An interesting tweet from President Trump today with a clearly coded message to North Korean Chairman Kim Jong-un. Within the message President Trump notes an ongoing dialogue with Chinese Chairman Xi Jinping about Kim’s status.
The hostage negotiations happening against the backdrop of a negotiated ransom, the U.S-China “phase-one” trade agreement:
BEIJING (Reuters) – China will make good on a pledge to purchase more than $40 billion per year of U.S. agricultural products under the recently agreed Phase 1 trade deal between the two countries, China’s top agriculture consultancy said on Friday.
Chinese purchases of agricultural goods are expected to increase to $40 billion to $50 billion annually over the next two years under the deal aimed at resolving the long-running trade war between the world’s top two economies, according to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer.
The deal has yet to be signed, fuelling scepticism over whether China will be able to import such a large amount of U.S. farm products. (read more)
….
“Complicated business folks,… complicated business”…
Tonight President Trump will deliver remarks at Joint Base Andrews and sign the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. Included in the bill are twelve weeks of paid parental leave, initiation funds for the United States Space Force and Southern border wall funding. President Trump will then fly to Florida for the holidays.
This is interesting. Last year Speaker Pelosi used the SOU invite to play out political gamesagainst President Trump. This year, considering the political impeachment effort, I thought she would be likely to replay that scheme; but she didn’t. This implies the private polling and public sentiment (ie. bbacklash) against her constituent democrats must be much more severe than is currently visible:
Per Hogan Gidley: President Donald J. Trump has accepted the Speaker’s invitation to deliver the State of the Union Address on February 4, 2020.
Earlier today President Trump held a press availability in the oval office to welcome former democrat representative Jeff Van Drew into the republican party. Congressman Van Drew left the Democrat party as a result of the House impeachment fiasco.
[Video and Transcript Below]
.
[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much. We have a very big announcement, to me. I think it’s been many years — I hear 10 years, maybe more — where Jeff Van Drew, highly respected — in fact, I didn’t know, as a Democrat, how you could have won in that district. I know the district very well. But that is a great tribute to you. But Jeff will be joining the Republican Party.
And we were very fortunate he voted our way yesterday, as you probably know. And we had a totally unified party. I don’t think there’s ever been a time where the Republican Party was so united. But Jeff will be joining the Republican Party. And I really — to me, it’s a very exciting announcement. I think, Kevin, you said it was about 10 years since that’s happened.
LEADER MCCARTHY: Yeah.
THE PRESIDENT: And I don’t even know who the last one was. It would seem to me it was even more than that. But it’s a big deal.
LEADER MCCARTHY: It’s a very big deal because he’s going from the majority to the minority, and it normally doesn’t go that way.
THE PRESIDENT: Right. Yeah, but he’s very smart because he knows it’s not going to be the minority for long. I have a feeling we’re going to do very well in 2020, in November — November 3rd, to be exact. Get out and vote.
But, Jeff, thank you very much. It’s a great honor. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Please. Would you like to say something?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: So, I have a few words. And I usually never, ever — I don’t read speeches. And this won’t be very long —
THE PRESIDENT: Sure.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: — I promise you, Mr. President. But I had a few bullets. There’s a few points I really wanted to make today.
And I would start with how this started. I’ve been a Democrat for a lot of years. And I actually had a meeting with somebody about two weeks ago, I guess it was. And the individual was a local county chairman in the Democratic Party. And he sat down and he says, “I just want to tell you something.” And he said, “I want to tell you that you can’t vote against impeachment.”
I said, “What do you mean I can’t vote against impeachment?” He says, “You can’t vote against impeachment. You will not…” I have eight counties in my district. “You will not get the line. You will not get the county. I will do everything to prevent that from happening, and everything to destroy you.” This is a pretty young guy, so it was pretty gutsy.
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. A wise guy.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: And it kind of hurt because, for years, I have given everything that I could to my people and my district.
You know, Mr. President, you asked why I win. Truthfully, because I’m a crazy man, and when people have a problem, when they need something, when we want to help them — I have the best staff in the world, good people around me, and we do everything that we can to make it better.
And that kind of hurt, and it kind of made me think a little bit: Is this what I really want to do? Because there were other times in my life, when I thought about this. I thought about it when I did legislation. And, actually, it was in the state senate.
And I don’t know if this is going to be relatable to not, but I want to say it anyhow because I’ve always wanted to just mention this because I think it’s important, in a way. This is not — it was not a complex bill. It was not something that was, you know, very difficult to understand. It isn’t intellectually stimulating to some people. I understand. But I did two bills, and one of them — it’s unusual for New Jersey — would allow, in any public or private building, to have “In God We Trust” on the wall. And the second one was that you could fly the American flag wherever you wanted to, however you wanted to, as long as it was respectful.
And I thought these were wonderful bills. I mean, I thought everybody was going to be, “This is just a great thing.” And I had some very progressive — and not all Democrats — but these were really progressive Democrats that came to me and said, “We’re really disgusted with you.” And I said, “Why?” “Making such a big deal about the flag. The flag is just not that big a deal.”
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: “‘In God We Trust’ is not that big deal.”
THE PRESIDENT: That’s where they’re going.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: “And you shouldn’t even mention His name.” And I was shocked. I was shocked. We put them up anyhow, and we did want we wanted to do. But it really —
THE PRESIDENT: That’s a very Republican thing, by the way. (Laughter.)
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: I know. I know.
THE PRESIDENT: You’re not going to find any one of us that — I can tell you, Kevin, Mike, I think you’re okay with it, right?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: And I think most folks should be okay with it.
THE PRESIDENT: The whole country should be okay with it.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: You’re right.
I talk about American exceptionalism. This is the greatest country on the face of the Earth. I started out as not a wealthy kid. Had the opportunity to work hard. Got into dental school, graduated. And, my God, I’m sitting here next to the President of the United States. That’s unbelievable. That’s America.
