Disunion. Disorder. Destruction. Designed and initiated by a Swamp with a global reach. It is naïve not to expect the SCOTUS to swim in the putrid waters of the Swamp
In a split decision, the Supreme Court of the United States will not act to stop the now obvious corruption of the 2020 Presidential election.
Their explanation for inaction will be to claim that their jurisdiction does not include intervention in a national election conducted at the state level.
Individual states, they will rule, are responsible for managing their own voting processes, without federal intervention—even when there appears to have been gross irregularities.
In a split decision, the Supreme Court of the United States will not act to stop the now obvious corruption of the 2020 Presidential election.
Their explanation for inaction will be to claim that their jurisdiction does not include intervention in a national election conducted at the state level.
Individual states, they will rule, are responsible for managing their own voting processes, without federal intervention—even when there appears to have been gross irregularities.
It is naïve not to expect the SCOTUS to swim in the putrid waters of the Swamp
The 19th Century war between the states brought a schism that continues to be revisited and exploited by those intent on bringing more division to the nation, in an on-going campaign driven by the purveyors of internal trauma who come from both inside and outside our borders.
Today, those internal prevaricators of division rally under the flag of one of the two major political parties.
Democrats have opted out of the American experiment and become enemies of the Republic in their relentless pursuit of power and control. According to their calculus, their ends justify their means.
And so they have become totalitarians, facilitated by those Republicans complicit with their agenda, by both voiced support and sustained silence.
With the SCOTUS decision to uphold a corrupt election, tyrants and dissemblers will have successfully created an environment in which good people are forced to make terrible choices. And that is their intent.
Disunion. Disorder. Destruction.
Designed and initiated by a Swamp with a global reach.
It is naïve not to expect the SCOTUS to swim in the putrid waters of the Swamp.
There is an interesting question that seems never to have been answered. Back in 2016, the Democrats alleged based upon mere allegations that Hillary made for political reasons, that there was Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election so she really won. Everyone has tried to reject that because it really taints both sides of the aisle. There was never any hard evidence of that whichever came to light despite the countless amount of money spent on the Mueller investigation. In a court of law, Hillary should have reimbursed the government for all of those costs.
Nonetheless, those allegations raised the question: What if such evidence did come to light? Would that have justified removing Trump from office AFTER his inauguration had he colluded with the Russians to defeat Hillary? This sparked legal discussions behind the curtain would such evidence invalidate an election? Perhaps what goes around comes around. Those questions are still there with the extensive evidence of voter fraud surfacing this time around in 2020. Of course, Biden did not direct people to vote on behalf of dead people. That has been going on for decades. But what if Dominion Voting Systems, which only donated to Democrats, turns out that they did pay bribes in Georgia to get their system in the state, and was it manipulated?
There is NO LAW that would really invalidate even a fraudulent election. The laws and processes around national elections are highly inadequate and they clearly violate the Equal Protection of the Law and Due Process because every state makes its own rules which is inconsistent and can adversely impact the rights of other people in the other 49 states.
State and local laws have emerged over time in a very arbitrary way. The Constitution itself focuses more on ensuring stability than on administering elections. Consequently, there’s no absolute clear procedure for how to handle questions of fraud after the fact. If Biden is sworn in, there does not appear to be any way to actually remove him. The Impeachment Clause refers to his behavior and that would necessitate proving Biden himself directed the fraud or ordered someone to do it which is not likely.
The office of the President in the United States is different from parliamentary government systems for it combines the duties of a head of state with duties of a head of government in contrast where these are separated duties often divided between the president and a prime minister. In the UK, the monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II, is the head of state while the Prime Minister is the head of government where there reside the executive powers.
The Constitution gives the president the power to lead the executive branch — the responsibility to “take care” that the laws are faithfully executed — and places that person in charge of the military (although Congress retains the power to declare war). Therefore, removing the monarch meant that the President would also be the Head of State. Hence, it is the President who would meet with the monarch.
