AOC’s Support May Be More Vulnerable Than Anyone Wants to Talk About


QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, you said that that AOC won for the same reason that Trump won, just vote against the incumbent. Do you see her being elected again in 2020?

PL

ANSWER: If you look at the numbers of the 14th district there in New York, you can see what I have been talking about. Joe Crowley won 147,587 votes in 2016, which was 74.80% of the total votes. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won only 100,044 votes, which was 78% of the total vote, while Crowley won only 8,505 votes. This is why she was called the lion slayer. It reflected that people are fed up with incumbents.

Nonetheless, she was elected with almost 33% fewer votes than Crowley in 2016. That reflects the difference between a presidential year election and a midterm. The highest voter turnout was the 2004 United States presidential election which was Bush v Kerry. The lowest (186,688) turnout was the midterm election in the middle of Democratic President Barack Obama’s second term (50,352). Clearly, her election was a bounce and not a breakout toward a new trend.

It appears that the Democratic vote in the stronghold is declining sharply. That does not mean the Republicans will become the victor. It appears that the Democratic number of votes will make a new low for the 2024 election and this is more likely than not pointing to an independent.

 

Britain & Labour’s Proposal for a Permanent Customs Union


The leader of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, is desperately trying to prevent the Labour Party from fracturing and splitting into two parties. Most Labour Party members want a second referendum in the hope that the people would vote to Remain this time around. Many Labour members remain under the impression that the policy agreed at a conference last year was that the party would support a second referendum if it could not force a general election. However, that policy maintained that as “a public vote” was one of the options that had to remain on the table.

Instead of moving that option to the forefront, Corbyn has abandoned that posture and asked for a permanent customs union – one “that includes a UK say on future EU trade deals.” This means that Labour is proposing a new permanent customs union with the European Union (EU) after Brexit which would allow the UK “a say” in future trade deals. Britain never wins any trade deal anyway and it has witnessed nothing but a declining economic trend ever since it joined the EU.

Anyone who would bother to look at trade would immediately see that the EU needs the UK. The biggest market for Germany to sell cars is the UK since it maintains the old-world mercantilist economic model. That means that the UK has a better consumer market that supports Europe – not the other way around. Belgium and the Netherlands have a higher per capita income compared to Britain which is significantly higher than that of Germany. Remaining in the customs union would be a disaster. The UK could not negotiate its own deal with the USA for France would be able to veto it from the start.

Candace Owens Gives A Brilliant Speech, Leaves Audience SPEECHLESS


Published on Oct 17, 2018

SUBSCRIBE 44K
The Death Of America voiceliberty.com/the-death-of-a-nation-america-today/ Watch Candace Owen Give an interesting speech.

Number Ten – Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper Announces Presidential Race…


These clubs (RNC & DNC) are so predictable, sometimes you just have to laugh. They follow an entirely predictable script.  After #8 entered the race CTH shared how the governors (actual executive experience) would now enter the race.  It is simply the same club sequence that is always followed: first congressional reps; then Senators, then Governors, then ‘outsiders’ and the club’s ‘chosen one’.

The congress critters are the noisy bunch, they set the lane perimeters (farthest left and farthest right). Once established, the high-brow step forward (the seasoned executives carrying the club platform), they set up the actual interior running lanes.

The goal of the governors is to use specific platform mandates (ie. the lanes or “specific interest groups”) to gain overall club registration.  [Voter support for the race]

Governor Jay Inslee (#9) brought the progressive environmental platform book. He’s recruiting the climate change activists.  Now Governor Hickenlooper (#10) brings the legalized dope platform book. He’s recruiting the national legalized marijuana coalition.

WaPo – John Hickenlooper, who served two terms as governor of Colorado, announced Monday that he is running for president, touting his accomplishments in a state that moved to the left during his time in office.

As governor, Hickenlooper presided over steady economic growth, the legalization of marijuana — which he initially opposed — and a surge that put Democrats in full control of a once-conservative state.

“I’m running for president because we need dreamers in Washington, but we also need to get things done,” Hickenlooper says in a video announcing his candidacy. “I’ve proven again and again I can bring people together to produce the progressive change Washington has failed to deliver.”

Aides said Hickenlooper plans a kickoff rally in Denver on Thursday before heading to Iowa, the first presidential nominating state, this weekend. (read more)

Once you see the stings on the marionettes you can never go back to the time when you watched the puppet performance and did not see them.

The unofficial ‘chosen one‘, the intended party donor candidate, will not likely surface until April or May 2019. The DNC is predictable; it’s a club. It’s still too early for the anointed candidate to surface. Governor Hickenlooper has a narrowly focused responsibility to highlight an important platform item, legal marijuana 2020.