So I don’t want anybody to ever tell me that there isn’t American exceptionalism. I don’t want anybody to ever say that this is the same as every other country in the world, because it is not. It is not. And you know that and I know that. And, hopefully, everybody in this room knows that.
And, again, from certain groups of people that represented certain parts of the party, I was criticized. And they said this country is the same as every other country, and there is no such thing as American exceptionalism.
I’m a capitalist. Socialism, in my opinion, has no place in the United States of America. And I think everyone should know that.
I believe that this country can afford people opportunity and give them that opportunity so that they can succeed. And we all should know that as well.
I love bipartisanship. Do you know that I even had times, quite frankly, being a Democrat — again, not from all folks; there’s some middle-of-the-road folks — but from some of these extreme folks that they said, “Bipartisanship is a bad thing.”
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: “It’s a bad thing because it’s going to make you more like a Republican.” Again, I don’t believe that. I don’t think you do. I believe in what you’re doing with the economy. It’s a better, stronger economy. I believe it’s going to be even better.
THE PRESIDENT: A new record today, by the way. It’s up 125 points today. So your 401(k)s are way up. But a new record today, Jeff. So, that’s great.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: And thank you for that. I believe the New Green Deal is something that we should never, ever even think about doing. I don’t even know how anybody could bring that up. We can have a strong and good environment and we can have a good economy at the same time. And that’s something that I think Republicanism represents.
Lower taxes, balancing the budget, honoring our police, our fire, our rescue, our veterans, our soldiers — these men and women.
I want to tell you one quick story. Chris will have a picture of it. He’s — like I said, he’s a Marine. An older gentleman. Is he a Marine too, that stood out there?
PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible.)
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: He’s a Marine, right? An older gentleman, when he heard I announced — in the cold — came in front of my office and stood out there holding the American flag for 12 hours in honor of it.
THE PRESIDENT: That’s great. Wow.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: It’s — it was an amazing thing. And not quite the peop- — the length of time people wait for you, but —
THE PRESIDENT: That’s okay. (Laughter.)
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: — that was still pretty neat. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: That’s okay. They won’t do that if you’re a Democrat, I can tell you right now. Wouldn’t go well.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: So, I guess what I say is, I believe that this is just a better fit for me. This is who I am. It’s who I always was, but there was more tolerance of moderate Democrats, of blue-dog Democrats, of conservative Democrats. And I think that’s going away.
Two more things I want to say: One, you have my undying support.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: And always.
THE PRESIDENT: And, by the way, same way.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: I’m endorsing him. Okay? We’re endorsing him. I can’t speak for these two gentlemen, but I can say, “I’m endorsing him.”
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: How do you feel about that, Mike? Are you okay?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: You have my support and gratitude, Congressman.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
LEADER MCCARTHY: You have my support as well.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: Thank you, Leader.
THE PRESIDENT: We’re together. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: And the last thing I will say: One of my heroes — and he’s always hung in my office; I have a bipartisan wall that has a lot of different people on there — Ronald Reagan. And when he said, “I didn’t leave my party. My party left me.”
THE PRESIDENT: That’s true. That’s what he said.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: And I’m saying the same thing.
THE PRESIDENT: He was a Democrat and he — he moved over. And he said exactly those words. That’s fantastic. Thank you very much. (Applause.) Thank you very much.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I just — I just want to say: Welcome to the Republican Party.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: Thank you.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Congressman, it’s an honor to share this moment with you, with the President of the United States, and with the Republican Leader, with your team and their family, as well as, I know, another public official from New Jersey that will be following your lead.
THE PRESIDENT: That’s right.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: But as I told you before, I also — I just want to tell you how grateful we are for your voice of reason and common sense in the days leading up to your decision. You showed personal and political courage. And I know the people of your district will be as grateful as we are today for your leadership and for the decision you’ve made.
And we look forward — we look forward to serving with you together and working with you on behalf of New Jersey and America for many years to come.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
THE PRESIDENT: Good. Thank you, Mike. Kevin?
LEADER MCCARTHY: Well, we just want to welcome you to the party, but more importantly, if there’s anybody else that feels like you. If there are other people out there that feel this new socialist-Democrat wing of the party has left them behind, join with us. Because everything you talked about is an American issue, and it shouldn’t — it shouldn’t have to be debated, whether there’s a flag or God or others.
And so we’ve worked together even when you were on the other side of the aisle, but it’s nice to have you on this side now, too.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: Thank you.
LEADER MCCARTHY: And you just changed our number to 18. We only need 18 more to be the majority. And I think we’ll do that soon.
THE PRESIDENT: We’re going to do very well. We’re way up in the polls. And we’ve gone up more, I think, proportionately, than we have ever gone up, in the last two weeks. And we’re honored.
Now, I understand, they’re playing games. They don’t want to put in their articles — their ridiculous, phony, fraudulent articles. And I think they’re not allowed to do that. I hear it’s unconstitutional and a lot of other things. But they don’t want to put them in because they’re ashamed of them, because it’s a — what they’ve done is wrong and it’s bad for the country. Very, very bad for the country.
We’re trying to get USMCA done. We’re going to get that done, I think, pretty quickly.
We have our great deal with China. China has already started to buy, with the farmers and with the manufacturers. Tremendous amounts of money are being spent back in the United States. And the farmers are happy. They had to put up with a lot, but we took care of them out of the subsidies that we were getting out of the tariffs that we were getting. But China is now buying very big in the farm belt and in the manufacturing belt also. They’re spending a lot of money. And I said it was going to happen and it happened.
