Obama is acting like the cornered rat that he is; Trump knows that he has him on the defense and almost up on the ropes so when Obama realizes that Hillary can not win Obama will get desperate in the coming months and there is no telling what he will do.
Tag Archives: Abuse of Power
Donald Trump and Common Sense…
It makes perfect sense that why Obama and Hillary would never do that!
Donald Trump Speech on Violent Extremism, Saint Anselm College, NH – 2:30pm Live Stream
Good speech until Obama trump put passion in what he says and what he says makes perfect sense as it is also common sense. We really have no choice for as Trump says for if we do not chance our policies there will no long be an America — home of the free because of the brave!
Crime Pays — But Who?
Armstrong Economics Blog
Re-Posted Jun 12, 2016 by Martin Armstrong
One of the eye-opening shocks I experienced after I was thrown in contempt was that nothing was what it seemed. Numerous suicides occurred but the press did not report on them, and the few that received coverage were spun to the government’s favor to portray them as having some remorse. The truth is that those who committed suicide were typically the innocent, whereas the real violent criminals, I found, were cowards. They might kill someone else, but they themselves fear death and will appeal until the end. Even those who did something they believe was right, like Timothy James McVeigh (April 23, 1968 – June 11, 2001), opted for death and refused to appeal. The outright murdered was terrified of dying.
Then there is the nonsense portrayed as recidivism (the relapse to criminal behavior). The truth, even in this department, was far from what the press portrayed. I met people who had been imprisoned for 20+ years who were scared to be released. They all said they would commit another crime to get back inside where life was easy. Once a black individual cried in my cell. He asked me to read his paper because he could not read. He was sentenced to 40 years imprisonment when he was only 18-years-old. He said he had no family left. He had no idea what to do and was scared to death of the outside world. I came to learn that prison was not a punishment; it was a change of life. The justice system somehow operates under the delusional idea that increased prison sentences will deter people. That is just stupid. Prison is suited ONLY for those who pose a violent risk to society — no one else.
So now, we have the idea that they will pay people not to commit a crime after getting out. This will help some who are poor who committed some crime for money. However, the whole system is totally screwed up.
EVERY drug dealer I met said the same thing — the police stole half the cash they had. Their court-appointed lawyers told them to shut up because they would face longer sentences if they were found with more money. Just who is benefiting from this system is highly questionable. Then you have prison guards who take the job so they can beat-up people. They are some very sick individuals. Five New York City Rikers Island prison guards ere just found guilty in beating people. All this does is teach people that government is the enemy. When released, they have been exposed to a vast corruption that dominates the entire prison culture. Inmates have far too often been murdered by prison guards and buried in hole in prisons never to be heard from again. The Arkansas prison farm was just one notorious affair they try to hide from the public.
So unfortunately, the press rarely ever exposes the truth. They support government against the people and have abandoned their constitutional role of defending the people against government. Once the press was bought by big business, they then have agendas sold to the highest bidder.
D.C. may pay people not to commit crimes
Under this bill, up to 200 individuals a year could qualify.
BY BEN NUCKOLS ASSOCIATED PRESSWASHINGTON — They say crime doesn’t pay, but that might not be entirely true in the District of Columbia as lawmakers look for ways to discourage people from becoming repeat offenders.
The D.C. Council voted unanimously Tuesday to approve a bill that includes a proposal to pay residents a stipend not to commit crimes. It’s based on a program in Richmond, California, that advocates say has contributed to deep reductions in crime there.
Under the bill, city officials would identify up to 200 people a year who are considered at risk of either committing or becoming victims of violent crime. Those people would be directed to participate in behavioral therapy and other programs. If they fulfill those obligations and stay out of trouble, they would be paid.
The bill doesn’t specify the value of the stipends, but participants in the California program get up to $9,000 per year.
Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie, a Democrat who wrote the legislation, said it was part of a comprehensive approach to reducing violent crime in the city, which experienced a 54 percent increase in homicides last year. Homicides and violent crime are still down significantly since the 2000s, and even more so since the early 1990s when the District was dubbed the nation’s “murder capital.”
McDuffie argued that spending $9,000 a year in stipends “pales in comparison” to the cost of someone being victimized, along with the costs of incarcerating the offender.
“I want to prevent violent crime — particularly gun violence — by addressing the root causes and creating opportunities for people, particularly those individuals who are at the highest risks of offending,” McDuffie, a former prosecutor, said in a letter to constituents last week.
Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser has not committed to funding the program, which would cost $4.9 million over four years, including $460,000 a year in stipend payments, according to the District’s independent chief financial officer. Without the mayor’s support, it would be up to the council to find money for it through new taxes or cuts to existing programs.
