The Merkel & Macron Tag-Team – Surrender Sovereignty to Brussels


QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; Merkel has come out and said that “Nation states must today be prepared to give up their sovereignty.” This is what you have been saying that the agenda is to federalize Europe. Would you care to elaborate on her latest statement?

Thank you from Berlin

PH

ANSWER: Merkel has stepped down as leader of the CDU. She knows that she is on the way out. She hopes to cling to her position of power until she is dragged out by the hair. This statement is indeed the behind the curtain view. But she qualified that statement insofar as yielding sovereignty to Brussels over especially migration. This is a shot across the bow at the rising nationalism. You must look at the entire statement she made in order to expose the thinking process.

Merkel condemned any notion that Germany should join a fast-growing number of nations pulling out of the migration agreement. Even Australia pulled out of the UN migration agreement. She said that “there were [politicians] who believed that they could decide when these agreements are no longer valid because they are representing The People”. What is interesting is how she is splitting a democratic form of government which represents the people and one of an anti-democratic position because politicians know better than the people. She continued to remark that “the people are individuals who are living in a country, they are not a group who define themselves as the [German] people.” She holds the position that migration is inevitable, necessary and desirable. She refuses to admit that allowing in the refugees was a mistake.

Her reasoning states that nationalism “is not patriotism, because patriotism is when you include others in German interests and accept win-win situations.” The fact that is an anti-democratic position behind the curtain is evidenced by the fact that the FrenchPresident Emmanuel Macron, also recently stated that “patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism [because] nationalism is treason”.

Macron travelled to Berlin and addressed the Bundestag that France and Germany have “obligation not to let the world slip into chaos and to guide it on the road to peace.” He added that “Europe must be stronger… and win more sovereignty” in order to suppress in truth the riots seeking to remove him in France. Both Macron and Markel are pitching that all EU member states should now surrender national sovereignty to Brussels over “foreign affairs, migration, and development” in addition to “an increasing part of our budgets and even fiscal resources.” Macron has sought and obtained an exemption to run a higher deficit than the EU rules allow because of the tax protests in France.

What is going on here is a tag-team. Merkel and Macron are advocating the surrender of sovereignty because they then can blame Brussels and not shoulder the responsibility for the economic disaster Europe is heading into for 2020/2021. We have two politicians whose days are numbered advocating the federalization of Europe that they previous swore would never happen.

Dan Bongino Contrasts Intense Sadness Over Officer Singh Murder With Democrat Refusal to Support Border Security…


Former NYPD officer Dan Bongino appeared on Fox News weekend to contrast the politicization of U.S. immigration policies after police officer Ronil Singh was fatally shot in California by an illegal immigrant fugitive.

Are there any Solutions to the Corruption in the Justice Department?…


Here is perhaps the most frequent question we receive.  Encapsulated:

….”OK, so we understand the problem, but what is the solution”?..

It’s a very valid question.  However, it is also a question that is based on an incorrect assumption.  Unfortunately, too few people ‘do‘ understand the scale of the problem(s). Until a significant number of more people understand the core issue(s), any discussion of a solution is essentially futile.

In the example of the corrupt DOJ and FBI (a common point of reference for the question) the baseline for any solution lies in first accepting the elements of the problem.

 

The institutions of the DOJ and FBI are corrupted; not just a few people within it, but rather the entire apparatus has been weaponized, over time, by participating political members who have politicized every function within the institution.

Every level of the Department of Justice (Main Justice); every national administrative office inside the FBI; and every state office of the U.S. Attorney and field office of the FBI; is being run through the prism of politics.   Every outcome is clear evidence therein.

That’s the starting point.

Until the majority of voting citizens agree on that central tenet, any action taken in response to the symptoms of the corruption are not going to succeed. Any solution has to come from a position external to the organization or the cycle will simply continue.

Putting a former U.S. DOJ official in charge of the DOJ, regardless of former term or professional/honorable intent, only maintains the status quo. The career mechanisms inside the organization will expel any action adverse to their interests, and the rules are set to aide their retention.

