Mar 7 2024

Elon Announces What He’s Not Going to Do

Posted originally on the CTH on March 6, 2024 | Sundance

“It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.”

There’s a certain type of psychology to people who insist on telling you what they are not going to do. Ordinary, well, stable people, just don’t do things, and they are quiet while they don’t do things.

Then, there are other people….

[Source]

In related news…. It has been brought to my attention that stable Treehouse people do not announce what they are not doing. They just live their best life. Huh, go figure.

Mar 6 2024

Cap on Credit Card Late Fees Hurt Financially Illiterate Americans

Posted originally on Mar 6, 2024 By Martin Armstrong

The Biden Administration implemented a new rule that will cap credit card late fees at $8. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has praised the measure, estimating it will save Americans over $10 billion annually in late fees, or around $220 annually per person as 45 million Americans have experienced these fees within the last year, but this measure may be more harmful than helpful.

Credit card debt in America is at an all-time high of nearly $1.13 trillion and continues to rise as around 56 million Americans carry credit card debt. The typical late fee payment is around $32, but this is merely the fee for missing a payment and does not account for compounded interest. It seems like common sense, but one must realize that the average person is not financially literate. The concept of basic finance is not a mandatory requirement for the public education system, leading many people to live off debt, well beyond their means, with no chance of recuperating. America has the leading median level of credit card debt among all developed nations. There is a widespread belief that one can afford certain goods if they are approved for a line of credit, which only benefits the banks.

Now, the banks are certainly profiting on late fees, which account for about 15% of credit card profits based on the CFPB’s 2021 Consumer Credit Card Market Report. Do these fees deter reckless spending? A 2022 ABA-led survey found that 46% of respondents said they made it a priority to pay off their credit cards on time to avoid late fees. That particular study found that a fee of $10 was enough to redirect one’s attention to their financial obligations. Another study by the Harris Poll and NerdWallet found that Americans were more likely to make a payment of their cards if a $30 fee was implemented.

Again, one must understand that the average person cannot compute the cost of compounding interest. Borrowing money is not a legal right and should be done with the utmost caution. Simply forgetting or dismissing financial obligations has consequences.

The banks will find a way to profit off the people in other ways. It is the nature of banking. Rob Nichols, the president and CEO of the American Bankers Association, explained that other measures could be implemented that will hurt everyone. “The Bureau’s misguided decision to cap credit card late fees at a level far below banks’ actual costs will force card issuers to reduce credit lines, tighten standards for new accounts and raise APRs for all consumers – even those who pay on time,” Nichols said. This is yet another Biden Admin policy favoring the financially irresponsible at the expense of others.

So, what is the CFPB recommending as an alternative? CBDC. The agency is first suggesting digitizing banking so that consumers have instant access to their credit scores and spending habits. Again, these numbers are disregarded by a portion of the population. The agency is patronizing all Americans by stating we are not intelligent enough to know when to pay off our monthly debts without digital notifications and reminders.

Financial literacy is desperately needed in America. So, while the Biden Administration is breaking its arm patting itself on the back for this surface-level win for the everyday man, the ruling does nothing to combat the growing personal debt crisis.

Mar 6 2024

The Constitutional Crisis Coming for 2025

Posted originally on Mar 5, 2024 By Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Thank you so much for your in-depth analysis on the legal front. With your latest post, I assume that our vote may not count in the end. Congress will refuse to certify a Trump victory, calling him an insurrectionist because the Supreme Court held that only Congress can pass legislation to address that disqualification. That means that there would have to be turmoil for if Congress all flipped to the Democrats, they would have to pass legislation and then the president has to sign it. But they would take office the same day Trump does. Do you have any thoughts on this? I see the Constitutional Crisis you referred to.

I’m glad you did not become a lawyer. You help a lot more people this way.

Cheers.