The program would be run independently of the police department, and participants would remain anonymous.
Employment and Unemployment 2006 verse 2016
Last Friday June 3, 2016 the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) published their “Employment Situation — May 2016” report which contained a number of surprises; the biggest one was that we had a 4.7% unemployment rate. This number and other “surprises” are surprises only because the government has no clue what is really going on in the economy; which is a major paradigm shift in the workforce based on all the new Federal requirements such as Obama Care which makes it more and more expensive for a company to have employees, therefore they either automate or ship work, jobs, out of the country. The following Table One is a summary of some of key items shown in Table A-1 in that report, the numbers are in thousands.
Table One, Thousands
Class March 2016 May 2016 Change Change %
Civilian population 252,768 253,174 +406 +.16%
Labor Force 159,286 158,466 -820 -.51%
Employed 151,320 151,030 -290 -.19%
4.7% Unemployed 7,966 7,436 -530 -6.65%
Not in work force 93,482 94,708 +1,226 +1.31%
The biggest thing that stands out in this report is that from March 2016 to May 2016 a total of only three months there are 290,000 fewer people working in May than March but simultaneously the unemployment rate went from 5.0% to 4.7%. That happened only because 1,226,000 people dropped out of the workforce, in two months, really? So it would seem that the easiest way for the government to lower unemployment is to take people out of the work force then to make it easier or less costly to have more employees.
This change happened by manipulating the values in Table One where we see that the Civilian population went up by 406,000 and the labor force shrunk by 820,000 the sum of the two is where the 1,226,000 comes from. 406,000 people should have entered the workforce and to keep unemployment at 4.7% the work force would need to be 159,692,000 the employed would then be 152,187,000 and the number unemployment would be 7,505,000. The bottom line is that for the 4.7% to be real there should have been 867,000 more people working then we actually have employed now.
A more telling look at this above information shown in Table One would be to compare May 2016 to an older report from August 2006 which was less than 10 years ago and the last time before the great recession that the unemployment rate was also 4.7% so it would be a very reasonable comparison to make. This look back is shown in the following Table Two where these figures are also taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics “The Employment Situation: August 2008” also taken from Table A-1, the report name was a bit different back then but it is the same report.
Table Two, Thousands
A comparison from 10 years ago when the Unemployment rate was also 4.7%
Class Aug 2006 May 2016 Change Change %
Civilian population 229,167 253,174 +24,007 +10.48%
Labor Force 151,698 158,466 +6,768 +4.46%
Employed 144,159 151,030 +6,871 +4.77%
4.7% Unemployed 7,119 7,436 +317 +4.45%
Not in work force 77,469 94,708 +17,239 +22.25%
What we see is that the civilian populations increased by 10.48% while the labor force and employed and unemployed increased by only 4.56% (average of the three) resulting in the “Not in the labor force” jumping by a whopping 22.25% and therein lies the issue that we face now; too many people not working which places a heavy burden on those that are. Couple this with the shift in jobs from manufacturing to service which brings lower wages (separate analysis need to support) and you get the political situation that has given us Trump and Bernie.
Trump is right with Make America Great Again and the Democrat counterpart Bernie is just more free stuff which continues us down the present path at a faster rate. The other Democrat Hillary is only about more money and power for herself and her circle of friends, she is the only one not telling the truth about who she is. To be fair the RNC’s initial pick of Jeb Bush, eliminated by Trump, would not have been much different than Hillary, both want the same policies. The Republican voters picked Trump as he tells us that we can go back to the period where we were strong meaning we had good jobs and decent incomes. The next table will show us what the US would have looked like had Trump been elected in 2008.
Table Three will be constructed by taking the May 2016 and adjusting the values to be consistent with the 10.48% increase in the population shown in the first line of Table Two. We use the August 2006 value as it is also 4.7% unemployment but in addition the previous months are similar to that found previous to May 2016. That will show us where we should be verses where we are, in other words what Trump is telling us is that America should have been what is shown in Table Three and we are not there because of Obama Hillary and the progressive left.
Table Three, Thousands
A comparison from 10 years ago when the Unemployment rate was also 4.7%
Class May 2006a May 2016b Change Change %
Civilian population 253,174 253,174 0 0.00%
Labor Force 158,466 175,073 +16,607 10.48%
Employed 151,030 166,858 +15,828 10.48%
4.7% Unemployed 7,436 8,215 +779 10.48%
Not in work force 94,708 104,633 +9,925 10.48%
Right now there should be 166,858,000 people employed and drawing a paycheck, instead we only have 151,030,000 working; therefore we are short 8,957,000 jobs. And that is why the Trump movement is there, he didn’t create the movement the movement created him. Further if we had 8,957,000 more people working the GDP of the country would be $19.3 T instead of $17.4 T assuming the same job mix as existed in 2006. This number is easily calculated by dividing the $17.4 T GDP by the 151 M workers which gives us $115,232 of GDP per worker; and then we multiple that by the 166,858,000 workers that we should have and we get a GDP of $19.3 T.
