Category WEF The Great Reset
The Plan to Disarm Americans to Prevent Revolution
Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted Mar 26, 2021 by Martin Armstrong
I get emails from friends in Britain who envy the US, saying if they had the right to have guns, they would be protecting their liberty. The Biden Administration has moved to force everyone to register guns. The next step is to just bust into your house and confiscate them. They are taking these steps in an incremental fashion to disarm America. Their designs are to impose the Great Reset, as we are watching in Europe with outrageous fines if you dare leave the country and 10 years in prison for lying about where you have been. Britain is no longer a free country.
The West is becoming authoritarian, unfortunately, precisely as our computer has been forecasting for years. This is why the government and its surrogates pretending to be real analysts are so intent upon preventing people from ever listening to Socrates. They hate the fact that our computer has been accurately projecting what they would do next simply based upon the economics and past incidents as to how people respond.
Now the Biden Administration is arguing in the U.S. Supreme Court in Caniglia v. Strom that the government should be allowed to enter or bust into your home and confiscate your guns without ever having to get a search warrant. That means that they can come into EVERY home and search for guns. In the meantime, anything else they would find that violates any law will be used to prosecute you. The Biden Administration and attorneys general from nine Democratic-controlled states are now urging the Supreme Court to uphold warrantless gun confiscation. That will effectively eliminate the Fourth Amendment while they are really undermining the Second Amendment. They need to disarm Americans because they know a revolution is coming.
The Supreme Court has already eliminated the Fourth Amendment, which allows the government to openly violate that restraint. In 1984, the United States Supreme Court nullified the Fourth Amendment for political reasons, which does not bode well for the future of the United States.
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), focused on the disappearance of a 10-year-old white girl in Des Moines, Iowa. The defendant, who was black and had mental problems, was arrested and arraigned in Davenport, Iowa. Officers informed the defendant’s attorney that they would drive him back to Des Moines without questioning him, but during the trip one of the officers began a conversation with him that ultimately resulted in his making incriminating statements and directing the officers to the child’s body. A systematic search of the area that was being conducted with the aid of 200 volunteers and had begun before the defendant made his statements was terminated when he guided the officers to the body. The defendant was convicted of the child’s murder, but his conviction was later reversed by the United States Supreme Court in Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977), when the Court ruled that an officer had obtained the statements in violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
They put him on trial again, and the state did not offer the defendant’s statements into evidence, nor did it seek to show that the defendant had directed the officers to the child’s body. However, what they admitted into evidence was the condition of her body when it was found, articles and photos of her clothing, and the results of post-mortem medical and chemical tests on the body. The trial court found that the state had proven by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that if the search had not been suspended and the defendant had not led the officers to the victim, her body would have been discovered within a short time in essentially the same condition as it was actually found.
The defendant was convicted again of the murder of the child. However, a federal appellate court later reversed the conviction, which legally it should have been. That court assumed that there was an inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule, and the exception required proof both that (1) officers did not act in bad faith in committing the constitutional violation, and (2) the evidence involving the child’s body would have been discovered absent a constitutional violation. The court then found that the state failed to show that the officers did not act in bad faith (therefore, it was unnecessary for the court to decide the second issue) and reversed the defendant’s conviction.
The United States Supreme Court granted the same case again because it was way too political — a black man killed a 10-year-old white girl. The Supreme Court reversed that ruling, which should have stood. The police should have simply done their job the right way, but they cheated, and that changed the law for everyone.
The Court noted that although its prior case law on the exclusionary rule involved Fourth Amendment violations, the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine as it was known, the court then stated that the prosecution should not be put in a better position than it would have been if no illegality had occurred. Therefore, the prosecution should not be put in a worse position simply because there was some law enforcement error or misconduct. There and then, the Supreme Court held that when challenged evidence has an independent source had it been properly-obtained, that was enough to show probable cause to support a search warrant after setting aside improperly obtained evidence. Therefore, the exclusion of evidence would put the prosecution in a worse position than they would have been in the absence of a violation.
