Tag Archives: End of Free Speech

Jun 8 2023

Major Hotel Chains Shutting San Francisco Locations


Armstrong Economics Blog/USA Current Events Re-Posted Jun 8, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

San Francisco and other blue cities are overrun with crime, permitted by light-on-crime policies. I know numerous people who travel for work, and all they can discuss after visiting cities such as San Francisco and Seattle is the urban encampments and rampant crime that occurs in broad daylight. Companies no longer wish to hold conferences in these dangerous drug-ridden cities, and it is causing hotels to shutter.

The Hilton San Francisco Union Square Hotel, the largest hotel in the city, and Parc 55 Hotel, the fourth largest, are fleeing the city. CEO Thomas J. Baltimore Jr. said that his hotels have lost almost all of their business from conferences and conventions. Park Hotels & Resorts Inc. (NYSE:PK) announced that it has stopped all payments toward its $725 million loan. They want to completely remove these hotels from their portfolio immediately. There is no saving the city at this point, and the smart money is leaving. “Unfortunately, the continued burden on our operating results and balance sheet is too significant to warrant continuing to subsidize and own these assets,” the company politely stated.

Quite a shame as this was once a beautiful city in a prime location. Hotels in San Francisco have to remind guests to park within enclosed, monitored parking garages because theft is so prominent. Some residents would like to turn a blind eye to the growing problem as the homeless population is beginning to outnumber them. The New York Post recently featured an article showing images of the vacant stores throughout the once desirable downtown as retail vacancy rose 6% in Q1 alone. Businesses, such as Whole Foods which was only open for one year, said they were worried about the safety of their employees.

What is the city doing to correct the problem? Nothing. They are downplaying the true crisis and wondering why tourism is nearly non-existent. The $120 million in budget cuts for the police department since 2020 has not helped the situation. Reports state that fewer than 80% of 911 calls are answered in a timely fashion, if at all. This is how cities fall under incompetent leaders who ignore problems in favor of votes.

Jun 8 2023

Jack Smith, Andrew Weissmann and Lisa Monaco’s Novel Theory – US Code 793 to Prosecute Trump, It Won’t Work


June 7, 2023 | Sundance | 173 Comments

….At a certain point Lawfare fails.

Do you remember the prosecution “Witness #8” in the case against George Zimmerman? The person described as Trayvon Martin’s “girlfriend” who was claimed by FOUR state prosecutors to be the star “ear witness” against Zimmerman.

Do you remember how we waited month after month, laughing at how the State of Florida was relying upon their one key witness, and we all knew it was totally made up?

Do you remember the buildup, the drama, the media’s breathless anticipation, and the eventual beverage that flushed out of your nose in laughter when the State called Witness #8, and brought Rachel Jeantel to the stand?

Not only did she have no clue about any detail the prosecution was saying, she didn’t fit any of the profile that was claimed to be her importance in the case.  And… not only could she not read the statement the State of Florida claimed she wrote (she didn’t), Jeantel didn’t even know Trayvon Martin.  She was completely manufactured by the prosecution because her mom was a friend of Trayvon’s mom.  Everyone wondered how the hell the prosecution could even put her on the stand. Remember that?

The reason they put her on the stand was because the prosecution and Trayvon’s family had no choice.  For over a year, they had hyped up this imaginary “ear witness” in an effort to convince Zimmerman to take a plea deal.  That was the purpose of the fabrication, and when George Zimmerman didn’t take the plea – when he forced the prosecution to put Witness #8 on the stand – the case collapsed, because the case was manufactured.

When people ask me about the DOJ and/or Jack Smith bringing an indictment against President Trump, in many ways I laugh while waiting for the DOJ to bring a proverbial Jeantel to the court.  The DOJ has to indict Trump for the same reason Angela Corey had to put Jeantel on the stand.  Their political narrative cases have to continue regardless of the evidence.  Lawfare is a construct for media consumption intended to manipulate public opinion.

Technically Lawfare doesn’t need an actual viable legal argument behind it.  Much like Zimmerman’s imaginary witness #8, Lawfare can be assembled out of loin cloth.  However, at a certain point that legal fabrication runs into the reality of a judicial system it is not designed to defeat.

If the leaks to the media are accurate, WE WERE RIGHT!

Main Justice and DOJ special counsel Jack Smith have run head-first into the problem that President Trump declassified all the documents he retained in Mar-a-Lago.

