Tag Archives: Hunt for Taxes
USA Declares it is not Subject to International Law
Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law
RE-Posted Sep 18, 2018 by Martin Armstrong
The United States is on a major confrontational course with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. The White House National Security Adviser, John Bolton, threatened entry bans and other sanctions against court judges and prosecutors if they dare to try to prosecute any US citizens for an investigation into possible US war crimes in Afghanistan. Bolton made it very clear that the United States would NEVER cooperate with the Hague Tribunal and it regards the international court as an “illegitimate court” for the ICC is only good when it prosecutes non-Americans for war crimes.
Indeed, Bolton virtually declared war on the Hague and said that the United States and Israel, with other allied states, would put immigration bans on judges and prosecutors of the ICC, and it would also freeze any potential assets of Hague lawyers in the United States.
Part of the issue is their interpretation is begin expanded as to what is a crime of aggression. According to the ICC, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution of an offensive action that by its nature, severity and scope constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations by a person who is actually capable to control or direct the political or military action of a state. In other words, the USA could not invade Syria or Iraq for that matter.
Any attack on a nation actually violates the prohibition of violence in Art. 2 No. 4 of the UN Charter, which is also a customary international norm -i.e. Iraq invasion of Kuwait. The generally accepted exceptions to the prohibition of violence are:
- Military coercive measures authorized by the UN Security Council pursuant to Art. 39, 42, 53 UN Charter
- Measures in the exercise of the right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which is also a norm of customary international law.
The USA, Russia, China, Israel, Turkey or India are not contracting states of the ICC and thus are not covered by the jurisdiction of the ICC. The USA is fine with prosecuting everyone else, but it will not allow the ICC to investigate Americans in its court system or to prosecute anyone in the U.S. government.
Deodand – Civil Asset Forfeiture Violate Every Principle of Human Rights & Civilization
Armstrong Economics Blog/The Hunt for Taxes
Re-Posted Sep 18, 2018 by Martin Armstrong
COMMENT: Mr. Armstrong; As a Canuck, I was shocked to come to realize that our Canadian government is confiscating the property of innocent people following the same practice in Washington. How can they justify this? Read the Canadian Justice Review Board.
FG
ANSWER: True, Trump is not keener (ass-kisser) but at least you know what he thinks whereas the career boys just smile and lie to your face so you never know. Yes, politicians do seem to get ideas from each other. The US had this civil asset forfeiture and now everyone is confiscating money because that’s what the Americans do. Today, civil asset forfeiture is an outright crime against the people for it is not even a tax – just an illegal taking of innocent people’s money.
The United States Supreme Court in J. W. Goldsmith Jr., Grant Co. v. The United States, 254 U.S. 505 (1922), noted the origins of government forfeiture power in the historical practice of Deodand. The court cited Sir William Blackstone (1723–1780), in his “Commentaries of the Laws of England”, which noted that this practice extended back to the times of Ancient Greece. A Deodand is a thing forfeited or given to God, specifically, in law, an object or instrument that becomes forfeited because it has caused a person’s death. The English common law of Deodands traces back to the 11th century and was applied, on and off, until Parliament finally abolished it in 1846. Deodand is not practiced in the United States or Canada, yet it has been transformed into the government’s right to seize your property even if you have done NOTHING wrong for it is the object that commits the offense, not you. Politicians have assumed the role of God and it is no longer a justification that says you had a horse that suddenly was spooked and it took off running and killed someone. The horse was then forfeited to really help pay for the funeral costs of the victim. This has been transformed into civil asset forfeiture.
The U.S. Supreme Court relying on Deodand to justify the confiscation of property to enrich the coffers of government is no different than being robbed on the street at gunpoint. Under this ancient practice, the object is guilty, not the owner. This is really an example of how judges are owned by the government and do not defend the Constitution or the people. The right to property is the foundation of civilization. This is why we banned together and formed governments to provide a rule of law to ensure our cooperation with each other. Now we have governments claiming someone sold drugs from your home and seize your home for the house committed the crime, not you even if you had no idea. Basic rules of civilization mean nothing anymore because the rule of law has been turned into a profit mechanism for government.
