Posted originally on Jul 1, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
The Supreme Court has overturned the Chevron deference in a 6-3 vote in a major push toward eliminating government overreach. The 1984 Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council has permitted government agencies to implement the rule of law, bypassing the federal judicial system.
Individuals and Corporations have been at the mercy of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which was permitted to implement regulations over entire industries as it saw fit. That violated the Constitution, for the laws are to be made by the PEOPLE, and Congress should NEVER delegate that power to an unelected agency that creates the Deep State. Conservatives have attempted to overturn the Chevron doctrine for years, as it simply places the law in the hands of unelected government officials.
Justice Roberts said Chevron violated the Administrative Procedure Act (1946), which dictates how government agencies may issue and develop regulations. The APA was intended to inform the public of how and why rules were implemented and provided a platform for public participation. It also created a clear standard for proceedings and restated judicial review. The APA was implemented after Franklin D. Roosevelt created an onslaught of public agencies through the New Deal. Chief Justice Roberts further stated that the Chevron doctrine was “misguided” as it made the rule of law ambiguous.
For 40 years, the Chevron doctrine has corrupted every aspect of American life, from health care to labor laws. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) deferred to public agency interpretations of the law, which was outrageous that non-elected and non-judges make the law. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had the authority to control what Americans content Americans could consume, and they abolished the Fairness Doctrine with no regard to how that would harm society with fake news.
The Food and Drug Administration (FD) had the authority to control what it deemed safe for Americans to consume. With COVID-19, they prohibited anyone from advocating drugs that worked all because funding comes from the Pharmaceutical companies. This has by no means benefited society and this decision was so necessary to restore some accountability.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) had the ability to define American financial markets. The SEC has just been overruled where they were charging people, imposing penalties, and refusing to allow what the Constitution supposedly guaranteed – the right to trial by jury under the 7th Amendment.
Absolutely every facet of American life is partially controlled by unelected government agencies who need not abide by a uniform rule of law before implementing regulations. What the SEC has been doing has rejected the Constitution for decades. Once you hand this unbridled power to any agency, you get tyranny. What is WRONG WITH OUR LEGAL SYSTEM is that whenever Congress or an agency write any law or rule, they should go to court to establish that it is Constitutional. Instead, they pick on people who cannot afford lawyers to expand their tyranny, and it is always our burden for someone to challenge them and make it to the Supreme Court. That is outrageous.
The Supreme Court ruling is a major blow to the administrative Deep State. It is ABOUT TIME! This aims to de-politicize government agencies to control our very way of life. Executive branches need to be reined in dramatically, especially at a time when industries such as the EPA are driving entire sectors into the ground, outlawing gas stoves that I grew up with, and I think I’m still alive. The liberals in favor of Chevron believe Congress should be trusted to defer power to agencies, which they believe will rule based on expertise, laughably unbiasedly.
The reason I say we need a Constitutional Court that Congress and agencies go to first for PERMISSION to create the rule of law is that they get to rule the country by sheet tyranny. In my case, they seized the foreign companies, denied using any funds, would not allow them to answer complaints, and installed a receiver, Alan Cohen, who refused to defend the companies or even answer a complaint. This amounted to violating the 5th Amendment, illegally taking my companies, and denying them any right to defend themselves.
They threw me in contempt of court using 28 USC 1826, where the statute states the maximum time is 18 months, not 7 years, and that I was supposed to have a right to appeal in 30 days, which was NEVER honored by the Second Circuit. The very prison records show the contempt was renewed every 18 months, and the ONLY way I was ever released was when I finally made it to the Supreme Court, and they ordered the government to explain. They released me and told the Court the case was then moot. If they can do this to me, steal the pensions of 240 employees, they can do it to anyone.
Posted originally on Jun 30, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
Our computer’s political forecasts do not rely on polls. What is most interesting is that when you correlate the economy with politics, you get to see the major swings coming like never before. As I have said, our model has been showing that the 2024 election in the USA should be won by Trump. The Democrats will most likely draft Hillary to try to defeat this correlation whereby Biden would lose, and our computer interest had forecast back in 2020 that whoever won the 2020 election would not finish out the term. I had been concerned that if Trump won 2020, what was the computer forecasting – he would die in office or be assassinated? But the election was cleverly rigged in Congress itself with the help of the Deep State because Trump was anti-war. The previous anti-war president was Kennedy, and we all know what the CIA did back then.