Under the original Articles of Confederation, there was no president, which created confusion for there was no person in charge of enforcing the laws. Thus, it was George Washington who dealt with the Whiskey Rebellion. Therefore, the Impeachment Clause: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was worded in such a way that if Biden bribed people to get into office, that would be ground to remove him. Again, that is not likely.
There is a serious question of how can a president endorse the Marxist philosophy of progressive taxation while they are to represent the nation and not just a few states or population centers. Selecting such a person through a direct election was out of the question back then. It was difficult for many of the founding fathers to imagine a national election, or that attempting one would achieve the intended goals. This is to some extent being talked about behind the curtain that the President should be selected by the Congress and not the people.
The framers, however, gave the Electoral College broad discretion to resolve disputes as it saw fit. The text of the Constitution states that an election is legitimate ONLY when the Electoral College declares the winner. I find it so strange that Biden has the audacity to appear on a stage declaring he is the President-Elect and has some Office of the President-Elect when that is just not the case. There is no “president-elect” until the Electoral College so declares – not CNN, Washington Post, or the New York Times. This is creating the image that it was a rigged election and they are desperate to pretend they were elected selling that idea when legally there is no such office of the president-elect.
The Constitution does not have any process for a do-over. Interestingly, the judiciary does have the power to order new elections for offices but never in the case if a president. Such decrees have come in the face of a proven case of fraud or error or gerrymandering. In 2019, North Carolina courts ordered the legislature to draw fairer election districts, holding out the potential for voters — not lawmakers — to decide which party would control the General Assembly. A Senate election was once redone in New Hampshire because it was too close to determine even with multiple recounts. So, there is some precedent that in the face of fraud or elections to be too close to count, the Judiciary has stepped in.
When we look at a presidential election, whether a re-do would be constitutionally be allowed is a much more complicated matter. The language in Article II of the Constitution prevents holding a presidential election again, thus putting it beyond the power of the courts to order a re-do. On the other hand, there is legal precedent for a presidential re-vote if there were flaws in the process. One instance in which this question arose was the “butterfly ballot” from the 2000 election, which may have caused some voters to choose Pat Buchanan when they meant to vote for Al Gore in Palm Beach County, Florida.
While the question was not reached in the 2000 election in the Supreme Court Bush v Gore 531 U.S. 98 (2000), it did raise the equal protection problem with different election procedures. The court held Per Curiam:Despite violating the Fourteenth Amendment by using disparate vote-counting procedures in different counties, Florida did not need to complete a recount in the 2000 presidential election because it could not be accomplished in a constitutionally valid way within the time limit set by federal law for resolving these controversies.There were indications that the Court recognized the need for nationwide electoral reform under Due Process and the Equal Protection Clause. How states do their own elections do not impact other states. However, election anyone federally impacts the rights of everyone. Looking at the lower courts, at least one federal court has suggested that the courts could order a new election. In 1976, an Eastern District Court in New York heard a case, Donohue v. Board of Elections of State of NY, 435 F. Supp. 957 (E.D.N.Y. 1976), where it was alleged that voter fraud in several urban locations took place not unlike what we see right now. In that decision, the court maintained that federal courts had a role to play in ensuring free and fair presidential elections. It held:
“It is difficult to imagine a more damaging blow to public confidence in the electoral process than the election of a President whose margin of victory was provided by fraudulent registration or voting, ballot-stuffing or other illegal means.”
Interestingly, the court didn’t find sufficient evidence that voter fraud had altered the outcome, or even occurred at all. Still, experts disagree about whether courts can order presidential elections to be held again. If there is a violation of rules that would change the election outcome, then the courts would be compelled to act and federally this is why Texas is suing Pennsylvania. Now 17 other states are joining Texas v Pennsylvania. What Pennsylvania and Georgia for that matter do to try to prevent recounts impacts the Equal Protection of the Law and Due Process rights of everyone else in the entire country.
