Back in rally mode, tonight President Donald J. Trump will be holding a campaign rally at Arnold Palmer Regional Airport in Latrobe, Pennsylvania. President Trump is expected to speak at 7:00pm ET with pre-rally speakers beforehand.
Donald Trump Campaign Livestream – RSBN Livestream Link – Fox News Livestream
.
.
In November 2019 activist Federal District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ruled former White House counsel Don McGahn must appear before Congress; however, she also ruled McGahn retained the ability to “invoke executive privilege where appropriate” during his appearance. The central issue is separation of power.
The White House appealed the ruling to the DC appellate court on constitutional grounds, and on February 28, 2020, a three judge panel from the DC circuit agreed with the White House position. The House of representatives could have appealed the decision; however, instead, the main lawfare activist, House counsel Doug Letter, took a different approach and sought to argue the case based around their right to enforce a subpoena.
Today a politically divided DC appeals court panel ruled the House can’t go to the judicial branch to enforce legislative subpoenas because there is no statute giving the legislative chamber the authority to force the executive branch to enforce an action against its own constitutional interests.
DC Via Politico – […] “The decision is likely to spark a renewed debate over the House’s power of “inherent contempt” — its long-dormant ability to fine or jail witnesses who refuse to comply with its oversight requests.
Though courts have acknowledged this power exists, it has been in disuse since World War II. The House has emphasized that resorting to such heavy-handed tactics would only worsen government dysfunction. Court proceedings are far more desirable — to the House and to society — House counsel Doug Letter has argued during the House’s legal battles.
The new ruling appears to leave in place one other option for enforcing House subpoenas: the threat of criminal prosecution for contempt of Congress. However that option does not seem viable in cases involving fights over demands for testimony or records from the executive branch, since the Justice Department has long taken the position that it will not prosecute in cases where an official or ex-official was complying with a presidential assertion of executive privilege. (more)
The permanent political coup, led by the primary Lawfare activists who have infected the DOJ and all bodies politic, continues… Everything is tenuous.
All of this judicial turmoil is a downstream result from electing Barack Obama to fundamentally transform America in 2008. Where we are today can be traced to the continuum that many warned about more than a decade ago.
I have a standing rule never to write about current events in a state of anger; forgive me for violating my own standard… this is infuriating (albeit not unexpected). The two-tiered judicial process to target a ‘transparently innocent’ man continues. [Links Below]
As anticipated, on the last day prior to DC Circuit Judge Griffith departure, the DC en banc panel has rejected the Flynn writ of mandamus and now sends the case back to Judge Emmet Sullivan for final disposition. One way of looking at this is the DC circuit attempting to save face for Judge Sullivan by granting him the ability to do the right thing.
Another way of looking at this is a judicial stall tactic allowing the case to drag on even further until after the election. [60-page ruling pdf here – also available here]
As expected the majority of the panel hung their argument on the fact that Judge Sullivan had not yet ruled prior to the request for the writ of mandamus; and as an outcome Sullivan should be allowed to reach final disposition. As noted: “we expect the District Court to proceed with appropriate dispatch“…
The unopposed motion to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn is now back in the court of presiding Judge Emmet Sullivan.
Flynn’s defense counsel Sidney Powell ‘could’ appeal the full panel ruling to Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts for an emergency stay (not likely) reinforcing the original ruling (mandamus enforcement); or Powell could wait and see whether Judge Sullivan returns to judicial norms and allows the dismissal of the case prior to seeking any higher intervention (more likely). The latter approach just extends the timeline further.
As CTH noted last week the timing of this was predictable with Judge Griffith exiting the court. Additionally: “the DC appeals court likely doesn’t want this decision being reviewed any further (SCOTUS). It would make sense for the DC panel to seek a face-saving exit for Sullivan that doesn’t put Flynn’s defense in a position to appeal to Supreme Court Justice Roberts for intervention.” This appears to be the path the DC Circuit has taken.
Another possible option, albeit rather stark -highly unlikely- and loaded with implications, would be for the DOJ to simply refuse further case engagement completely.
CTH noted several months ago if the DOJ just refused further participation in the case, it would put Judge Sullivan in a very odd position of holding hearings where no prosecution shows up. However, this case is so far outside the normal boundaries of judicial proceedings anything is possible.