Knowing it’s likely the ♦UniParty DNC is following a similar ♦UniParty RNC strategy, we can start to put the personal characteristics and political traits together and contrast them against 2016. Here’s the way it looks so far:

  • Senator Ted Cruz was to 2016…. as Senator Elizabeth Warren is to 2020
  • ♦Governor Jeb Bush was to 2016 as….
  • Senator Marco Rubio was to 2016… as Senator Bernie Sanders is to 2020
  • Governor John Kasich was to 2016… as Senator Cory Booker is to 2020
  • Senator Lindsey Graham was to 2016 as… Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is to 2020
  • Governor Mike Huckabee was to 2016 as….
  • Senator Rand Paul was to 2016…. as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is to 2020
  • Dr. Ben Carson was to 2016 as…
  • Governor Chris Christie was to 2016 as… Governor J. Hickenlooper is to 2020
  • Governor Scott Walker was to 2016 as… Governor Jay Inslee is to 2020
  • Senator Rick Santorum was to 2016…. as Senator Sherrod Brown is to 2020
  • Governor George Pataki was to 2016 as….
  • Governor Rick Perry was to 2016…. as Senator Kamala Harris is to 2020
  • Governor Bobby Jindal was to 2016…. as Julian Castro is to 2020
  • Carly Fiorina was to 2016 as…. Senator Amy Klobuchar is to 2020
  • Governor Jim Gilmore was to 2016…

Reminder, anyone who is announcing their presidential bid ahead of Speaker Pelosi delivering the impeachment narrative is not part of the DNC plan. The “Chosen One” will surface during the April/May to June/July period when the legislative crew, the DNC crew and the media crew execute the impeachment plan.

We will be able to identify the “Chosen One” by the roll out that accompanies the announcement. [ex. remember the Greek columns, trumpets, pomp, etc.?]

Once we get a few more names (approx. 16) on the DNC side, we can start to have fun with the celebrity squares graphics.

Colorado Joins Compact to Eliminate Electoral College


QUESTION: Marty, Colorado is changing its law that the electoral college will be assigned according to the popular vote to try to stop Trump. Would you care to comment on this?

MS

ANSWER: In Colorado during the 2016 Presidential Election, 48.2% voted for Hillary and 43.3% for Trump. The danger of this bill means that the people of Colorado might not vote. Regardless of who they vote for, the state will vote for whoever won the popular vote. So if Trump won the national popular vote but the state voted for a Democrat, then the state would have to vote for Trump. This is a very strange proposal. It is trying to eliminate the possibility of a winner who is not the popular vote winner.

Colorado will become the 12th state to join the national popular vote interstate compact. Those 12 states and the District of Columbia, which has also passed a popular-vote bill, account for 181 electoral votes, just under 90 shy of the 270 votes a presidential candidate needs to win the White House. The compact will not go into effect until the coalition includes states that add up to 270 electoral votes or more. Once it does go into effect, states that are part of the coalition would award their electoral votes en masse to the candidate who wins the national popular vote.

These states are trying to prevent a Trump victory at all costs. The purpose of the Electoral College was to ensure that one state does not dominate all others. It will also expose the entire nation to voter fraud as was out of control in California which is why Bernie went to the White House to complain to Obama that Hillary stole California from him.

Will the Democrats Split into Two Parties after AOC’s Threats?


The Democrats cheered the election of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) for they were sure that they were now going to be the party of the millennials. However, there is a growing division with the Democratic Party that for the first time may see itself fracture and divide as was the case when it split from the Democratic-Republican Party becoming the Democrats v the Republicans over slavery.

The list of Democratic presidential candidates keeps growing, and with them the promises seem to grow ever more robust. The Democrats have really been a party of coalitions between groups that always cast themselves as victims be it minority races, gender, or class. These traditional coalitions are being confronted by not just expanded entitlement spending to guarantee new welfare benefits, but with structural changes being demanded under this Green New Deal.

We have the promises of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren who has endorsed a universal federal provision of childcare to be paid for by a 3% wealth tax. Then there is Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders who proposes “Medicare for All.” Then there is Andrew Yang who fears AI and robots will replace everyone so that leads to the universal basic income proposition. Sure, Medicare for all sound fantastic. But it would be further subsidization of the medical industry. Socialized medicine in other countries works to some extent because the doctors are government employees like we have here in the VA hospitals. It is not remotely possible without nationalizing hospitals.