STATES VIOLATE EVERYONE’S CIVIL RIGHTS
Within the Legal Code Title 18, Section 241, it has been an important statutory tool in election crime prosecutions. It has long been held to apply only to schemes to corrupt elections for federal office. It has been applied to stuffing a ballot box with forged ballots, United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385 (1944); United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 (1915) as well as preventing the official count of ballots in primary elections, United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941), which may come in handy in this election. This means private suites can be filed claiming that interfering with the ballots is a civil rights violation to all in the country.
Destroying voter registration applications is also applicable (United States v. Haynes, Nos. 91-5979, 91-6076, 1992 WL 296782, at *1 (6th Cir. Oct. 15, 1992)), as well as destroying ballots (United States v. Townsley, 843 F.2d 1070, 1073–75 (8th Cir. 1988)).
Anyone who exploits the infirmities of elderly or handicapped people by casting absentee ballots in their names is also a violation of civil rights, United States v. Morado, 454 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir. 1972), just as anyone who illegally register voters and cast absentee ballots in their names, United States v. Weston, 417 F.2d 181, 182–85 (4th Cir. 1969).
Anyone who threatens injury, threaten, or intimidate a voter in the exercise of his right to vote is also a serious actionable issue under this statute, Fields v. United States, 228 F.2d 544 (4th Cir. 1955). This even extends to someone who impersonates qualified voters, Crolich v. United States, 196 F.2d 879, 879 (5th Cir. 1952).
CONTESTED PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
There have been a number of presidential elections that have been contested. The 1800 election ended in an Electoral College tie. At the time, there were discussions that perhaps they should holding a new election. Then there was the notorious 1824 election that was decided through what some called by Andrew Jackson a “corrupt bargain” among elites. The previous few years had witnessed the Federalist Party collapsed which had dominated from the outset. This left the Democratic-Republican Party, which splintered as four separate candidates sought the presidency. Nobody won the popular vote nor the electoral vote. Thus, it became Congress’s decision which is the strategy this time. Jackson had won more electoral votes than any other single candidate and alleged that Henry Clay, who served as Speaker of the House of Representatives at the time, had convinced the House to elect Adams. The accusations became more believable when Adams appointed Clay as Secretary of State. There was no evidence of such a deal but the allegations created the image of the defender of the elite against the interests of the common man.
The election of 1876 was also contested with allegations of vote suppression in several Southern states. It was a political conflict after the Civil War. A Democratic candidate had emerged with the lead in the popular vote. However, 19 electoral votes from four states were in dispute. In that case, Congress was convened to settle the election. Rutherford B. Hayes was handed the presidency despite the fact that he had lost the popular vote.
Most people do not know by the 1960 election of John F. Kennedy’s razor-thin margin, was also hotly debated while the honesty of the votes in Texas and Illinois were in question but Richard Nixon’s decision not to challenge the results avoided the dispute.
Disputed elections have often seriously undermined a presidency, as it did with John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, and Donald Trump. The 2000 election left a bad taste in many people’s mouths. The hostility of the Democrats against Trump was just astonishing. T have Nancy Pelosi tear up the president’s state of the union speech on national television was an insult to the entire country. That is prescribed by the Constitution that the president must deliver such a speech. Today, politics resembles more of a war zone than governing the nation.
Historically, once the Electoral College votes and declares a winner, the case for questioning a presidential election or gauging which side really won becomes a lot more difficult. Of course, the Constitution does not prescribe any mechanism for undoing the results of an election other than impeachment. That process, however, is focused on individual wrongdoing or an incapacity, not electoral irregularities. In that sense, even if collusion revelations did lead to Biden’s impeachment and removal from office, the process would have to deal with the question of whether his election had been legitimate in the first place. The only other possibility is an impeachment over selling influence to Ukraine and China if that could be proven.
The Constitution never addressed any review process for reviewing elections. This is also because the people never voted for George Washington – the Electoral College did. Between 1820–1830, as states joined the union they create their own state constitutions outlining who is allowed to vote. Eligible voters are mostly white males who own property as it was in Roman and Greek times assuming they had something at stake. A small number of free black men were allowed to vote but no women either white or black.
