Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals – Equity v Law


Many people have written in on both sides of the issue concerning the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. Some totally disagree with me and cite that the law is the law. But there is a historical problem with the rule of law – there are times when the rule of law is unjust. For example, if someone tried to kill you and you defended yourself and killed them, are you a murderer because you killed someone by the strict interpretation of the law?

King’s Bench

Historically, there were two courts in England – the King’s Bench and Chancery. In modern practice, the biggest mistake the Founding Fathers made in the United States was to merge the two into the same court. That is what has given judges unbridled discretion to tear up the constitution any time they desire relying on the ancient powers of Chancery rather than the rule of law.

There is a clear distinction between someone who was brought here as a small child, grew up here, married, and had children with an American and a child sent across the border on their own. The deportation of the former would be a injustice not merely to the child who grew up here and is unfamiliar with the customs of his parent’s origins no less their own children here who are Americans depriving them of a parent. The deportation of the latter would not be an injustice.

Court of Chancery

The most important distinction between law (King’s Bench) and equity, which was administered by the Court of Chancery,  is the set of remedies each offers. The most common civil remedy a court of law can award is monetary damages. Equity, however, enters injunctions or decrees directing someone either to act or to forbear from acting. By the 14th century, the English Court of  Chancery was affording remedies where the strict procedures of the common law worked injustice or could not provide a remedy to a deserving petitioner. The writ of Habeas Corpus was equity – not law. The judges or Chancellors presiding in Chancery were often theological in background yet were also knowledgeable of Roman law and canon law. Over time, a body of rules emerged but they varied from Chancellor to Chancellor and they tended to become more fixed only during the 17th century. The became the system of precedent much like its common-law cousin.

The Court of Chancery assumed a vital role in many areas from false or unjust imprisonment to establishing a framework that the common law could not accommodate. This role gave rise to the basic distinction between legal and equitable interests. However, when one hands discretion to any judge, the net result is always, and without exception, the progression of corruption. By the 19th century, the Court of Chancery was hopelessly corrupt and as such, so was the United States Federal courts because the Founding Fathers merely this discretion with the rule of law and as such there can be no rule of law that is consistent in the United States.

The distinction of a child who grew up here and married an American and one that was recently pushed across the border is of tremendous importance. To deport the former will deprive children of their parent. This is what Chancery was for at the beginning. Unfortunately, we no longer have a court of real chancery nor do we have a court of law. The federal Judiciary is a corrupt system incapable of honoring either the law or equity.

In 1853, Bleak House was written by Charles Dickens, in which he describes how corrupt Chancery became during the 19th century. He concluded, “Suffer any wrong that can be done you rather than come here!” That was a sad statement of what had become of honor, dignity, and justice. We have reached that same point in American history where there is nothing left.

” On such an afternoon some score of members of the High Court of Chancery bar ought to be–as here they are–mistily engaged in one of the ten thousand stages of an endless cause, tripping one another up on slippery precedents, groping knee-deep in technicalities, running their goat-hair and horsehair warded heads against walls of words and making a pretence of equity with serious faces, as players might. …  This is the Court of Chancery, which has its decaying houses and its blighted lands in every shire, which has its worn-out lunatic in every madhouse and its dead in every churchyard, which has its ruined suitor with his slipshod heels and threadbare dress borrowing and begging through the round of every man’s acquaintance, which gives to monied might the means abundantly of wearying out the right, which so exhausts finances, patience, courage, hope, so overthrows the brain and breaks the heart, that there is not an honourable man among its practitioners who would not give–who does not often give–the warning, “Suffer any wrong that can be done you rather than come here!”

Macron wants a Federal Budget for All of the Eurozone


French Prime Minister Emmanuel Macron is coming out arguing for the total federalization of Europe proposing that there should be a budget for the Eurozone of hundreds of billions of euros. Macron’s position is that this budget should represent several points of the gross domestic product (GDP) of the Eurozone. It should be possible, Macron said, to collect money together in the markets and “allocate it with sufficient force” for all.