Meanwhile, we have Senators Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, and yet others who have all backed the Green New Deal, which promises to address climate change and inequality by providing universal health care and creating millions of jobs by taxing the rich who creates the jobs. Then there are rumblings again that all blacks are entitled to reparation payments because their ancestors were sold as slaves by the Dutch. All of a sudden, there are divisions appearing between the traditional groups of race, gender, and class.

Based upon reliable inside sources, from the halls of Congress to the presidential campaign trail, Democratic moderates are beginning to push back against the wave of liberal energy and shoot-the-moon policy ideas that have captured the party’s imagination over the past two months.

The Democratic-Republican Party split into two parties following the 1824 presidential election. The leaders of the two major factions of the party, Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams, were both nominated for president. Other Democratic-Republican Party support went to William H. Crawford and Henry Clay. Finally, on February 28th, 1854, the Republican Party was founded in Ripon, Wisconsin.

What is interesting is that three waves of 51.6-years brought us to 1979 and the Reagan Revolution in politics with the slogan – let’s make America Great Again. Reagan was reversing the socialism of high taxes and high regulation. Of course, the next wave brings us to 2030. From the 1854 political split, we arrive at 2009. Besides picking the low in the economy and stock market crash from 2007, this turning point marked what many called the Second Republican Revolution.

Normally, the sitting president’s party usually loses congressional, statewide, and local seats during the midterm elections as Trump just experienced. However, the 2010 midterm election featured some of the biggest losses since the Great Depression. The Republican Party captured a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, gaining 63 seats compared to Trump’s loss of 40 seats. The 2010 midterm election was the largest single-election shift in House seats since 1948 and the largest midterm election shift since the 1938 midterm elections against FDR. Republicans also gained six seats in the 2010 midterm U.S. Senate and 680 seats breaking the previous majority record of 628 set by Democrats in the post-Watergate elections of 1974. Clearly, the 2010 midterm election was reasonably named the Second Republican Revolution.

Of course, Abraham Lincoln won the presidential election on November 6th, 1860. Three waves of 51.6-years brought us to about 2015. That merely confirmed our model on political trends which forecast back in 1985 that the first time we would see a potential third party win would be 2016. The beginning of this Private Wave was 1985.65 and the Pi Turning point was also 2017.05. This pinpointed virtually the day Trump was sworn in.


They worry that the sweeping proposals and hardball tactics of liberal firebrands could alienate centrist voters in the 2020 election, even as they hold out hope that Democratic primary voters, focused on defeating President Trump, will check the party’s move to the left.
The moderates’ concerns came to a head this week when one of the newest Democratic stars appeared to threaten colleagues who would not toe the liberal line, raising the specter of a fracture in the party between moderates and purists, similar to a long-standing divide in the Republican Party.

Any way we slice and dice these numbers, they are all pointing to the same outcome — a rise in third-party activity. That also applies to the Democratic Party. There are serious fissures emerging behind the curtain that I doubt CNN would report. This movement that is beginning to fracture the Democrats is actually being instigated by AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)) There are threats being made behind the scenes that some of her colleagues could find themselves “on a list” of primary election targets if they do not support her and especially following anyone who voted for a Republican amendment that required undocumented immigrants who try to buy guns to be reported to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

One group that is making such threats are known as the Justice Democrats, who are a liberal group that backed AOC primary campaign. They are attempting to dictate to the entire Democratic Party that it is their way or they will fund people to replace them. This is what Boehner was doing to Republicans who would back the Tea Party Conservatives. The power has gone to the head of AOC and she clearly thinks all the attention she is getting means she should be in charge. She was born October 13th, 1989 so she will be 35 just a few weeks from the Presidential election in 2024 for which they are preparing.

By turning Democrats against Democrats, the risk of a split is very high. These latest tactics are creating a Nixonian type of hit-list. She is really behind this demand of unification for her Green New Deal. Imposing this sort of political test is not only anti-Democratic insofar as individual candidates cannot stand for something different, but this sort of dictatorship will lead to a Democratic version of the Conservative Tea Party rebellion that transformed the GOP and kicked Boehner to the curb.

The Tea Party surge brought Republicans new energy and new voters, but it’s also cost the GOP some congressional races and legislative victories. It also set the stage for the rise of Trump. The Fox poll that was shocking since it showed that the new voters who rallied to the GOP were not there for politics as usual. This poll illustrates the tendency for the rise of 3rd parties and the end of the 2-party system.

Many Democrats who have entered as presidential candidates have quickly endorsed these sort of sweeping leftist policies, including a Medicare-for-all health plan, a “Green New Deal” to combat climate change, and even reparations for African Americans. They seem to be willing to just go with the flow and promise whatever seems popular at the moment.