The larger issue concerns the structures established by the Constitution clearly place the election process in the hands of the Electoral College which was more concerned about allowing the majority of states to decide the national party system. However, the very text of our Constitution has never been changed and it does not reflect the modern system of allowing the people to vote. The states have adopted their own rules which are inconsistent nationally. All but two states allocate all electors to the winner, but the electors were not bound to even follow that. The Electoral College remains a heated topic at times when the vote does not align with the popular vote. When it comes to attaining the position of president with allegations of fraud if the Supreme Court fails to decide the law claiming discretion under the Judiciary Act of 1925 which in itself is unconstitutional since the oath of office declared they are to uphold the constitution – not on a discretionary basis if they feel like it that day.
Late Monday night the state of Texas filed a lawsuit directly in the Supreme Court against four states: Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvan and Wisconsin. The intent is to block those states from casting their Electoral College votes for Joe Biden due to the unconstitutional nature of mail-in ballot use – against legislative approval and requirement.
Today 17 states filed an amicus brief [pdf link] in support of the Texas lawsuit.
The seventeen states include Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.
As noted in the supportive filing: “The States have a strong interest in preserving the proper roles of state legislatures in the administration of federal elections, and thus safeguarding the individual liberty of their citizens.”
[…] “States have a strong interest in ensuring that the votes of their own citizens are not diluted by the unconstitutional administration of elections in other States. When non-legislative actors in other States encroach on the authority of the “Legislature thereof” in that State to administer a Presidential election, they threaten the liberty, not just of their own citizens, but of every citizen of the United States who casts a lawful ballot in that election — including the citizens of amici States.
Here’s the Full Amicus Brief:
.
…”A true patriot keeps the attention of his fellow citizens awake to their grievances, and not allow them to rest till the causes of their just complaints are removed.”…
Facebook is facing a lawsuit filed by 48 states for monopoly practices and the FTC is joining with supportive legal action. NY Attorney General Latitia James held a news conference to announce the antitrust lawsuit using Instagram & WhatsApp as examples.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal regulators on Wednesday sued to force a breakup of Facebook as 48 states and districts accused the company in a separate lawsuit of abusing its market power in social networking to crush smaller competitors.
The antitrust lawsuits were announced by the Federal Trade Commission and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The FTC specifically asked a court to force Facebook sell off its Instagram and WhatsApp messaging services.
“It’s really critically important that we block this predatory acquisition of companies and that we restore confidence to the market,” James said during a press conference announcing the lawsuit. (read more)
Facebook is the world’s biggest social network with 2.7 billion users and a company with a market value of nearly $800 billion whose CEO Mark Zuckerberg is the world’s fifth-richest individual and the most public face of Big Tech swagger.
After the Marxist-left spent four years challenging the result of the 2016 election, forming the “resistance” and calling Donald Trump an illegitimate president; and after Big Tech supported, allowed and amplified that message on all media platforms; Big Tech’s largest control agent, Google (via YouTube), now steps-in to say they will not permit content that challenges the outcome of a demonstrably fraudulent 2020 election.
…”we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or anytime after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election.”…
To use a familiar movie metaphor, what we are witnessing is BIG TECH activating their Death Star to destroy opposition and advance their ideological agenda on behalf of their EMPIRE. Google Inc will target and shut-down any voice that challenges them.
While alarming and disconcerting in the extreme. This is not necessarily a bad outcome, because now the true rebellion will begin. Now the Rebel Alliance will grow as ordinary people start to take matters much more seriously.
Keep in mind, the hypocrisy is only a small aspect, they don’t care about your opinion on this issue. This is the advancement of a totalitarian regime goal by ‘any means necessary’. CTH readers are smart, we saw this coming… we know how to lead a rebellion with the tools of an insurgency.
Big Tech is going to cleave the entire network of communication along ideological lines. Totalitarian leftists -vs- Freedom patriots. Big assembled tech -vs- the Rebel Alliance.
Immediately after the Google/YouTube announcement, our friends at Right Side Broadcasting (RSBN) were notified their content would be removed.