Today that has been so distorted that police just do as they like and claim if they had acted legally, they would have still obtained the evidence. This case was highly political with the press calling for the blood of this black man who killed a 10-year-old white girl. We can see the same fever-pitch rising now with the aid of the Boulder shooting that everyone with any gun should not require a search warrant for they should just act. There were two dissents, and Justice Marshal aptly put it best that the doctrine they created to make sure this black man did not escape punishment because he was guilty “inconsistent with the requirements of the Constitution.” More correct words were never spoken. Allowing no search warrants and for police to just bust down your door and ransack your house, all they have to say is they thought you had a gun. They can then charge you for anything else they might find that they will claim is illegal.
The American legal system was built upon the British Common Law. What was once noble has perished and the historical recognition that proof BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT exists no more. The American law has twisted the principles to ensure the exact opposite of the maxim which Sir William Blackstone articulated that it is far better than 10 guilty escape than one innocent suffers. About 70% of our prisons today are filled with people on conspiracy charges as the prosecutors simply threaten one person to testify against another without proving actual guilt. The law was once intended to protect the innocent, but those days are long gone. Thus we presume an accused person’s guilt today and the press immediately pronounces them guilty using the word “alleged” and never look at the evidence. There is no innocence until they are proven guilty anymore. If the government charges you, they have a 99% conviction rate with the remainder committing suicide.
The preeminent English jurist William Blackstone and his works were what the framers of the Constitution used to define America. John Adams made similar arguments in defending British soldiers after the Boston Massacre, “[W]e are to look upon it as more beneficial, that many guilty persons should escape unpunished than one innocent person should suffer,” (Alexander Volokh, “n Guilty Men,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 146 (1997) id/p. 176). This principle is also be found in religious texts and in the writings of the American Founders. Benjamin Franklin went further arguing “it is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer.” (Benjamin Franklin, “Letter from Benjamin Franklin to Benjamin Vaughn (Mar. 14, 1785),” The Works of Benjamin Franklin 11, ed. John Bigelow (1904)).
In Nix v. Williams, the Supreme Court abandoned this cornerstone of law. When I still read Blackstone’s Commentaries, it not only illustrates the cycle within the law and how every principle of liberty has been undermined to ensure that government power is now supreme, but it brings tears to my eyes to think of how much we have really lost over the course of the past 232 years.
Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England remains to this day one of my most cherished books. It is a stark reminder of the cycle of civilization itself how we evolved from trial by ordeal where it was assumed if you were innocent God would intervene (walking on hot coals or throwing a suspected which into water), to trial by combat (where we duel it out or later hired people to fight to the death in your stead). The rule of law was supposed to be the pinnacle of civilization. Oh, how it has fallen. It now lies on the grown broken like the limbs of a stupendous statue that are no more even recognizable. To ensure that one black man pay for his crime, they changed the law of the nation and eliminated the Fourth Amendment. Now the Biden Administration is asking to even but aside probably cause.
Then in Segura v. the United States, 468 U.S. 796 (1984), the Supreme Court went even further and held that the exclusionary rule reaches not only primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure but also evidence later. Effectively, the Supreme Court has already nullified the Fourth Amendment, and the Biden Administration is asking to kill it altogether. The Democrat’s view is there should be no limitation on government whatsoever. I have warned that their goal is to really eliminate the Constitution, precisely as Klaus Schwab proposes that Democracy should be terminated. This is the end goal. They have already eliminated democracy in Europe where the people have no right to vote for the European Commission or who is even the head of the EU. They vote simply for a Parliament that has no power to overrule the Commission or the head of the EU. It is just there for symbolism. They may bash China in public, but behind closed doors, they envy their political structure.
Those who voted for Biden because they hated Trump, I’m sure you never knew this was their real agenda. To search any house without a warrant means they do not have to show you have gun registration. They only need to say what they thought! Nobody will be safe — even those without guns. Those who voted for Biden have driven a stake right through the heart of what was once liberty.
You Will Own Nothing = Revolution
Armstrong Economics Blog/Economics Re-Posted Mar 25, 2021 by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: Dear Mr. Armstrong,
I would like to thank you for the private blog post on last Friday ‘The Dow the Week of 15th’. I have a question on the blog. I would be happy if you can respond to this on the private blog or email.
In the phrase “you will own nothing” , whether the term “You” is applicable to normal working/middle class people as I am one of them. If yes ,how much and will it be applicable to personal real estate as well.