There are older Democrats who are becoming very concerned that U.S. politics has become hostile. I fail to see how we can now return to a more civil place as politics used to be. You accepted the vote and moved on. Those days seem to be history now.

The Republicans had their extremists known as the House Freedom Caucus, which opposes legislative compromises. The Democrats under AOC appear to be adopting these sort of tactics demanding compliance with their vision or else. They are arguing that the Democratic Party has become timid and it needs to be bold. They are pointing to the surge of new voters in the midterm elections as their proof that they should lead.

However, as I have just shown, that surge was normal and by no means historic. This perception that the Democratic Party’s primary voters are enthusiastically liberal and will support AOC is not based on data. Even AOC’s election was over 40,000 votes less than the incumbent won during the previous election. The number just do not support her. There is no way that AOC represents the majority of Democrats. About 50% of the Democrats identify themselves as moderate — not leftist or extremists. Thirty-three of the 40 GOP seats that Democrats picked up were won by candidates who had been endorsed by the moderate NewDem PAC – not the Justice Democrats.

The centrists Democrats are deeply concerned that these people have more power online and among the grassroots than they actually have at the ballot box. They comfort themselves saying this is just a fad and it will pass. Of course, the Republicans said the same thing about Trump.

A November Gallup poll found that 54% of Democrats were actually Democratic-leaning independents who wanted the party to become “more moderate,” while only 41% wanted it to be more left. That contrasted with the Republicans and their allies, 57% of whom wanted a more conservative party with less government and lower taxes.

Meanwhile, the most startling Gallup Poll to date taken on Feb 18th, 2019, after the midterm elections, reported that 35% of Americans now believe that government/leadership is the top problem facing the country. Only 11% cited Donald Trump while 18% cited gridlock.

While this is a battle to impose a leftist agenda and the sensational questioning of Trump’s former personal lawyer has all been about scoring points for 2020, it merely promotes more gridlock and a diversion from actually managing the country. But the AOC contingency argues behind the curtain that without them, there is no Speaker Pelosi. They want the Michael Cohen hearing in hopes of winning more seats in 2020.

If you pay close attention, you will see that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been dancing between the raindrops treading carefully. She has avoided comments on the most sweeping liberal proposals and has been playing down prospects of a Trump impeachment. She is smart enough to see the warning signs that the Democratic Party can be torn apart. She has been scheduling weekly meetings in an effort to try to bring leaders together from both the moderate and liberal factions.

The stress signs are shows after 26 Democratic moderates joined with Republicans to pass an amendment on a key gun-control bill. Pelosi had actually said they should show more “courage” on politically sensitive votes. Meanwhile,  AOC tweeted that she was not making threats but warning that the Democratic defectors “were inadvertently making a list of targets for the GOP and for progressive advocates” by voting with Republicans.

The power-plays are in. The dice are being rolled. The Democrats are beginning to wonder if there a political coup in the wind from this new upstart from New York.  Looks like we have entered the 9th circle of hell in politics.

In 2020, President Trump and nearly two dozen GOP senators will face reelection. The battle lines are being drawn for this is going to be a contest between basic conservative to middle-ground principles against the rise of socialism and authoritative government. Thus, the 2020 election indeed appears to be on schedule for one of the most violent political confrontations since 1968.

European Tour – The Calm Before the Chaos?


I am writing from Frankfurt here for meetings ahead of the chaos awaiting the May elections. In Frankfurt, while the economy is clearly slowing, the financial capital is booming. New skyscrapers are rising to join those of Commerzbank, Deutsche Bank, DZ Bank, Helaba and others on Frankfurt’s skyline. This is another sign that there is a disparity between the financial world and the main street.

Nevertheless, behind the facade is a weakening banking sector that the ECB seems to be inspiring. Forcing negative interest rates where the banks must pay the ECB 0.4%, their rate of return on equity has fallen into a crash mode. The German banks’ average earnings have dwindled from once 4% back in 2010 to barely 1% into last year. Deutsche Bank, the biggest, tried to compete with Wall Street and paid the price. After four years of losses, finally, in 2018, Deutsche Bank made its first annual profit which was just a 0.4% return on equity.

As always, politics enters the game rather than logic. The German government wanted to see a Commerzbank and Deutsche Bank merge and offered some undisclosed assistance.  That assistance would most likely be writing off a portion of the 15% the German government still owns of Commerzbank, which is the legacy of a bail-out and a merger with the stricken Dresdner Bank back in 2008-2009. The government does not own shares in  Deutsche Bank.

The books of Commerzbank show the same problems as in Deutsche Bank so a merger between the two does not appear to solve any crisis. There are in addition rumors that Commerzbank is being considered by both French and Italian banks for a takeover. The prospects of a merger with Deutsche Bank from a non-German bank may be too ambitious politically speaking.