[Pictured: AG Nominee William P Barr]

The rules, policies and administrative guidance within corrupt system has been structured to be self-preserving. Putting a former DOJ official in charge of the DOJ; and/or putting an FBI official in charge of the FBI, ends up with exactly the same outcome.

When an institution is failing top-to-bottom successful change is only viable when it is forced from a position external to the current corrupt enterprise.  That approach must come to all divisions and branches of the system simultaneously, in order to affect change.  In essence, the corrupt system has to be overwhelmed; shocked into a reset status.

The behavior of former FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe are symptomatic examples within the FBI.   They didn’t gain their political skills to weaponize the agency overnight.  Those skills were taught to them as they advanced within the system.  The weaponization process was pre-existing.

Currently, that corrupt skill teaching system still exists.  There are more Comey and McCabes’ waiting to take office…. [See current Director Chris Wray, and current Deputy David Bowditch as examples.]… Don’t forget, FBI Agent Peter Strzok was heralded and rewarded along this career path. Therefore cutting off the head doesn’t fix the problem when the replacement head comes from within the same corrupt body.

Relying on a career IG, comfortable within the institution, also seems rather naive.  The example of IG Horowitz saying he could find no evidence of inherent bias actuated within the decision-making of the FBI is an example in simple, albeit brutal, acceptance.

The need to look externally for officials to change the inherent nature and disposition of the organization is why CTH previously suggested the Judicial Branch (federal judges) should be considered as a likely candidate pool to correct the U.S Department of Justice.

One possible solution would be to fire every U.S. Attorney and every Asst. U.S. Attorney, in every office across the entire country, and simultaneously replace them with former or current federal judges.

Then, and only then, can the investigative unit of the DOJ, the FBI, be addressed in a similar manner.  The head, and deputy, of every single FBI field office needs to be fired simultaneously across the entire country.  The replacement pool could be expanded to include any regional LEO (sheriff, chief); and/or from within the U.S. Marshals service.

That would currently be considered a rather radical approach.  And therein lies the problem.  Until we reach a point where such a solution is not considered radical; until people grasp the level of corruption within the system; any corrective action taken is merely our co-dependent enabling of a continual cycle.

There might be other, even better, solutions possible.  However, until we see widespread acceptance of the politicization of the institutions, it’s unlikely we will see a discussion happen that might eventually find the solution.

Right now, the vast majority are still in denial…

Why Flynn? – A Confluence of Highly Charged Political Events…


Several people have requested specificity as to why President Obama and candidate Hillary Clinton viewed Lieutenant General Michael Flynn as a risk worthy of primary confrontation/removal after Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election.

The most obvious answer is not too complex; predates the election; and is connected directly to three core components of the Libya crisis: (1) White House; (2) State Department; (3) Hillary Clinton.

Drawing from years of exhaustive research within the Benghazi Brief; along with breakout information as to how the FBI and DOJ are directly connected to the issues therein; there is a clear and concise reason why Flynn was viewed as a risk to the interests of President Obama, Hillary Clinton and State Department Officials.

Lieutenant General Flynn was appointed to head the Defense Intelligence Agency on July 24th, 2012, approximately two months before the attack on the State/CIA compound in Benghazi Libya.

The Benghazi compound itself was controversial as it was part of a joint State Department and CIA mission to try and stop the spread of weapons to radical Islamic elements in the region.  After the fall of Muammar Gaddafi the Libyan weapons depots -as well as U.S. weapons shipped into Libya to assist the “rebels” in Gaddaffi’s ouster- were the immediate problem.

Weapons in 2012 were being redirected to Syria.  An operation to secure those weapons was ongoing in Benghazi (Eastern Libya).

On September 11th and 12th, 2012, a pre-planned protest in Cairo Egypt coincided with a pre-planned attack on the U.S. State Dept./CIA compound in Benghazi, Libya.  There are numerous factions of extremist Islam involved; however, for the sake of brevity all groups were supported by political arm of the extremists, The Muslim Brotherhood.