It cannot be justified but we have no independent judges who will stand up for our basic human rights. There was a revolution, in case these judges forgot, which meant that just because some practice existed in common law does not mean it survived. It plainly begins:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of …”
I do not see how ANY reasonable interpretation of the Constitution can justify Civil Asset Forfeiture. It is in direct conflict with the very stated purpose of the American Constitution.
Australia Drought Sends Kangaroos invading Cities
Armstrong Economics Blog/Australia & Oceania
RE-Posted Sep 18, 2018 by Martin Armstrong
Kangaroos are invading the Capital of Australia as the drought has created a food shortage. The “roos” have been invading the cities and they like to feed precisely during Rush Hour. Here is one that decided to visit the sports match when the game was in motion.
It is quite a big threat down there thanks to a severe drought.
President Trump and USTR Lighthizer Announce Round #2 Tariffs on $200 Billion of Chinese Imports – Full List Pdf…
September 17, 2018
…When you plant your trees in another man’s orchard, don’t be surprised when you pay for your own apples…
President Trump has instructed U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to execute Round Two of tariffs on Chinese imports. The first round applied to $50 billion in products. The current round applies a 10% tariff to $200 billion (effective Sept. 24, 2018), until January 1st, 2019, when the tariff increases to 25%.
The list of products is particularly focused, and happily we note it includes almost all Chinese processed food imports.
Chinese food processing is sketchy, and China has refused to comply with most international food safety programs. However, President Trump spared smart watches from Apple and Fitbit and other consumer products such as bicycle helmets and baby car seats.
In a statement announcing the Round-Two tariffs, President Trump warned China if they take retaliatory action against U.S. farmers or industries, “we will immediately pursue phase three, which is tariffs on approximately $267 billion of additional imports.” That would hit Apple and all consumer good imports. Here’s the announcement and the list of products:
Washington, DC – As part of the United States’ continuing response to China’s theft of American intellectual property and forced transfer of American technology, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) today released a list of approximately $200 billion worth of Chinese imports that will be subject to additional tariffs.
In accordance with the direction of President Trump, the additional tariffs will be effective starting September 24, 2018, and initially will be in the amount of 10 percent. Starting January 1, 2019, the level of the additional tariffs will increase to 25 percent.
The list contains 5,745 full or partial lines of the original 6,031 tariff lines that were on a proposed list of Chinese imports announced on July 10, 2018.
[…] In March 2018, USTR released the findings of its exhaustive Section 301 investigation that found China’s acts, policies and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property and innovation are unreasonable and discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce.
Specifically, the Section 301 investigation revealed:
- China uses joint venture requirements, foreign investment restrictions, and administrative review and licensing processes to require or pressure technology transfer from U.S. companies.
- China deprives U.S. companies of the ability to set market-based terms in licensing and other technology-related negotiations.
- China directs and unfairly facilitates the systematic investment in, and acquisition of, U.S. companies and assets to generate large-scale technology transfer.
- China conducts and supports cyber intrusions into U.S. commercial computer networks to gain unauthorized access to commercially valuable business information.
After separate notice and comment proceedings, in June and August USTR released two lists of Chinese imports, with a combined annual trade value of approximately $50 billion, with the goal of obtaining the elimination of China’s harmful acts, policies and practices.
Unfortunately, China has been unwilling to change its policies involving the unfair acquisition of U.S. technology and intellectual property. Instead, China responded to the United States’ tariff action by taking further steps to harm U.S. workers and businesses. In these circumstances, the President has directed the U.S. Trade Representative to increase the level of trade covered by the additional duties in order to obtain elimination of China’s unfair policies. The Administration will continue to encourage China to allow for fair trade with the United States.
A formal notice of the $200 billion tariff action will be published shortly in the Federal Register. (read more)
A pdf list of the Round #2 impacted products is Available HERE.
President Trump Hosts Meeting of National Council for the American Worker…
September 17, 2018
Earlier today President Trump hosted a meeting with the key administration officials executing the workforce initiatives programs. The programs include expanded vocational training, private-public partnerships for education, and expanded investment in skills training for a modern American workforce.