These are historic times, unsettling times and times of great consequence. This is why CTH has focused so extensively on the need for fellowship in all forms. This is why CTH 2.0 is being designed with a very specific base platform.
To give you an idea of how strong our CTH community is. The average in-bound traffic into any platform is 80 to 90% driven by search engine results (Google, Duck-Duck etc). That means Google controls 80 percent of a websites communication.
By contrast less than 10% of our CTH community comes through search engine results. CTH is directly linked to millions of members of the Rebel Alliance without the need for Google etc, and that number is now growing on our own platform.
We have been blessed and guided. We are very fortunate. CTH 2.0 is now, and will be, isolated from the reach of Big Tech influence. CTH will stand bold, free and advance the position of liberty. You will see much more in the coming weeks/months about how CTH will keep the lantern lit in the Old North Church.
In the final analysis this effort by Big Tech will fail. There are already solutions surfacing, and there will be even more solutions coming even faster now.
Immediately after the U.S. Supreme Court directly asked the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia to respond to the Texas constitutional lawsuit on unconstitutional ballot changes, Jordan Sekulow sat down with Newsmax to discuss:
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton appears on Sean Hannity to discuss the legal position of his state in an election lawsuit about arbitrary state processes used in the 2020 election.
Paxton, on behalf of Texas, has sued battleground states Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin to challenge the unconstitutional creation of their mail-in ballots within the election. Several states have now joined Texas in alignment with the lawsuit.
There are only a few instances where a party can file a direct lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court, a state claiming harm by another state is one of those instances.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit [pdf here] with the supreme court seeking and emergency injunction against Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia “from taking action to certify presidential electors or to have such electors take any official action including without limitation participating in the electoral college.”
The Texas AG argues that arbitrary changes made by the state’s governors, secretaries of states and election supervisors were “inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.”
The lawsuit states: “these non-legislative changes … facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.” […] “By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.”
Paxton notes the intent of the states may have been changes in good faith, due to COVID-19 mitigation efforts; however, the end result of the changes is in direct violation to the Constitution and therefore creates the harm.
“Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting.” […] “The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States.”
Yesterday, in a final foot-stomping and teeth-gnashing exhibition of judicial activism, federal judge Emmet Sullivan allowed a host of political amicus briefs to be provided to the case file against Lt. General Michael Flynn.
The obvious judicial intent was to legally smear General Flynn with as many corrupt and manipulative Lawfare opinions as possible. In essence Sullivan was just pouring on the dirt after President Trump stepped in and said “enough” granting Flynn a deserved, full and unconditional pardon.
I didn’t write about Sullivan’s scheme and vile nature last night because: (a) I was very angry, and (b) I suspected Sullivan’s only intent was to besmirch the good name and reputation of Flynn in the judicial record. Ultimately Sullivan’s childish Lawfare antics held no legal or judicial merit because Flynn has been pardoned. It was all moot.
Today, after stomping his feet and throwing a verbal tantrum, as expected Judge Sullivan announces the motion to dismiss the case is granted.
I’ve got two words for you Judge Sullivan, and they ain’t Merry Christmas!
And, for the record, I ain’t too happy with AG Bill Barr in this endeavor either.
Instead of using the truth of his office to stand up to the corruption in this case, AG Barr used USAO Jeff Jensen to deliver the evidence of institutional corruption to Sidney Powell and made her expose the rotten core activity of the DOJ and FBI.
AG Bill Barr hid behind the skirt of Sidney Powell because he could not bring himself to visibly and publicly admit the institutions of the DOJ and FBI were/are compromised beyond recovery….
I wrote this ↓ in early 2019, and I stand by it; it’s exactly what happened. FUBAR:
SSCI Vice Chairman Mark Warner, SSCI Chairman Richard Burr and Acting SSCI Chair Marco Rubio are dirty. So too was Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, FBI Director Chris Wray, FBI Deputy Director David Bowditch and FBI Legal Counsel Dana Boente. Their predecessors were dirty: Comey, McCabe and Baker.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller was dirty. Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein was dirty. All of the special counsel lawyers including Andrew Weissmann and Brandon Van Grack (Flynn prosecutor) were/are dirty.