Warm Regards,
DPM
ANSWER: There is scarcely a government or major entity that is not aware of Socrates. While over the years I have been called in to advise around the world in times of crisis, this time is different. They know that Socrates is forecasting that their grand ideas of creating a new world order that they think they can create and direct from the United Nations will fail. For that reason, they try to discourage any media coverage of a computer that is the very Fourth Industrial Revolution they claim they want to accelerate, but they don’t like ours because it says they will fail.
Democrats Anticipate a Revolution is Coming
Armstrong Economics Blog/Conspiracy Re-Posted Mar 24, 2021 by Martin Armstrong
The deep concern for a building revolution lurks behind two major developments concentrated within the military. While more than 1,000 National Guard members will be leaving Washington, D.C. by the end of March, several thousand others will stay on indefinitely, claiming there is an ongoing mission to provide security for the U.S. Capitol. This has drawn criticism from lawmakers and reluctance from the military, but the real issue remains the drive to impose the Great Reset clandestinely without the people ever being allowed to vote on imposing this vision coming from Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin approved the Capitol police request to extend the deployment of nearly 2,300 Guard members for about two more months because possible threats of violence remain. According to the National Guard, troops from some states will stay in Washington for the entire two months. Others will return home but will be replaced by service members from the same state. Some states are refusing to send National Guards to protect what is being seen as Chuck Schumer’s and Nancy Pelosi’s personal guard.
Nevertheless, the Democrats are under pressure to finally take down Pelosi’s Wall around the Capital. The criticism has been building that Pelosi has been actively turning the country into a police state, but only to protect Congress — not the people. Months have gone by with no attack of the Capitol, and her claims that it was an “armed insurrection” have even been disproved by the FBI.
The Democrats have also launched on February 5, 2021, a review of military personal they regard as “extremists” or Trump supporters that they want to kick out of the military. If you will recall, Obama began a program whereby any general who would not turn on American citizens was removed from office. Now, the Defense Department’s order of Feb. 5 to root out “extremists” in the ranks of the U.S. armed forces is another purge of the military to remove soldiers who would defend the people. This is a very serious move because it is showing that the Democrats see the real enemy are the people who would dare to disagree with their Great Reset and Build Back Better agenda.
I have warned that it is WELL KNOWN that you do not send in troops from the same region and expect them to defend the government against the people. Now we have this well-understood doctrine from the Nika Revolt playing out in the United States and, this does not paint a nice picture of the future.
The Rise & Fall of Empires, Nations, & City States has been Going on for Thousands of Years – It’s Just Our Turn!
Armstrong Economics Blog/Revolution Re-Posted Mar 24, 2021 by Martin Armstrong
COMMENT: Marty: I was re-reading Herodotus and saw early in his book a reference to the rise and fall of civilizations pertinent to the concept of capital flows:
Herodotus, Histories 1:5
“For many states that were once great have now become small; and those that were great in my time were small before. Knowing therefore that human prosperity never continues in the same place, I shall mention both alike.”
Here is the source for the above translation:
I studied Ancient Greek in college. “Prosperity” is the proper translation of “Eudaimonia” (Greek: εὐδαιμονία) in this context. See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia
I thought you may find this of interest in case you hadn’t noticed this before in your readings.
Be well and thank you for your work and your continuous improvements of Socrates.
DP
NYC
Winged human-headed bulls, the powerful guardians of ancient Assyrian gateways, serving such a purpose for the royal palace of Nimrud.
REPLY: Yes, great to point that out. To put this in context for the non-Ancient historian, when Herodotus had written that, it was about 2,000 years after the rise and fall of the Sumer Empire, which is the earliest known civilization in the historical region of southern Mesopotamia. There were the Minoans, Troy, Greek Heroic Age, Babylon, and Cyrus the Great who conquered Lydia, the Hittites, and the Assyrians.
Civilization in its primeval state was already at least 6,000 years before Herodotus. It was ancient history to them of the Greek Heroic Age when Evander entertained the stranger of Troy. The relics of the glory of civilization still littered the landscape during the age of Herodotus like the gates to Babylon which have survived in the Berlin Museum. History is delineated by the fancy of Homer and later by Herodotus. Athens was but a solitary thicket during the Age of the Hittite. The temples of Asia Minor (Turkey) had long been crowned with the gold of Lydia when the Greeks were rising again. But those temples would be overthrown and the gold will be pillaged, as the wheel of Fortune accomplished her revolution, and the armies of Alexander the Great would conquer the world about 100 years after Herodotus.