The June 23, 1972, tape from the Watergate Affair was hailed as the incontrovertible evidence that Nixon had obstructed justice. The last vestige of support for Nixon on Capitol Hill evaporated. Two weeks later, on Aug. 8, 1974, Nixon resigned. Why did Congress and the Deep State abandon Nixon? Because while the tape dealt with obstruction of justice, it was a threat to the CIA that Nixon knew who killed JFK – the CIA. Nixon made ominous threats that reeked of unspoken crimes to the head of the CIA that had employed four of the seven burglars. For the next 50 years, people have looked at this evidence, and historians have pondered the June 23 tape as a Rosetta Stone of the JFK assassination. Nixon basically threatened to expose the “hanky panky” and “the whole Bay of Pigs thing.” What story was going to “blow” if the CIA didn’t cooperate?
A long-overlooked White House tape provides the answers—the “hanky panky” referred to CIA assassination operations in the early 1960s. The “whole Bay of Pigs thing” was the Agency’s reaction to its most humiliating defeat. And the story that might blow was the connection between those events and the assassination of JFK. Nixon was taken down and had to be discredited to protect the “hanky panky” that took place behind the scenes. The Watergate burglars were ex-CIA. Many wonder if they took down Nixon for daring to threaten them. The 1972 election had 520 Electoral votes for Nixon vs. 17 for McGovern. Nixon came in at 60.7% of the popular vote compared to 37.5% for McGovern. Our political model had forecast 61% and 62% for Nixon on two models. But then, too, it suggested that Nixon would not finish out his term. Nevertheless, 4 out of six models point to a Nixon victory.
Marine Le Pen’s National Rally was leading in the first round of parliamentary elections across France on Sunday. Based on early projections, her party is now one step closer to its goal of winning control of the National Assembly and taking the reins of government. Her National Rally and its allies appear to have won 34% of first-round votes, while the New Popular Front, a coalition of leftist parties, garnered 30% of ballots. President Emmanuel Macron’s warmongering party and its allies were heading for a third-place finish with 22% of the vote.
Macron’s presidential term ends in 2027. Macron placed a huge bet on this snap election. He wrongly expected to edge out leftist parties in the first round and force their voters to rally around his party for the runoff and thus defeat Le Pen’s National Rally. Macron does not understand politics. His strategy has backfired coming in third-place which means many of his candidates might miss runoff races altogether.
Le Pen and her allies, meanwhile, are within striking distance of a 289-seat majority in the National Assembly that would compel Macron to select a prime minister from her ranks. Le Pen has said she wants her protégé, 28-year-old Jordan Bardella, to run the government if National Rally captures a majority in the lower house of parliament.
The major political issue has been the rising cost of living. Macron fails to comprehend that his posturing to lead Europe and send troops to Ukraine will only drive inflation substantially higher in France. The cost of the sanctions against Russia has been devasting to inflation combined with the insane response to COVID with lockdowns. Leaders like Macron do not look at the costs of their chest beating in geopolitical posturing.
Turn the Economy & the Politics Always Changes
Nixon Won the 1972 Promising to End the War not create one
Posted originally on the CTH on June 30, 2024 | Sundance
French President Emmanuel Macron has not outlasted every other EU leader without having a Pelosian cunning streak. Macron knows exactly what he is doing, and undoubtedly USAID/CIA operative Samantha Power is there in the background helping him execute it.
In the first round of the SNAP election, opposition leader Marine Le Pen’s National Rally party has made huge strides in becoming the predominant force in French politics. The National Rally gains around 34% of the seats, the left-wing Alliance party gets 28% of the seats, and Macron’s centrist party will suffer major loses with only 20% of the seats.
The top two candidates will now head to the second round, where Macron -who still has 3 years on his term- will deploy “operation chaos”.