And we’re going to get a lot more. They want to make — they want to keep going. They’re still paying tremendous amounts of tariffs, and they’d like to have the tariffs reduced. And we’ll see if we can get a second part of the deal. But the USMCA — the combination of those two deals will be the two greatest trade deals. You’ll never see anything like it. So we’ve done very much what we’ve said.
You know, Jeff, we rebuilt our military. We spent almost $2.5 trillion on the military. When we came in, the military was totally depleted. I will say, the Democrats did not help. They’re not into the military at all. And we spent $2.5 trillion. We have new planes. We have new everything right now. Much of it’s coming over the next year. But within a year, we’ll be in a position that we’ve never been in, in terms of equipment. And the military will be a strong as it ever was — proportionately, maybe stronger.
So it’s been an amazing period of time. And to have you is a tremendous asset for the party.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: And again, thank you very much, my friend.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: We’re with you all the way.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: Thank you. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN DREW: I’m with you.
THE PRESIDENT: Tremendous honor. Thank you.
Q Mr. President, can you speak personally for a moment and just tell us: What does it feel like to be the third President in U.S. history to be impeached?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don’t feel like I’m being impeached, because it’s a hoax. It’s a setup. It’s a horrible thing they did. They happened to have a small majority, and they took that small majority and they forced people. And, you know, they said, “Oh…” I watched Pelosi out there saying, “Oh, no. We don’t want to talk to anybody.” They put the arm on everybody. They tried to get them to do what they had to do. Many of those people were like Jeff, where they didn’t want to vote that way.
But it doesn’t feel — to me, it doesn’t feel like impeachment. Last night, I said it — I — we had a great time last night. The room was packed. Thousands of people couldn’t get in. A section that, really, is a pretty much 50-50 section, in terms of Democrat-Republican, we had — every one of those people is voting for Trump/Pence. Every one of them. And it’s Michigan — an important state. We brought back tremendous amounts of business, tremendous car companies coming in — everything else.
And I’ll tell you, I was up there and I was thinking about — I actually said it: It doesn’t feel like impeachment. And you know what? It’s a phony deal. And they cheapened the word “impeachment.” It’s an ugly word. But they cheapened the word “impeachment.” That should never again happen to another President.
And I think you’ll see some very interesting things happen over the coming few days and weeks.
But, to me, all I look at: We have the greatest economy in the history of our country. We’ve never done so well. Our military being rebuilt. You take a look at the tax cuts. You take a look at the regulation cuts at levels that nobody has ever seen. We’re protecting our Second Amendment, which other people won’t do.
No, we’re doing things that nobody has ever done before. Nobody has ever seen. We have the strongest economy in the history of our country and our country is doing well.
And, you know, the other thing that I really saw from yesterday that — I think you people have been covering politics for a long time. You’ve never seen a Republican Party — zero negative votes. Zero. That hasn’t happened almost ever. Because the Republicans are not necessarily known for that.
We have better policy. They want open borders — the Democrats. They want sanctuary cities. A lot of bad things happen. A lot of other things they have.
We’re doing tremendously on healthcare. The individual mandate — you know, we won yesterday in Supreme Court. You saw that, in the appellate division. We won yesterday. Individual mandate is now gone. That’s tremendous savings. That was the worst part of Obamacare. We take care of preexisting conditions. They’re not going to be able to do that.
We’re doing things that nobody has ever done before, and our country has never done better. So, we’re really happy about it, and we’re really happy to have Jeff onboard.
And we think, in 2020, based on the polls — I just saw a poll came out in USA Today yesterday where I’m beating every candidate by a lot. I guess most of you saw it. Not that USA Today is a friend of mine, because they’re not. But they had a poll, and it was me against their top candidates on the other side. And I’m beating everybody by a lot. And I think that’s where we’re going.
I mean, we have the best economy in history. And if you remember the famous quote, “It’s all about the economy, stupid.” Well, I don’t — I never believed it was all about the economy. But the economy is a big thing. When you have 401(k)s where people are up 70, 80, 90 — and even more than that — percent. They like Trump, and they like Mike. And we’re going to have a good time.
Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Q Can you tell us about your strategy for the Senate, sir? Can you tell us a little bit about your strategy for the Senate trial?
THE PRESIDENT: Uh, we think that what they did is wrong. We think that what they did is unconstitutional. And the Senate is very, very capable. We have great senators — Republican senators. We cut your taxes. We cut your regulations. We did things that nobody else would even think about being able to do.
And I think — you know what one of the things, Jeff, that we’ve done that nobody wants to talk about: This week, I will have signed the 172nd federal judge, including appellate judges. We’ll have 182 by the end of the year. One hundred and eighty-two. It’s unheard of.
Now, President Obama was very nice to us. He gave us 142 empty positions. That’s never happened before. But, as you know, that’s said to be the most important thing that a President has. I happen to think military and defense and all of it is the most important thing, but this is right up there.
We’ll have 172 judges. We’re going to have 182 by the end of the year or shortly thereafter. And it’s the most incredible thing. And two Supreme Court justices — two great ones.
So with all of the things we’ve done, and we’ve done that with the Senate — because what’s never said is that, in the last election, we picked up two Senate seats. Nobody talks about that. And we couldn’t focus on the House. I couldn’t focus on the House. We’ll be very focused on the House this time. But I couldn’t — other than Andy Barr, who won against the same candidate that’s now going against Mitch. And she wasn’t very good against Andy Barr, and she won’t be very good against Mitch McConnell.
But we’ve had tremendous success. So, I’m going to let them decide what to do. That’s going to be up to them.
Thank you all very much. Thank you everybody. Thank you. Thank you.
Q Is Pat going to be your lead attorney in the Senate?
THE PRESIDENT: I think so, yeah. He’s doing a great job. Pat.
Q You think so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.
Q Is he going to be your main lawyer in the Senate?