Here’s the embed pdf of the ruling. Judge Griffith (extreme anti-Flynn activist) representing the opinion of the court. Judges Rao and Henderson (who originally agreed to the writ) writing the dissent.
.
No two cases highlight the two-tiered system of justice like the comparative behind National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and SSCI Security Director James Wolfe.
In the Wolfe case corrupt elements of the judicial system allowed a transparently guilty man to escape accountability because it would have exposed massive multi-branch government corruption on an institutional scale that is almost unfathomable. Wolfe leaked top-secret classified documents at the request of members within the Senate Intelligence Committee. The DOJ then hides the wrong-doing.
In the Flynn case a transparently innocent man is framed by corrupt elements within the same institution, the FBI, by defining what the word “sanctions” means. A corrupt DOJ then transfers the corrupt intent into the judicial branch using a clear political agenda.
Anger…
FUBAR.
If Vladimir Putin was willing to help President Barack Obama seal the misbegotten Iranian nuclear deal, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, then chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA),was not. His resistance made him a target, especially once he started advising candidate Donald Trump. As to who launched the disinformation campaign against Flynn, the jury is still out. Best evidence, however, suggests forces within the CIA working in tandem with its friends in the media.
The co-conspirators started publicly setting the trap with a February 2016 Reuters article teasingly titled, “Trump being advised by ex-U.S. Lieutenant General who favors closer Russia ties.” https://reut.rs/2EwzoEL This was a bold gambit. As recently as July 2015 Obama was telling Tom Friedman of the New York Times, “We would have not achieved this [Iran nuclear] agreement had it not been for Russia’s willingness to stick with us and the other P5-Plus members in insisting on a strong deal.” https://nyti.ms/3jaDTnz
Obama praised Putin a year after Putin annexed the Crimea. That invasion was so much water under the bridge for Obama but apparently not for Flynn. Just months later, it was considered newsworthy that Flynn would advise Trump to “work more closely with Russia to resolve global security issues.”
“Flynn raised eyebrows among some U.S. foreign policy veterans,” wrote Steve Holland and Mark Hosenball of Reuters, “when he was pictured sitting at the head table with Putin at a banquet in Moscow late last year celebrating Russia Today, an international broadcasting network funded by the Russian government.” The reporters’ “three sources,” all said to be “former foreign policy officials,” failed to mention that Flynn had been briefed by the DIA before the dinner and debriefed afterwards.
What made me suspicious about this article was the Mark Hosenball byline. Hosenball appears to have been carrying water for the intelligence community (IC) for at least twenty years, maybe twice that long. To say the least, he has a curious background.
Hosenball moved to England when he was 17 to attend school. After spending a year in England and three in Ireland, he moved back to England to become a reporter. This information comes from a 1977 British appeals court document explaining why the United Kingdom chose to deport the 25-year-old Hosenball “in the interests of national security.”
“The Secretary of State believes that Mr. Hosenball is a danger to this country. So much so that his presence here is unwelcome and he can no longer be permitted to stay,” reads the document. Reportedly, Hosenball was one of a group of people who were “trying to obtain information of a very sensitive character about our security arrangements.” The document does not identify on whose behalf Hosenball was allegedly spying, but it affirms the government’s decision to deport him nonetheless.
The American intelligence community did not appear troubled by Hosenball’s actions. As the New York Times reported at the time, “A United States Embassy spokesman said that he knew of no United States pressure on Britain to discipline Mr. Hosenball.” https://nyti.ms/3jeLgdO Nor did the deportation seem to hurt Hosenball’s career. By 1993, he was working for Newsweek. By 1997, he was using Newsweek to spread CIA disinformation.
In 2003, I met Hosenball at the Newsweek office. At the time, I was promoting First Strike, a book I co-authored with James Sanders on TWA Flight 800, the 747 that mysteriously exploded off the coast of Long Island on July 17, 1996.
In that pivotal election year, surely with a nod from the Clinton White House, the CIA quietly masterminded the disinformation campaign that followed TWA 800’s destruction. After sixteen months of behind-the-scenes chicanery, the CIA assured America that what the eyewitnesses actually saw was not a missile streaking toward the 747, but the fuselage of the burning, climbing 747 rocketing upwards some three-thousand-plus feet after its fuel tank had blown up spontaneously. As would happen again in 2016, the FBI publicly fronted for the CIA. In a presidential election year, the media, of course, played along.
