Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted Feb 23, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

I find it very interesting that because Justice Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch all dissented in denying review of the Pennsylvania election lawsuits which were clearly unconstitutional, suddenly Thomas is no longer black but called the “most conservative” member of the Supreme Court. I have stated before that the Judiciary Act of 1925 is in itself unconstitutional giving the Supreme Court discretionary jurisdiction when they take an oath to uphold the constitution not when they feel like it. What Justice Thomas wrote in dissent was precisely correct. The denial of the Supreme Court to get involved in this election of 2020 is outrageous and a total disgrace. The bias in Washington against any outsider is going to bring down the entire country. Once there is no rule of law remaining, then there is no point in maintaining a government.

The refusal to take this case means that any official can change the rules during an election at any time. They would only be challenged again in an untimely manner in the middle of an election ensuring there would be no time to get to the Supreme Court. This denial is simply casting all American elections from here on out into the dust-bin of history. Remember this day. For your grandchild will one day ask, where you there when the Supreme Court threw US elections under the bus? This is all because in Washington, they do not want any outsider to mess with their swamp of corruption.

Edward Gibbon wrote in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, with respect to Commodus who was the son of Marcus Aurelius whose reign is where the line is drawn for the beginning of the decline and fall. Of Commodus, he wrote: Every

“distinction of every kind soon became criminal. The possession of wealth stimulated the diligence of the informers; rigid virtue implied a tacit censure of the irregularities of Commodus; important services implied a dangerous superiority of merit; and the friendship of the father always insured the aversion of the son. Suspicion was equivalent to proof; trial to condemnation. The execution of a considerable senator was attended with the death of all who might lament or revenge his fate; and when Commodus had once tasted human blood, he became incapable of pity or remorse”

(Book 1, Chapter 4).

This is where we are at this point in the saga of the Decline and Fall of the United States. The Supreme Court has abandoned everything the Framers intended to preserve “We the People.” It was not even a matter of overturning the election. But in fact, what took place in Pennsylvania should have nullified the election results because they were simply corrupt. Justice Thomas argued that perhaps the net effect would not have altered the results. But that is really irrelevant because we will never know when you allow officials to act unconstitutionally, to begin with. Justice Tomas wrote in dissent:

 Supreme Court Dissents: Sct Dissent Republican v PA

JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.
The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the “Manner” of federal elections. Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2. Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took  it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emergency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example. The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evidence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.

JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.

I agree with JUSTICE THOMAS that we should grant review in these cases. They present an important and recurring constitutional question: whether the Elections or Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution, Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2, are violated when a state court holds that a state constitutional provision overrides a state statute governing the manner in which a federal election is to be conducted. That question has divided the lower courts,* and our review at this time would be greatly beneficial. In the cases now before us, a statute enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature unequivocally requires that mailed ballots be received by 8 p.m. on election day. Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 25, §§3146.6(c), 3150.16(c) (Purdon 2020). Nevertheless, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, citing a provision of the State Constitution mandating that elections “be free and equal,” Art. I, §5, altered that deadline and ordered that mailed ballots be counted if received up to three days after the election, Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar, ___ Pa. ___, ___–___, 238 A. 3d 345, 362, 371–372 (2020). Both the state Republican and Democratic parties urged us to grant review and decide this question before the 2020 election. See Application for Stay in Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar, No. 20A54, pp. 2–3; Democratic Party of Pennsylvania Response to Application for Stay in No. 20A54, pp. 8–9. But the Court, by an evenly divided vote, refused to do so. Nos. 20A53 and 20A54, ante, p. ___ (THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ.,
noting dissents). That unfortunate decision virtually ensured that this important question could not be decided before the election. See No. 20–542, ante, p. ___ (statement of ALITO, J., joined by THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ.).

Now, the election is over, and there is no reason for refusing to decide the important question that these cases pose. “The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election.” Ante, at 3; see also Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 531 U. S. 70, 76 (2000) (per curiam). A decision in these cases would not have any implications regarding the 2020 election. (Because Pennsylvania election officials were ordered to separate mailed ballots received after the statutory deadline, see Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar, No. 20A84, ante, p. ___, we know that the State Supreme Court’s decision had no effect on the outcome of any election for federal office in Pennsylvania.) But a decision would provide invaluable guidance for future elections.

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on February 22, 2021 by Sundance

The first amendment prohibits congress from passing any laws that would inhibit free speech and the freedom of the press.  However, in the era of advanced Marxism and Democrat fascism their inability to use laws to block speech is seen as a problem.

To solve the problem the U.S. congress is now asking cable news providers: Comcast, AT&T, Spectrum, Dish, Verizon, Cox and Altice to initiate a new system to block speech the DEMOCRAT FASCISTS do not agree with.