In Cairo, Egypt, the key protest organizer was a person named Mohammed al-Zawahiri who, along with his Muslim Brotherhood comrades, was just released from prison by then Egyptian President Morsi.   [Mohammed al-Zawahiri is the brother of al-Qaeda’s #2 guy (at the time) Ayman al-Zawahiri who was/is running al-Qaeda from Afghanistan.]

The 9/11 2012 Cairo protest was centered around demands for the release of Omar Abdul Rahman, also known as “the blind sheik“, who was in federal prison in the U.S. for his part in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. {Go Deep} It is critical to understand that the Cairo protest was specifically about the release of Omar Abdul Rahman.

https://videopress.com/embed/6dthGNHv?hd=0&autoPlay=0&permalink=0&loop=0.

It is critical to understand the accurate origin of the Cairo protest because the U.S. State Department falsely claimed another motive about a YouTube video insulting Islam. Hours later that fraudulent motive was then used to explain the Benghazi attack.  The motive became a political risk.

The fraudulent origin of the motive was exposed by documents from within the Defense Intelligence Agency; the head of the DIA was LTG Michael Flynn.

From 2012 DIA documents retrieved by Judicial Watch, the factual background of the attack on the Benghazi compound was exposed. {Go Deep}

A Defense Department document from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), dated September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack, details that the attack on the compound had been carefully planned by the BOCAR terrorist group “to kill as many Americans as possible.”  The document was sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Obama White House National Security Council.  The heavily redacted Defense Department “information report” says that the attack on the Benghazi facility “was planned and executed by The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR).”  The group subscribes to “AQ ideologies:”

The attack was planned ten or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for U.S. killing of Aboyahiye ((ALALIBY)) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 atacks on the World Trade Center buildings.

“A violent radical,” the DIA report says, is “the leader of BCOAR is Abdul Baset ((AZUZ)), AZUZ was sent by ((ZAWARI)) to set up Al Qaeda (AQ) bases in Libya.”  The group’s headquarters was set up with the approval of a “member of the Muslim brother hood movement…where they have large caches of weapons.  Some of these caches are disguised by feeding troughs for livestock.  They have SA-7 and SA-23/4 MANPADS…they train almost every day focusing on religious lessons and scriptures including three lessons a day of jihadist ideology.”

(Link to PDF – Link to Judicial Watch)

DIA Director Michael Flynn, was on the job two months when the attack took place.  Flynn sent this intelligence information to the State Department, White House, Intelligence agencies, ODNI, and Defense Dept. on Sept 12th, 2012.  Director Flynn knew the motives, the players and also knew there was advanced warning the attack was coming.

While al-Zawahiri was organizing the Cairo Egypt,protest for the release of the Blind Sheik….  in Benghazi a jihadist attack by the Muslim Brotherhood group who supported the Blind Sheik was also pre-planned.   Both events were sending the U.S. a message centered around Omar Abdul Rahman, the “Blind Sheik”.   Both events (Cairo and Benghazi) had absolutely nothing to do with a YouTube video.

However, behind the attack-motive was the much bigger State Department and CIA problem with the U.S. Libyan weapons and the flow to Syria.  The U.S. sending weapons into the hands of al-Qaeda was always the larger risk to the Obama administration.  This problem started with Clinton (State) and Panetta (CIA at the time), but now those weapons going to Syria was an even bigger problem.  Flynn was not in place at the time (2010 – 2011) when Obama, Clinton and Panetta carried out Operation Zero Footprint.

Factually the U.S. policy that facilitated arming al-Qaeda was a big political problem.  All of the expressed false motives, false statements and political lies were intended to cover-up this issue.

Secretary Hillary Clinton left DoS immediately after Benghazi (the end of 2012); and after an agreement with President Obama John Podesta was installed within the White House to protect Clinton’s future interests.