Additionally, Mueller’s lead FBI Agent David Archey, who was promoted after the corrupt special counsel investigation to be the head of the Virginia FBI field office, dirty. FBI official David Archey, like ICIG Michael Atkinson, conveniently put into a place where he can run cover for FBI operations that might expose dirty DC and Virgina-based FBI activities. See how that works?
Try telling me with all we know about the Mueller investigation how anyone on the special counsel assignment was participating in a fraudulent investigation without knowing.
Special Agent Peter Strzok, dirty. FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, dirty. FBI Lawyer Lisa Page, dirty. FBI media spox Michael Kortan, dirty. James Comey, Andrew McCabe and James Baker, dirty-dirty-dirty. Fortunately all of these are fired… but what about Supervisory Special Agent Joseph Pientka (SSA1)? Pientka clearly outlined as dirty by Inspector General Michael Horowitz report on FISA abuse, and yet still employed; still providing cover.
So what exactly does that make IG Horowitz? At best the lead corruption manager who comes in willfully blind behind the Bondo application team…
Boy howdy, is this ever a good time to see something we have exposed for years. The CTH library is filled with deep dive evidence of how this process specifically works.
First watch this important segment from Tucker Carlson:
President Trump’s MAGAnomic and foreign policy agenda is jaw-dropping in scale, scope and consequence. There are multiple simultaneous aspects to each policy objective; they have been outlined for a long time even before the election victory in November ’16.
If you get too far into the weeds the larger picture can be lost. CTH objective is to continue pointing focus toward the larger horizon, and then at specific inflection points to dive into the topic and explain how each moment is connected to the larger strategy.
Today we dive into how MAGAnomic policy interacts with Wall Street, the stock market, the U.S. financial system and perhaps your personal financial value. Again, the ongoing reference and source material is included at the end of the outline.
If you understand the basic elements behind the new dimension in American economics, you already understand how three decades of DC legislative and regulatory policy was structured to benefit Wall Street and not Main Street. The intentional shift in monetary policy is what created the distance between two entirely divergent economic engines.
REMEMBER […] there had to be a point where the value of the second economy (Wall Street) surpassed the value of the first economy (Main Street).
Investments, and the bets therein, expanded outside of the USA. hence, globalist investing…. investing in foreign manufacturing; multinational corporations moved manufacturing outside the U.S. and into Asia (China).
However, a second more consequential aspect happened simultaneously. The politicians became more valuable to the Wall Street team than the Main Street team; and Wall Street had deeper pockets because their economy was now larger.
As a consequence Wall Street started funding political candidates and asking for legislation and trade policies that benefited their, now international, interests.
When Main Street was purchasing the legislative influence the outcomes were -generally speaking- beneficial to Main Street, and by direct attachment those outcomes also benefited the average American inside the real economy.
When Wall Street began purchasing the legislative influence, the outcomes therein became beneficial to Wall Street. Those benefits are detached from improving the livelihoods of main street Americans because the benefits are “global”.
Global financial interests, multinational investment interests -and corporations therein- became the primary filter through which the DC legislative outcomes were considered.
As an outcome of national monetary policy allowing the blending of commercial banking with institutional investments (Glass-Stegal repeal), something happened on Wall Street that few understand.
If we take the time to understand what happened we can understand why the Stock Market grew and what risks exist today as U.S. policy is reversed to benefit Main Street.
Instead of attempting to put Glass-Stegal regulations back into massive banking systems, the Trump administration began supporting a parallel, smaller financial system, of less-regulated small commercial banks, credit unions and traditional lenders who can operate to the benefit of Main Street without the burdensome regulation of the mega-banks and multinationals. This really is one of the more brilliant solutions to work around a uniquely American economic problem.
♦ When U.S. banks were allowed to merge their investment divisions with their commercial banking operations (the removal of Glass Stegal) something changed on Wall Street.