The ruins of the Minoan Empire were already 1200 years before Herodotus. The old walls of Knossos near Heraklion and the ruins of the Minoan palaces are the largest archaeological site of all the palaces on the Mediterranean island of Crete destroyed by the eruption of Thera around 1650 BC, leaving the remains that are known as Santorini.
At the time of Herodotus, coins were a comparatively modern invention just a little over 200 years old. Before that was simply the Bronze Age, where the Minoans used ingots of bronze in trade cast in a sheepskin shape, which was the common standard of monetary exchange in the Greek world.
Today, it is hard for most people to visualize a timeline of history. Eridu is often considered the oldest city among the ancients, for it is mentioned in the Sumerian King List: “In Eridu, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28800 years. Alalngar ruled for 36000 years. 2 kings; they ruled for 64800 years. Then Eridu fell and the kingship was taken to Bad-tibira.” Damascus in Syria has been established as being as old as 10,000 years, and the city of Jericho is nearly as old. A major Bronze Age city, Catal Huyuk (c 7500-6700 BC), has also been argued to be the first real major city displaying true urbanization with trade guilds for construction, agriculture, and even art as many homes had painted murals. Even this was about 6,000 years before Herodotus.
The rise of great empires was comparatively modern history to Herodotus being within 3,000 years of his birth, and yet even he proceeds Alexander the Great (356-323 BC). Indeed, even before urban cities rose when the ground was covered with thorns and weeds, there was the Neolithic Age in most of the world where they built religious monuments out of stone which made the transitional period of the Chalcolithic Age from about 4500 BC. Monuments such as Stonehedge are believed to have been constructed around 3000 BC or about 2500 years before Herodotus.
Hattusa, capital of the Hittite empire, Turkey
Each of these empires viewed themselves as the citadel of the earth and the terror of kings. Their history was recorded by the footsteps of so many triumphs of the age of conquest, which enriched their treasuries with the spoils of war and tributes of subservient city-states. Each was a feared spectacle of the world, viewed as invincible. The Hittite Empire rivaled that of Egypt, and indeed it was feared by the Egyptians. The Hittite Empire reached its peak under the reign of King Suppiluliuma I (c. 1344-1322 BCE) and his son Mursilli II (c. 1321-1295 BCE) after which it declined and, after repeated attacks by the Sea Peoples and the Kaska tribe, fell to the Assyrians.
Indeed, in studying history I was fascinated by the rise and fall of so many great empires that each assumed would last forever. I was confronted by the repeating question: How did it fall? How did its culture change? How was its greatness defaced by the passing of time? The path of victory for each was soon obliterated with the passing of time. Its palaces were covered by the sands of time and often concealed from the modern view. Yet, we too seem to never consider the fall of our own great societies. We too assume we will last forever.
Alexander the Great’s (356-323 BC) conquering of the Persians produced a massive volume of silver and gold bullion, plundered from their treasuries at Babylon, Sardes, Susa, and Persepolis. At the beginning of his reign in 336 BC, the Macedonian kingdom was 500 silver talents in debt (one talent was 26 kg of silver) which was over 400,000 ounces. This was satisfied when, from the treasury of Persepolis alone, Alexander claimed 120,000 silver talents worth of bullion.
The significant influx of precious metals led to the first one-world currency in the West as he standardized the monetary system. The same design was struck with symbols denoting where the coins were struck like modern mintmarks on coinage or on printed notes of the euro. Alexander struck the largest Greek gold coin issued up to that time: the gold distater (20 mm, 17.26 grams)(a stater was 8.56 grams). With a value of 40 silver drachms, the distater was likely used to pay Alexander’s veteran soldiers who were awarded for their labors with a silver talent (6,000 drachms). This new denomination meant that a talent could be paid out as 120 gold distaters. The reverse is a representation of Alexander’s victory, depicting Nike the goddess of victory.