In 2016 Michael Flynn’s knowledge of the factual backstory to Libya and how the Obama/Clinton team misled everyone was the risk that Flynn represented.

President Obama (and everyone around him), Hillary Clinton (and everyone around her), likely viewed everything through their own prism.  The prior administration (writ large) likely forecast/anticipated President Trump and National Security Adviser Michael Flynn would do to them what they would do if the roles were reversed.

Team Obama and Team Clinton likely thought all the Benghazi issues would be laid bare; and remember, after the attack, the FBI (via Robert Mueller) was also an active participant.  Remember the ridiculous weeks it took the FBI to reach Benghazi?

CNN – More than two weeks after four Americans — including the U.S. ambassador to Libya — were killed in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, FBI agents have not yet been granted access to investigate in the eastern Libyan city, and the crime scene has not been secured, sources said.  (more)

Now that we know how politicized the FBI was, try laying a little bit of hindsight into how the FBI ::cough::  Robert Mueller  ::cough:: was handling all that Benghazi stuff (?).

Candidate Trump the vulgarian disrupter, and adviser Flynn (former DIA knowing too much), must have seemed like the absolute worst case scenario for Obama/Clinton and every single ideological ally within government.   Think about it.

Then Donald Trump wins the election….  and Flynn becomes National Security Adviser.  Holy cow…  In hindsight the panic must have been palpable.

Think about the scale of it.

Why wouldn’t they wiretap Trump?  Think about the stakes?  Why wouldn’t the entire apparatus of every institutional office aligned with common interest to the White House, Obama and Clinton not do everything in their power to eliminate the threat?

The better question is: what wouldn’t they be willing to do?

Robert Mueller being FBI Director during the Benghazi cover-up, and ultimately the leverage over him is due to his obedience therein. Certainly this explains his selection by the crew… Mueller was uniquely well motivated… and simultaneously gives Mueller a motive to paint Flynn into any scenario that would shut him down.

I hope that answers the question of:  Why Flynn?

Robert Mueller’s Mission:

♦(1) Create an investigation – Just by creating the investigation it is then used as a shield by any corrupt FBI/DOJ official who would find himself/herself under downstream congressional investigation.  Former officials being deposed/questioned by IG Horowitz or Congress could then say they are unable to answer those questions due to the ongoing special counsel investigation.  In this way Mueller provides cover for ideologically aligned deep state officials.

♦(2)  Use the investigation to keep any and all inquiry focused away from the corrupt DOJ and FBI activity that took place in 2015, 2016, 2017.  Keep the media narrative looking somewhere, anywhere, other than directly at the epicenter of the issues. In this way, Mueller provides distraction and talking points against the Trump administration.

♦(3) Use the investigation to suck-up, absorb, any damaging investigative material that might surface as a result of tangentially related inquiry.  Example: control the exposure of evidence against classified leak participants like SSCI Director of Security, James Wolfe; and/or block IG Horowitz from seeing material related to the FISA abuse scandal and “spygate”.  In this way Mueller provides cover for the institutions and the administrative state.

In all of these objectives the Mueller special counsel has been stunningly effective.

 

 

Der Spiegel Suspends Two Senior Editors for Not Catching Fake News


The major influential German news weekly, Der Spiegel, has suspended two of its senior editors following the scandal involving a reporter Claas Relotius admitted faking stories for years. Relotius, who is 33, resigned after admitting that he had made up stories and invented protagonists in more than a dozen articles in the magazine’s print and online editions. Relotius was also named journalist of the year by CNN back in 2014. This has provided another whole dimension to the Fake News issue. Here, instead of institutional bias such as CNN, Fox, New York Times, and the Washington Post, we have an individual just creating news. He managed to get away with it for so long because the readers wanted to believe what he wrote.

Why Does the Fed Need to Raise Rates?