Again, if the media reports are accurate, Jack  Smith is now relying on 18 U.S. Code 793, a law created in 1948 intended to stop contractors to the Defense Dept from stealing, selling, or copying U.S. defense system secrets, or patents on defense products. [READ THE LAW]

Here is how the media are putting it:

The Independent has learned that prosecutors are ready to ask grand jurors to approve an indictment against Mr Trump for violating a portion of the US criminal code known as Section 793, which prohibits “gathering, transmitting or losing” any “information respecting the national defence”.

The use of Section 793, which does not make reference to classified information, is understood to be a strategic decision by prosecutors that has been made to short-circuit Mr Trump’s ability to claim that he used his authority as president to declassify documents he removed from the White House and kept at his Palm Beach, Florida property long after his term expired on 20 January 2021.

That section of US criminal law is written in a way that could encompass Mr Trump’s conduct even if he was authorised to possess the information as president because it states that anyone who “lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document …relating to the national defence,” and “willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it” can be punished by as many as 10 years in prison. (LINK)

Main Justice is now stretching Code 793 to claim any document the government designates as a “national security document” is a national defense document.

I am almost certain this is because the 11th circuit court of appeals ruled the DOJ can label whatever it wants, in any form it wants.  As long as the DOJ claims it is a national security interest, it becomes a national security interest.  This ruling came from the arguments over the Mar-a-Lago documents. REMEMBER:

[SOURCE]

If the DOJ says a box of Cheerios is a national security threat, the Judicial Branch accepts that all Cheerio boxes are proffered national-security concerns.   It doesn’t matter what the Trump documents are, as long as the DOJ can claim they are vital national security interests.

In the previous ruling of the Mar-a-Lago documents, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals did what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) does with the DOJ-NSD and any matters defined by the originating Main Justice officials as “national security.”   The 11th Circuit deferred all definitions to the DOJ.

The DOJ is granted legal benefit of the doubt on all matters of national security, which puts the DOJ-NSD in ultimate control over the star chamber they operate.

[NOTE: In the post 9-11 surveillance state, this approach by the DOJ-NSD is a pillar holding the Fourth Branch of Government in place, as we have outlined.  The other pillars are (2) the Dept of Homeland Security, (3) the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and (4) the secret FISA Court system.  All four pillars maintain an omnipotent fourth branch of government that operates entirely without oversight.  As you can see in the 11th Circuit Court ruling, there is no check or balance in the post 9-11 national security state.]

However, their target isn’t an ordinary citizen or target.  The target of these “definitions”, and make no mistake – ultimately this is what the case comes down to, definitions – is the former President of the United States who had unilateral authority to define anything he wanted.

The case against President Donald Trump might look bad on paper, because that is what the case against Donald Trump was designed to do.  However, ultimately this case is on a trajectory to go up to a much higher court in discovery and pre-trial argument, because eventually these definitions are going to become an issue for the prosecution.

♦ THE TELL – Here’s the “tell” that every pundit, analyst and litigation expert will pretend they don’t notice.  It’s the funniest part of the entire thing and yet no one, again except us, is noticing it.  The DOJ has already predicated the baseline of their claim by saying they cannot tell anyone, even the court, what the nature of the documents are that underpin their assertion.  Remember, they wouldn’t even let a court appointed “special master” review the documents.

Stop and think about that for a moment.  NO ONE knows what the documents are, and the DOJ has stated they will never say what the documents are.  The DOJ is filing a case about the mishandling of documents, in whatever legal construct they put forth, while simultaneously saying they are under no obligation to tell anyone what the documents are.

DOJ: Trump violated USC 793 in his discussion and/or handling of documents.

Trump Lawyers: What documents?

DOJ: We can’t say, and we won’t tell you.

😂
🤣
😂

The case against George Zimmerman looked bad when everyone thought Witness #8 was real.  Hell, almost the entire country believed it.

This case against President Donald Trump is of a very similar Lawfare intention in construct.

Jun 8 2023

Gold & the Future


Armstrong Economics Blog/Gold Re-Posted Jun 7, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, first I want to thank you for your independent analysis. In gold, all they ever say is buy – buy – buy. It seems if you ever say anything else, they ridicule you. Gold to them is a religion, not an investment.

My question is that you have always said that the fourth challenge to a high is when it breaks out. Do you expect that this year?

Thank you ever so much

WK

PS: Was that you at the Premier of Pandemic3?

ANSWER: We still have a barrier of overhead resistance at the 2160-2180 level and some at 2200. After that, the next resistance is around 2600. Keep in mind that Ukraine is the MOST untrustworthy country on the planet. Already arms provided to Ukraine have been used in the attacks inside Russia. The F16s will be used to attack Crimea. All they will do is spread their hatred and they are deliberately trying to create World War III. They will create a false flag to attack a NATO country and claim it was Russia. They have been desperately trying to capture a Russian missile so they can fire it at Poland.