He also has made it clear that the GDP of all euro area countries was €10.7 trillion in 2016 according to Eurostat. He makes it clear that the Eurozone is far too restrictive in its budget policy when compared with the policies of China, Russia or the United States. He has made it clear that this is the cause of the high unemployment in Europe among the youth.

France has very high unemployment as is the case in most Eurozone countries. The debt of the Eurozone countries has escalated and as in France there is a growing gap between expenditure and tax collection. Some fear that the creation of such a common euro budget will lead to even more government debt as countries pump out debt to try to stimulate their economies.

Macron is correct that there is a huge problem that is eating away at the Eurozone. The restrictive policies are because of Germany’s fear of inflation that they went through during the 1920s. They wrongly attribute inflation to the increase in money supply and ignore the fact that it was a collapse in confidence given the 1918 revolution led by Communists in Germany.

Macron wants to push forward with his proposals for a further development of the monetary union after the German Bundestag election. Merkel will certainly not entertain any such proposal before the election. Still, Macron is way off the mark. Increasing the spending and debt with rising taxes will still fail to reverse the economic decline. The Eurozone must be restructured or it cannot survive.

3D printing, AI and Robots v Dark Age


 

QUESTION: Hello, Mr. Armstrong.

Let us say that the future turns out OK-ish (post crash and burn), that we avoid another dark age. 3D printing, AI and robots do a lot of the work for humanity. The amount of available mundane jobs are reduced and replaced by our inventions.

Have you had any thoughts about a society where technology makes most humans obsolete? I would not know if that would be a dystopian or utopian way of life. Probably neither.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge!

-Arild

ANSWER: Let us hope that we do not go into a Dark Age.  I certain do not think we are going all the way to a Dark Age. The reason I warn about that is to hopefully make people aware that this is one of those times when such events take place. I do not believe that the cycles can be altered. What I do believe is we possess the power to understand and reduce the volatility.
What we face is rising tension and dysfunctional government. It is always government that causes the Dark Age. Their greed and obstinate desire to maintain power results in them turning against the people to retain control. If we understand what they WILL do, we can intelligently counteract those measures. The army will be a key component. If some divisions support the government and others the people, there is your civil war. Then we have the Marxists who are in a clear trend to retake government. So this is the battle we will have to confront.
ECM-1970-2084
If we can neutralize government and Trump was elected because the silent majority can no longer survive, then we can save the future. We still have the Marxists to deal with and these people are just as hateful as the White Supremacists. We are caught in between these two extreme groups. Of course, they too are really made at their life styles being diminished by taxes. The Marxists point to wealth inequality as if taking all the toys from the rich will make their life better. They tried that with Communism – it too failed. The problem is government. It consumes more than 50% of the GDP which is just wasted. That reduces the standard of living for everyone. Hunting the rich causes them to hoard and invest less so you then have economics also declining.
This idea of  3D printing, AI and robots do a lot of the work for humanity eliminating the available mundane jobs is grossly overstated. Workers are being replaced because of taxes. I helped restructure companies and assisted them on where to locate when they wanted to move into Europe. I put the manufacturers in the UK not France or Germany because the taxes on labor was 40% less in the UK. If there was need for office type jobs and low tax rates, I moved those to Ireland. The deciding decision was TAXES – not the hourly wage of a worker.
cntrl-alt-del
Therefore, if we hit the control-alt-delete button on government and do a reboot, the first thing we do is certainly replace judges with AI and eliminate the “opinion” and corruption thereby reestablishing an honest rule of law. There should be term limits, and direct democracy where the people vote on each bill from their computer. Each bill must stand alone – not tacking things on the clean water bill that have nothing to do with water. Eliminate all government pensions – no career jobs. Any agency that needs workers is outsourced so pensions are real not promises from politicians.
Workers are being replaced ONLY because of taxes and healthcare costs. We may have been created equal by God, but they is purely in rights not talents. I am a very good trader, but that does not mean I could be a great brain surgeon. We all have our talents so it is not one-size fits all.
The mundane jobs will be there. AI cannot replace that segment. But AI can make the world much better and help to advance society to the next level. We have to reboot government for that is what is destroying society. Fix that, and we can advance in society rather than go into a Dark Age.