At the time, no reporter endorsed the CIA’s fraudulent scenario more enthusiastically than did Hosenball. His Newsweek article on the subject began with a dig at “conspiracy theories” and went nowhere positive from there. https://bit.ly/3lk50OM CIA analysts had convinced Hosenball that “infrared images captured by spy satellites” proved its theory of the plane’s demise. This revelation came as news to the FBI. Its comprehensive summary issued just a week before Hosenball’s November 1997 article did not once mention the word “satellite.”
The NTSB’s final report made only vague mention of “infrared sensor information from a U.S. satellite” and that in reference to the CIA’s video recreation. The New York Times avoided the subject altogether. Yet here was Hosenball saying that the CIA had “spy satellites designed to monitor unfriendly foreign countries pointed at the Eastern Seaboard.”
This was bunk. If the satellites showed what Hosenball claimed, federal officials would not have needed the CIA’s trumped up zoom climb animation. Surely, too, the FBI and NTSB would have used the data to buttress their shaky, inconclusive summaries. In a letter to then congressman John Kasich two months after the press conference, the CIA quietly buried the subject: “No satellite imagery of the disaster exists.” This translates, “No satellite imagery exists that would help us make our case.”
Hosenball uncritically embraced the CIA video. Under his byline, Newsweek ran a fully affirmative, nine-frame, full-color recreation captioned with the unlikely boast, “CIA Photos.” For Hosenball, the video provided a necessary rebuttal to “speculation about a mystery missile.” As he told the story, “some” of the “244” FBI witnesses claimed to have seen a streak of light arcing across the sky. In reality, 258 of the 736 official FBI witnesses claimed to have seen a missile or missiles attacking the plane, several of whom were pilots.
Had Hosenball been sporting a CIA nametag he could not have done more to legitimize the agency’s crude rewrite of history. As it happens, his Newsweek writing partner at the time was Michael Isikoff. I met with both of them. Neither had any interest in seeing the information Sanders and I had gathered.
Oh, yes, that was the same Michael Isikoff who in September 2016 first revealed that intelligence officials were investigating Trump adviser Carter Page’s “private communications with senior Russian officials.” Christopher Steele was Isikoff’s direct source. A few weeks after the article’s publication in Yahoo News, the DOJ and the FBI packaged the Isikoff article along with the Steele dossier in their application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), specifically to monitor Carter Page.
Renegade Rolling Stone reporter Matt Taibbi was the only journalist on his side of the barricades to say what should have been obvious to everyone in the media: “Being on any team is a bad look for the press, but the press being on team FBI/CIA is an atrocity, Trump or no Trump.”
To check out Jack Cashill’s new book, Unmasking Obama, or his previous book, TWA 800: The Crash, The Cover-up, The Conspiracy, please see cashill.com.
Anyone who has seen my cartoons knows I support Trump and his re-election. Biden and Kamala would be a disaster for our country. However, I don’t always agree with the president and before we at GrrrGraphics begin producing a Republican Convention cartoon extravaganza, I thought I would temper it with a bit of criticism.
When Trump brags about the stock market going up and making new highs, I cringe. This is not a healthy stock market based on logic, earnings, or a healthy economy. The market has disconnected itself from capitalism and a true value discovery.
What’s really going is a Federal Reserve takeover of our economy. What we’re seeing is a monumental transfer of wealth from the have nots to the haves. It widens the gap between a few money lords and the vast majority of We, The Serfs. Before you say I sound like Bernie Sanders, this isn’t about class warfare, but it is about destroying what’s left of the middle class. It makes it easier for the illuminati and their point man, George Soros, to usher in their tyrannical socialism.
Leaving no good crisis unused, they’re leveraging the ‘plannedemic’ to help globalist corporations get fabulously wealthier and more powerful while the smaller businesses—the Mom and Pop middle class–are crushed. The Fed has poured in nearly $7 trillion into the stock market this year alone–and while it does help out those with 401ks as Trump says, it mostly helps those at the very top of the pyramid the most. Amazon’s Bezos has raked in countless billions of dollars has his company makes new highs. Apple has a two trillion dollar market cap. Tesla has the largest market cap of any auto company, even if their sales don’t justify it. Elon Musk is favored by the “Green New Deal” illuminati, so he gets propped up while competition gets stamped out.