ANSWER: It would have been nice if the Supreme Court ruled on the insurrection allegation. But if Colorado, Maine, Illinois, and any other Marxist state usurped jurisdiction they did not have, that ended the inquiry. If you read Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s separate opinion, she points out the problem with the Democratic-appointed Justices. True, they had to agree that Colorado had no jurisdiction even to decide the case, much less charge him. The majority wrote:

“We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.”

This was correct, or a single state could interfere in a federal election that would violate the civil rights of everyone else in the country. There was absolutely nothing in the Constitution that delegated to the States any power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against federal officeholders and candidates. The three Democrat-appointed justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson- wrote that the majority went too far. What Justice Barrett points out is that their rhetoric was inflammatory.

The Democratic dissenters are a forwarding of the Constitutional Crisis to come. They said the ruling “shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement” and that “we cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily.” They even added, “Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision.”

The dissenters are arguing that Section 3 is self-executing, in which case the Democrats will rally to their words and REFUSE to certify a Trump victory. The majority said Congress must pass legislation. So the Constitutional Crisis will erupt when the Democrats refuse to certify Trump leaving Biden in office, and then the whole thing goes back to the courts.

Justice Barret saw this crisis unfolding. She wrote: “In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency,” she said, adding that “particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.” She also issued a warning. “For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home,” she wrote, referring to the dissenting minority.”

So many markets are starting to show Panic Cycles between September and November. This Constitutional Crisis will come in January 2025 over the certification of the vote. The country is so divided, and the Democrats have expended all their energy on hating Trump. This hatred is not so unlike the period encompassing the Social War of Rome, about 40 years before Caesar was forced to cross the Rubicon. When the Marius faction seized control, they simply executed all the supporters of their opposition – Sulla. The hatred of Trump is so intense it is reminiscent of the Social War period.

Today, the Democrats will reject the vote no matter what. They will claim that the 14th Amendment is self-executing and refuse to certify Trump without passing any legislation. They will point to the language of these three Democrats on the Court. That means the entire decision if January 6th was an insurrection or not will become the turning point.

When I look at the long-term timing arrays, we have back-to-back Yearly Directional Changes 2024/2025. If the Democrats pull that trick, they will clearly destroy the confidence in the United States, the rule of law, and the foundation of everything. Even when we turn to the US government 30-year bonds, 2024 is a Directional Change. Everything is poised for a major Constitutional Crisis, pretty much like Rome.

Mar 5 2024

Why Panera is Excluded from California’s Minimum Wage Hike

Posted originally on Mar 5, 2024 By Martin Armstrong

California is raising the minimum wage of fast food employees from $16 to $20 under the FAST Act. I have explained that raises to California’s minimum wage was restricted due to successful lobbying efforts on behalf of fast food establishments. The new law does include commercial fast food restaurants, excluding Panera Bread. Why?

Fast food lobbyists spent $4 million in the first six months of this year to prevent the California Accountability Bill from passing. The bill would hold franchisees and their parent companies jointly liable for the treatment of workers. California Governor Gavin Newsom claimed that minimum wage jobs were not meant for students of people looking to gain employment experience. “That’s a romanticized version of a world that doesn’t exist,” Newsom said. “We have the opportunity to reward that contribution, reward that sacrifice and stabilize an industry.”

A fast-food bill was passed in September 2022 that set the minimum wage to $22 per hour for select chains with over 100 locations, later expanding to a $20 minimum pay for restaurants with 60 locations. Now California is specifically exempting fast food establishments that contain bakeries, such as Panera Bread. Why are restaurants that sell bread above the law?

The answer is that politicians are always up for sale to the highest bidder. Glenn Flynn is the largest fast food franchise owner in America with an empire of 2,600 restaurant locations that produce around $.45 billion in sales. Flynn, estimated to be worth around $1.1 billion, has strongly supported Gavin Newsom publicly since 2014, when Newsom was a lieutenant governor. Both men attended the same high school and have longstanding ties.