Our computer shows NOTHING but war ahead, especially from 2025 onward. But for now, expect the volatility to begin to rise again from June into next January. INFLATION will NOT subside. It cannot when we are at war. Biden will spend whatever he is instructed by the Neocons.

Yes, I was at the Premier in Austin, Texas. That is me in the background.

Jun 8 2023

Mark Meadows and Mike Pompeo – Acceptable Republicans for National Security State


Posted originally on the CTH on June 7, 2023 | Sundance 

Some people reviewing the latest articles [SEE HERE] about the potential indictment framework of President Trump are stunned by this section regarding former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows:

[…] Mr Meadows has already given evidence before the grand jury and is said to be cooperating with the investigations into his former boss. It is understood that the former North Carolina congressman testified as part of a deal for which he has already received limited immunity in exchange for his testimony.

[…] It is not yet known whether the testimony or the charges in question relate to the documents probe, or a separate investigation into the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Both investigations are being overseen by a Department of Justice special prosecutor, Jack Smith. According to ABC News, Mr Meadows has given evidence in both the documents matter and the January 6 investigation. (read more)

First, President Trump did nothing wrong.  Meadows can give no testimony that is damaging to President Trump in any ordinary construct.  The targeting of Trump is apex Lawfare, which is the manipulation of the law, including new and novel concepts of law, as weapons against opposition.

There, but for the grace of God, stand any one of us.  I say this from armored experience against these creatures.

Second, removing the unsubstantiated claim about Meadows reportedly pleading guilty to some charge, which is directly and strongly called “bullshit” by his lawyer, some people are wondering about Mark Meadows. I am not one of those who wonder about Meadows; I have always viewed him as a sketchy self-interested conniving Republican, and I retain that disposition through today.

Mark Meadows and Mike Pompeo were part of the “approved” Republican group who operated inside the Trump administration with loyalty to the right-wing of the UniParty apparatus.  Meadows and Pompeo were/are about as trustworthy as Rupert Murdoch and Ron DeSantis, which is to say, they ain’t.  They are DeceptiCons, and this isn’t a new position about them.  I have previously used the testimony of Mark Milley to show just how Machiavellian this entire tribe of  ‘acceptable Republicans’ was/is.

Keep in mind, as President, Donald Trump had few options on administration personnel.  He hired what everyone said at the time were solid republicans, only to see those same people undermine his efforts whenever possible.  Jeff Sessions, Dan Coats, Mark Meadows, Mick Mulvaney, Bill Barr, Mike Pompeo, the list is long, including his Vice President, Mike Pence.

In essence, this was the GOPe control within the Trump administration, the exact same dynamic would happen in any disruptive administration that came from outside the beltway.  This is why those same DeceptiCons are embracing Ron DeSantis – he’s in the club, Trump wasn’t.

As I outlined in September of 2021, years of agonizing and frustrating reviews and analysis of the Trump administration reconciled in the testimony of Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley.  During his September 28, 2021, Senate testimony before the Armed Services Committee, General Mark Milley clarified some very painful issues to accept.  Namely, that President Trump was being heavily managed by operatives of the Senior Executive Service (SES), and his Republican inner circle was willfully participating.

General Milley is a brutally political, manipulative, entitled and arrogant member of the United States armed forces.  His delusions of grandiosity represent the worst of our nation and can only be topped by one other, Anthony Fauci.  However, in his testimony Milley outlined the Republican opposition to Donald Trump.

JC Chairman General Mark Milley was attempting to flex his power in the almost identical way we saw former FBI Director James Comey pull the same angle.   You might remember, during congressional testimony in March 2017, when Comey was questioned about why he never informed congressional ‘gang-of-eight’ oversight about the preceding eleven month FBI investigating the incoming President, Donald Trump.  Director Comey pontificated, obfuscated, dodged carefully, and then deflected responsibility by saying he informed the “national security council” under President Obama.

When General Milley attempted to justify his unilateral contacts with Chinese military officials, he made a similar, and remarkably telling, admission and deflection.

For the January 8, 2021 phone call with General Lee of China, Milley stated he informed President Trump’s Chief-of-Staff Mark Meadows and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Keep in mind, Kash Patel has publicly stated General Milley did not inform Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller directly, at least to his knowledge.  So, Milley’s secondary point about notifying Christopher Miller in January 2020 needs to be reconciled carefully.

Listen carefully to how Milley is describing those calls.  Specifically, pay attention to Milley saying the calls were initiated by him in response to “concerning intelligence, which caused us to believe the Chinese were worried about an attack on them by the United States.”   It is important to note what this is NOT.