When Will People Learn Career Politicians Are Anti-Democracy

It is amazing that people keep voting for career politicians every time and then are dissatisfied every time. Now Reuters is reporting that most French voters are now dissatisfied with Emmanuel Macron’s performance. The latest poll shows a sharp decline for Macron who won a landslide. The poll revealed that Macron’s “dissatisfaction rating” has risen to 57%, from 43% in July.

The Cycle of Civilization


COMMENT: Interestingly enough, in Switzerland the -in majority- leftish and Pro-EU government has been trying to push Switzerland into EU for years as you’re aware of.

Now the SVP is fighting against a new international contract, called “institutional agreement” which would give (amongst others) the EUGH the Supremacy Clause over Switzerland – end of Swiss direct democracy plus all still existing “state” rights (despite 60% – 80% of all new regulations/laws are already taken over from Brussels..)

REPLY: While the revisionists want to claim that the Civil War was only about slavery when in fact the overwhelming majority of Confederate soldiers owned no slaves, they say history is written by the victor not the loser. There is never a single reason for any war. Iraq was claimed to be protecting the people who Saddam Hussein was gassing. The weapons of mass destruction was thrown in for good measure to make it sound urgent when it was Dick Cheney and his greedy buddies looking for oil. Nevertheless, the Civil War was really part of the Cycle of Civilization. We band together creating large governments and then we disband and move back to tribal jurisdiction. This Cycle of Civilization has been going on for thousands of years.

Indeed, this trend is part of the Cycle of Civilization we must understand run the course throughout history of human existence. The Roman Empire took over states and absorbed them to dominate the Western World. Previously, those states suppresses tribes to create states with a central power. When Rome fell, it broke up not into states, but back into tribes and then feudalism. As invaders reemerged, then these feudal castles banned together for a common defense.

The king of France really emerged from the Carolingian dynasty (751–888) under Pepin the Short (751-768) who consolidated the various independent kingdoms as France began to emerge as a nation state. In England, it was not until 827 when Northumbria submitted to Egbert of Wessex at Dore, briefly making Egbert the first king to reign over a united England. However, it was in 886 when Alfred the Great retook London, which he apparently regarded as a turning point in his reign. Previously, there were tribes that formed cities states like Mercia and Wessex and then they merge and become a nation state.

The Cycle of Civilization is the constant swing between independent city states back to unified national states and then empires. Europe went through this as did China and the USA Civil War was fought against this nationalization or State’s Rights. It was not simply slavery.

Those who deny the Civil War was also over State’s Rights, should read this letter. Here is Justice Scalia’s famous letter noting that the Civil War settled the issue of the right to secede, separate and distinct from this issue of slavery that people are focusing on today. This is a major trend throughout history, the Cycle of Civilization, which is always in motion and it is why Europe will breakup as will the United States. – Nothing lasts forever.

Macron Moves to Restore French Colonial Power


 

France has proposed setting up camps inside Libya in order to control the migration flows.  Macron has acted alone once again illustrating that the EU design fails.  Macron is once more pursuing the objectives of a neo-colonial power restoring France to its former glory not unlike Putin. Macron wants to control Libya settling in the area taking control of the country thereby extending its sphere of influence to restore its former colonial glory to the Maghreb and also sub-Saharan Africa.

Macron is acting unilaterally with no regard for the interests of the rest of Europe or the Mediterranean countries. This is the problem with the entire EU project. Merkel unilaterally opened the doors to all of Europe to the refugees to save her personal falling polls. Now we have Macron attempting to restore the colonial power of France over Northern Africa also without consulting anyone.

It is bad enough that there is no democratic process inside Europe where all Europeans could vote in Germany on September 24th regarding Merkel, yet she is the dominant politicians that controls the lives throughout Europe. This is either one country like the United States and you surrender national power to Brussels, or you terminate Brussels and reduce the EU to simple a trade agreement. You cannot have it both ways.