Macron will instruct his centrist seats, who lost, to organize their votes for the far-left socialists, thereby blocking the National Rally party from gaining a working majority. Just like the radical leftists in the USA (Democrats), Macron’s followers will do exactly what they are told to do.
[Remember the Alaska primary?] This two-round approach was the insurance policy Macron had built into his call for the snap election.
The Nationalists will act flummoxed, stunned, jaw-agape, just like good little French Republicans. The French people will wonder what happened just like American conservatives. Wash – Rinse- Repeat.
PARIS — France on Sunday took a step closer to delivering what was once seen as an unthinkable nightmare: a far-right government taking power in Paris for the first time.
Marine Le Pen’s National Rally made big gains in the first round of a snap election that could upend political orthodoxy across Europe and beyond, with implications for markets and global security that will be hard to predict.
According to early estimates by pollsters Ipsos, the far-right National Rally is on course to win 34 percent of Sunday’s vote while French President Emmanuel Macron’s centrist alliance suffered staggering losses, coming third with 20.3 percent of vote. The left-wing alliance made a strong showing with 28.1 percent of the vote.
“The French people have shown that they want to draw a line under seven years of [Macron’s] disdainful rule,” said Le Pen, speaking at a party event in the Eastern French town of Hénin-Beaumont. “We haven’t won yet, the second round will be crucial … we need an absolute majority so that Jordan Bardella, in eight days, can be appointed prime minister by Emmanuel Macron,” she added.
According to early projections based on exit polls, Le Pen’s party is expected to get 230-280 seats in the 577-seat national assembly, the left wing alliance 125-165 seats and Macron’s coalition 70-100.
Seat projections however are conjectural at this stage and dependent on political decisions taken in the coming days ahead of the second round of voting on July 7. Macron himself is due to stay in power until the end of his mandate in 2027, regardless of the outcome of this assembly election. (read more)
The two-round election is similar to the “ranked choice” approach in Alaska. Seat projections are estimates, because the voters for the losing centrist candidates now will have a choice between the far-left and far-right. Macron will cut deals with the socialists and instruct his team to vote left.
The far-right will stomp their feet like Republicans in Congress. The National Rally party will demand reform like Republicans in Congress, and in the end, they will generally support the collective globalist goals of the Macron regime. Again, just like Republicans in Congress.
Naturally, The British Economist Magazine endorses Labour as they always do. So, it’s nothing of a surprise there. The polls on BREXIT were all wrong in the UK, for the polling appears to be more of a tool to force people to vote for their anointed politician. Britain’s prime minister, Rishi Sunak, surprised many by calling a general election for July 4th. Usually, in London, they celebrate the 4th of July, American Independence, but in the pubs, they would say – good riddance with a laugh and a smile.
The biggest economic risk to Britain is taxing worldwide income that they hide under the label of “Non-dom” which describes a UK resident whose permanent home – or domicile – for tax purposes is outside the UK. They only pay UK tax on the money they earn in the UK. They do not have to pay tax to the UK government on money made elsewhere in the world (unless they pay that money into a UK bank account). Going after the Non-dom makes it sound great; make those quasi-foreigners pay. The problem is they are there because of that status. Tax them on worldwide income and they might as well move to the USA even. They bring wealth to Britain insofar as they spend money in the local economy and pay taxes on property. Our model is already projecting a recession for Britain into 2028, which would certainly add to that economic impact.
Labour is selling itself as the party of “wealth creation” claiming it will improve the living standards for working people. They also insist that they will encourage more investment, but this has been languishing since 2016 in the UK. There are no real hardcore programs to encourage business – just claims of good intentions. They are pitching spending £3.5bn of public “green” investments, including upgrading homes and investing in hydrogen, which is not as bad as the USA or the EU, but this is still a fictional risk.
The polls show that his Conservative Party is in serious trouble, and the Labour opposition Labour Party entered the campaign with a commanding lead. People who are upset with the economy generally vote for the opposition, which has been pretty standard throughout history. The Guardian’s national poll tracker has Labour leading the Conservatives by just over 20 points. Vote shares are 41.3% Labour, 21.0% Conservatives, 15.5% for the far-right Reform, 11.1% Liberal Democrats and 5.8% Greens. Recent individual polls have Labour leading the Conservatives by 16 to 24 points. As you can see when we look at Labour and its historical performance, whereas they were at 35% and a 41% gain this time is by no mean a higher high over the era of Tony Blair.
