There is no real difference between the RNC/GOPe and the DNC and untill the citizens are fully aware of this there can not be a real change. Trump and Sanders are the result of the citizens beginning to wake up and understand that virtually all in DC are out ONLY for themselves and they don’t care a lick for the common man/woman. Once the citizens are fully awake there will be hell to pay for all the political class in DC.
Tag Archives: multicultural
What the Press is Not Talking About Bernie Beating Hillary
Armstrong Economics Blog
Re-Posted May 4, 2016 by Martin Armstrong
Bernie beat Hillary in Indiana. They are focusing on Trump beating Cruz, ignoring that Bernie beat Hillary. What this is revealing is that people are angry at government. Bernie and Trump have a lot more in common. In Spain, the king had to dissolve Parliament because the politicians could not win a majority or form a government. This is a worldwide phenomenon. This is NOT about Trump – this is about government as a whole.
Ayn Rand’s Definition of When a Nation is Doomed
Armstrong Economics Blog
Re-Posted May 2, 2016 by Martin Armstrong
“When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing; when you see that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods, but in favors; when you see that men get rich more easily by graft than by work, and your laws no longer protect you against them, but protect them against you. . . you may know that your society is doomed.”
Atlas Shrugged – Ayn Rand
- p. 413 ; Francisco d’Anconia to Bertram Scudder
Judge Jeanine: What’s wrong with putting America first?
Published on May 1, 2016
Reaction to Donald Trump’s foreign policy address
Economics, Modern Conservatives, The 2016 Election and The Import Export Bank…
The myth that we are being told is that we have Free trade now and that the problem is that US companies are just not competitive. Well the definition of Free Trade is trade without ANY GOVERNMENT intervention. That idea does not has has not existed for a long time. Everyone for the FED the IMF the ECB and everyone in Asia manipulated their currencies and policies to benefit them. The US government supports the export of US jobs to the rest of the world in return for those counties buy our debt. That gives the politicians more money for the programs of transforming the our country into a European style socialist big unelected government with total control of the people.
Current Desperation – There are Trillions of Dollars At Stake…
I agree 100% with Sundance! Further as a former US Army Special Forces officer (back in the day) who was trained to do what you now see happening I will tell you what you see is exactly what we were taught to do albeit with different methods as this was 50 years ago.
Are the Metals & Dow Aligning?
Armstrong Economics Blog
Re-Posted Apr 28, 2016 by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: All three are moving together since mid-January. Does that mean all three are already aligned and a lift is now possible? Or do we go to retest the January lows first?
ANSWER: This is the preparation for the Sling-Shot Move which is coming. Everything is pushing it to the limit. We are carrying the weight of the world around on this move. This is how you will trap people buying highs or selling the lows. They will make their judgment based upon emotions. You will see extreme moves in both directions. Markets are NEVER that forgiving. They strive to wipe everyone out on both sides and the more arrogant they are, the bigger the loss.
We should see the metals push higher trying to get closer to their 2015 highs. The question becomes; can they exceed 18.50 in silver and 1307 in gold? If not, then they too have done what the Dow has done. The worst possible pattern would be a 2017 high, a profound thrust to a low in 2018, and then a Sling-Shot Move to the upside which could push this whole mess into 2024. We achieved a minor Daily Bullish Reversal in silver and gold today, but a sell signal in the Dow. They are trending together, but still in opposite directions. So we can see that they are starting to align. The process is not yet complete.
Just look at this logically. It appears to be the four major elections coming (BREXIT, US President, French President, & Germany) that hold the potential to turn this world we are carrying around completely upside down. If the British vote to exit, that can be devastating to the Euro and set off a wave of civil unrest demanding also to exit in other countries. That would benefit the dollar in a big way. What would that do to the metals? Would the Dow then recover from another retest of the support? The Euro begrudgingly holds on, but here too, trying to retest its 2015 high or at least the target reversal at the 11600 zone, is difficult to say the least.
We are getting there. There has to be a retest of the lows. Nothing moves in one direction. The question becomes; soon or later? That is determined if we fail at the 2015 highs or break through that ceiling. For lift-off, what it takes is that collapse in confidence and we can see that where Bernie is frustrating Hillary and Trump leads the pack no matter what they cry about or conspire. People are just losing it when it comes to government. Trump and Sanders are bringing more people out to vote than ever before. Why? They all know something is wrong. They may disagree at to what it is. But the universal knowledge here is that something is just not right. This is the seed we need to fertilize to get that Sling-Shot.
A Unity of Opposites: A Jewish Teaching that Private Vice Can Serve Public Virtue
Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Consider Donald Trump vis-à-vis these extracts from my book American Exceptionalism:
- The Father of America, George Washington, envisioned in this nation the growth of a great commercial Republic. He understood that a commercial Republic will inevitably foster, along with competition and self-interest, the passions of ambition and avarice, which would augment dissension and litigation. However, he agreed with his great Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, that under the rule of law and well-designed institutions, “ambition will check ambition,” and that avarice, rightly directed, “may serve the public as well as the private good.”