Companies who are evaluated based on their financial results, profits and losses, remained in their traditional role as traded stocks on the U.S. Stock Market and were evaluated accordingly. However, over time investment instruments -which are secondary to actual company results- created a sub-set within Wall Street that detached from actual bottom line company results.
The resulting secondary financial market system was essentially ‘investment markets’. Both ordinary company stocks and the investment market stocks operate on the same stock exchanges. But the underlying valuation is tied to entirely different metrics.
Financial products were developed (as investment instruments) that are essentially wagers or bets on the outcomes of actual companies traded on Wall Street. Those bets/wagers form the hedge markets and are [essentially] people trading on expectations of performance. The “derivatives market” is the ‘betting system’.
♦Ford Motor Company (only chosen as a commonly known entity) has a stock valuation based on their actual company performance in the market of manufacturing and consumer purchasing of their product. However, there can be thousands of financial instruments wagering on the actual outcome of their performance, both domestically and internationally.
There are two initial bets on these outcomes that form the basis for Hedge-fund activity. Bet ‘A’ that Ford hits a profit number, or bet ‘B’ that they don’t. There are financial instruments created to place each wager. [The wagers form the derivatives.] But it doesn’t stop there.
Additionally, more financial products are created that bet on the outcomes of the A/B bets.
A secondary financial product might find two sides betting on both A outcome and B outcome.
Party C bets the “A” bet is accurate, and party D bets against the A bet. Party E bets the “B” bet is accurate, and party F bets against the B. If it stopped there we would only have six total participants. But it doesn’t stop there, it goes on and on and on…
The outcome of the bets forms the basis for the tenuous investment markets. The important part to understand is that the investment funds are not necessarily attached to the original company stock, they are now attached to the outcome of bet(s). Hence an inherent disconnect is created.
Subsequently, if the actual stock doesn’t meet it’s expected P-n-L outcome (if the company actually doesn’t do well), and if the financial investment was betting against the outcome, the value of the investment actually goes up. The company performance and the investment bets on the outcome of that performance are two entirely different aspects of the stock market. [Hence two metrics.]
♦Understanding the disconnect between an actual company on the stock market, and the bets for and against that company stock, helps to understand what can happen when monetary policy and trade policy is geared toward helping the underlying company (Main Street MAGAnomics), and not toward the bets therein (Wall St – Investment).
The U.S. stock markets’ overall value can increase with Main Street policy, and yet the investment class can simultaneously decrease in value even though the company(ies) in the stock market is/are doing better. This detachment is critical to understand because the ‘real economy’ is based on the company, the ‘paper economy’ is based on the financial investment instruments betting on the company.
Trillions can be lost in investment instruments, and yet the overall stock market -as valued by company operations/profits- can increase.
Conversely, there are now classes of companies on the U.S. stock exchange that never make a dime in profit, yet the value of the company increases. This dynamic is possible because the financial investment bets are not connected to the bottom line profit. (Examples include Tesla Motors, Uber and Amazon, and a host of internet stocks.) It is this investment group of companies that stands to lose the most if/when the underlying system of betting on them stops or slows.
Specifically due to most recent U.S. monetary policy, modern multinational banks, including all of the investment products therein, are more closely attached to this investment system on Wall Street. It stands to reason they are at greater risk of financial losses overall with a shift in policy.
That financial and economic risk is the basic reason behind Trump and Mnuchin putting a protective, secondary and parallel, banking system in place for Main Street.
Big multinational banks can suffer big losses from their overseas investments; and yet the Main Street economy can continue growing, and have access to capital, uninterrupted.
U.S. companies who have actual connection to a growing internal U.S. economy can succeed; based on the advantages of the new economic environment and MAGA trade policy, specifically in the areas of manufacturing, domestic supply chain and the ancillary benefactors.
Meanwhile U.S. investment assets (multinational investment portfolios) that are disconnected from the actual results of those benefiting U.S. companies, and as a consequence also disconnected from the U.S. economic expansion, can simultaneously drop in value even though the U.S. economy is thriving. Those assets are heavily dependent on prior overseas investments in China.