Beware the real Political Threat from Within


The future of military and eventually police is to replace the boots on the ground with robots. Duke Robotics has come out now with drones that carry machine-guns. This video shows really the future of war and eventually they will use terrorism as an excuse to use them domestically.

Historically, the shape a country’s Armed Forces takes has traditionally reflected first and foremost the external threats that a nation faces. In a democratic republic, the army’s main goal use to be to protect society. We were told that a republic will only commit to such an international obligation on behalf of its own well-being and security. Therefore, in only these type of situations, would an army take on such obligations requiring the use of military force.

The second factor influencing the shape of the a nation’s army was its social role. Most importantly, the army evolved post-Depression acting as a social boon to everyone who serves in it. Because of the abuse of the soldier post-World War I which they used current troops to chase out the veterans from Washington who were demanding their promised Bonus, when World War II came, the politicians had lied and abused the soldiers from World War I, they had to introduce the GI Bill and turn it into a Social Boon that became something beneficial to a specific person with careers and education. When under the Obama Administration, the VA scandal erupted showing that again politicians were cutting costs and vets were denied medical care, that aspect of the army began to fail in this function and the Armed Forces can lose its effectiveness.

Historically, armed forces can become a threat to society when they become the manipulation tool of the political power machine. In every single war since the Spanish American War of the 19th century, the army has been lied to in order to exert political power always justified as defending the nation. This has just never been true.

Our troops have died far too often for politicians rather than for the country. In World War I, the Germans took an advertisement out in New York warning people not to travel on the Lusitania because the government was using a passenger ship as cover to covertly send arms to Europe.

In World War II, FDR knew that the Japanese were declaring war and turned them away. They new they were headed to Pearl Harbor and took the big ships out and sacrificed others to get the country into the war.

Vietnam, the official story was that the North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an “unprovoked attack” against a U.S. destroyer on “routine patrol” in the Tonkin Gulf.  President Johnson knew we were never attacked and even said:  “For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there.” Johnson delivered perhaps the most outrageous and deceitful speech on August 4th, 1964, that was hailed by the New York Times, and set in motion the death of over 50,000 American boys for political power – not to defend the nation from a threat.

Of course we have the great lie about Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction that never existed. Here we have North Korea actually in possession of such weapons and there is no invasion. Why? Iraq had the oil for Dick Cheney and his Halliburton buddies to benefit from – North Korea has nothing.

The development of soldier drones allows wars to be fought without boots on the ground. But make no mistake about it, such systems can be turned inward against the people to retain power as well as was done to the Bonus Army. The one common denominator is that government lies all the time and manipulates the military for political purposes. Since the Spanish American War, not a single war was fought to protect the American people from any invasion. When government controls the media, darkness flourishes.

“A popular Government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.” —

The Rising Trend of Civil Unrest


 

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; You said that this civil unrest will continue to escalate and that the left is attempting to just suspend government until 2020. It does seem that every possible issue is always turned into an anti-Trump issue from vocal threats against North Korea that seems to have worked and protests against any company trying to work with the White House because they claim Trump is now a White Supremacist.  It seems to me that there have been a lot more leftist protests than alt-right. I think Charlottesville was the first. It is very strange how the left burn cities but that’s ok and it is not attributed to Democrats. Is this the root cause of the escalation in civil unrest ahead?

Thank you for really offering a fair vie of things.

SE

ANSWER: Correct. The list of leftists protests far outnumber anything of the alt-right has dome so far. This is why the violence will continue and escalate into some very bloody events going into 2020. Here are the list of the leftist protests:

  • 2009 – Oakland, Akron, Pittsburgh
  • 2010 – Santa Cruz, Oakland, Los Angeles,
  • 2011 – Oakland
  • 2012 – Chicago, Anaheim
  • 2013 – Brooklyn
  • 2014 – Ferguson, New York City
  • 2015 – Baltimore
  • 2016 – Anaheim, Chicago, St Paul, Milwaukee, Charlotte, Standing Rock, Oakland, Portland
  • 2017 – Washington DC, Berkeley, Anaheim, Berkeley (again), Berkeley (again), Olympia, Portland, New York City, Boston, Hot Springs, Ark., Portland, Houston, Memphis, New Orleans

You can see that there has been a stark increase with the Trump election.