The same congressional committee members also sent the letter to Roku, Amazon, Apple, Google and Hulu, digital companies that distribute cable programming and raising the stakes if they do not comply.  Thereby once again proving the case that Democrats are party of state controlled censorship.

(New York Times) […] In advance of the Wednesday hearing, called “Fanning the Flames: Disinformation and Extremism in the Media,” members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent a letter…

[…] “To our knowledge, the cable, satellite and over-the-top companies that disseminate these media outlets to American viewers have done nothing in response to the misinformation aired by these outlets,” two Democratic representatives from California, Anna G. Eshoo and Jerry McNerney, wrote in the letter, which was reviewed by The New York Times.

[…] The lawmakers’ letter asks the companies, “What steps did you take prior to, on, and following the November 3, 2020 elections and the January 6, 2021 attacks to monitor, respond to, and reduce the spread of disinformation, including encouragement or incitement of violence by channels your company disseminates to millions of Americans?”

“Are you planning to continue carrying Fox News, OANN, and Newsmax on your platform both now and beyond the renewal date?” the letter continues. “If so, why?”  (read more)

Perhaps as things worsen people will begin to realize why CTH has been spending so much time and effort building-out an anti-fragile website where we can continue to present the unfiltered truth of events happening around our nation.  It is an exhaustive effort to build an infrastructure that can continue to provide a place where honest discussion can take place and facts can be provided without fear of removal.

The Truth Has No Agenda…. Those who wish to control public speech carry an independent agenda.  To justify their ideological desires to retain power, and, by extension ultimately control over the lives of others, these radical leftists need a justification.  They are putting a massive amount of exhaustive energy into trying to remove speech that would stand against their totalitarian agenda.

We have watched it unfold for years; however the pace of their onslaught is seemingly exponential now.

Conduct yourselves accordingly…. and know that CTH will continue this fight even if we are reduced down to writing post-it notes on gas pumps.  The Rebel Alliance will never concede liberty to the totalitarian state.

Live your best life, and pour sand into their machinery whenever possible.

[EXPLORE]

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on February 22, 2021 by Sundance

The background of all these institutional moves is obvious if we stand back far enough to see the bigger picture.  Ultimately, Donald Trump represented an existential threat to the corrupt systems of U.S. government established over the past several decades.

As an outsider Donald J Trump had never participated in government beyond cursory attachment to some political figures.

However, Trump held the greatest priority over protecting the U.S. economy, worker and way of life for the middle-class.

President Trump’s motives in office were all about rebuilding the systems that provided Americans with a better way of life and advocated for a true nationalistic perspective.

In the era of advancing leftist-globalism; and considering the trillions previously spent to protect multinational corporations at the expense of the U.S. working-class; anything President Trump did to reverse this erosion was viewed as detrimental to the elitist worldview.  As a true populist and nationalist minded politician President Trump represented the ‘people’, the best interests of ‘We The Peoople’, that made him a threat.

Trillions potentially lost, billions of scheme and personal wealth assembled by the professional political class, and untold amounts of money invested overseas were all at risk from the policies of President Trump.  The money was the foundation for the motives of attack against him personally and against his policies.

It does not come as a surprise to see the institutions of government weaponize their investigative authority; their ability to attack the financial wealth of their adversaries; as the tool to crush and eliminate their opposition.  The DOJ followed this same playbook when they weaponized the IRS against the Tea Party uprising in 2010 and beyond.

Most people have forgotten it was the Eric Holder DOJ who initiated the original IRS targeting of Tea Party groups; it was not the IRS working independently on its own.  The IRS is viewed by radical leftists amid the Lawfare crew as an institutional weapon in their arsenal to deploy against their adversaries.

This decision today should not be a surprise:

The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for a New York grand jury to obtain former President Donald Trump’s financial records. Over four months after Trump asked them to intervene, the justices turned down a request by the former president to stay a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit that permits Cyrus Vance, the district attorney for Manhattan, to enforce a subpoena to Mazars USA, the president’s longtime accountant. Monday’s order means that Vance and the grand jury likely will finally acquire eight years of Trump’s tax returns and other related records, although grand jury secrecy laws may preclude them from becoming public.  (read more)

In October 2015 the DOJ announced it was dropping the investigation into the IRS, Lois Lerner, and the unlawful sharing of taxpayer data in the IRS targeting investigation surrounding True The Vote et al.