The contact by Chairman Milley was not initially triggered by the Chinese contacting him or any U.S. official about their concerns.  The contact to them is justified by saying the U.S. intelligence community was generating intelligence that said the Chinese were worried.

For clarity, the Chinese did not say they were worried, the U.S. intelligence community were saying the Chinese were worried.   Knowing how the Deep State, aka Fourth Branch of Government operates, keep that key point in mind.

Milley goes on to say, he was attempting to “deescalate” a situation the Chinese had never escalated.  Think about that carefully.

[WATCH from 09:00 forward, Prompted]

.

The first call, driven by U.S. Intelligence Community alarms, was made in October 2020, before the election.  Then another call was requested by the Chinese on December 30, 2020, for scheduling on January 8, 2021, after the U.S. election.   Note this important statement surrounding the January 8th call: “Shortly after my call ended with General Lee, I personally informed Secretary of State Pompeo and White House Chief of Staff Meadows, about the call – among other topics.”

Notice who General Milley did not inform.

General Milley did not inform President Trump, nor his national security advisor Robert O’Brien. This framework appears intentional; however, when you overlay what we previously suspected and outlined about Mark Meadows and Secretary Pompeo, it all makes sense.

Just like many other people who preceded them in the administration, Meadows and Pompeo were in place to manage President Trump.  Unfortunately, accepting that reality brings with it a bunch of very concerning issues.

We’ve long suspected Mark Meadows was introduced into the Trump orbit specifically because the Fourth Branch was exerting influence and needed to mitigate any independent action by President Trump.  This is the same scenario around introducing former CIA Director Mike Pompeo for the same purposes.

Mike Pompeo and Mark Milley worked unilaterally without President Trump’s authority on at least one situation during the winter of 2019 when U.S. strikes took place.  [Background Here] [Background Here]. President Trump made Esper, Milley and Pompeo hold a press conference without Trump supporting them; then President Trump remained silent on the issue for days.  There were other issues with Pompeo which looked sketchy, but that one specifically was a big red flag (or cherry on the proverbial cake).

Mark Meadows was the source of frequent leaks against President Trump including his health status during his COVID hospital stay.  Mark Meadows was also the primary source for John Solomon when Meadows was in Congress.  [Solomon made this admission during a podcast.]

During the peak of the 2018 “Spygate” headlines, prior to the mid-term election, it became obvious that Solomon was being managed and steered in his reporting.  It always appeared that Meadows was attempting to tamp-down outrage within the Trump base in order to manage it.  John Solomon and the Fox News tick-tock club were a big factor in the success of that approach.

Meadows was/is loyal to the Republican corporation inside the swamp.  This was always the accurate prism to view Mark Meadows.

Yes, it is remarkable…. with so many Republicans working against the America First Agenda of President Trump, including all of the Republican members who participated in the Hillary Clinton Russiagate nonsense, it is amazing how Trump was able to achieve so many accomplishments on behalf of Main Street.

Jun 8 2023

Reminder, What Was in The Mar-a-Lago Documents


Posted originally on the CTH on June 7, 2023 | Sundance 

Last year, CTH outlined a four-part series of articles going deep into the background of the DOJ-FBI raid of President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, along with the outline into why it was important to them.  It doesn’t matter how many different legal angles and Deep State justifications the DOJ attempts to deploy in order to divert away from what took place; the background of who, what, when and why they raided Mar-a-Lago will not change.

In Part One, we outlined the background of the modern Deep State {Go Deep}. In Part Two we outlined the specifics of how President Trump was targeted by political operatives using tools created by the DC system {Go Deep}.  In Part Three we outlined how and why President Trump was blocked from releasing documents {Go Deep}.  And then finally, as below in Part 4, we assembled the specifics of what documents likely existed in Mar-a-Lago.

It is important to remember, the Presidential Records Act –the presented pretext for the document conflict– is not a criminal statute.  An FBI raid cannot be predicated on a document conflict between the National Archives and a former president.

The DOJ-NSD warrant, and the subsequent raid on Mar-a-Lago can only be related to records the U.S. government deems “classified” and material vital to national security interests.  Hence, DOJ National Security Division involvement.

In prior outlines, we have exhaustively covered the details of President Trump’s desire to publicly release information about DOJ and FBI conduct in their targeting of him during the fabricated Trump-Russia claims.  However, to understand the nature of the documents he may hold, we first review the declassification memo provided by President Trump to the DOJ upon his departure from office.