The Violent Left Toppling Monument to Christopher Columbus as a Racist?


The extreme violent left is expanding their desire to overthrow essentially everything and are now attacking a monument in Baltimore to Christopher Columbus, which was believed to be the first one erected to the Italian explorer in America. Italians were discriminated against and seen as all criminals connected to the Mafia. This monument was a milestone for Italians. So what is next? The extreme left will attack Italians celebrating Columbus Day? The same white supremacists of the 18th century did not consider Italians “white” nor Greeks or Spanish.

The tape begins saying:

“Christopher Columbus symbolizes the initial invasion of European Capitalism into the Western Hemisphere. Columbus initiated a centuries old wave of terrorism murder genocide rape slavery economic degradation and capitalist exploitation of labor in America. That Colombian wave of destruction continues on the back of indigenous African American and brown people…”

They do not dare say that Columbus initiated the slave trade. Did Columbus’ men take their women etc, yes, that also seems to have been historically standard during those days. There was a whole argument that the indigenous people of the America’s could NOT be made salves because the right to sell people into slavery was limited historically to the loser in a war. The Catholic Church blocked turning the American Indians who were neither white, yellow (Asian) nor black but the fourth race known as red. There were no such thing as  indigenous black people in America. The blacks were being sold by blacks to the Dutch on the pretense that they were the spoils of war and that made the slave trade acceptable from a historical precedent. Thus, the blacks from Africa could be sold as slaves but not the of the indigenous people Americas.

If this new Marxist uprising from the left calling everything racist and capitalists, then to correct history black should return to Africa, Italians to etc. and the USA should be turned back to the American Indians who were the ONLY  indigenous people.

The left now calls Christopher Columbus a “genocidal terrorist.” This is the same as the Taliban who were blowing up ancient statutes claiming they were false gods. The Christians also destroyed ancient statues beheading most and here they even carved a cross into the forehead of Germanicus, which was probably from the Temple of the Julio-Claudian Family expanded by Augustus but originally established for Julius Caesar by Cleopatra.

Here too we see the famous black bust of Julius Caesar commissioned by Cleopatra was also vandalized by the Christians. This attack upon historical monuments has typically bee carried out always by extremists who would justify killing anyone with the same rhetoric.

The monument, which features a two-story-tall obelisk atop a base, was still standing on Monday morning, but there was a gaping hole in the front and chunks of stone were scattered in the grass. The signs seen in the video were lying on the ground.

Confederate statues have been removed overnight in many places. In Annapolis, state officials followed suit and removed a statue of the Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, who authored the 1857 Dred Scott decision that upheld slavery. The statues of the Confederate Generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, the Confederate Women’s monument, the Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument were all targeted. Here, Columbus had nothing to do with the Civil War. The lettering on the front of the monument — “Sacred to the memory of Chris. Columbus, Octob. XII, MDCCVIIIC” — was rendered unreadable. In Boston, a Columbus statue was painted red and a protest was held at a statue in Detroit.

In London, shall we also begin tearing down monuments because today’s political correctness differs from what was consider politically correct during the 16th to 19th centuries? The Guardian writes about the English monuments to William Wilberforce and Admiral Horatio Nelson. It was Nelson who defended slavery on the historical precedent. So should his statue be torn down today? Some are now demanding that Trafalgar Square be altered and Nelson’s statue and column be removed.

The political correctness within society changes with time. It was not until August 18, 1920, when the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted American women the right to vote—a right known as woman suffrage. Andrew Jackson was a slave owner and he started the Democratic Party to defend slavery. So the Democratic Party should be terminated and Jackson’s portrait should be removed from the $20 bill?

hamilton-playHow about Alexander Hamilton, he was probably a slave owner and he was definite involved in transacting deals for the purchase, sale, and transfer of slaves is documented. The  play Hamilton should be shut down and the minorities who lectured the Vice President when he attended should reflect on themselves. So anyone who goes to see that play are supporting racism?