THE PRESIDENT: It looks like that. Yeah, Pat Cipollone. We have a couple of others that we’re going to put in. But Pat has been fantastic as White House Counsel.
QUESTION: I remember watching a documentary about you where none other than James Comey put you in jail illegally and forced you to admit guilt to some nonsense. Similar to what happened to General Flynn in recent years. Now that the deep state is being dismantled, do you plan on filing a lawsuit against the government? Any comments at all one way or the other?
J
ANSWER: Actually, to my complete shock, the company was officially closed in 2009 yet they have kept the receivership going for 20 years. Republic National Bank and HSBC plead CRIMINALLY guilty and had to pay back all my clients because they were illegally trading in our accounts. The bankers were simply taking money illegally from our accounts using it as their capital and then put it back in the wrong account which how I caught them. They were using our funds as their own capitalization and were parking their trades in our accounts besides using our money like MF Global. Of course, like MF Global, New York always protects that bankers and nothing is ever done which has disgraced the United States in the eyes of the entire world.
Despite internal audits that showed we were indeed conservative using only 4% of cash for margin and were profitable into 1998. Nothing Republic alleged could be supported. They simply tried to cover-up their own illegal trading in our accounts. We dealt with Deutsche Bank and even had my own brokerage house. The only problem was at Republic New York Securities – no other institution.
(Go to Armstrong’s blog to hear audio)
Audio tapes which revealed the bank’s illegal actions were either deliberately withheld from the government by the receiver to keep his fees going for 20 years, or they claimed they were destroyed in 9/11 World Trade Center event. This is one copy I found in my mother’s basement when I got out. Did the government ever listen to the tapes? Or were the tapes withheld to protect the bankers and then the Receiver was made a board member of Goldman Sachs?
If the government never reviewed these tapes, then will they suddenly prosecute the receiver and his counsel? Or will the government concede they had them all along and still engaged in a fraudulent prosecution for political reasons to protect the bankers? Was Comey aware of this? Did he sanction it to protect the bankers as he protected Hillary? After all, it was the Clintons who gave a wink and a nod to the bankers trying to take over Russia by blackmailing Yeltsin after arranging a $7 billion theft of money from the IMF loans. (CNN Theft of IMF Money – Sep. 1, 1999)(CNN Russian money laundering probe widens – Aug. 26, 1999).
All phone lines are recorded in financial situations. The receiver threatened all my lawyers to throw them in contempt unless they handed over all the tapes. There were tapes where openly the bankers were asking me to joun them on a platinum manipulation. They paid bribes to Russian ministers to recall the platinum to take an inventory. I stood up and stated that these tapes would reveal criminal activity on the part of the bankers. They somehow were conveniently destroyed in 9/11 to protect the bankers?
These are questions I would certainly love to have answered. But it is also why they used civil contempt to keep me in prison because you are NOT entitled to a public trial where I could have called the bankers to the stand. The prosecutors protected the bankers at every step of the way.
After the bank plead guilty and had to pay everyone back to escape even a fine, the receiver stood before the court and alleged there was another fraud to which I was never charged. No complaint was ever filed and they admitted in open court there was no criminal description of the allegation. Nevertheless, they just arbitrarily kept me in prison for 5 years without any justification whatsoever in complete denial of Due Process of Law like some corrupt third world country. That is supposed to be a violation of human right the USA accuses China of doing, yet New York does this routinely and the American press also protects the prosecutors.
The judge was even changing the transcripts, which is a criminal act by itself. The court reporter is supposed to swear under oath that the transcript is true and correct recording of the event. None of my transcripts were ever certified because the judge kept changing them. (Rule 5007(a) “The person preparing any transcript shall promptly file a certified copy.”). Even the court reporters conspire against you to deny you Due Process of Law in New York. Believe it or not, this was even address in the court of appeals in another case and the court said the judges should stop it, but they lacked the power to order them to obey the law.
“The Southern District of New York follows a practice that is unusual and perhaps unique. … Because the parties receive only a printed transcript that incorporates the judge’s revisions, the parties are not informed of such revisions. … Courts do not have power to alter transcripts in camera and to conceal the alterations from the parties. Given the issues that arose in this case as a direct result of this practice, there appears to be little justification for continuing the practice in its present form. Nevertheless, whether we have the power to order a change in such a practice is unclear. We review judgments, and our review of the convictions and sentences here may not be an appropriate vehicle for the fine tuning of this practice. However, we invite the judges of the Southern District to consider revision.”
I wrote to the government and said what is the point of a trial when you people can simply alter a transcript and claim I confessed to even killing JFK and the press will NEVER question anything. I had even wrote to the ACLU, and they did not wish to take on the system in New York. They were just scared I supposed. Forget the press ever defending the people. They have joined the conspiracy against the people that allows government to act in this manner knowing they will never be questioned.
I did an interview with the Japanese press and told them to tell my clients to come sue the bank or they would NEVER see a dime. The bank was trying to claim their staff conspired with me which made no sense and they had to plead guilty. My clients did as I directed and filed suit against the bankers and I met with the lead attorney who said “you are collateral damage” and I said yes, I know. We agreed to cooperate and help each other. The government ushered in HSBC and then put a permanent gag order on me to prevent me from helping my clients. That was just unbelievable how far they will go to protect bankers.
Judge Lawrence McKenna was trying to protect me. The government removed him from my case behind the curtain without any hearing or allowing me to object or be advised what they were doing. That is completely illegal but they do whatever they want in New York City. They sealed all of those entries in the docket which were all ex parte so nobody can see the truth of how they were manipulating even the judges to get the result they wanted.
I refused to plead ever saying I took money or even tried to take money from my clients. They finally wrote a plea where all I had to say was I failed to tell my client over a weekend that the bank took money for its own benefit – not me.