The Conservative Party is in deep trouble. Nevertheless, its performance has been strikingly better over the years compared to Labour. Still, looking at the arrays, we have a serious turning point in British politics in 2025 whereas in Labour the next turning point is 2026.
Interestingly, while the computer does show that Labor should beat Conservative, there is projected resistance for Labor at 35.5%. Believe it or not, we may actually see the Conservative Party folding and being absorbed by Farage’s Reform Party. The last time such a takeover took place was after the 1987 election when the Liberal Party and Social Democratic Party (SDP) merged, forming an electoral alliance. As in this case, a Tory-Reform might unfold because it would be to their mutual advantage. Nigel Farage is anti-war, and this would help tremendously with saving Britain from this insane push for World War III. The problem with this possibility is that while Farage can lead the Reform Party, the Conservative membership would have to become subservient, lacking direction.
Political Party takeovers, mergers, and collapses are not rare. In the USA, Thomas Jefferson’s party, the Democratic-Republican Party, defeated the Federalists, who were never heard from again. However, eventually, Jefferson’s party split into what we now have: Democrats vs. Republicans. Even if we look at the Republicans today, essentially, they have undergone a hostile takeover by Donald Trump’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) Republicans. Today, Trump’s MAGA takeover of Republican politics is unchallengeable.
The same type of political crisis took place in Canada from 1993 to 2003. At the 1993 election, the Canadian Progressive Conservative Party was a complete disaster, much like the Federalists in Jefferson’s day. They were displaced by the new rise of the Canadian Reform Party, which took 52 seats. Yet, they were finally forced to merge with their adversary’s successor.
Of course, the British Press is attacking Farage because they see him as a threat. They call him far-right, yet he is against war. The British Press puts out the propaganda that Putin attacked Ukraine “unprovoked,” for they seem to want to wash their hands in the blood of their own people. Our computer shows that Farage and the Conservatives have a shot at merging to form a new government and a new party.
The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of the Jan. 6 defendant in a dispute over an obstruction charge that was clearly unconstitutional and a selective prosecution. The Court ruled in favor of a former Pennsylvania police officer charged for his alleged participation in the U.S. Capitol attack, saying a felony obstruction charge was improperly applied in his case. It was a 6-3 opinion that came from Chief Justice John Roberts but was joined by a Democratic appointee, Ketanji Brown Jackson. The majority also included Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
In the debate, Biden called those people criminals. The case centered on whether a 2002 law enacted in the wake of the Enron scandal to prevent the destruction of evidence in financial crimes could be used against defendant Joseph Fischer and others alleged in an attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. My investigation was this: this was most likely organized by the FBI to enable Pelosi to declare an emergency rule to shut down 7 states that were challenging the vote. They had to call this an insurrection to try to go after Trump on the 14th Amendment, but then to imprison everyone who dared to support him. Had just one challenge been allowed, the case could have ended in the Supreme Court, and Trump would have been president. But we would not have an open border, climate change nonsense, and this proxy war in Ukraine, the Middle East, and Asia had the Neocons not gained power under Biden.
The court’s majority wrote that the twisted interpretation of the statute was overly broad. To prove a violation of the law at hand, the court said; “the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s reasoning is very disturbing, and she was appointed by Trump. In her dissent, she said that while the events of Jan. 6 may not have been the target of the 2002 law, it includes a sweeping provision for any conduct that obstructs or impedes any official proceeding. Barrett wrote:
“The Court does not dispute that Congress’s joint session qualifies as an ‘official proceeding’; that rioters delayed the proceeding; or even that Fischer’s alleged conduct (which includes trespassing and a physical confrontation with law enforcement) was part of a successful effort to forcibly halt the certification of the election results.”
“Given these premises, the case that Fischer can be tried for ‘obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding’ seems open and shut. So why does the Court hold otherwise?” she continued. “Because it simply cannot believe that Congress meant what it said.”