Therefore, Herodotus died about 20 years before the fall of Athens itself in 404 BC to Sparta. His perspective of the empire that came before him is about the same as our view of ancient Athens during his lifetime. The Athenian Empire collapsed in 404 BC, and the public and private edifices that were founded for an eternity of Athens and all the empires before his time still lie prostrate, naked, and broken, simply the limbs of a once-great mighty empire which lie in ruin as a visible reminder that political states also die just as any biological lifeform.
These stupendous relics of history should remind us that all empires are mortal. We too will not survive the pains of time and fortune, because we too believe we are invincible and will last forever as everyone that has preceded us for 6,000 years. So the words of Herodotus will still ring true even after 2032. The edifices Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum, including heads of state and billionaires, are destroying in thinking they can rebuild a new world order from scratch like Karl Marx is fulfilling perhaps Schwab’s role in bringing about the decline and fall of Western society for 2032.
“For many states that were once great have now become small; and those that were great in my time were small before. Knowing therefore that human prosperity never continues in the same place, I shall mention both alike.”
Has Russian TV Become the Only Real Media?
Armstrong Economics Blog/Disease Re-Posted Mar 21, 2021 by Martin Armstrong
This is really a said statement on Western Press when RU reports on the Worldwide Freedom Protests and Western Press calls it all extremists, far-right, and QAnon. Local news ABC, CBS, and NBC never mentioned anything at all. Why is the media so against everything about just reporting the news? If it was a Black Lives Protest, it would be on every TV. Why is the media trying to destroy our freedom?
We have teenagers committing suicide because they see no future. Over 90% of the deaths are all in nursing homes which the mainstream press refuses to publish. They say “trust the science” but the truth is science is political. Anyone who disagrees with the narrative is canceled. Even doctors who testified before Congress have been removed by YouTube. That is not science.
We are in the midst of a major political coup and BigTech is working feverishly against the people, our future, and destroying every hope that our children will ever be left anything better. The total number of deaths of children under 17 by COVID nationwide is 42. Yet schools are closed and in LA they must be tested every day to go to school. Children are to grow up assuming everyone is a threat? Is this to reduce the population by keeping the next generation skeptical about others?
SOURCE: CDC https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm
Joe Biden The Fundamental Transformation of America In Office
Why is it that the media are unceasingly wagging their tongues about Harry, Meghan, and other gossip passing as “news” when America is in visible signs of decline?
Re-posted from The Canada Free Press By Judi McLeod —— Bio and Archives—March 18, 2021
Mainstream media struck the fatal killing blow on America when they made Joe Biden ‘President-Elect’ on Election Night while people were still voting.
In advancing Biden To ‘President-Elect’ before the vote could be counted, they guaranteed Barack Obama’s ‘Fundamental Transformation of America’, making it (FTOA) all the way.
The worst that could have happened to America was the worst that did happen in Election 2020. Media choice Joe Biden, in essence, became the personification of the FTOA, The Fundamental Transformation of America in person, blundering and wobbly as he may appear to be.
“Cognitive-challenged” “in early stages of dementia” are a strange place for a U.S. president to be
When FTOA Biden, is not sitting it out in his Delaware bunker, dodging the questions of the media, he’s sitting in the Oval Office—virtually squatting on the White House in an era where the Capitol is cut off from We the People by razor-edged fencing, and intimidated by thousands of National Guard Troops ever since a most bizarre Jan. 20 Inauguration.
We’ve seen this movie before, most likely courtesy of Netflix.
Gutting the military and ObamaCare, the first two proponents of the FTOA came down the pike during the eight years when Biden was Obama’s dutiful vice president.
The two horrors (gutting the proud military and ObamaCare) were just the warm-up act for what is taking place at full-speed today: the flooding of the southern border by illegal aliens—guaranteed to retire America’s prized 245-year-old sovereignty.
Yet all the stupefied media want to talk about is how Biden may be noticeably “cognitively-challenged”. And that’s only when they’re not talking it up about Meghan and Harry and Me-Too-accused sexual deviant New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.
“Cognitive-challenged” “in early stages of dementia” are a strange place for a U.S. president to be.
If it was your Aunt Lucy starting to do bizarre things, she wouldn’t be described as showing signs of early dementia but called out as the family “fruitcake”.
Why is the media so stoically silent about the rush at the American-Mexican border?
