The Constitution is NEGATIVE – not positive. You have to look at the language very carefully. Here is the First Amendment. It stated “Congress shall make no law…” and that is a NEGATIVE restraint upon government It does not endow you with the “right” to freedom of religion of speech. This is how they are getting away with the whole cancel culture. The “negative” restraint is ONLY upon the government. You actually have no right to freedom of speech. The 2nd Amendment was to create a militia army, not a standing army. That was the advice of the Prince of Savoy.

In 1787, Patrick Henry was invited to participate in what became the Constitutional Convention. He feared that the meeting was really a sinister plot by the powerful to construct a strong central government that would become not much different from what they revolted against. When the new Constitution was sent to Virginia for ratification in 1788, Patrick Henry stood up and objected. Henry argued that it was a trap and that the Constitution did not include a bill of rights and that would lead to tyranny.

Patrick Henry argued that the clear absence of a bill of rights was confirmation that this was really an attempt by the few to become powerful and dictate to everyone beneath them once again. Henry argued eloquently and other Anti-Federalists saw his point and compelled James Madison, the leader of the Virginia Federalists, to promise the addition of a bill of rights to the Constitution. On September 25, Congress agreed upon the 12 amendments, and they were sent to the states for approval. Articles three through twelve were ratified and became the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791. It was not until after 25 days of heated debate, on June 26, 1788, Virginia became the 10th state to ratify the Constitution on that condition.

If it were not for Patrick Henry, we would have lived in utter tyranny all this time. Little by little, the court has very subtly inverted the Bill of Rights and most people have actually just looked at that title “Bill of Rights” and assumed that are positive rights that we have. However, look closer and you will see that this is a negative restraint. If you want to sue someone for violating your constitutional rights, they MUST be acting under “Color of Law” meaning it is really at the government’s direction.

See:

President Trump MAGA Rally, Waukesha, Wisconsin, 8pm ET Livestream


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on August 5, 2022 | Sundance

President Trump travels to Waukesha, Wisconsin tonight for a MAGA rally to support Tim Michels for Governor and all of the down ballot republican candidates.  With the overwhelming MAGA victories in Michigan, Arizona and Missouri this week, there is a lot for President Trump to celebrate.

The scheduled start time is 7:00pm CT / 8:00pm ET.  Rumble Livestream Links Below:

RSBN Rumble Livestream – Trump Campaign Rumble Livestream – Alternate Rumble Livestream

.

.

.

Joe Biden Pledges to Retain the Killing of Unborn Babies as National Priority, Signs Executive Order Saying Abortion “is essential to justice, equality, and our health, safety, and progress as a Nation”


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on July 8, 2022 | sundance

Earlier today Joe Biden held an official ceremony promoting the killing of unborn babies as a legacy initiative of his administration. Biden signed an executive order [View Here] stating that abortion “is essential to justice, equality, and our health, safety, and progress as a Nation.”

{Direct Rumble Link} – Executive Order Here – WATCH:

(Via Reuters) – […] Biden, [a member of the progressive death cult], has been under pressure from supporters, particularly progressives, to take action after the landmark decision, which upended roughly 50 years of protections for women’s reproductive rights.

The president’s powers are constrained, because U.S. states can make laws restricting abortion and access to medication, and the executive order is expected to have limited impact.

Biden will direct the Health and Human Services Department to take action to protect and expand access to “medication abortion” approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the White House said.

Experts have said a pill used to terminate early pregnancies is unlikely to become available without a prescription for years. States that already restrict the medication would not be affected by the presidential order.

He will also direct the department to ensure women have access to emergency medical care, family planning services, and contraception, including intrauterine devices (IUDs).

Biden’s attorney general and White House counsel will convene pro bono attorneys and other organizations to provide legal counsel for patients seeking an abortion as well as abortion providers.

“Such representation could include protecting the right to travel out of state to seek medical care,” the White House said in a statement. (read more)