Legally, if you enter a plea, the judge is supposed to make sure it is true and not coerced. Here I was not allowed to speak in my own words but had to read a script (allocution) written by the government and the judge even said you are to read a script no different than a hostage held by terrorists. It was after that when I believe they orchestrated to have me killed. I was in a coma for three days but survived to their dismay. I knew they would kill Jeffrey Epstein for that is what they do when they can’t take you to trial.
I had no restitution because the bank had to plead guilty and repay my clients – not me!
What people do not realize is that the ONLY reason they released me was because I got into the Supreme Court back in 2007. They released me and told the Supreme Court the case was moot because I was no longer in contempt.
After finding out that 20 years later and 10 years after the company was shut down, the Receiver still had millions of dollars he was siphoning off fees year after year to make sure he grabbed every penny. Everything he had been ordered to return he simply refused and was paying $5,000 in storage fees per month for 20 years. I filed an appeal trying to get my stuff back and of course the New York court always rules in favor of just the government as the Washington Post and CNN always write against Trump. What they count on is that it costs more than a quarter million just to appeal to the supreme court and out of thousands of petitions, they take about 100 a year. Since I got in the first time, they viewed the odds of the same case getting into the Supreme Court again was maybe one in billion.
Well, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government had to respond by December 2nd. They asked for an extension, and were granted until January 2nd. In my case, there are three main lines of cases the Supreme Court has already ruled are unconstitutional yet the New York courts just ignored the Supreme Court. The New York Court has simply refused to follow the Supreme Court despite the fact one came out even 6 months before my case. On top of that, there was never any statutory authority for a receiver. The SEC asked for that authority and was granted it only in 2010. The obvious question becomes, just how far will the Supreme Court go. There was NEVER any authority to have acted as they did.
It is now up to the Supreme Court to decide. I suspect the bare minimum is they will finally have to return everything they were supposed to do 20 years ago. If the Supreme Court goes fully ahead and orders oral argument, we may see a decision by March or June 30th, 202
Thank you for all the training you have been teaching us for years. Even though I have gone through 3 universities and have special titles in economics and finance, only after accompanying you for these 15 years, I could understand a little of the true world in which we live.
I have two points that I would like you to please update us on. One about the serious problems in emerging economies that you have been constantly warning us about and the other about the real estate market in which you anticipated it would only gain momentum after 2032 according to your cycle chart attached.
About the BRICs I am seeing the Brazilian economy making a major restructuring in public spending, decreasing social security spending and other measures that have improved the accounts and greatly increased confidence. Millions of dollars are flowing into real estate with an appetite I haven’t seen in a long time. What is your opinion about these flows? Will real estate grow vigorously or not? I see that funds like Blackstone etc …. are creating thousands of funds for real estate. Are we going to have now another boom in real estate in Brasil and all world? How does this fit in with your constant predictions and analyzes?
You have been predicting that the capital available to finance new homes would decrease but I see it has been growing absurdly.
You have repeatedly stated that low-interest rates for a long time were destroying pension funds. However, I do not see USA popular uprising after 11 years with rates close to zero which combined with hidden inflation certainly lost more than half of purchasing power.
I see Brazil obsessed with lowering the interest rate more and more on the grounds that it will stimulate the economy. I found that this drop in rates boosted real estate sales. Certainly capital is seeking better rates of return in real estate than in the bank.
How do these “apparent” divergences confront your analysis and predictions?
Thank you for your continued help. Please help me get out of this big conflict in my head between the real world that I am seeing and your statements.
SP
ANSWER: There is a huge difference between lowering the interest rate in a third world economy that has risen sharply because of a lack of confidence and lowering interest rates artificially to below zero. Interest rates follow a bell curve. They are NOT linear. Raising interest rates to stop inflation is the first part of the curve. If capital loses confidence in a country, then the economy turns down and interest rates rise because of risk. This was the position of Brazil. You are also making the PRESUMPTION that the efforts in Brazil WILL BE successful simply because that is their public opinion. There has been no Bull Reversal election on a monthly level in the Brazilian bond markets so you are talking about anticipation.
The Central Bank of Brazil voted unanimously to trim its key Selic rate by 50 bps to 4.50% during its December meeting. It was the fourth consecutive rate cut bringing borrowing costs to its lowest on record. This Keynesian economics plan is neither negative nor experimental as the negative rates in Europe and Japan. Brazil is lowering rates because of the global economic slowdown in HOPES that it will help the domestic economy recover (which it has not just yet). Brazil is NOT following Europe, and that said, any further lowering of rates will be data-dependent. The peak in rates was 45% back in March of 1999, and a record low of 4.50% in December of 2019. You seem to have a lot of faith in central banks being able to manipulate the economy. That is your conflict. You believe them too much.
The average person in the USA is not going to rise up because of pensions until it starts impacting more people. Up to now, the bulk of the pension crisis has been in the public sector. It has begun to spread to some large companies. If you expect everyone to start rioting before it even hits them, I think you are being unrealistic. Major companies are already freezing pensions, but this is impacting unions so far. For the first time, you have organizations forming because of pension freezes. Illinois is going bankrupt because its supreme court ruled they cannot renegotiate public pensions. There has been an open discussion that they should just dissolve Illinois because they cannot default on the pensions. CALPERS of California has politicians looking to usurp all private pension in California and hand them to CALPERS to save public pensions. CALPERS has been lobbying in Washington for such authority to seize even 401K plans of private individuals. There are many starting to look at CALPERS, they have dubbed the pension fund that ate California.