Why is it that Obama, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats don’t take the bull by the proverbial horns to address rumors that their leader is cognitively challenged?
Could their admission be waiting only for the time when it can be used as the perfect excuse of replacing a president with a vice-president?
How many people showing signs of early dementia do you know who would have the presence of mind to deliberately and systemically bring an end to America’s treasured sovereignty?
In order to carry through with such a plan, that person would have to be not just cognitively-challenged but plain NUTS.
All those aiding and abetting such a plan would not just be anti-American but purposely wicked.
The same people scare-mongering the nation by telling people they will die of COVID-19 without taking one of Bill Gate’s-touted jabs, are silent about folk rushing the border without being tested for the pandemic.
Why is the media so stoically silent about the rush at the American-Mexican border?
Have the Democrats got all of their tongues?
Why is it that they are unceasingly wagging their tongues about Harry, Meghan, and other gossip passing as “news” when America is in visible signs of decline?
Do they not care about their own country?
All is far too quiet on the Western Front as we wait in lockdown for the next bombshell to drop.
What do the handlers of President FTOA have planned for millions struggling through daily life in the USA?
Are they preparing to lower the final boom on America Home of the Brave and Land of the Free?
And when we hear the last Big Boom will it be far too late?
The Facts About H.R. 1: The “For the People Act of 2021”
Re-posted from The Heritage Foundation on February 21, 2021 6 min read Download Report
SUMMARYH.R. 1 would federalize and micromanage the election process administered by the states, imposing unnecessary, unwise, and unconstitutional mandates on the states and reversing the decentralization of the American election process—which is essential to the protection of our liberty and freedom. It would (among other things) implement nationwide the worst changes in election rules that occurred during the 2020 election; go even further in eroding and eliminating basic security protocols that states have in place; and interfere with the ability of states and their citizens to determine the qualifications and eligibility of voters, ensure the accuracy of voter registration rolls, secure the fairness and integrity of elections, and participate and speak freely in the political process.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
H.R. 1 would federalize and micromanage the election process, imposing unnecessary, unwise, and unconstitutional mandates on the states.
It would reverse the decentralization of the American election process—an essential protection of our liberty and freedom.
It would implement nationwide the worst changes in election rules that occurred in 2020 and further damage or eliminate basic security protocols.Copied
The Issue
H.R. 1 would federalize and micromanage the election process administered by the states, imposing unnecessary, unwise, and unconstitutional mandates on the states and reversing the decentralization of the American election process—which is essential to the protection of our liberty and freedom. It would implement nationwide the worst changes in election rules that occurred during the 2020 election and go even further in eroding and eliminating basic security protocols that states have in place. The bill would interfere with the ability of states and their citizens to determine the qualifications and eligibility of voters, to ensure the accuracy of voter registration rolls, to secure the fairness and integrity of elections, to participate and speak freely in the political process, and to determine the district boundary lines for electing their representatives.
What H.R. 1 Would Do
- Seize the authority of states to regulate voter registration and the voting process by forcing states to implement early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, online voter registration, and no-fault absentee balloting.
- Make it easier to commit fraud and promote chaos at the polls through same-day registration, as election officials would have no time to verify the accuracy of voter registration information and the eligibility of an individual to vote and could not anticipate the number of ballots and precinct workers that would be needed at specific polling locations.
- Hurt voter turnout through 15 days of mandated early voting by diffusing the intensity of get-out-the-vote efforts; it would raise the cost of campaigns. Voters who vote early don’t have the same information as those who vote on Election Day, missing late-breaking developments that could affect their choices.
- Degrade the accuracy of registration lists by requiring states to automatically register all individuals (as opposed to “citizens”) from state and federal databases, such as state Departments of Motor Vehicles, corrections and welfare offices, and federal agencies such as the Social Security Administration, the Department of Labor, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services of the Department of Health and Human Services. This would register large numbers of ineligible voters, including aliens, and cause multiple or duplicate registrations of the same individuals and put federal agencies in charge of determining a person’s domicile for voting purposes (as well as that individual’s taxing state).