The Federal Reserve, in a fascistic manner, gets to funnel money toward favored companies while revenue for small businesses is down 30 percent. The Fed creates money from thin air and keep ‘their’ stock market bull moving up, thus making the fabulously wealthy central bankers and the handful of powerful families at the top who own the Fed gets fabulously wealthier and more powerful. The top 1 percent already owns nearly 40 percent of the stock market. The rest of us get to pay for the bubble through inflation. Have you noticed how expensive food has become? Yet we don’t get to share in the money-glutted stock market. Has the Fed sent you a share of Amazon or Apple? Of course not. Yet we pay for their robbery through the massive creation of debt. It’s always the same—the powerful screw over the powerless. We’ve already passed the point of no return with the national debt (now nearing $27 trillion) and every few seconds another $100,000 is added to it.
Many Americans can’t afford to participate in the stock market bubble. They’re too busy worrying about how to pay their rent while the rich are getting incredibly richer by ill-gotten means. This is something Trump should consider before he brags about new stock market highs.
—Ben Garrison
The United Nations Security Council disgracefully rejected the U.S. initiative to extend the UN arms embargo against the Iranian regime beyond its current expiration this October. As the U.S. Ambassador to the UN Kelly Craft said at the time on August 14th, “the United States stands sickened – but not surprised – as the clear majority of Council members gave the green light to Iran to buy and sell all manner of conventional weapons. History will easily trace the path of leadership in this era, and unfortunately it will not go through the UN Security Council.”
Iranian Defense Minister General Amir Hatami made the Iranian regime’s malevolent intentions crystal clear. “We have made it known that we are ready to provide high-quality and appropriately-priced weapons and equipment to countries that need this,” he said on August 18th.
Ambassador Craft promised that the United States would not give up trying to prevent the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism from gaining unfettered access to the global arms market.
UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), lifted various nuclear-related UN sanctions against Iran that had been imposed in previous Security Council resolutions. The Security Council took this major UN sanctions relief step upfront in contemplation of the Iranian regime’s continuing compliance with its commitments under the JCPOA. Resolution 2231 provided a mechanism for those previous resolutions, with their accompanying prohibitions imposed on Iran, to “snap back” in the event of Iran’s breach of the JCPOA.
Iran has committed multiple material breaches of its JCPOA commitments relating not only to arms transfers and missile tests, but also to its core nuclear-related commitments regarding nuclear enrichment levels and access for international inspections. As one of the original participants in the process leading up to the full implementation of the JCPOA in reliance on Iran’s commitments, the United States has every right to initiate snapback of the provisions of previous Security Council resolutions that had been in place prior to January 2016, regardless of whether the U.S. has the support of other countries that are parties to the JCPOA or otherwise.
On August 20th, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo personally delivered letters to both UN Secretary General Guterres and to the president of the Security Council initiating the snapback process, leading to the restoration of virtually all UN sanctions on Iran lifted under UN Security Council Resolution 2231. “America will not appease,” Secretary Pompeo told reporters at UN headquarters in New York. “America will lead.”
The snapback is supposed to take effect in 30 days from notification of an issue involving “significant non-performance of commitments under the JCPOA,” according to the process outlined in Resolution 2231, unless a Security Council member or the President of the Security Council introduces a draft resolution beforehand that is passed to extend the sanctions relief on Iran. Such a draft resolution would not pass, however, as long as President Trump remains in office. The United States would be able to veto such a draft resolution, allowing the snapback to proceed into effect automatically.
Opposition to the U.S. initiative from China and Russia is to be expected. It is disappointing to say the least, however, that the Western European permanent members of the Security Council, France and the United Kingdom, have also come out publicly against the U.S. on invoking the snapback process. Then again, Western European countries are not known for their moral courage when potentially lucrative commercial deals are at stake.
The critics of the U.S. snapback initiative claim that the U.S. has no authority to invoke it after withdrawing from the JCPOA. The critics are wrong. The JCPOA itself is a non-binding political document that was not even signed. Security Council Resolution 2231’s endorsement of the JCPOA does not convert a non-binding political document into a legally binding agreement. If the U.S. decided, as it did for national security reasons, to reimpose its own unilateral sanctions, the U.S. has not violated any legally binding obligations imposed by Resolution 2231. However, what Resolution 2231 did do is to legally condition the lifting of United Nations sanctions that the Security Council had previously imposed on Iran upon Iran’s meeting of its JCPOA commitments.