Real estate is a LEVERAGED market in many economies. Each market will depend upon what extent the real estate is leveraged. The problem is that real estate has is this dependency upon bank lending. If banks refuse to lend long-term, then real estate collapses to the degree of leverage. The average market remains well below the 2007 high. The high-end market rallied in particular areas where foreign capital was moving in to escape places elsewhere. So you saw new highs in Vancouver, Miami, New York, LA, and London just to mention a few. This was not the trend outside of those cities in the regional markets. So do not confuse the regional centers with the targets of foreign capital high-end sectors. Also, you better understand the leverage. The critical factor is that when confidence in the long-term collapses, banks will not lend long-term so to sell a place will require a cash buyer. I just had a friend who bought a place that had been sold for $7 million in 2007, which he bought at auction for $2.6 million because there were no buyers in a regional market.
Buying up real estate for cash in these BRICS is all currency based. I have explained that in 1985, when the British pound fell to $1.03, the Americans were buying up everything for the country was on sale like at Harrods. The Brits thought we were crazy for paying high prices in pounds. But the foreign investors were coming in with dollars. This will be the same in the BRICS as the dollar moves even higher. It is the real estate markets in USA and Europe where taxes are rising and lending will become questionable. Not cash deals in the BRICS.
The attempts of Brazil to reform are in line with the Economic Confidence Model turn on January 18, 2020. The next cycle should be one where commodities begin to rise mainly between 2022 and 2024.
While the swamp is voting on false and malicious impeachment articles, our President travels to Battle Creek, MI to hold a MERRY CHRISTMAS Rally at the Kellogg Arena. President Trump is expected to speak at 7:00pm EST
COMMENT #1: I am about your age. 35 years ago my niece died 10 days after receiving the MMR vaccine at 18 months old. 2 years prior her sister nearly died 10 days after receiving the MMR vaccine, still with a disability. I asked many Doctors was it the vaccine they all said no. I found a Doctor in New Jersey and paid for a consultation and he said, of course, it was the vaccine, but he would not put in writing. My children never received the MMR vaccine and they both had measles. The Documentary Vaxxed documented the CDC Scientist, Williams Thompson covered up the risk to the MMR vaccine. Keep talking about this important subject.
Thank you.
GW
COMMENT #2: Hi Marty
The vaccine issue is complex and multi-faceted. As an RN I concur that the pharmaceutical lobby has a powerful grip on most medical providers in terms of incentives and kickbacks which in itself is corrupt. Big Pharma spends a lot of money to sway Congress to adopt laws that benefit their industry. It always comes down to money.
The other aspect which plays into the mix is illegal immigration. These children are entering the US with NO VACCINE/HEALTH RECORDS…so we do not know their history or what diseases they have had or are immune to. They may be harboring previously eradicated illnesses that have not been seen in first world countries for decades and/or illnesses that are not native to the US.
The government is well aware of that risk, and their answer is to vaccinate ALL CHILDREN. The vaccine issue and the illegal immigration issue go hand in hand. Until one issue is solved the other issue will persist. Corruption is rampant and nobody wants to deal with it honestly.
Btw, I signed up for Socrates and may be moving to your neck of the woods in 2020. Trying to escape NYC which is another can of worms!
KO
COMMENT #3 (From Australia): Martin,
Years ago, when our older children were toddlers, my wife did a ton of vaccine research, and we discussed her findings. We decided that we would opt out of Pertussis or Send hooping Cough (since the risk of severe side effects was sufficient for the government to have set up a relief fund for children adversely affected by the vaccine) and opt for the dead Polio vaccine since the live Polio vaccine runs a “slight” risk of Polio infection.
We changed pediatricians when we broached the subject with her because she was so adamant against it. We have heard horror stories about doctors bringing Child Protective Services in against parents on medical matters where doctors’ “livelihoods” are at stake, so we decided to part ways before things got nasty.
Even at other pediatricians, we had to special order the dead Polio vaccine because all that was typically carried was the live vaccine. Nurses looked at us like we were from another planet (we were–the non-socialist one). Anyway, we stuck to our guns.
In 1994, there was an outbreak of Pertussis in our church. Many children (including our only two children at the time) and several adults got it. Pertussis is a nuisance, but not very dangerous except for infants and the elderly. The strange thing is that the outbreak began with a girl right after she was immunized, and the pastor’s daughter, who was “immunized”, also came down with it.
Later, we discovered that the live Polio vaccine had been discontinued in favor of the dead vaccine. Apparently enough other parents saw the “slight” risk of infection as unacceptable.
Our next two children had very mild cases of Pertussis at 4 and 2. When one of our other children turned four, we decided that we would rather not risk another case with her. When we asked our pediatrician (yet another one, for we had moved) about the vaccine, she got up, closed the door, turned, and asked us, “Why are you vaccinating this child against Pertussis?” She proceeded to tell us what we already knew from my wife’s research years before. We smiled and knew we had found the right pediatrician.
She became a missionary to Australians in the bush.
Keep up the good work, and if I don’t say so before then, Merry Christmas to you, your family, and your staff!
DB
P.S., when the Chicken Pox vaccine came out, a friend of mine had their daughter immunized. This child was developmentally normal in every way. That night she became largely unresponsive. She did eventually get some interaction back but is largely Autistic to this day. She lives in her own little world, although is occasionally extremely affectionate even toward strangers. She had to be watched constantly because she doesn’t understand the dangers of life. It is very sad.
COMMENT #4: I have a small business near DC and one of my repeat clients came in to buy something for the holidays. He is a no-nonsense guy from Montana. As we were talking, I asked him what he did for a living. He said he was a lawyer and when I asked which area he specialized in, he said “vaccine cases.” I was surprised having only heard in the press about the rebellious backward-thinking folks that are stupid enough to refuse vaccines.
His whole career, it turns out, is representing the terribly sad stories of children adversely affected by reactions to vaccines. We talked a while and he explained the immunity granted to the vaccine companies. He said “Congress is well aware there are serious problems with vaccines. That is why they set up a fund in the 1980s specifically to pay off vaccine lawsuits.” Yikes! Really?!