In broad terms, there are two sets of documents that intermingle and are directly related. First, documents that highlight the activity of Hillary Clinton’s team in creating the false Trump-Russia conspiracy theory (2015/2016).  Second, documents that highlight the activity of government officials targeting Donald Trump within the same timeframe (Crossfire Hurricane), that continued into 2017, 2018 and 2019 (Robert Mueller).

Think of the two sets of documents as evidence against two teams working in synergy.  Team one (Clinton) was outside government. Team two (DOJ/FBI) was inside government.  The documents pertain to both groups but are also divided.  That helps to explain the wording of the memo above.

The documentary evidence against the outside group (Clinton et al) would also involve government documented evidence as the DOJ/FBI inside group interacted with them.  Notes from interviews, materials provided, FBI 302 summaries of interviews, etc.

We can extract a lot of information on the first sets of evidence from the lawsuit filed by President Trump in March of 2022 – mostly against the outside actors. [LINK HERE]

The lawsuit was filed against specific persons, and most of those persons were interviewed by the FBI as part of the originating investigation.  Within the subjects of the lawsuit, we find names and groups including:

Hillary Clinton, Hillary for America Campaign Committee, DNC, DNC Services Corp, Perkins Coie, Michael Sussmann, Marc Elias, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Charles Dolan, Jake Sullivan, John Podesta, Robby Mook, Phillipe Reines as well as Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, Peter Fritsch, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, Orbis Business Intelligence, Christopher Steele, Igor Danchenko, Neustar Inc., Rodney Joffe, James Comey Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith and Andrew McCabe.

In addition to being named in the lawsuit, many of those names were interviewed by the FBI as part of the origination of the Trump-Russia investigation, and/or part of the ongoing investigation of the Trump-Russia fabrication. Each of those interviews would carry an FD-302 report summarizing the content of the interview, the questions and answers given.

The totality of those 302 documents is a lot of evidence likely consisting of hundreds of pages.

For the government officials on the inside, in addition to 302’s (ex Bruce Ohr), there would be documents of communication between them.

Think about the full unredacted text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok as an example.  The DOJ publicly released over 600 pages of those text messages, and that wasn’t all of them.  The text messages were also redacted under claims of privacy and national security.  We can assume any version of these text messages declassified by President Trump would not be redacted.  Hence, you go back to the January 20th memo and see the notes about “privacy.”

We also know there are many pages of communication between DOJ lawyer Lisa Page and her boss in the FBI, Andrew McCabe.  Almost none of them were ever made public; but they exist.  This internal communication is likely the type of material contained in both the “binder,” left for the DOJ to release, and the boxes at Mar-a-Lago to be used as evidence against the named defendants in the Clinton lawsuit.

Bruce Ohr has 302’s and emails relating to his involvement as a conduit between Fusion GPS and the FBI.  Some of those were released in redacted form, and some of them were never released.  Additionally, Nellie Ohr, Bruce’s wife, who worked at Fusion GPS invoked spousal privilege when called to testify before the House committee investigating the issues.  However, it is almost certain the FBI interviewed her, so there are likely 302’s on Nellie Ohr.

Chris Steele, Igor Danchenko and Rodney Joffe were also interviewed by the FBI.  Those 302’s were never released.  Presumably John Durham held stakeholder equity in that part of the Trump-Russia hoax, but the documentary evidence prior to January 20, 2021, that exists outside the special counsel, could also be records at Mar-a-Lago.

Then we get to the big stuff…. The records and evidence, in unredacted and declassified state, that would drive the DOJ-NSD to claim vital national security interests.

The NSA compliance officer notified NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers of unauthorized use of the NSA database by FBI contractors searching U.S. citizens during the 2015/2016 presidential primary.  That 2016 notification is a classified record.

The response from Mike Rogers, and the subsequent documentary evidence of what names were being searched, is again a classified record.  The audit logs showing who was doing the searches (which contractors, which agencies and from what offices), as noted by Director Rogers, were preserved.  That is another big-time classified record.

In addition, we would have Admiral Rogers writing a mandatory oversight notification to the FISA court detailing what happened.  That’s a big and comprehensive classified record, likely contained in the documents in Mar-a-Lago… and then the goldmine, the fully unredacted 99-page FISA court opinion detailing the substance of the NSA compromise by FBI officials and contractors, including the names, frequency and dates of the illegal surveillance.  That is a major classified document the Deepest Deep State would want to keep hidden.

These are the types of documents within what former ODNI John Ratcliffe called, “thousands of pages that were declassified by President Trump,” and given to both John Durham and Main Justice with an expectation of public release when the Durham special counsel probe concluded.  That is why the DOJ has to make their moves now.  The Durham probe has concluded.

In short, President Trump declassified documents that show how the institutions within the U.S. government targeted him.  However, the institutions that illegally targeted President Trump are the same institutions who control the specific evidence of their unlawful targeting.