QUESTION: Hello Mr Armstrong
I would like first to thank u for all the good information u give to us
i have just a question : why do u write the fed need to increase rates to save the us pensionneers
Not realy clear for me ( and maybe a lot of people)
Thanks again and i wish u a wonderful 2019 year !
regards
T

ANSWER: The entire problem of lowering interest rates to “stimulate” the economy demonstrates that central banks cannot really manage anything. This theory is based upon the idea that if rates are cheap then you will borrow. They fail to even understand HOW the economy functions. The stock market and the economy has NEVER peaked with the same level of interest rates TWICE in history. If you BELIEVE the market will double you will pay 20% interest for a year. If you do not BELIEVE the market will rise at all, you will not borrow at 1%.

Pension funds were based upon the idea that at 8% you double your money in less than 10 years compounded. The system of a pension cannot function at interest rates of 1-3%. This is why states are raising taxes and going broke. They have to make up the losses on investments. Then throw in the corruption of governments. They directed pensions to be “conservative” and thus must own typically more than 50% government bonds up to 85% generally and some are at 100% like Social Security. The lower rates on government bonds, the greater the losses and thus taxes must be raised to compensate for state pensions.

Then, so many funds ran into Emerging Markets to try to compensate for the losses on government bond holdings. Spanish banks ran into Turkish debt which they assumed would become a member of the Eurozone. Turkey was one of the first members of the Council of Europe in 1949, and it became an associate member of the EEC in 1963, joined the EU Customs Union in 1995 and started accession negotiations with the European Union in 2005. However, ever since Erdogan, all negotiations with Turkey to join the EU came to an end in 2017.

Therefore, the Fed realizes that the next crisis is a pension crisis and they need to raise rates to help try to bail out the pension funds. They will not be able to raise the rates fast enough to avoid the crisis coming very rapidly which will contribute to raising tax rates and further suppressing economic growth into the future

President Trump Draws Attention to Murder of Police Officer Ronil Singh by Illegal Alien…


On Christmas day Stanislaus County Sheriff officer Cpl. Ronil “Ron” Singh took a picture with his wife Anamika and his five-month-old son.  Early this morning he was shot and killed by an illegal alien; a manhunt for the suspect is ongoing.  President Trump drew attention to the case in a tweet earlier today.

(California) […] Singh, 33, was shot and killed at 1 a.m. Wednesday after pulling over a suspected drunk driver at Merced Street and Eucalyptus Avenue.

He exchanged gunfire with the suspect but is not believed to have hit him. “It was a gunfight,” the sheriff said. “Cpl. Singh absolutely tried to defend himself and stop this credible threat.”

While Christianson said investigators have identified the suspect, they will not release his name. He said the suspect is in the country illegally. “He doesn’t belong here; he is a criminal,” the sheriff said. (more)

.

Stump for Trump@StumpforTrump

Can you believe the amount of coverage the Fake News Media/Dems spent on 2 Guatemalan kids dying at the border (due to their parents’ decisions, yet they blamed Trump/Border Patrol)?

Now compare that to the Cop in California who was just killed by an illegal alien.

Shameful!

2,467 people are talking about this

Why do Cycles Work?


QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; Your analysis is really remarkable. When the Dow was making new highs in October you said it was not breaking out. Then you said it would correct to retest the monthly support. You even warned that the bulk of the decline was always before the holiday as fears would grow for what would happen after the market reopened. You always get the highs and you even named the day of the low this week the week before. How can your arrays do this? I know that they do. My question is have you put any effort into discovering why cycles work in the first place?

HD

ANSWER: That is a question I get often and it seems to me to be up there with is there God and what is the meaning of life? All I can say is the foundation of EVERYTHING is a cycle. Here is how sound travels known as the Doppler effect.

Sunlight also travels in waves. Change the frequency and you get a different effect. There is a cycle to absolutely everything around us. The Arrays are composed of a correlation of 72 individual models. Then there is a global correlation to the frequencies of all other markets. So there is not a single cycle that you can reverse-engineer from an array. It just does not work that way. We simply do cycles differently than most people in the cyclical analysis arena.