So we are missing 8,957,000 jobs and almost $2.0 T of GDP so just think what a difference that would have made if we had actually elected a good president. McCain might have been a bit better than Obama but not by much so there really was no good choice in 2008.
Father of San Jose Victim Speaks To Media…
The “media” is bought and paid for by the Uni-Party (UNC) which is made up of the Washington Democrats (DNC) and Republicans (RNC) and financed by Wall Street. There only goal is to keep the money flowing to themselves and that is why the have to destroy Trump by any and all means. Sam Jose was just the beginning of what will be seen between now and November.
San Jose Police Chief Says: Community Criticizing Him For Doing “Too much to protect Trump supporters”…
California is now a state in transition and will soon be joining the rest of the well run Hispanics states across the world.
Rat Fink Ryan Pushes Passage of Puerto Rico (Bain Capital Bond Seller) “Rescue” Through House…
Top fat cats get baled out and everyone else gets screwed just like always! Systems like this always fail and ours is no exception.
San Jose Undercover Cops: “Trump Supporters were running for their lives – We were unable to help”…
I would be willing to bet there will be a lot more of these kinds of instances. Almost all major city are ruled by Democrat’s
Can the USA Break Apart Legally?
Armstrong Economics Blog
Re-Posted Jun 9, 2016 by Martin Armstrong
Within the US Federal Constitution, there is what many refer to as the Republican Guarantee Clause of Article Four; Section 4; Clause 1: Obligations of the United States Federal Government:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…
This Republican Guarantee Clause has long been at the forefront of the debate about the rights of citizens vis-à-vis the government for decades. The Republican Guarantee Clause mandates that all U.S. states must be grounded in republican structures, whereby people elect “representatives” of the government, and, in theory, afford the consent of the governed. The Republican Guarantee Clause is one of several portions of the Constitution that mandates the political structure of the nation composed of individual states. This ensures that all states must have the same type of republican government based on the ancient Roman model.
The Constitution does not actually define what exactly constitutes a “republican government,” however, within several places we find implications. Article Seven stipulated that the Constitution, before it could become established as the “Law of the Land,” must obtain the consent of the people by being ratified by popular conventions within the several states.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
Additionally, as it required the ratification of only nine states in order to be established rather than the unanimous consent required by the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution was more “republican” in this design. A Republic protects the majority from effectively being ruled or held captive by the minority. That is the fundamental structural implementation.
Does a state have the right to secede from the union? The United States Constitution does not prohibit or permit secession. Initially, each of the colonies originated through separate “grants” from the British Crown and evolved with separate political and cultural institutions prior to national independence. For example, the “Laws and Liberties” of Massachusetts, enacted in 1648, was the first body of law created in America. This legal code covered civil and criminal law and was actually a revision of a 1641 code known as “The Body of Liberties,” which was written by Nathaniel Ward, a Puritan minister and teacher. In its preamble we find the best example of why law is necessary:
For a Commonwealth without lawes [sic] is like a ship without rigging and steerage.
Others have claimed that the Federal Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (Article VI) should be interpreted as weighing against a right of secession.
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. (U.S. Constitution, Article VI)
Those who argue that no state can secede from the United States based on the Supremacy Clause are clearly in conflict with the Republican Guarantee Clause. If the people of any state were to vote for secession, then to employ the Supremacy Clause to deny that right would nullify the Republican Guarantee Clause. Nevertheless, President Abraham Lincoln argued that states were not sovereign before the Constitution because the Constitution created the states.
Current legal precedent, as decided by the Supreme Court in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), rendered the previous debate moot by holding that states cannot secede from the union by an act of the state. Texas v White 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. The court ruled that Texas had always been a United States state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America. Texas was under military rule at the time of the decision. The Supreme Court held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and the ordinances of secession and acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances were “absolutely null” and void.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in a letter to Daniel Turkewitz dated October 31, 2006, wrote: “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.” (Hence, the “Pledge of Allegiance” says, “One nation, indivisible…”)
Therefore, as far as the courts have ruled, states have no right to secede. This clearly appears to be in tension with the Republican Guarantee Clause. However, the Civil War was won by sheer force and not well-reasoned law. So it does not appear that the break-up of the United States can take place in a peaceful manner without the federal government losing power.
Centinel2012 