I am very disappointed in Barrett for her position. If any prosecutor can twist the words of a statute to apply to a new theory, then somehow that is OK. The Constitution declares that the PEOPLE are to draft laws – not prosecutors. If you put cash in a safety deposit box, that can now be charged as Money Laundering because you are “hiding” money from the government. The money laundering statute was created against drug dealers. What Barrett advocates is total tyranny by unelected prosecutors to twist the words into things that Congress never expressed.
Attorney General Merrick Garland expressed disappointment in the court’s decision but said it would have a limited impact on the Justice Department’s prosecutions. He is only maintaining the right to twist statutes to suit political agendas. Garland said in a statement.
“The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision.”
Meanwhile, Garland is facing arrest for contempt of Congress, and we see how the Department of Justice is totally out of control, refusing to prosecute Garland when they throw Bannon in prison for contempt of Congress. This is selective prosecution, and the DOJ is now just political.
Posted originally on the CTH on June 30, 2024 | Sundance
French voters will go to the polls today for the first round of a national election. Voters will be choosing 577 members of the National Assembly, the lower house of parliament, in two rounds. The first round is today, the second round narrowed to the top vote receivers will be on July 7.
This snap election was called by President Emmanuel Macron after his ruling Renaissance party was crushed in the June 9th elections for the European Parliament. The opposition party in France, nationalists led mostly by Marine Le Pen, won resounding victories in the EU election.
President Macron took a gamble to immediately call for a French snap election; the intention was to prove the “far-right” did not have much support. However, that gamble might backfire as polls show the French National Assembly could very easily flip.
Politico reports the Biden White House is very concerned that Macron might lose his ability to protect the interests of American leftists. The Clinton-Obama-Clinton operation (Charles Rivkin project) has been manipulating French politics for a long time, and the multinational corporations who use France and Germany are a little concerned. USA interests in France, which could very well extend to USA interests in Ukraine, are at stake in this risky gamble by President Macron.
WASHINGTON – […] The Biden team has been consoling itself by pointing out that Macron still has three years left on his term and that the French president wields significant power over foreign policy, which could keep some stability in U.S.-French relations. But National Rally leader Marine Le Pen indicated this week that her party may seek budgetary and other means to tie Macron’s hands on the global front.
Either way, there’s no question Macron would be a diminished figure, even if the far right gets only enough seats to have a big opposition bloc. And his comments in recent days lumping together France’s far left with the far right could leave him even more isolated for the final three years of his term.
“It’s hard to see Macron’s party being able to build coalitions, pass laws and find compromises in a way that it has in the past two years,” said Léonie Allard, a visiting fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center.
The French election is not the Biden team’s top concern right now, especially given the fallout from his debate performance, not to mention the wars in Gaza and Ukraine. But the White House is still keenly awaiting the French results, said one of the administration officials. All were granted anonymity to be candid.
The impact of the French vote could be huge, if not necessarily immediately so, former U.S. officials and other observers said. (read more)
Macron is a strangle little man.
In order to get more support from Biden earlier, Macron dressed like the scruffy UPS driver from Ukraine.
Posted originally on Jun 27, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
COMMENT #1: Well, unfortunately, that went pretty much as expected. I actually felt bad for Joe at one point. My parents are dealing with some level of dementia, so I know how it goes. And I can’t actually be happy, because the alternates that they would swap out Joe for are as bad or worse options. Not that I love Trump, because I don’t think he is that great either. Just the better of 2 evils maybe.
It’s becoming quite obvious that the USA is in big trouble and all of the West for that matter. Heck, the whole world is in big trouble, because I do not see it being much better anywhere else. It’s about freaking time We wake up and We The People start taking over our own authorities and jurisdictions, starting with our own respective local governments. We need to rebuild this Ourselves from the ground up and not let this Cabal keep trying to take over everything.
EM
COMMENT #2: I was questioning you about the whole Hillary thing. You said they would hold the debates early to clear the way for Hillary. I was not a big Trump fan. Now, as you said on a recent blog, I think it is Trump vs. World War III. Russia has no interest in invading all of Europe, and for Biden to put out that claim shows how he should not be in office.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 