The National Council for the American Worker is the executive agency tasked with execution of the policies and working with various state and local officials to help increase the skills training for U.S. workers. With a MAGAnomic expanding economy; and with all of the subsequent jobs growth; and with a revitalization of U.S. manufacturing; the workforce initiatives are keys to sustaining successful growth for American workers.
President Trump Delivers Remarks to the Media: Trade, Tariffs and Kavanaugh….
September 17, 2018
Following opening remarks during a jobs and workforce initiatives meeting: White House National Council for the American Worker [full video of that meeting coming later], President Trump made some announcements on trade, and answered some questions from the media.
The questions surrounding Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh begin at 05:25:
NEC Chairman Larry Kudlow Delivers Speech to NY Economic Club….
September 17, 2018
White House National Economic Council Chairman Larry Kudlow was the keynote speaker today at the New York Economic Club. Mr. Kudlow delivered a speech on the basics of the MAGAnomic agenda and results so far.
The entire event, including speech and Q&A, is slightly more than an hour long. Here’s an excerpt, the entire event is available below:
.
Full event with Kudlow below.
.
President Trump Tweets Optimistic Outlook Toward U.S. Mexico Future….
September 16, 2018
A year ago it seemed almost impossible to see a trade agreement with Mexico that would facilitate the interests of both countries. However, with the successful election of Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), a remarkable populist shift dramatically changed the landscape within the Mexican economic outlook and policy.
President Trump’s tweet today hints toward a much bigger picture we have recently been discussing. Against the likelihood Canada will not join the U.S-Mexico trade agreement. The Mexican government is affirming their intent to go forward with a bilateral trade deal if needed because the U.S-Mexico joint agreement is in their best interests. According to Mexico’s Chief Negotiator, Kenneth Smith-Ramos:
“We hope the U.S. and Canada will conclude their bilateral negotiation shortly. If that is not possible we are ready to advance bilaterally with the U.S … the agreement in principle that we closed with the U.S. is positive for Mexico because it preserves free trade and modernizes our trade agreement …”
Outgoing Mexican President Peña Nieto, structured his economic policy around accepting multinational corporate investment, facilitating the requests of Wall Street investment banks, and the predictable parasitic outcomes that follow. Exfiltration of wealth and exploitation of resources/labor are an outcropping of predatory multinational trade exploitation, ie. “globalism”.
Retention of the multinational schemes generally leads to massive corruption. In the U.S. this corruption is known as “lobbying”, in Mexico the process is called ‘bribery’; however, the activity is the same.
The incoming Mexican President, Lopez-Obrador (AMLO), is more of an economic nationalist; and quite remarkably his economic outlook, at least as his team has described the objectives so far, is quite Trumpian.
You might even say: “Make Mexico Great Again”.
Both U.S. President Trump and Mexican President-elect AMLO have similar outlooks toward predatory multinational corporations and economic exploitation. If you think about how Mexico was used by the multinationals in the past twenty years; and then think about a very real possibility of a U.S President and Mexican President having an economic friendship; well,… holy cats, those multinationals could be remarkably nervous right now.
AMLO supports labor and has an actual agenda to create a strong working-class or middle-class. The wealth disparity within Mexico has always been a foundational issue that has led to a tremendous amount of corruption.
Similarly, President Trump supports labor. Likely because of his positive relationships with labor unions as a private sector builder, Trump was the only republican candidate who advanced pragmatic opinion toward organized labor in 2015, 2016 and, as president, in White House meetings where he invited labor officials. President Trump’s economic agenda is laser focused on a strong middle-class.
AMLO views Wall Street multinationals as predatory by disposition; Mexico has suffered from industrial exploitation, especially in the agriculture sector. President Trump also views those same multinationals as tending toward predatory behavior, and he has targeted many specific corporations for attention due to their participation in the erosion of the American middle-class and the U.S. manufacturing base.
AMLO is a strong Mexican Nationalist. President Trump is a strong American Nationalist. Within almost all of President Trump’s foreign policy speeches on economics, he openly accepts that all nations should make decisions based on their individual and nationalistic needs. Trump does not see economic nationalism as adversarial; he points out that trade agreements based on both interests are entirely possible, and actually easy to construct.