So why do they work? Perhaps that is just the key to the universe itself. The earth travels around the universe and reaches the same spot once every 25,800 years. We also are born, we live, and then we die – the cycle of life. Then at the core of everything lies the fractal design within nature. It is more than just a Mandelbrot Set. We have children who are copies our ourselves taking bits of both parent’s DNA. That is the process of cyclical reproduction by self-referral.

Then there is the Lorenz Stange Attractor which was the fascinating cyclical behavior of weather systems, which of course are ignored by the Global Warming people. In effect, they are no different from the people who executed others who dared to say the earth was round instead of flat.

Trump v the Federal Reserve


QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; A spectacular call. You gave the day and the market bottomed within 100 points of your number. You always nail it. I find it curious how they blamed Trump and the Fed. Can Trump fire the head of the Fed? I really think he seriously needs to attend your WEC. He would have seen this move coming.

Congrats!

FG

ANSWER: No. President Trump’s comments about firing Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell are really off the wall. The problem is he has the classic TV talking heads view that stocks will crash with higher interest rates. Trump’s frustration with the central bank chief intensified following the interest-rate increase and months of stock-market losses. He is oblivious to the real crisis which is the low-interest rates are destroying the pension funds.

Meanwhile, the media blames Trump for his tweets and the talking heads attribute the decline to interest rates. Powell cannot publicly state why rates have to rise or he would create a real debt panic. Trump is clueless as is Capitol Hill with the monumental crisis in global debt.

For now, the news will bash the stocks when down, and when investors/traders see there can be no flight to bonds as quality, the real panic will begin. I wish I could reverse this mess, but reality states Trump’s handlers are rooting for the Deep State and would never let me near him.

The Democrats want the stocks to crash for they can blame Trump and try to win the losers to vote for their team. The shame here is this is not about running the nation or the economy to benefit all, it is just about winning the 2020 election. Since the ECM turns in January 2020 rather than the elections in November 2020, this is indicating that we may have a psychological shift prior to the elections.

Geographical Morality versus Universal Morality


There has always been a question in law that was originally argued as the conflict of laws known as “geographical morality” versus “universal morality” that emerged in one of the longest running trials in British history. The case involved an East India Company corruption which was brought against Warren Hastings (1732-1818)between 1787 and 1795. Hastings had been governor of the company which, by the late 18th century, ruled large parts of India in Bengal. One of the charges against him was that he had received “considerable presents, for brokerage and bribes for the sale of office”, which Lord Chancellor Edward Thurlow, the judge, described as “the most odious and disgraceful species of corruption that could be charged”.

Nevertheless, Thurlow also objected to what he saw as a new doctrine introduced by Hastings’ chief prosecutor, Edmund Burke (1729-1797). Indeed, Burke argued that if a gift passed from an inferior to his superior in office, that was sufficient to be counted as a bribe. I mention this because the charges against Michael Cohen are similar whereby nobody has ever been prosecuted under such a theory before that the payment to someone to remain silent exceeds the $2700 limit on campaign contributions. In the case of Hastings, Thurlowthought a corrupt motive still had to be shown and Hastings was acquitted.

The most interesting aspect of this trial was a question never reached. Hastings’ trial raised the fascinating question about what Burke called “geographical morality” meaning a morality that was place-specific rather than universal. Hastings had argued that “actions in Asia do not bear the same moral qualities which the same actions would bear in Europe”. He could not, therefore, be judged on the same moral standards imposed in England. His acquittal thus left the idea of universal moralityup in the air.

Today, most countries respect the rule of law, except that of the United States because prosecutors and judges have absolute immunity even if they falsely accuse someone and demand the death penalty. They are the only people who can kill someone and remain above the law. The case of Mark Rich who fled to Switzerland could not be extradited to the USA because the crimes he was changed within New York were not recognized as crimes in Switzerland. This was the classic example of “geographical morality” versus “universal morality” where you cannot be charged with a crime in one country because you are a citizen when the act was not a crime where it took place.