♦ China and the EU devalued their currency, and continue to devalue their currency, in an effort to block the impacts from President Trump and the ‘America First’ trade policy. In essence they are trying to maintain their part of a global economic system of manufacturing and export.
However, because those currencies are pegged against the dollar, the resulting effect is a rising dollar value. In essence, the globalist IMF is now blaming President Trump for having a strong economy that forces international competition to devalue their currency.
That’s the stupid hypocrisy of global banking outlooks. They make a decision to devalue their currency, which causes the dollar value to rise, and then turn around and blame the U.S. dollar for being overvalued.
The root cause of the devaluation is unaddressed in the Wall Street/Globalist argument.
The EU and China are trying to retain their global manufacturing position and offset the impact of President Trump’s tariffs by lowering the end value of their exports.
President Trump was engaged in a massive and multidimensional effort to re-balance the entire global trade and wealth dynamic. By putting tariffs on foreign imports he has counterbalanced the never-ending Marshall Plan trade program and demanded renegotiation(s).
Trump’s trade goal is reciprocity; free and fair trade. However, the EU and Asia, specifically China, don’t want to give up a decades-long multi-generational advantage. This is part of the fight.
Because so many shifts -policy nudges- have taken place in the past several decades few academics and even fewer MSM observers are able to understand or explain how Trump planned to get off the service-driven economic path and chart a better course.
President Trump began a process for less dependence on foreign companies for cheap goods, (the cornerstone of a service economy), and began a return to a more balanced U.S. larger economic model where the manufacturing and a production base can be re-established and competitive based on American entrepreneurship and innovation.
No other economy in the world innovates like the U.S.A, Trump sees this as a key advantage across all industry – including manufacturing. The benefit of cheap overseas labor, which is considered a global market disadvantage for the U.S, is offset by utilizing innovation and energy independence. Additionally, the wage rates in the Asian manufacturing economies have risen as their national wealth has increased.
The third highest variable cost of goods beyond raw materials first, labor second, is energy. By unleashing the energy sector -fully developed- the manufacturing price of any given product will allow for global trade competition even with higher U.S. wage prices.
In 2019 the Total Cost of Production (TCP) is now entirely different than it was in 2016. The U.S. has a key strategic advantage with raw manufacturing materials such as: iron ore, coal, steel, precious metals and vast mineral assets which are needed in most new modern era manufacturing. Trump’s policies stopped selling those valuable national assets to countries we compete against – they belong to the American people, they should be used for the benefit of American citizens. Period.
As the U.S. economy expands; and as blue-collar manufacturing returns; the demand for labor increases, and as a consequence so too does the U.S. wage rate (2019 +3.4%) which was stagnant (or non-existent) for the past three decades. Total compensation for U.S. workers was growing in 2019 at a fantastic +5.5 percent rate.
As the wage rate increases, and as the economy expands, the governmental dependency model is reshaped and simultaneously receipts to the U.S. treasury improve. More money into the U.S Treasury and less dependence on welfare programs have a combined exponential impact. You gain a dollar, and have no need to spend a dollar.
As the GDP of the U.S. expands, we stop thinking about how to best divide a limited economic pie, and begin thinking about how many more economic pies we can create.
So yeah, there was going to be pain – for them: massive economic pain as the process of reestablishing a fair trading system is rebuilt; and also for U.S. interests that are dependent on returns from prior investments in China.
The dynamic of reciprocal and balanced trade is the essential policy that benefits Main Street USA. Unfortunately, in the initial phase where putting ‘America First’ is the priority, the policy is against the interests of the multinationals on Wall Street connected to Chinese manufacturing.
As a result, President Trump had to fight adverse economic opponents on multiple fronts…. and their purchased mercenary army we know as DC politicians…. {Go Deep}
When you understand that any changes to this DC system would not be accepted by those who command power and affluence; when you accept their willingness to deploy military tanks around themselves in order to protect them from you; and when you realize they will use every system, including the ballot counting machines, to stop the American people from disrupting this corrupt system of self-aggrandizing elitism; you start to realize the diminished options for removing them from 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 