- Constitute a recipe for massive voter registration fraud by hackers and cyber criminals through online voter registration that is not tied to an existing state record, such as a driver’s license. It would make it a criminal offense for a state official to reject a voter registration application even when it is rejected “under color of law” because the official believes the individual is ineligible to vote. It would also require states to allow 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to register; when combined with a ban on voter ID and restrictions on the ability to challenge the eligibility of a voter, this would effectively ensure that underage individuals could vote with impunity.
- Require states to count ballots cast by voters outside of their assigned precincts, overriding the precinct system used by almost all states that allows election officials to monitor votes, staff polling places, provide enough ballots, and prevent election fraud.
- Mandate no-fault absentee ballots, which are the tool of choice for vote thieves. It would ban witness signature or notarization requirements for absentee ballots; force states to accept absentee ballots received up to 10 days after Election Day as long as they are postmarked by Election Day; and require states to allow vote trafficking (vote harvesting) so that any third parties—including campaign staffers and political consultants—can pick up and deliver absentee ballots.
- Prevent election officials from checking the eligibility and qualifications of voters and removing ineligible voters. This includes restrictions on using the U.S. Postal Service’s national change-of-address system to verify the address of registered voters; participating in state programs that compare voter registration lists to detect individuals registered in multiple states; or ever removing registrants due to a failure to vote no matter how much time has elapsed. It also would substantially limit the public release of voter registration information, making it almost impossible for nonpartisan organizations to verify the accuracy of registration rolls, and prohibit states from using undeliverable election mail as a basis for challenging a registrant’s eligibility.
- Ban state voter ID laws by forcing states to allow individuals to vote without an ID and merely signing a statement in which they claim they are who they say they are.
- Violate the First Amendment with respect to a vast range of legal activity. Voter intimidation or coercion that prevents someone from registering or voting is already a federal crime under the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act. But H.R. 1 would add a provision criminalizing “hindering, interfering, or preventing” anyone from registering or voting, which is so vague and so broad that it could prevent providing any information to election officials about the ineligibility of an individual, such as an applicant not being a U.S. citizen.
- Expand regulation and government censorship of campaigns and political activity and speech, including online and policy-related speech. H.R. 1 would impose onerous legal and administrative compliance burdens and costs on candidates, citizens, civic groups, unions, corporations, and nonprofit organizations. Many of these provisions violate the First Amendment, protect incumbents, and reduce the accountability of politicians to the public; its onerous disclosure requirements for nonprofit organizations would subject their members and donors to intimidation and harassment—the modern equivalent of the type of disclosure requirements the U.S. Supreme Court in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) held violated associational rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Reduce the number of Federal Election Commission members from six to five, allowing the political party with three commission seats to control the commission and engage in partisan enforcement activities.
- Prohibit state election officials from participating in federal elections and impose numerous other “ethics” rules that are unconstitutional or unfairly restrict political activity, eliminating the ability of the residents of specific states to make their own decisions about what rules should govern their state government officials.
- Require states to restore the ability of felons to vote the moment they are out of prison regardless of uncompleted parole, probation, or restitution requirements. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment gives states the constitutional authority to decide when felons who committed crimes against their fellow citizens may vote again. Congress cannot override a constitutional amendment with a statute.
- Transfer the right to draw congressional districts from state legislatures to “independent” commissions whose members are unaccountable to voters. H.R. 1 would make it a violation of federal law to engage in “partisan” redistricting and mandate the inclusion of alien population, both legal and illegal, in all redistricting. This is an anti-democratic, unconstitutional measure that would take away the ability of the citizens of a state to make their own decisions about redistricting.
- Authorize the Internal Revenue Service to engage in partisan activity. H.R. 1 would permit the IRS to investigate and consider the political and policy positions of nonprofit organizations before granting tax-exempt status, thus enabling IRS officials to target organizations engaging in First Amendment activity with disfavored views.
- Limit access to federal courts for anyone challenging H.R. 1. The bill would prohibit the filing of any lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of H.R. 1 anywhere except in the District Court for the District of Columbia and would allow the court to order all plaintiffs and intervenors, regardless of their number (such as all 50 states), “to file joint papers or to be represented by a single attorney at oral argument,” severely limiting the legal representation and due process rights of challengers.
- Establish a “Commission to Protect Democratic Institutions” that would threaten the independence of the judiciary. H.R. 1 defines “democratic institutions” as those that are “essential to ensuring an independent judiciary, free and fair elections and the rule of law.” The commission would be given the authority to compel judges to testify and justify their legal decisions, threatening their independent judgment and subjecting them to political pressure and harassment.