These examples of evidence held by President Donald Trump reveal the background of how the DC surveillance state exists.  THAT was/is the national security threat behind the DOJ-NSD search warrant and affidavit.

The risk to the fabric of the U.S. government is why we see lawyers and pundits so confused as they try to figure out the disproportionate response from the DOJ and FBI, toward “simple records”, held by President Trump in Mar-a-Lago.   Very few people can comprehend what has been done since January 2009, and the current state of corruption as it now exists amid all of the agencies and institutions of government.

Barack Obama spent 8 years building out and refining the political surveillance state.  The operators of the institutions have spent the last six years hiding the construct.

President Donald Trump declassified the material then took the evidence to Mar-a-Lago.  The people currently in charge of managing the corrupt system, like Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco, Chris Wray and the Senate allies, are going bananas.  From their DC perspective, Donald Trump is an existential threat.

Given the nature of their opposition, and the underlying motives for their conduct, there is almost nothing they will not do to protect themselves.  However, if you peel away all the layers of lies, manipulations and corruption, what you find at the heart of their conduct is fear.  The need for control is a reaction to fear.

What do they fear most?…

…..THIS!

People forget, and that’s ok, but prior to the 2015 MAGA movement driven by President Donald J Trump, political rallies filled with tens-of-thousands of people were extremely rare – almost nonexistent.  However, in the era of Donald J. Trump the scale of the people paying attention has grown exponentially.  Every speech, every event, every rally is now filled with thousands and thousands of people.

The frequency of it has made us numb to realizing just how extraordinary this is.  But the people in Washington DC are well aware, and that makes President Trump even more dangerous.  Combine that level of support with what they attempted in order to destroy him, and, well, now you start to put context on their effort.

The existence of Trump is a threat, but the existence of a Trump that could expose their corruption…. well, that makes him a level of threat that leads to a raid on his home in Mar-a-Lago.

Jun 7 2023

There is no Glory in the Grave


Armstrong Economics Blog/War Re-Posted Jun 7, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

“The working class of Europe has nothing to gain from this war and everything to lose,” Irish European Parliament member Clare Daly stated in October 2022. “I find it laughable that those who call for arms to Ukraine never call for arms for the people of Palestine, or for the people of Yemen.” She is right – the people have absolutely nothing to gain through endless wars. Some may say, “Oh but Palestine and Yemen do not border Europe.” The neocons led Europeans to believe that they were in danger of Russian aggression, as if Russia were on a conquest to conquer all of Europe. In truth, they knew that Russia only wanted to reclaim a piece of land that historically hosted Russian people. Europe at large was never in danger; they are now.

Clare Daly has been aggressively advocating to end the war in Ukraine. Daly spoke out in March 2023, declaring, “Ukraine is burning through a generation of men.” Zelensky is sending in troops with no formal training who are expected to fight his endless war. People cheer when they hear of a successful attack or new weapons coming in, but no one thinks of the Ukrainian and Russian men on the frontlines who will never return home.

Think of the teenagers who know in a few short years that they too will be expected to fight, with no other potential future. Ukrainian male students were prohibited by the Ukrainian Ministry from traveling abroad to study, as Zelensky needed them ready to fight to replace their older brothers and peers who may perish in battle. Yet Zelensky parades around in a military green shirt, forcing men to die, knowing he will not receive so much as a scratch.

“These are human beings, and there is a shameful lack of empathy for ordinary people in the war rhetoric in here. The debate is about keeping the war flowing to keep the war going,” Daly shouted. Peace was never an option for the West. Russia did in fact offer to hold discussions. They appeased Russia with the Minsk Agreement that they never intended to keep, as former German Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted. Merkel said that the entire premise of the Minsk Agreement was to buy time to build up Ukraine’s military. War has always been the goal of the neocons. Russia was none the wiser of the grand plan until after they entered Ukraine.

Clare Daly has expressed how livid she is at the warmongers for continuing this war. It is a rare occurrence to see her speaking out on BBC or any major channels. She has questioned what it even means for Ukraine to “win” the war. “Ordinary people don’t win in wars, they’re cannon fodder in the games of others,” Daly said, “You can shout glory all you like, but there is no glory in the grave, and only graves come out of this folly.”

Jun 7 2023

Current State of Affairs


Armstrong Economics Blog/Ukraine Re-Posted Jun 6, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

All my sources confirm it was the guy who wears the same T-Shirt to pretends he is defending democracy when he is not in his high-heels

Jun 7 2023

Tucker Carlson Emerges on Twitter to Deliver Monologue


Posted originally on the CTH on June 6, 2023 | Sundance 

Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson is locked in a contract dispute with his former network who took him off the air, but continues to enforce the contract he signed with them.  As the contract battle wages, and while litigation with the network continues, Carlson is limited in his options for platform broadcast.

