Just like all the other ones there was nothing to any of the changers this is all made up and creating tension over basically nothing. This is by design by this administration to cause the problems we have. They want to change the form of government to a Fascist system where there is a supper strong central government that controls but does not own everything as does communism. Creating problem to upset the citizens gives them the license to make changes and the changes change the form of the government. This is not the first time and it will not be the last time but we did bring it on ourselves by not being vigilant.
Tag Archives: Abuse of Power
Lauren Southern Visits Calias Refugee Camp – Can’t Find Any Syrians…
What Lauren found was a camp with what appears to be thousands of young Muslim men, few if any from Syria, and no women or children. I would say this is more like a staging area for creating an innovation force and this is totally ion line with the Cloward–Piven strategy of collapsing a political system from within. In this case flow a country with people with no skills an incompatible belief system and no desire to fit in — the result will be the collapse of the political system when the funds required to support this people can not be provided by the working classes.
Europe will go first but America will not be far behind certainly no long than 2018 say 24 months at best. Only trump might be able to stop this but with the entire political class trying to stop him its not looking good for the rest of us.
The Supreme Court Just Created a Full-Blown Police State – The End of the USA Cannot Be Far Behind
Armstrong Economics Blog
Re-Posted Jun 21, 2016 by Martin Armstrong
The Supreme Court ruling in Utah v Strieff awarded the police total freedom to stop any citizen, at any time, to do whatever they desire. The Supreme Court determined that the “poisonous fruit” of a police officer’s stop of a citizen can be used against them at trial. This has wiped out, in reality, any constitutional protection you thought you had. This is a sad day for the United States, for the Supreme Court has officially created a full-blown police state and clearly has no intention of honoring why this nation began the entire American Revolution — to prevent illegal searches that allowed the king to look for anything he could use to prosecute citizens.
The Supreme Court ruled that even though the officer had initially violated a person’s rights (in other words, the Constitution) the officer’s conduct was “at most negligent” and the result of “good-faith mistakes.” This language is a wink and nod to the police who only have to claim they made a mistake that was not intentional and they walk free. We have witnessed police outrageously murder citizens, but the police officers involved are usually not charged. Now, with this decision, the United States has become exactly as Ukraine stood before the people revolted.
A friend of mine from Ukraine came to the states before the last revolution. When they would see a police officer, they would tense up and try to avoid them at all costs. At home, the police were the criminals. They would shake you down, abuse you, and there was simply no rule of law. The Supreme Court, as of yesterday, has committed suicide.

In February 1761, James Otis, Jr. (1725–1783) argued brilliantly against the Writs of Assistance that was authorized in 1660 but became an instrument of tyranny in 1758 in the American colonies as a means to raise taxes. For nearly five hours, Otis made a brilliant oration in court against the Writs, but he lost the case, for what judge would ever rule against his master? John Adams later wrote that “the child independence was then and there born, [for] every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me to go away as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance.” This spirit of resistance appears to rise roughly every 51.6 years, albeit at different intensity.
This very power to arbitrarily search anyone sparked the American Revolution. No taxation without representation followed, but the inspiration was the right to be free and the Supreme Court just took away. The police no longer have restraint. This is the final stage of how empires, nations, and city-states collapse when there is no rule of law. Once the state elevates itself above the people, the end is not far behind. The dissenting words of Justice Sonia Sotomayor reflect the dire state to which the United States has degenerated.
Scalia would have joined Justice Sotomayor on this one, and if he were still alive, he would have tipped the scale and protected our liberty. With Scalia gone, who was a strict constructionist, there is little hope left in the Supreme Court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, “Even if you are innocent, you will now join the 65 million Americans with an arrest record and experience the ‘civil death’ of discrimination by employers, landlords, and whoever else conducts a background check.” She concluded, and I must agree:
By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.
We must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely targeted by police are “isolated.” They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere. They are the ones who recognize that unlawful police stops corrode all our civil liberties and threaten all our lives. Until their voices matter too, our justice system will continue to be anything but.
Sometimes You Just Have to Go With the Flow When Nothing Flows
Armstrong Economics Blog
Re-Posted Jun 17, 2016 by Martin Armstrong

The central banks are clueless and have no control over the economy. This whole thing reminds me of Australia. I loved going into the Outback, driving through rivers, and seeing ant hills that were taller than the Jeep. I was invited to go to the Todd River Regatta in the middle of the desert. I thought it was a joke. They said, “No mate! Come on!”