Bloomberg reported that Flynn donated $64,800 to Newsom’s personal re-election campaign and an additional $100,000 for conservative-led recall efforts. Flynn’s holdings in California only include two establishments – Applebee’s and Panera Bread. Applebee’s is exempt from the law despite its pre-frozen dishes since it is a sit-down restaurant chain. Panera Bread, on the other hand, is exempt due to this specific loophole that only excludes establishments that bake bread. This is what happens when lobbying is permitted and politicians are for sale.

Mar 5 2024

Crying over the Supreme Court Decision – Get Over It

Posted originally on Mar 4, 2024 By Martin Armstrong

Some critics are obviously anti-Trump who have come out crying that’s really unusual for the Court to give such little notice that they would release a decision. They are indeed crying that this was because of Super Tuesday and therefore they are trying to support Trump.

Let me explain something here to these absolutely biased idiots. Let’s say the Supreme Court waited until May or June to release its decision, and you have Colorado, Maine, and Illinois who blocked Trump. Then what would happen? The entire 2024 election might be seriously impacted and then challenged in court in another array of suits. They had to rule, and it was UNANIMOUS before Super Tuesday to avoid a constitutional crisis. EVERYONE on the court agreed – Colorado had no such jurisdiction – PERIOD!

GET OVER IT!

THIS WAS NOT A 5-4 DECISION

IT WAS UNANIMOUS

Trump v Anderson My Amicus Brief-F

As I wrote in my Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court, the last time any state refused to allow a candidate on the ballot was 1860 when Abraham Lincoln did not appear on the ballots in the South. What followed? The Civil War.

The Founding Fathers never intended to allow a rogue state to interfere in either national commerce or national federal elections, as implied in the Commerce Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause
3 of the U.S. Constitution. Could Colorado remove a senator or congressman of another state claiming that they were part of the January 6th event they called an unarmed insurrection? There is no jurisdiction for a single state to remove a national candidate from the ballot – PERIOD! Assuming such power would mean they too could interfere in the commerce of other states. That would lead to complete chaos. Even Sotomayor, the favorite of the Democrats, wrote clearly:

“Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case.”

Anyone who cannot see that is so biased; they no longer have a functioning brain cell. They have been so brainwashed, they are no longer competent even to vote. We are either a nation with a national identity or a patchwork of states that no longer should pretend to be united.

Mar 5 2024

Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Removing Trump from the Ballots

Posted Mar 4, 2024 By Martin Armstrong

Trump v Colorado Decision

COMMENT: Marty, the Supreme Court bought your argument that there is no subject matter jurisdiction for the states to remove Trump from the ballot. Even the Democrats on the Court unanimously agreed that states do not have the authority to enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. You were right.

“This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency”

REPLY: If this had not been political nonsense, it was a case that should have been dismissed as frivolous. A court is supposed FIRST to determine if it has the jurisdiction to hear the case. This was such a biased maneuver by those who brought the actions and the judges involved that it illustrates more than anything how BROKEN and MORALLY CORRUPT our legal system has become. It is no more trustworthy today than it was in Rome before the fall.

As I submitted to the Court, there cannot be such jurisdiction to allow one state to prejudice a national election for all. Under the precedents, those involved committed a crime because their motive was to interfere in the 2024 election. These people are only concerned on winning at all costs and to keep the prospect for war alive. They advocated the overthrow of the government, which is the very thing they have accused Trump of.

As I wrote to the Court, allowing a single state to interfere in a national election undermines the very structure of the Constitution. One rogue state cannot block everyone else in the country from voting. Elections are for the people to decide – not backroom deals and conspiracys of bureaucrats seeking to retain power.

Even the concurring opinion of Sotomayor agreed there is no state jurisdiction to enforce the 14th Amendment. She wrote:

“Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case.”

“The American people have the power to vote for and elect candidates for national office, and that is a great and glorious thing. “