As a result, Tucker Carlson’s personal Twitter account which existed prior to his Fox contract and is not subject to the terms and agreements, remains an outlet for him to use while not violating his non-compete clause.  Almost all other platforms represent what would be considered online competition to Fox Digital, so broadcasting a new show on any of those digital platforms would represent a potential legal issue and not an option. {Direct Rumble Link}

Tonight, Tucker Carlson aired a 10-minute monologue, what he calls “episode 1” from his Twitter account. While Tucker does not financially benefit from the Twitter platform, for the social media owner Elon Musk the broadcast represents much needed content oxygen. Tucker states at the end of his monologue that if Twitter suppresses or uses their internal fact-check mechanism known as ‘Community Notes‘ to control his content, he will exit the platform. WATCH: 

(Reuters) […] Ukraine and Russia blame each other for the collapse of the massive dam on Tuesday, which sent floodwaters across a swathe of the war zone and forced thousands to flee.  Ukraine said Russia committed a deliberate war crime in blowing up the Soviet-era Nova Kakhovka dam, which powered a hydroelectric station. The Kremlin blamed Ukraine, saying it was trying to distract from the launch of a major counteroffensive Moscow says is faltering. (more)

Elon Musk, who not coincidentally entered an ideological alignment with Fox News CEO Rupert Murdoch on behalf of Ron DeSantis, has a vested financial interest in making sure his Community Notes police do not attach warnings and citations to the “controversial” dialogue of Carlson.  While there appears to be an ongoing CN notes war in the background, so far the Musk administrators have been able to keep the platform control agents from impeding the broadcast.

NOTE: CTH was tipped off last night that this broadcast by Tucker Carlson would likely take place today. As expected, the scraping of the Tucker video on to alternate distribution platforms took place. Hence, we are sharing the Rumble version of the Carlson broadcast.

Jun 6 2023

The Cloward-Piven Strategy


Aemstrong Economics Blog/Civil Unrest Re-Posted Jun 6, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: Your reporting on the Red Cross and other organizations that facilitate the mass importation of illegals into America is well done. But its purpose is about more than just a move to import a bunch of Biden voters to help secure a second term.
Are you aware of the Cloward and Piven strategy? These were two communist professors who devised a plan to take down the capitalist structure of the United States through mass illegal migration that overwhelms U.S. social safety net programs and local governments. It is an intentional plan to collapse the U.S. and bring in a new (global) regime that will issue ‘guaranteed basic income’ to all.
I’ve never seen you comment on Cloward and Piven, would you care to share whether Socrates shows their plan will be successful?

REPLY:

The four steps of the Cloward-Piven Strategy:
1. Overload and Break the Welfare System
2. Have Chaos Ensue
3. Take Control in the Chaos
4. Implement Socialism and Communism through Government Force

Overburden the bureaucracy to break the system, create controlled chaos, usurp power as civil unrest peaks, and offer government aid as the only solution. This was the basis behind the Cloward-Piven strategy created by sociologists Frances Fox Piven and her husband, Richard Cloward. The couple published their theory in The Nation Magazine on May 2, 1966, entitled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty.”

This was a decade of political activism in America. The war in Vietnam was raging on and the alternative hippie lifestyle became prominent as people protested the violence. The Black Freedom Movement and the push for equal civil rights had peaked and helped to end the Jim Crow laws in the South by 1965. The LA race riots, also known as the Watts Rebellion, occurred in 1965 as well after the police beat a black man who was arrested for a DUI. That particular riot lasted for six days and led to 34 deaths, 1,032 injuries, and over 3,000 arrests. This began a string of riots in America where black Americans and supporters clashed with police, similar to the events that occurred after the death of George Floyd that started the Black Lives Matter movement.

We had major political activists such as Martin Luther King Jr. making real change in America. The intelligence agencies had a close eye on him, and his death in 1968 is a topic for another post. On the other side were the likes of Malcom X, who originally did not advocate for peace as King did. The cohesive movement fell apart with mass unrest and no one at the helm. The movement began with African Americans asking for basic human rights and understandable anger. The purpose of the movement, again similar to BLM, became lost, and the government aimed to use the civil unrest to its advantage.

“[T]he strategy we propose, is a massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls,” the sociologists wrote in their theory. This theory aimed to overburden social programs at the state level to give the federal government the power to control the people.