I was perplexed at first. How can you have a regatta in the middle of a desert? Well, only Australia could figure that one out. They raced in pretend boats down an ancient river bed where no white man has ever seen water flow. It was good fun. I actually joined in on the camel races.
We have the same thing going on now in politics and finance — just living the dream. Negative interest rates punish savers, and bankrupt pensions are creating a collapse in socialism that threatens civil unrest on a grand scale. Then we have politicians raising taxes and creating mountains of regulations that nobody can figure out without a lawyer and an accountant. They are brain-dead and it is impossible for them to figure out why small businesses are not expanding to create jobs. Duh!
The Accountability Act
Armstrong Economics Blog
Re-Posted Jun 16, 2016 by Martin Armstrong
A lot of people have asked what my platform would be if I ran for president. Aside from eliminating the income tax and imposing term limits upon Congress (one time and you are out), I would champion the Accountability Act.
The Inspector General’s report clearly shows Hillary should be charged under 18 U.S. Code § 2071, which states that the concealment, removal, or mutilation of government documents carries a three-year term of imprisonment and/or fine. Section B also states anyone found guilty “shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.” This wording is very clear, but the executive claims “discretion” to charge whomever they desire. If it were Trump they would charge him, but Hillary gets a free walk.
I would create the Accountability Act where anyone who misleads or lies to government in any way forfeits all pensions and must leave all government jobs, even as a dog catcher.
I would spin off the Office of Inspector General from the executive branch and restore them as a Roman Tribune, which would mean they could prosecute anyone in government without president approval since that would include him.
*(WHERE IS OBAMA AND THE FBI?)* – Why are terrorist red flags being missed?
A few years ago the Obama administration redacted all the Islamic or Muslim references to Jihad and stopped all training on the subject so it is now almost impossible to actually find anyone prior to their actually doing anything.
Baltimore Six Update – The Case Against Caesar Goodson Begins Collapsing…
When the citizens realize the law is what the government makes it up to be and the cases have no merit then there is no rule of law and that the prosecutors are fabricating evidences and cases for political purposes then the society where this happens is finished and must be replaced.
Lessons From The Obama Administration – The Politics Determine The Political Outcomes…
This is a very good analysis Sundance, and I agree 100% with what you are saying; I come at this transformation being imposed on us from a different direction but the end result is identical. We are in for some very hard times much like that before the Civil War with brother against brother and family against family. The UniParty will stop at nothing to prevent Trump from getting to the White House and I mean that ANYTHING will be allowed including assassinations.
Candidate Donald Trump Interview With Sean Hannity…
Trump gets it — our present government is trying to make changes in our country that the present citizens do not want! Trump will stop the change and Obama and Hillary cannot allow that and therein lies the difference. The citizens against the want a be rulers and Trump is the tip of the spear f.or us.
1800 was Almost the Second American Revolution
Armstrong Economics Blog
RE-Posted Jun 15, 2016 by Martin Armstrong
Political rivalry in the United States has been taking place since 1800 when the clash between the Federalists and the Jeffersonians pushed the political body of the nation to the point where it teetered on the brink of a second American Revolution. This clash of the Titans was sparked when the Federalists were about to lose power. John Adams tried to prolong Federalist control in direct defiance of the people by stacking the courts with Federalist judges to demonstrate that law was not law; it was driven by bias from the start. The new Constitution was not specific and far too ambiguous in many areas including that of the judiciary.
John Marshall (1755 – 1835) was previously a leader of the Federalist Party in Virginia and served in the United States House of Representatives from 1799 to 1800. He became the Secretary of State under President John Adams from 1800 to 1801, and in a political crisis he became the fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (1801–1835). Marshall was thrown into the office of Chief Justice in the aftermath of the presidential election of 1800. The Federalists were soundly defeated and their dream of a federal government dominating over the states was coming to an end. They were about to lose both the executive and legislative branches to Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans. In a last desperate moment, President Adams and the lame duck Congress passed what came to be known as the Midnight Judges Act. This draconian attempt to install sweeping changes to the federal judiciary to always rule in favor of the Federalists was now at issue. This included a reduction in the number of Justices from six to five to prevent Jefferson from appointing a Justice when the next vacancy in the court arose.
The incumbent Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth was in poor health, and Adams tried to stack the court by offering the seat to ex-Chief Justice John Jay who declined on the grounds that the court lacked “energy, weight, and dignity.” Jay’s letter arrived on January 20, 1801, and there was little time left.
Adams turned to Secretary of State John Marshall who accepted the nomination immediately. At first, the Senate was delayed in hopes that Adams would make a different choice. Nonetheless, the Senate had no choice and confirmed Marshall on January 27, 1801. He was sworn in on January 31, 1801, and officially took office on February 4, 1801. The strange rush meant that Marshall continued to serve as Secretary of State until Adams’ term expired on March 4, 1801, thereby overlapping Marshall’s two positions of Chief Justice and Secretary of State.
Marshall became the longest presiding Chief Justice during the administrations of six presidents: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson. Marshall remained an advocate of Federalism, and, in this capacity, he was the nemesis of the Jeffersonian school of government throughout its tenure. On July 4, 1826, at the age of 90, John Adams lay on his deathbed while the country celebrated Independence Day. His last words were, “Thomas Jefferson still survives.” But Jefferson had died five hours earlier at Monticello at the age of 82. This, nonetheless, illustrated the battle between Federalist and Jeffersonians who believed in state rights and freedom.
Marshall was faced with the fact that the Constitution’s framers left the Supreme Court’s existence and scope of power very ambiguous. For the first three presidential election cycles, there were few matters of any practical concern with regard to law. The midst of this political crisis of 1800 threatened a political revolution, not necessarily among the people, but among the elites. This confrontation led to Marshall’s landmark decision known as the case of Marbury v Madison.
Adams attempted to stuff the courts with Federalist judges. A handful of commissions for Justice of the Peace remained undelivered when incoming Democratic-Republican President Thomas Jefferson came to office. Jefferson ordered his secretary of state, James Madison, not to deliver any of these appointments since they were clearly political. One disgruntled office seeker, William Marbury, sued to have his commission honored. Marshall denied Marbury his commission because the Act of Congress underlying the suit unconstitutionally sought to expand the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction beyond what it was intended. The case established that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marshall further wrote, “If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.” Strangely, Marshall had to rule against the powers of the Court itself.
This epic battle of Marbury v Madison illustrates that law has never really been law. The fight to install judges who will rule in favor of one side or the other proves there are serious problems with law. Obviously, politicians should never appoint judges. Secondly, the fate of any person should never lie in the ambiguous words of statutes. Any law, when enacted, should be passed to a Constitutional Court to interpret what that law means, which becomes binding BEFORE it is applied to anyone. Until we are ready to reform the Judiciary, there will never be any rule of law. Moreover, judges should never have life tenure. Judges should have one term and then they’re out. They must be subject to the same laws they declare.