As a direct consequence of the DOJ decision, congressional inquiry into the IRS targeting matter seemingly dropped from the radar. However, if you draw a line from the original intent of the entire enterprise, the post-2010 mid-term “shellacking”/”secret research project“, forward to the 2016 election cycle an interested observer might still be left asking:

“why did the IRS, through Lois Lerner, deliver the 1+ million pages of tax filings, to include the entire donor list of Tea Party and patriot groups, through 21 CD-ROMs and not by electronic data transfer. Information that was specifically sent to Eric Holder and the U.S. Department of Justice”?

This is an obvious question which, despite the numerous congressional hearings on the matter, was never asked – nor answered.

The entire scheme is riddled with complexity; almost too complex for the average person to understand, and seriously difficult to summarize. However, when you boil it down here’s the essential components that are no longer suspicion or supposition, but factually provable:

As a result of a trillion dollar stimulus filled with scheme and graft; and as a result of Obamacare being similarly schemed in backroom deals and late night votes; President Obama was “shellacked” in the November 2010 election.

The White House didn’t see the defeat a flawed policy issue; rather as the entrenched ideologues they are, they saw the SCOTUS case “citizens united” as the principle tool used by the White House opponents to organize and fund political movements, ie. the tea party.

The Obama Team response to the 2010 Shellacking was to use the Dept. of Justice (AG Eric Holder) to weaponize the IRS and go after groups -like Tea Party Groups- organized under the financial umbrella of 501(c)(4) donation structuring.

Years later, when the scheme was discovered – the White House denied knowledge (“not even a smidgen of corruption”), the DOJ feigned ignorance, and the IRS began working overtime trying to hide the construct of the prior communication, planning and strategy.

• The head of IRS tax exempt division, Louis Lerner, pled the Fifth.
• Obama’s Chief of Staff Jack Lew was made Treasury Secretary (IRS is sub division of Treasury Dept.) where he was/is able to continue hiding information.
• And Eric Holder constructed a team of DOJ lawyers to isolate, hide and manipulate the trail of evidence within the DOJ.

Just before the IRS targeting scheme was fully discovered/comprehended, and seemingly overlooked by any curious media enterprise, in February 2013 representative Maxine Waters said:https://www.youtube.com/embed/1vbTugrr2Ag

“The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life. That’s going to be very, very powerful. That database will have information about everything on every individual on ways that it’s never been done before and whoever runs for President on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that. They’re going to go down with that database and the concerns of those people because they can’t get around it. And he’s [President Obama] been very smart. It’s very powerful what he’s leaving in place.” (link)

Loose Lips Sink UniParty Scheme Ships

Against, the backdrop of new information which proves the UniParty, both dems and republicans, benefitted from the targeting of the Tea Party and oppositional forces; and with the full comprehension that Mitch McConnell and the republican leadership organized a post Citizens United strategy to work around their financial dependency on the electorate via Super-PACs; aren’t you just a little bit curious what the purpose was to assemble a data-base or “Secret Research Project“?

Lois Lerner’s and other IRS officials’ concerns about how to handle these donor lists came on the heels of an advisory from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) to her and other IRS officials in late March 2012 of “an audit we plan to conduct of the IRS’s process for reviewing applications for tax exemption by potential section 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6) organizations.”

March 2012 “audit we plan to conduct” was the IG notification for a pending investigation of IRS. Specifically of their handling of Conservative Groups filing applications and status.

We all know the result of that investigation was a finding the IRS was indeed targeting conservative groups – hence the IRS scandal erupted in the headlines.

However, far more troubling were later discoveries into the internal communications which suggested much more nefarious activity regarding the assembly of secret lists, the “Secret Research Project”.

An undertaking by both the Obama Administration and the DOJ together with the IRS began to surface.

The American Center for Law and Justice put it thusly: We know the IRS unconstitutionally targeted conservative groups. We know they illegally demanded, obtained, and held the donor lists of these conservative organizations. Now we learn that in 2012, the height of the targeting, the IRS was involved in a “secret research project” with this confidential, illegally obtained donor information.

That’s more than a big deal. It’s potentially criminal.

The very fact that the IRS was using the phrase “secret research project” should give every American pause. But the fact that this project was conducted as part of a well-orchestrated effort to target and silence conservative Americans is utterly disturbing.

Now, again, ask yourself: Why would Lois Lerner be delivering 21 CD-ROMs of data, lists of every American who joined arms with the Tea Party, to Eric Holder in the DOJ instead of just transferring that data over their internal computer systems?

WASHINGTON […] “After the Justice Department turned over the database to the Oversight Committee this month in response to a subpoena, the Justice Department says it was informed by IRS officials that it contains legally protected taxpayer information that should not have ever been sent to the FBI and it now plans to return the full database to the IRS,” a statement from the oversight committee said.