Seeing my interest, he added that his second-largest client base in recent years is representing those who have reactions to flu shots and the various levels of paralysis and persistent pain that folks experience from improperly administered flu shots. Many poorly trained folks at the neighborhood drugstore, supermarket, or wherever, give improperly administered flu shots that end up penetrating the bursa layer of the shoulder and the resulting pain, in the form of chronic bursitis, often lasts without relief for years. Some folks have nerve issues, some can’t raise or use their arm. The pain is often intense and never-ending.
I had no idea! He said a flue shot properly administered by a professional would not likely have issues, but after all the things he’s seen, he wasn’t a big believer that the strain of flu the flu shot protected you from was likely to be the one you’d come in contact with and catch anyway. As it is now, without them knowing a year ahead which strain to make the vaccine for, it is not worth the risk he said. They had so many flu shot cases in his office they referred to a new one as “another Walgreen’s case.” Just thought you might want to mention to your loyal readers- if they are getting a flu shot, to get it from an actual doctor or nurse.
Thank you for all of your amazing work, insights, and the knowledge you share.
CE
COMMENT #5: Martin, you are on the right track on vaccines. Perhaps one of your researchers could look into this. I think you will find it interesting. One thing about people is their different genetics and due to genetic differences, some are not able to detox as well as others. A doctor in Virginia found this applied to molds. Some people have a really hard time and are sick in moldy houses while others are not. He found the sick ones had differences in genes from those that were okay with mold. He concluded the sick ones were prevented by their genetic structure from detoxing the mold toxins.
How does this relate to vaccines? The ones affected may not be able to detox well due to genetics. While genetics can be tested for, nobody is doing it in relation to detoxing and vaccines (I am not in the field so maybe they are, I wouldn’t really know for sure.) In the 1990s, at least in Canada, the government and vaccine companies took the mercury out of children’s vaccines. It was done quietly with no announcements.
My belief on this is that they found out the mercury in the vaccines was actually responsible for the increased autism in children and maybe other illnesses as well. The reason? Some children can detox the mercury and others can’t, and when they can’t it builds up and causes all kinds of problems including autism symptoms or maybe even autism itself.
Again, I am just a layperson and can’t prove any of this. But why did they take the mercury out for children’s vaccines? They were giving so many vaccinations to children in the 1990s compared to before which is caused by a flurry of health problems in children. Why did they allow mercury in the vaccines in the first place? It is called thimerosal. Well, it is because they then can have multiple doses in one vial and it costs less to have multiple doses in one vial instead of one vial per dose.
Governments are approving all this. In Canada, thimerosal is still in the flu vaccine and governments are okay because it costs less and flu vaccines are paid for by the government. But one can still get the non-mercury flu vaccine through some doctors but it costs extra for the patient.
I personally have no problem with vaccines including those with mercury. I detox well. But some people including in my family don’t detox well. For the parents of children now, how can they find out if their children detox well before giving them the vaccines?
Is anyone really talking about this? I appreciate your blog and hope you can find some help in exploring this subject and blowing it wide open. You have the resources to do this, which I don’t have. I’d do it if I could. Children are being sacrificed unnecessarily. We have the medical technology to do the testing but it is not being done.
Will genetic testing and screening help? I can’t prove it but there is enough information and work done to suggest it should be investigated.
WC
REPLY: This vaccine crisis is worldwide. Most vaccines carry a risk where you can contract the very disease that the vaccine seeks to prevent, albeit this happens in a small percentage of cases. But there are numerous cases on a worldwide basis. There should be more studies, for even in economics and physics there is the superposition principle where two cyclical waves exactly opposite of each other can cancel each other out. However, when two waves in the same direction join, that is when you get the rogue wave. These are basic principles in physics that apply to disease as well.
Any medicine often has instructions not to mix with other medicines. That seems to be missing from vaccines. Their 100% immunity from legal action is WRONG for it prevents them from finding out the solution.
Those who try to paint parents who do not trust vaccines as crazy people will usually point to the medical, pharmaceutical establishments, and mainstream media, are all in unison in their message that there are no real dangers with vaccines. We all know that the press can be bought and the pharmaceutical industry would not need absolute immunity if there was nothing to worry about. As for the medical industry, there are doctors who speak out behind the curtain and will warn you that the pharmaceutical industry is so powerful they can shut you down and even remove licenses. We all know how honest the bankers are and how banks that blew up the entire world economy 2007-2010 are also exempt from any prosecution.
I am well aware of the problem of allowing illegal aliens. Prosecutors are only interested in their careers. To prosecute someone, all other safeguards are eliminated. While in contempt of court, I contracted a parasite that went into my left eye. When I explained it to the doctor, she said I was wrong and didn’t know what I was talking about. Such things, she said, only existed in South America. Well, the vision in my left eye to this day is damaged. I was denied all medical attention by the government. When I got out, I saw a specialist in imported diseases. He just looked at my blood work and said you have a parasite. It took maybe three minutes. Allowing people from South America to come in has been importing diseases that were eradicated here decades ago.
There has to be some middle ground. The number of people writing in with horror stories is really mind-blowing. The doctors do not want to put it in writing because they are afraid of getting sued. This vaccine conspiracy is the same as global warming. They try to demonize anyone who opposes them.
The Democrats have demonized Trump as a racist over these illegal aliens. To cover up the crises of importing diseases, they then mandated vaccines. Once again, this comes back to politicians opposing Trump, and hiding the risk of importing diseases as a result.
I strongly suggest that everyone write to Trump. The reason the establishment hates Trump is that he cannot be bought. That is where to begin. It could become a campaign issue in 2020 if enough people write to the White House.
Earlier today President Trump and First Lady Melania welcomed Guatemala President Jimmy Morales and his wife to the White House. Prior to their bilateral meeting the two leaders held a press availability in the Oval Office. [Video and Transcript Below]
.