- Hamilton also discerned that commercial republicanism can foster rationality, creativity, co-operation, as well as thrift, frugality, and even civic virtue.
- The philosopher-scientist Alfred North Whitehead observed that “Commerce is the great example of intercourse by way of persuasion.” It transforms self-interest into “enlightened self-interest.” Thus modified, self-interest will produce public benefits, while public benefits will enable a larger number of citizens to prosper and contribute to the common good.
********
Strange as it may seem, Donald Trump has been more or less influenced by the teaching of the above paragraphs. His pompous boast “to make America great again,” his enormous avarice primed by vulgar egoism, should be viewed with the above paragraphs in mind, to justly evaluate the man who may become the next President of the United States.
EU Conducts Military Exercises Based on Civil War Theories
Armstrong Economics Blog
Re-Posted Apr 28, 2016 by Martin Armstrong
It’s coming. About 600 members of European police units and military have carried out in North Rhine-Westphalia assault exercises intended to crackdown on civil unrest in Germany and other EU countries. The scenarios under which they are carrying out these exercises are based upon civil war-like conditions. Instead of reforms, they are digging in their heals for a fight. This is how all governments fail. They historically turn against the people they ultimately see as an enemy when they demand political change or action.
Is the Supreme Court Acting Unconstitutional?
Armstrong Economics Blog
Re-Posted Apr 27, 2016 by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION:
Dear Mr. Armstrong,
Re: The Ted Cruz/John Kasich Conspiracy and your comments about the Constitution and USC
In your opinion, might it be a crime to deny registered independents the right to vote in a primary?
Pennsylvania, one of only 11 states remaining with this law, is a prime example.
Thank you for a life devoted to the education of those with inquiring minds,
JS
ANSWER: Absolutely. Because we have created these “primary” elections even though they are for delegates, once the state creates such a right, it cannot deprive you of it without violating your civil rights. Now here is the REAL MONUMENTAL problem. Does the Supreme Court even act constitutionally or has it also denied citizens the right to absolutely behead as declared by the Constitution itself? We hear all this yelling about the Republicans blocking Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. I specialized not just in history, but the rise and fall of nations and how this unfolds. I also studied law intensely and lawyers will often call me on constitutional questions. Why? When you go to law school, you spend very little time on the Constitution. The bulk of law concerns statutory law which is everything written and passed by Congress from civil rights to Obamacare. Very little cases end up challenging the constitutionality of a statue – merely the unconstitutional acts of government’s agents such as police and politicians.
I am going to make a statement here I have made to Constitutional Lawyers that makes their eyes pop-out and say – OMG! The Supreme Court has ABSOLUTELY no right to exercise discretion to hear any case. They must in fact hear EVERY case presented to them for that is dictated by the Constitution and cannot be circumvented by either a statute written by Congress or by its own rule making practice. The Supreme Court receives approximately 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each Term (year). The Court grants and hears oral argument in about only 80 cases in a country of over 300 million. That is outrageous and denies the people the constitutional guarantee of a tripartite government with each branch acting as a check and balance against the others. Let’s review what the structure of government crafted by the Founding Fathers created.
Chief Justice Marshall held in the landmark case Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1 Cranch) (1803) in which he declare the role of the Judiciary branch; “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” id/177. At the very beginning of the nation, the Supreme Court justices rode “circuits” meaning each justice heard cases in their assigned circuits traveling around the country. Article III, Section I of the Constitution expressly states: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” The Constitution only guaranteed the Supreme Court no other! It gave the option to Congress to create inferior federal courts around the country, but this was by no means mandatory. The implications of this are quite profound for it means that Congress can close all the federal inferior district and appellate courts, but it cannot close the Supreme Court. The tripartite structure of government requires the Supreme Court – not inferior courts. Justice Reynolds explained this succinctly.
“The accepted doctrine is that the lower federal courts were created by the acts of Congress and their powers and duties depend upon the acts which called them into existence, or subsequent ones which extend or limit.”
Gillis v California, 293 US 52, 66 (1934)
Your absolute constitutional right to be heard is being DENIED. That right is being circumvented by demanding you go to a district court judge, then appeal to that circuit court, and then apply to be heard as one of the 7,000+ petitions when they only accept 80. What if a child cannot speak to their father who will only communicate to them by some nanny. Is there a relationship bond between the father and the child? Of course not. Inferior courts are under NO OBLIGATION to apply even a uniform legal code. Each have their own rules and precedents are unique to each circuit. There is absolutely no guarantee to EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW when these circuit courts are free to do as they like.