Thomas Jefferson had black slaves and after his wife died he had six children with a black slave “Sally” Hemings who was of mixed race owned by President Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was the father of her six children, born after the death of his wife, Martha Jefferson. She traveled to Paris with him and he took very good care of her even hiring an English physician in Nov. 1787 for inoculating Sally against smallpox. He bought her the finest clothing. Sally also raised his daughters since his wife had six children, but only two daughters survived to adulthood, and only one past the age of 25. Weakened by childbirth, Martha Jefferson died several months after the birth of her last child, two decades before her husband became the third President of the United States.  Sally cared for Jefferson until he died. They were together for decades. There goes the Declaration of Independence and the $2 bill.

Next we have George Washing and obviously the $1 bill must go since when he was eleven years old, he inherited ten slaves; by the time of his death, 317 slaves lived at Mount Vernon, including 123 owned, 40 he leased from a neighbor, and an additional 153 “dower slaves” from marriage.

Ben Franklin himself was an indentured servant to his brother James. Benjamin Franklin was bound to be his brother’s apprentice and servant until the age of twenty-one.  In his autobiography, Franklin described his brother’s “harsh and tyrannical treatment” which was so harsh, he ran away. Franklin, was able to set up his own printing shop.  Franklin printed ads in his Pennsylvania Gazette about runaway slaves and the slaves “for sale” ads, but he also printed added for the anti-slavery position. Franklin did own household slaves in his middle-age around 1740’s. So you must be a racist to use $100 bills.

Nevertheless, it is important to take into account that slavery was a norm of the eighteenth century. So we condemn everyone in history for something that was seen at that time as the “norm” which differs from views today? Should we eradicate history of all those who supported or believed in slavery? What we see today as fair will one day be seen as uncivilized. Where do we draw the line between what is past and the present? Are we the new Taliban?

ISIS is also blowing up ancient history because they too believe these were all pagan symbols. They too are attempting to eradicate history.

The Constitution is Negative Not Positive So You Cannot Waive Any Rights


The greatest constitutional scam that the Judiciary and the Department of Justice have been doing for decades,  is they constantly rule against people claiming that they waived their rights under the Constitution. What judges have done is turned the Constitution on its head changing it from a restraint upon government to a positive right you can waive and thus the government has no restraint whatsoever. You might as well waive your right to life under the way courts accept waiving rights. This is completely ILLEGAL and you cannot possibly waive any right whatsoever for that is handing you the power to change the Constitution amounting to a constructive amendment for each and every case. That means the Constitution really no longer exists in the hands of judges for a defendant has the same power as James Madison and can change the constritution granting powers to the government that were expressly denied.

One of the most respected legal minds in the nation, Judge Posner, explained clearly that the Constitution “is a charter of negative rather than positive liberties. . . . The men who wrote the Bill of Rights were not concerned that Government might do too little for the people but that it might do too much to them. The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868 at the height of laissez-faire thinking, sought to protect Americans from oppression by state government, not to secure them basic governmental services.” Jackson v. City of Joliet, 715 F.2d 1200, 1203 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1049 (1983).  Thus the city had no constitutional duty to help the accident victims, and thus its failure to act deprived them of neither liberty nor life. /Id. at 12061

The Supreme Court has continually rejected that the Constitution is Positive and thus creates rights that the government must provide; see i.e. Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297 (1980); United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 62-70 (1936) et al. Since the Constitution is NEGATIVE and not POSITIVE, then it is impossible to waive any right whatsoever for that amounts to constructively amending the Constitution.

If the Constitution can be amended differently by waivers for every individual case, then there can be no rule of law whatsoever and all negative restraints upon the government are lifted if they can threaten citizens to surrender all rights. If the Constitution is positive, then they must pay for any right you came from medical care to abortions.

You cannot have it both ways. If the Constitution is NEGATIVE, then you cannot waive any right whatsoever and the police, prosecutors, and judges, are in fact restrained to the law and cannot escape it by claiming you waived it so now they have dictatorial or authoritarian powers.