[Transcript] – PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, thank you very much. It’s a great honor to have President Jimmy Morales and Mrs. Morales —
MRS. MORALES: Thank you.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: — of Guatemala with us. We’ve had a tremendous relationship over the last two years, on the border. We’ve signed agreements with Guatemala that have been tremendous in terms of really both countries, but our country, with respect to illegals coming into our country. We just can’t have it. And it’s been very much slowed up. Guatemala has been terrific. Honduras, El Salvador, likewise, have been excellent.
And, as you know, we have 27,000 Mexican soldiers on our border right now protecting our border. So it’s been, really, very good. The results are very good.
The wall is being built. We’re building a very big wall. We’re up to almost 100 miles already. And we should have over 400 miles, hopefully by the end of next year, if everything keeps going on the same path, or shortly thereafter. But we should have pretty close to 400 miles — maybe more than that — up by the end of next year.
So we’re really doing a job in mostly immigration, I would say, with Guatemala, but we also do trade. They’re also buying some military equipment. And the relationship is very good. It’s a very important country from the standpoint of the border and trade. And we do a lot through Guatemala. A lot of things run through Guatemala.
Please.
Do you want to interpret? Yeah.
INTERPRETER: (Interprets the President’s remarks.)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Please.
PRESIDENT MORALES: (As interpreted.) For us, it’s an honor to be again in the USA, the main partner and ally of Guatemala, both in security and trade. We have achieved a lot of great success, and we have a great relationship. We have been able to work with migration, and we’re trying to make it legal, because by no means we can endanger minors or populations, who are vulnerable, to coming to the border illegally.
We have signed different agreements with the USA, including things related with trade and security. And we want to be able to negotiate temporary visas both for agriculture and construction sector.
And we are really honored to be right here at the White House. Thank you very much.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you very much.
One of the big things that’s happened with Guatemala — and Honduras, El Salvador, and some others — is that, in past administrations, they and others would not take people back. So if we had very dangerous people in our country and they came from Guatemala, or another country that we now have agreements with — we never had agreements with anybody — they just wouldn’t take them back. But now they have to take them back, and they take them back with open arms.
And by doing this, we’re getting rid of the most dangerous people. The people that are most dangerous, we’re getting them out of the United States because they don’t belong here. They didn’t come from here, and we’re getting them out. We’re taking them out by the thousands.
Thank you all very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Q Mr. President, what do you say to Americans —
Q Are you going to watch — are you going to watch the House proceedings tomorrow?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I’m not watching. I have not — I have not seen it.
Look, it’s a hoax. The whole impeachment thing is a hoax. We look forward to getting on to the Senate. We’re not entitled to lawyers. We’re not entitled to witnesses. We’re not entitled to anything in the House. It’s a total sham when you have a guy like Shifty Schiff go out and make up a statement that I’ve made. He said, “This is what he said.” But I never said it. He totally made it up. In Guatemala, they handle things much more diff- — much tougher than that.
And because of immunity — he has House immunity — because of immunity, he can’t be prosecuted. He — he took a statement and totally made it up. It was a lie. It was a fraud. And you just can’t do those things. So, you know, look, this has been a total sham from the beginning. Everybody knows it.
I’ve never seen the Republican Party so united. We got — on our last vote, as you know, we got 100 percent of the vote. I believe the Senate is equally as well united. I watched Mitch McConnell this morning. I watched numerous people last night — senators — and I think we’re equally well united.
They know it’s a hoax. It’s a witch hunt. And it’s just a continuation. It’s been going on now for almost three years. And it probably started before I even won the election, based on what we’re finding out with the insurance policy quotes and other things. So it’s a disgrace.
Yes, Steve.
Q Are you going to let Senator McConnell decide on witnesses and all of that?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yeah. He can decide.
And we’ll also have to decide on when we’re taking the vote for the USMCA. A very big — a very important deal. A very, very important deal with Mexico, Canada, ourselves. We’re going to have to decide whether or not that comes first or second. To me, I’d let the Senate decide on that.
Q And, Mr. President, do you take any responsibility for the fact that you’re about to be impeached?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No. I don’t take any — zero, to put it mildly. They took a perfect phone call that I had with the President of Ukraine — an absolutely perfect call. You know it; they all know it. Nothing was said wrong on that call. To impeach the President of the United States for that is a disgrace and it’s a mark on our country.
And I’ll tell you what: Other Presidents, in the future — unless they do something about this, other Presidents are going to have to live with this. And every time they do something that’s a little bit unpopular or a little bit strong — even if they’re 100 percent right —
Because I’ve done a great job, when you look at the kind of jobs we’ve created, when you look at the economy that we’ve created, when you look at rebuilding the military, taking care of the vets. You just take a look at what we’ve done with Choice — Veterans Choice; with Accountability and the vets; with what we’ve done to protect our Second Amendment; and so many other things. Nobody has done as much as I’ve done in the first three years.
Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Q Mr. President, on Guatemala — on Guatemala, are you planning to withhold aid if the new President-elect of Guatemala does not implement your immigration agreement, Mr. President?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Guatemala is terrific.
Q But what if they — the President —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Guatemala has been terrific. Thank you.
Great interview with United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer as he described the goals, objectives and outcomes of the USMCA and U.S-China Phase One agreements.
While answering a question about Wall St. journal criticism of the USMCA, Lighthizer discussed the dynamic of Wall Street -vs- Main Street as part of the bigger picture objective in the revised deal. He avoids the words “globalism” -vs- “nationalism” but the sentiment as described is there.
On China Lighthizer emphasizes the “phase one” deal is really a test to see if it is even possible to have an enforceable trade agreement between a communist state-run economy (China) and a free-market economy (U.S).
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 