“Widespread campaigns to register the eligible poor for welfare aid, and to help existing recipients obtain their full benefits, would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments. These disruptions would generate severe political strains, and deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the white working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor.”

Cloward and Piven noted that civil unrest was necessary to create change and encouraged the government to antagonize the masses. “The poor are most visible and proximate in the local community; antagonism toward them (and toward the agencies which are implicated with them) has always, therefore, been more intense locally than at the federal level.” As the anger brews and protests erupt, the government will lasso in the masses, acted as both the hero and the villain.

“In order to generate a crisis, the poor must obtain benefits, which they have forfeited. Until now, they have been inhibited from asserting claims by self-protective devices within the welfare system: its capacity to limit information, to intimidate applicants, to demoralize recipients, and arbitrarily to deny lawful claims.”

Tell the people that they are victims and instill a sense of entitlement for their neighbor’s assets. Remind the people consistently that they are oppressed and only an equal distribution of wealth can save them from the confines of poverty. Cloward and Piven insisted that hard work could not “elevate the poor en-mass from poverty.”

“The ultimate objective of this strategy–to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income,” the theory clearly stated. The theory stated that the creation of unions was a good start to bargain collectively, but still not enough to solve poverty. “Union leaders have understood that their strength derives almost entirely from their capacity to provide economic rewards to members,” the theory noted. “A federal program of income redistribution has become necessary to elevate the poor en masse from poverty,” meaning a shift away from capitalism entirely.

Cloward and Piven stated that a minimum standard of living must be provided to the people through federal welfare. That right must be guaranteed to end oppression, thereby ensuring Guaranteed Basic Income. Furthermore, there could be no conditions for benefits as it “results in violations of civil liberties.” Therefore, expecting able-bodied people to work would be an attack on the welfare system. The sociologists insisted that most people were in fact eligible for welfare and encouraged the government to advertise in brochures, schools, stores, churches, civic centers, and public housing projects. They even advised the government to send people door-to-door to explain to people that they are oppressed and deserving of GBI as a “civil education drive will lend it legitimacy.”

“As the crisis develops, it will be important to use the mass media to inform the broader liberal community about the inefficiencies and injustices of welfare.” To succeed, the shift away from capitalism required “mass influence” and “publicly visible disruption.” “Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest, which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognizable eruption to public attention.”

The bigger the crisis, the more power the government could usurp. They noted that politicians paid attention to massive uprisings, and they had been used to “reinforce the allegiance of growing ghetto constituencies to the national Democratic Administration.” The sociologists noted that the Conservative Republicans would decry a public welfare system and that the Democrats needed to appeal to the emotions of the people over logic. They also urged for “a coalition between poor whites and poor Negroes” to turn the race war into class warfare.

“Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely.” Cloward and Piven wanted to overburden the welfare system at the state level to eliminate state rights. Therefore, under this theory, government is encouraged to market a crisis, antagonize the people, and offer a solution. The only solution being to replace capitalism with socialism or communism by which the people would be entirely dependent on government. You will own nothing and be happy.

Jun 6 2023

England to Roll Out Guaranteed Basic Income Pilot


Armstrong Economics Blog/BRITAIN Re-Posted Jun 6, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

England will provide thirty individuals £1,600 per month to study Guaranteed Basic Income, also known as Universal Basic Income (UBI). The pilot program will monitor these individuals for two years to see how they put the money to use. As I noted in the blog post about the Cloward-Piven study, there must be no conditions for true Guaranteed Basic Income to work. That means that those chosen will effectively receive a “free” government handout at the expense of the working taxpayers.

The working taxpayers in lower earning brackets will likely look at those receiving free handouts and wonder how they too can get in on the scheme. “This is a substantial amount. Universal basic income usually covers people’s basic needs but we want to see what effect this unconditional lump sum has on people’s mental and physical health, whether they choose to work or not,” Will Stronge, the director of Autonomy thinktank, told the Guardian. “Our society is going to require some form of basic income in the coming years, given the tumult of climate change, tech disruption and industrial transition that lies ahead. This is why building the evidence base and public engagement now is so important, so the ground is well prepared for national implementation.”

They are already setting the precedent for a need for a welfare state. They’re purposely using a small sample size of 30 so that they do not need to show the drain the welfare system causes on the system. Those behind the social experiment claim UBI could eliminate poverty and create a perfect utopia. There is not ONE example in history where socialism has worked. Global governments have exacerbated inflation and the cost of living, and now they want you to rely on them for your needs solely. Socialism is never free. They will need to raise taxes and take from others to redistribute wealth, providing no incentive to work or for innovation to take place. As Margaret Thatcher said, “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people’s money.”