As long as AMLO stays away from the authoritarian tendencies of power, ie. government ownership of private industry – and the slippery slope of soft-Marxism, surprisingly he and President Trump are likely to have a great deal more in common than most would think. Both populists; both nationalists; both rebuke the elitist trappings of globalism and intend on executing economic policies for the majority of their citizens.
Because they have more in common on the economics of policy, this explains why the framework of the U.S-Mexico trade agreement between Robert Lighthizer (representing Trump) and Jesus Seade (representing AMLO) was possible to construct.
Lighthizer and Seade held long meetings after formal U.S-Mexico daily negotiations, and together this relationship appears to have been very important in how the deal framework was structured. Right now both teams are filling in the details based on common objectives.
With AMLO and President Trump, Mexico and the U.S. have joint-interests in an economic trade bloc. It is actually quite stunning when you think about the economic power that both nations can hold if their mutual and individual interests remain at the forefront.
President Trump and President Lopez-Obrador have common objectives; and with the economic approach outlined by AMLO toward using Mexico’s energy resources as leverage for expanded investment, the U.S. is well positioned to help. Mexico needs independent collateral to break the cycle of dependency on overseas money (investment). Mexico needs policies and partners that can make Mexico, and the Mexican people, independently wealthy. Guess who the bestest partner would be? Yup, President Trump.
President Trump is well positioned to assist Mexico via a united trade bloc with expanded cross-border investment for economic development.
AMLO wants a higher standard of living for Mexican workers; President Trump wants greater parity between Mexican workers and their U.S. counterparts. Heck, it was U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and USTR Robert Lighthizer who first proposed raising the Mexican minimum wage. Now both countries have agreed to an incremental Mexican minimum wage aspect of $16/hr within the auto sector.
Combining the wage aspect with the content and origination agreement, this has become a win/win for both AMLO and President Trump. The multinationals within the auto-sector might not like it, but they’ve already put a massive amount of money into plant and manufacturing investment in their existing Mexican footprint. They have no choice.
In an generally overlooked outcome the nationalist interests of Mexico, specific to AMLO, are very close to alignment with the nationalist MAGA agenda of President Trump.
Unfortunately, Canada is the ‘globalist’ oddball in this tri-fecta; which makes a trilateral deal almost impossible, and explains why Mexico is so willing to sign a bilateral agreement. The U.S. economy is expanding at an unprecedented rate, and Mexico prepares to surf the MAGAnomic tsunami known as Donald Trump.
President Trump can see that independent economic future for Mexico based on a partnership that protects the interests of both nations. It certainly appears that AMLO can see the same vision.
Remarkable times.
British Economy Booming After BREXIT
Armstrong Economics Blog/BRITAIN
Re-Posted Sep 17, 2018 by Martin Armstrong
COMMENT: Marty; You are not only the only person to forecast BREXIT, you also said the British Economy would do far better after BREXIT. There was absolutely nobody that agreed with you. I read every bank report in the city and every single one said the British economy would take a nose dive in the Thames. Well, all the official numbers are out and they have all proved Socrates to be an astonishing tool. No wonder Maggie loved you.
HWM
REPLY: Yes, a good friend of mine who has a retail business there disagreed with me and said he would probably have to move to Frankfurt. He said that after the vote. I spoke to him last week and he said he reduced his staff in Zurich and hired more people in Britain. When I asked why? He responded it was half the price.
The numbers have shown that pay growth for British workers has “unexpectedly increased at the strongest rate for three years amid the lowest levels of unemployment since the mid-1970s” wrote the Guardian. It is because Britain is getting out of the EU which has been the most damaging to Britain’s economy because it gets the short stick on every negotiation. I cannot think of even one dispute that Britain has EVER won in the EU court. The typical idiom Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me, in the case of British politicians it should be Fool me once Ok you got me; Fool me twice alright shame of me; Fool me again, I must be just an idiot so no worries I will never figure it out anyway. I do not know how many times the numbers show joining the EU was a VERY, VERY, VERY, stupid idea. Europe has always hated the Brits. The French view if Napoleon won at Waterloo, then the world would be speaking French not English.
I have shown this chart to several UK politicians. They were surprised, but still never used it publicly. If you just put aside all the opinions and what-ifs, just look at the numbers, you may begin to see the light.