According to material obtained by the committee, the IRS sent the FBI “21 disks constituting a 1.1 million page database of information from 501(c)(4) tax exempt organizations, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”

The transaction occurred in October 2010. (link)

If you wonder why the entire corrupt DC political class is openly in opposition to candidate Donald J Trump…. well,…

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on February 22, 2021 by Sundance

The supreme court has taken a knee… let me explain why it is so evident:

In a 6-3 ruling today the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to grant writ to hear the Pennsylvania election challenge cases [pdf here – begin page 25].  While the majority of media will likely celebrate this decision; and while the court has refused to hear the case(s) based on their position the issues are “moot”; there appears to be an underlying motive  not being discussed.

It only takes four justices to agree to hear a case and grant a writ of certiorari.  In October 2020 the issues with the Pennsylvania court overruling the Pennsylvania legislature was of such importance four justices agreed to block the lower court order. However, four months later the majority claim the arguments within the case are “moot”;  & the election is over.

In essence the Roberts Court is saying they will allow any/all methods and manipulations of election law within states, and only look to the state outcome.  This is very troublesome.

[direct pdf here]

Why would Justice Kavanaugh reverse his position?  In October the state action to supersede the Pennsylvania legislature was a hazard.  In February it is moot.

While it is never a good idea to look into the background of the court for motives, one cannot easily dismiss that Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett may have voted against the writ because they were concerned such a decision would cause the senate to start a process of “packing the court.”   Retaining the current number of justices within the court is more likely if the justices avoid triggering the consequences from the previous threat.

Justices’ Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch remained consistent with their earlier decisions to hear the cases and settle the disputes.  Barrett never weighed in on the October injunction, but Kavanaugh has completely reversed his position with his denial of the writ.

Succinct encapsulation from Justice Thomas:

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on February 22, 2021 by Sundance

The confirmation hearing for U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, a far-left advocate for intrusive weaponization of government against political adversaries, is underway today. The afternoon session should resume around 1:30pm

If Garland is confirmed there will be multiple people and groups who supported President Trump targeted by the U.S. Department of Justice.  The extremist Lawfare group is openly advocating for more political targeting; to wit Garland has openly stated his intent to continue weaponizing the DOJ where former AG Eric Holder left-off.

PBS Livestream Link – Fox News Livestream – Alternate Livestream

.

.

Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics Re-Posted Feb 22, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

There are many people writing in about California and how they are looking to get out ASAP. Some are pointing to the fact that the Left has gone totally insane and passed legislation not just that people can steal up to $950 in shoplifting, but that you can now be a member of the Communist Party and run for office in California. I guess this means Pelosi can come out of the closet before she loses office in 2022. This is the problem with the Left. Instead of moving to an appropriate place where communists control, they try to subvert the rest of society to comply with their desires. They are against freedom every step of the way. In California, the US Constitution is just an annoying scarp of paper that should not stand in the way.

Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted Feb 21, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: I work at Walgreens. Thank god, not in California. I can attest that gentleman is correct about the policies. Maybe this is why many pharmacists have not had a raise in 4 years. Glad I still had a job during the lockdown though.

J

REPLY: Thanks for the input. California has gone so far left, they have turned their back on the very people who pay the bills.

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on February 21, 2021 by Sundance

Senior Trump policy advisor Stephen Miller appears with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the dangerous immigration policy of JoeBama and the next steps in President Trump’s future working on the MAGA agenda.  Ms. Bartiromo discusses the 3,500+ border apprehensions daily along the Texas, Arizona and Southern California border area.

Mr. Miller noted he has been in recent conversations with President Trump (likely speech writing instructions), about the outline for the upcoming speech the people’s president will deliver to the CPAC audience next Sunday.

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on February 21, 2021 by Sundance

Senator Ron Johnson appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the upcoming senate pantomime under the auspices of a review of the events around the Capitol Hill breech and security threat.  Johnson is useless.

Next week the senate is expected to hold hearings about the January 6th DC protests that ended with a breech of the Capitol Hill building and chambers of congress.  Democrats want to keep using the 1/6/21 protest as an excuse to justify their newly installed fencing, barbed-wire and security perimeter which includes U.S. military troops.

In the bigger picture the hearings serve to deflect attention away from the fraud in mail-in ballots during the 2020 election by focusing attention away from the issue.  The democrats are attempting to label those who would question the election results as “insurrectionists”.

The hearing schedule around the 1/06/21 protests is an orchestrated effort at narrative engineering to keep attention away from the illegitimacy of a Biden administration.  Meanwhile the quisling GOPe politicians cower in their offices, provide no push-back and worry they will be labeled as extremists by the leftist-media and democrat politicians.