Chief Justice Marshall also held in 1821 a very important decision holding:
“If the constitution does not confer on the court, or on the federal judiciary, the power sought to be exercised, it is in vain that the act of Congress purports to confer it…”
Cohen v Virgina, 19 US 264 (6 Wheat) (1821) id/324
Therefore, regardless of the fact that Congress reduced the power of the Supreme Court eliminating the constitutional status of the court by injecting their discretion to decide if they want to hear a case in the Judiciary Act of 1925, that act is totally unconstitutional for no statute can amend the constitution. Any statute or rule created by Congress, a political party (Republicans right now), or whatever, it cannot circumvent the Constitution – PERIOD!
The inferior federal courts have become a joke. They are there to defend the government, not the people. In my own case, I confronted perhaps the most corrupt judge in New York City; Richard Own. He had the audacity to actually alter the transcripts in court changing the words people would say to support the government. I submitted an affidavit outlining whole sections he removed. There were so many people who showed up in court that day and lawyers were telling me I was crazy because you cannot accuse a judge of a crime. I responded, they all say he does that. They replied; yes, but you cannot say that in public. There were so many people there he became nervous. He admitted changing my transcripts but denied he ever made any material changes. The whole place went silent. When he refused to step down I appealed and the Second Circuit refused to even hear the case. Like police, they just all protect each other. Without a circuit court taking that appeal, I was denied the right to even petition the Supreme Court on that issue.
There is no honest rule of law in the United States. We are no different from some backwater court or a third world country. This is in direct contradiction of the rule of law. The federal court exists to protect individual citizen’s rights under the federal constitution and laws for it has been acknowledged that this is in fact the core purpose of their creation. (see Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 US 388 (1971); Bell v Hood, 327 US 678 (1946), Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137, 177 (1803). Good luck. There is absolutely no right to anything because the inferior courts all know the odds of you getting to the Supreme Court are virtually zero.
In Marbury v Madison, Chief Justice Marshall also stated bluntly: “The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws.” id/ 5 US at 163. Chief Justice Earl Warren stated in 1967: “It is a judge’s duty to decide all cases within his jurisdiction that are brought before him, including controversial cases that arouse the most intense feelings in the litigants.” Pierson v Ray, 386 US 547, 554 (1967). None of this has any force of law unless the Supreme Court is returned to its constitutional role mandating that right to be heard.
We have no rule of law today all because of an unconstitutional Act of Congress known as the the Judiciary Act of 1925 (43 Stat. 936). This barbarous act reduced the workload of the Supreme Court of the United States and in effect denied the right to be heard by all citizens. From that moment on, your constitutional rights all became discretionary. Congress and the Supreme Court held you have the inferior courts. This is the same chaos created when Andrew Jackson closed the Bank of the United States and every bank began issuing their own money which all defaulted in the 1840s. Without a central bank controlling the inferior banks, we destroyed the financial system. The Judiciary Act of 1925 did the same to our constitutional rights. I was personally release ONLY because I won that lottery and the Supreme Court ordered the government to respond signally I made that cut – one of the 80 out of 7,000+.
The inferior courts are statutory, not constitutionally required, and as such exist at the pure discretion of Congress. We have 94 U.S. judicial districts which are organized into 12 regional circuits. They are not bound to a single unified rule of law or rules and that results in the denial of equal protection of the law. The ONLY court secured by the Constitution is the Supreme Court. That’s it folks! If you cannot be heard in that court, then you are denied your Constitutional right to Due Process of Law. Therefore, someone in the 9th circuit in California will be treated differently from the 2nd Circuit in New York. The Supreme Court is supposed to settle such differences, but it is not obligated to do so. This is what the Judiciary Act of 1925 pulled off – the undermining of our entire Constitution.
Previously, the Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States courts of appeals and rendered a small part of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction “discretionary” subject to grant of writ of certiorari. This began the process of reducing the workload of the Supreme Court, yet it remained obliged to rule. In December 1921, Chief Justice William Howard Taft appointed three justices to draw up a proposal to further reduce the obligation of the Supreme Court to hear cases. This became the Judiciary Act of 1925. It was Chief Justice Taft who pushed the passage of this bill in 1925, which rendered the majority of the Supreme Court’s workload discretionary.
The Judiciary Act or 1925 was clearly unconstitutional since Congress could not reduce the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Yet, William Howard Taft (1857 – 1930) served as the 27th President of the United States (1909–1913) and then became the 10th Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1921–1930). It was Chief Justice Taft who lobbied with Congress to effectively reduce the role of the Supreme Court. This is up there with Goldman Sachs sending in Robert Rubin as Secretary of Treasury to eliminate Glass-Steagall which was enacted because Goldman Sachs lost more money than any public trust during the Great Depression. The Supreme Court was involved and has NEVER ruled on the constitutionality of the Judiciary Act of 1925.
Centinel2012 