The United States is identified in Resolution 2231 as one of the “JCPOA Participants.” The U.S.’s “participant” status under Resolution 2231 derives solely from its original active participation in the negotiation, finalization and implementation of the JCPOA. Resolution 2231 sets no other qualifications or conditions on the original or continuing eligibility of such specifically identified JCPOA Participants to initiate a snapback.
The U.S. could have vetoed Resolution 2231 because of the provisions lifting the previous UN sanctions but did not do so in reliance upon Iran’s commitments to abide by the terms of the JCPOA. Absent an amendment to the resolution to delete the United States as a JCPOA participant state after President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the nuclear deal in May 2018, which the Security Council never adopted, the U.S. maintains its original standing to initiate a snapback.
In short, the snapback provisions of Resolution 2231 are keyed to Iran’s JCPOA non-performance, not to the performance or non-performance of any other JCPOA Participant.
“[T]he United States” and any other “JCPOA participant State” may initiate snapback. Operative paragraph 11 of Resolution 2231 sets out the requirements for initiating snapback. Those requirements are that (i) a “JCPOA participant State” (ii) notify the UN Security Council (iii) of an issue it believes constitutes “significant non-performance” of commitments under the JCPOA. That has been done, and the snapback clock is ticking.
The attempt by China and other UN Security Council members to change the explicit text of Resolution 2231 with hollow declarations is meritless. China and Russia also attempted to enlist the current president of the Security Council in essentially ignoring the U.S. notification, as if somehow that would make the notification disappear or render it null and void. Indonesia’s UN Ambassador Dian Triansyah Djani, Security Council president for August, went along with the scheme. In his capacity as Security Council president, he said that he was “not in the position to take further action” on the U.S. snapback notification. Ambassador Djani said that there was no consensus in the Council supporting the U.S.’s move. Ambassador Djani should go back and read Resolution 2231 in detail. While a consensus may be desirable, no consensus is required for the snapback to take effect.
Dmitry Polyanskiy, Russia’s First Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, tweeted what he viewed to be the result of the Security Council president’s decision to take no action: “It means, there is NO SNAPBACK.”
Wrong! The president of the Security Council does not have authority under Resolution 2231 to decide on whether the United States’ snapback notification is valid or not. He is authorized to introduce a draft resolution for a vote by the Security Council to keep the sanctions relief provisions of Resolution 2231 in place, which the United States can then veto. Simply ignoring the U.S. notification as if it did not happen will have no legal effect in stopping the snapback from taking effect.
When asked by reporters at the UN about sanctions enforcement, Secretary Pompeo would not get ahead of President Trump’s decision. “But you just need look no further than the history of the last two and a half years,” Pompeo said. “When the U.S. sanctions were violated, we enforced them. When UN sanctions are violated, we’re going to do everything we can to enforce them as well.”
United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and China’s Vice-Premier Liu He release a joint statement showing renewed emphasis on phase-1 purchases.
Washington, DC – Ambassador Lighthizer and Secretary Mnuchin participated in a regularly scheduled call this evening with China’s Vice Premier Liu He to discuss implementation of the historic Phase One Agreement between the United States and China. The parties addressed steps that China has taken to effectuate structural changes called for by the Agreement that will ensure greater protection for intellectual property rights, remove impediments to American companies in the areas of financial services and agriculture, and eliminate forced technology transfer.
The parties also discussed the significant increases in purchases of U.S. products by China as well as future actions needed to implement the agreement. Both sides see progress and are committed to taking the steps necessary to ensure the success of the agreement. (link)
This is interesting timing. In the foreground President Trump has openly stated he was/is not seeking further trade discussions with China. However, in the background if China does not meet the $75 billion phase-1 purchases, then a set of automatically triggering tariffs kick-in…. so it is in China’s interest to engage.
This trade leverage, combined with President Trump’s willingness to completely decouple from China…. combined with tariffs against China being favored by President Trump… explains the position of the administration. Do nothing and tariffs kick back in.
According to Reuters analytics China has only purchased $7.3 billion in agricultural products through the first half of the year. The phase-1 agreement (tariff avoidance) requires $36.5 billion in purchases for 2020.