Authors
The Heritage FoundationRead Full Report
It Begins, Ford Cancels Ohio Investment and Shifts to Electric Vehicle Production in Mexico
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on March 18, 2021 | Sundance | 355 Comments
The United Auto Workers are angered about a decision by Ford to move production of a new electric vehicle from Avon Lake, Ohio, into Mexico. Ford previously agreed to spend $900 million on a new product line for the Ohio plant; however, according to the UAW the location has shifted.
One way of looking at this change in direction from Ford relates to the cost of producing electric vehicles. First, it is far less expensive in Mexico (labor, environmental regulation, energy costs, etc); secondly, an outlook the new Biden administration will not strongly enforce USMCA compliance measures against U.S. multinational firms.
The UAW supported Joe Biden, but his policies will likely undermine their workers. Unfortunately, this was all too predictable. Partly because Biden-Harris owe Wall Street too much, and the multinationals are once again in control over the U.S. economy.
(Via Reuters) […] The UAW said Ford in 2019 as part of its four-year contract agreement had committed $900 million for the plant in Avon Lake, Ohio, including a next-generation product to be added in 2023, which the UAW letter said would secure the plant’s “employment well into the foreseeable future.”
Ford issued a statement on Tuesday that did not directly address the union’s criticism but said in a letter to employees on Monday that conditions had changed since 2019. A company spokeswoman said Ford had invested more than $185 million since 2019 at its Ohio Assembly Plant, including plans to increase capacity to build additional Super Duty trucks. The plant has about 1,600 UAW-represented employees. (story link)
.
Coal Consumption to Rise by 16% Here in 2021
Armstrong Economics Blog/Energy Re-Posted Mar 18, 2021 by Martin Armstrong
COMMENT: Hi Martin,
I live in Leicester, UK.
They began with these “exercises” and “simulations” as I call them regarding Power Outages.
Just have one right now.
There is no reason for a power outage since the network is all fine.
It is all deliberately imposed.
Can you explain what next?
Thanks.
D
REPLY: They are deliberately reducing power for the climate
Johnson has really gone off the farm
COMMENT: Power came back up because I called them saying I’ve got kids (which is true), and we’ve got priority, I checked now the rest of the neighbours whose electricity went down along with my home’s and they haven’t got it, hence it proves it is all about what you said and what we knew it all about.
Climate “change” is like arguing during winter why is it cold and not warm – it’s a cycle.
(Communism + Fascism) to the power of Steroids.
Hope we get through this and everybody’s children will survive to see better days.
D
I don’t think people realize what is really going on. This is a coup no different than the introduction of the Euro where the people are being denied the right to vote on the concept. They sold the Euro claiming that everyone would pay the same interest rate. That was a claim proven to be an outright lie. All one needs to do is look at the different rates the various sovereign states pay on their bonds – Germany is the lowest.
Here too, they knew that it was impossible to get this climate change agenda if the people voted. They have deliberately wiped out international travel. Europe has been bankrupting its hospitality industry. Demands that you must quarantine for 2 weeks at your own expense and face prison time if you do not comply is deliberately intended to end tourism. Just ask yourself this question. If any politician was worried about getting elected, would they not lift restrictions to save the tourism industry? In the US, states that locked down like New York compared to Florida have twice the death rate and twice the unemployment compared to Florida.
The world’s three biggest consumers of coal are reporting that they must boost usage in the USA by 16% more coal here in 2021 because of the extreme cold weather. In Britain, they are moving into a Deep Freeze and are letting their people freeze. Meanwhile, they are moving to shut down Pipeline #5 which has a devastating impact on people unable to find heat in winter. All of this is to reduce CO2 which is the real objective of this COVID.
Reliable sources have placed the Build-Back-Better agenda predated the COVID and they were all set to act by the end of 2019. They will not tell the truth any more than Helmet Kohl did to introduce the Euro. This is the very same strategy and anyone who dares to expose the truth, they just call it a conspiracy theory so they do not have to ever admit or deny it.
This is about ending the oil industry so expect prices to continue to rise in the broader-term.
Centinel2012 