The German government is coming under great stress for the two biggest banks are not really very healthy at this moment and suitors are foreign – not German. Deutsche Bank could be merged with the French BNP, but that would be a loss of pride. Meanwhile,  the management at Deutsche Bank would prefer a deal with Switzerland’s UBS. A previous German bank, HVB of Munich, was taken over by Italy’s UniCredit. That was one embarrassment politicians seem reluctant to repeat. The bail-in policy was devised because politicians did not want to have to contribute to bank failures they saw as inevitable in Southern Europe. To have foreign banks eying up German banks, the pillar of the EU, somehow strike a deep blow into the political heart of the EU.

The ECB’s negative interest rate policy is seriously harming European banks yet they cannot figure out an alternative without having to admit there is a major flaw in the entire structural system in Europe. Forcing banks to pay the ECB to deposit reserves is really absurd.

What is most interesting is that the emotions are running high over issues such as BREXIT and the Euro Crisis. It appears that analysts from major institutions are not allowed to discuss anything to do with debt consolidation. This appears to be off the table for discussion. The proposals to create a Euro Bond are separate and distinct leaving the current national debts to be held by each member state. That hardly removes the threat of one member failure impacting the whole of the EU.

Meanwhile, there is a silent move to reduce exposure to Italian debt held by non-Italian institutions. There remains a concern that Italy could possibly follow Britain. There is growing respect that even the hint of such a possibility that Italy would withdraw from the Eurozone can result in a sharp decline in the value of Italian debt even if they never move to actually exit the Eurozone. Italy was one of the original founders of the Euro.

Overall, there appears to be a general consensus that everyone should just keep the Euro at all costs. However, without major structural reforms, it is hard to see how the problems will not take on a life of itself. The refusal to consider a debt consolidation leaves the Euro vulnerable to the politics of each member with rising popular trends in politics.

The Eurozone’s third-largest economy, Italy, already has debts of about €2.3 trillion euros, which is the equivalent to 132% of its GDP. However, it takes more than 4% of Italy’s GDP is now being used to service its debt load and this is with historically low interest rates. There are concerns behind the curtail that Italy can play a game of chicken. If they decide to leave the Eurozone, what about all the Italian debt held by the ECB? Who will lose? The Italians, Brussels or the financial markets as a whole?

The lira was the official unit of currency in Italy until January 1, 1999, when it was replaced by the euro (euro coins and notes were not introduced until 2002). Old lira-denominated currency ceased to be legal tender on February 28, 2002. Beginning on January 1, 1999, all bonds and other forms of government debt by Eurozone nations were denominated in Euros. The value of the Euro, which started at USD 1.1686 on December 31st, 1998, rose during its first day of trading, Monday, January 4th, 1999, closing at approximately US$1.18. The Euro replaced the former European Currency Unit (ECU) at a ratio of 1:1 (US$1.1743).

 

Converting its national debt at 1.18, only resulted in economic chaos that devasted Italy. Whatever it owed previously in lira was suddenly now Euro. They experience their national debt doubling in real value the same as if you borrowed in Swiss franc for a mortgage that saw the Swiss franc double in value.  With the Euro trading in the 1.13 level, it is finally below the original conversion rate but even that ignores all the costs of services at high price levels.

 

By no means did Italy benefit from joining the Eurozone. To participate in the new currency, member states had to meet strict criteria such as a budget deficit of less than 3% of their GDP, a debt ratio of less than 60% of GDP, low inflation, and interest rates close to the EU average. Both France and Germany have been over that 60% level. France’s debt is currently at 97% of GDP while Germany is at 64% of GDP. Italy is 138% of GDP and Greece is at 178%. The Netherlands is at 56.7% of GDP, Austria is at 78.4%, Belgium is at 103% while Spain is at 98%. For comparison, the USA stands at 78%. This strict criterion has really failed to work and it was all mandatory simply because they refused to consolidate the national debts from the outset.

Greece failed to meet the criteria and was excluded from participating on January 1st, 1999. Eventually, Greece joined the Euro with the help of manipulations by Goldman Sachs on June 19th, 2000 when the drachma was fixed at 340.75.

This tour here in Europe is most interesting for the concerns are rising and there is a clear flight from Italian debt. Some of the most conservative portfolios in Europe have raised their exposure to the dollar from 5% to 30% which was attributed to the significant rally in the Dow since December. We even have central banks buying gold in search of diversification and a hedge against the uncertainty on the horizon come May. Needless to say, we have selected Rome for this year’s midterm WEC for this is the center of political attention behind the curtain.