Additionally, in the energy sector: “China bought only 5% of the targeted $25.3 billion in energy products from the United States in the first half of 2020. Chinese state-owned oil firms have booked tankers to carry at least 20 million barrels of U.S. crude for August and September.” [Reuters Link] Again, if China doesn’t meet the agreement threshold the suspended tariffs return in full force.
It looks like Vice-Premier Liu He is attempting to head-off the re-institution of tariffs due to phase-1 purchases falling below the agreement; thus Beijing is trying to avoid the built-in tariff penalty aspect.
…If you plant your trees in another man’s orchard, don’t be surprised when you have to pay for your own apples…
Citing a need to renew focus on her children, White House advisor Kellyanne Conway has announced her departure from the administration:
STATEMENT: The past four years have allowed me blessings beyond compare as a part of history on Election Night 2016 and as Senior Counselor to the President. It’s been heady. It’s been humbling.
I am deeply grateful to the President for this honor, and to the First Lady, the Vice President and Mrs. Pence, my colleagues in the White House and the Administration, and the countless people who supported me and my work. As many convention speakers will demonstrate this week, President Trump’s leadership has had a measurable, positive impact on the peace and prosperity of the nation, and on millions of Americans who feel forgotten no more. (read more)
QUESTION: Greetings Martin
I hope family is doing well. Your latest PB mentions the organized effort by gates and world economic forum to manipulate the entire world.
All of your past teachings have always said that No one can manipulate the World markets as “even Buffett couldn’t corner silver.” Even when they asked you to go in with them in Russia and they had the world bank on their side. Still failed.
So if they are manipulating this extremely organized effort do we think It will succeed? And if It does or doesn’t do you have suggestions for your subscribers as to where the hell we should go?
Like all of your readers I am MUCH!! Less concerned about Covid and Much more concerned about civil unrest and taxation etc
I work and live in NYC🙈🙈🙈
Everything you’ve written has occurred. I awake at night in panic about what to do. Just sell my practice and move to another state/country is a frequent conversation of my wife and I.
Leaving a buisness behind is one hard thing – leaving my other family members behind another. But we are willing to do whatever is best.
You had mentioned that you are going to release an update on places etc
Do you know when this may occur?
Normally I am concerned with equity markets but Socrates has done a great job of keeping us in the market to the long side even when all looked hopeless. Now with all of the “day traders” thinking its 1999 is It time to get a bit defensive as we head into the election cycle?
Much thanks as always!! You may know how much you help all of us, BUT I want you to hear It again. We All Thank you!!
Regards,
JCL
ANSWER: I do not see this attempted manipulation of the world economy as being successful. They are truly out of their minds, but they are a bunch of academics and billionaires who have never walked out of the street and dared to speak to one of the great unwashed. To them, we are all just pawns of finance too stupid to understand what their super-human minds are capable of seeing the future. However, sometimes a pawn can take down a king.
Leaving the cities like New York is ultimately the smart thing to do. However, it all depends on the election. If Trump wins there will probably be more violence from the usual characters. The Democrats have promised to bail out the states if they keep people locked down and unable to vote when possible other than mail. If Trump wins, those states will be hard-pressed for destroying their economies on a wish and a prayer.
The problem you have is that property values will decline in the cities. They are rising even in North New Jersey with people coming in and bidding over asking price. You can at least hedge your bets by trying to sell and rent until you see what happens. At least then you will be in a better position to leave faster.
This is certainly dividing families. Some refuse to think it can get worse. They want to be optimistic. My old professor said two people were standing on the top of the World Trade Center and a gust of wind blew them both off. The pessimist immediately started praying to be forgiven for his since. The optimist, as he was passing the fourth floor, said: Well so far so good!
Just try to be nimble. It is hard to leave – I know. Elizabeth Warren lays it out. They are playing to change America into a socialist country that has failed whenever it has been attempted.
|
As far as the markets go, the indexes are being propelled by a very select few stocks. The broader market is better reflected by the Russel 2000. There is always the risk that summer rallies end up in October panics.
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!
De Oppresso Liber
A group of Americans united by our commitment to Freedom, Constitutional Governance, and Civic Duty.
Share the truth at whatever cost.
De Oppresso Liber
Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine
De Oppresso Liber
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
Australia's Front Line | Since 2011
See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors
Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News
De Oppresso Liber
Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com
Exposition and Encouragement
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
Real Estate Lending
Centinel2012 