Anti-Bullying Leftist Advocate Attacks Trump Supporter At Protest


The Australian:

Victoria’s controversial Safe Schools founder Roz Ward has been photographed harassing a bystander while marching in a Melbourne rally protesting against the election of Donald Trump as US president.Images obtained by The Australian show the high-profile LGBTI rights and anti-bullying campaigner trying to remove a cap from a man wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with “Trump 2016”.

Ms Ward, who is carrying ­several copies of the Marxist newspaper Red Flag, is seen smirking while the distressed man tries to pull away and shield himself from her.


Getting Rid of Electoral College Would Mean a Tyrannical Rule of the Majority


By Walter E. Williams
The Daily Signal

It is alleged that Hillary Clinton won a popular vote majority. Therefore, if the nation were not burdened with the antiquated Electoral College, anguished and freaked-out Americans whine, she, instead of Donald Trump, would be the next president of the United States.

You say, “Hold it. Before you go further, Williams, what do you mean it is alleged that Clinton received most of the popular vote? It’s a fact.”

I say “alleged” because, according to Gregg Phillips of True the Vote, an estimated 3 million noncitizens voted. Presumably, those votes went to Clinton.

In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote just as Clinton allegedly did. Such outcomes have led to calls to abandon the Constitution’s Article 2 provision for the state electors to select presidents.

Despite the fact that the system has served us well for over 200 years, many Americans now call for its abandonment in favor of electing presidents by popular vote.

Before we abandon the Electoral College, let’s consider the function it performs.

According to 2013 census data, nine states—California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, and Michigan—have populations that total roughly 160 million, slightly more than half the U.S. population. It is conceivable that just nine states could determine the presidency in a popular vote.

The Electoral College gives states with small populations a measure of protection against domination by states with large populations. It levels the political playing field a bit.

For example, California is our most populous state, with about 39 million people. Wyoming is our least populated state, with about 600,000 people. California’s population is about 66 times larger than Wyoming’s. California has 55 electoral votes, and Wyoming has three. Thus, in terms of electoral votes, California’s influence is only 18 times that of Wyoming.

Even though our nine high-population states have a total of 241 electoral votes, a candidate needs 270 to win the presidency. That forces presidential candidates to campaign in thinly populated states and respect the wishes of the people there.

The Founding Fathers held a deep abhorrence for democracy and majority rule. In fact, the word democracy appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

In Federalist No. 10, James Madison wrote, “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”

John Adams predicted, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

Edmund Randolph said, “That in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”

Chief Justice John Marshall observed, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”

Throughout our Constitution are impediments to the tyranny of majority rule. Two houses of Congress pose one obstacle to majority rule.

Fifty-one senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The president can veto the wishes of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto.

To change the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed, which requires not a majority but a two-thirds vote of both houses, and enacted, which requires ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. Finally, the Electoral College is yet another measure that thwarts majority rule.

Despite a public consensus on the issue—resulting from miseducation—there’s nothing just or fair about majority rule. In fact, one of the primary dangers of majority rule is that it confers an aura of legitimacy and respectability to acts that would otherwise be deemed tyrannical.

Think about it. How many decisions in your life would you like made through majority rule? What about what car we purchase, where we live, and whether we should have ham or turkey for Thanksgiving dinner? I am sure you would deem it tyranny if these decisions were made by a majority vote.


Time Picks Trump Person of the Year for “Dividing Nation”


By Martin Armstrong
Armstrong Economics

TIME managing editor Nancy Gibbs wrote the essay naming Trump the Person of the Year. “So which is it this year: Better or worse? The challenge for Donald Trump is how profoundly the country disagrees about the answer.”  TIME had ran a piece titled: Here’s Why Newspaper Endorsements May Matter This Year. Of course, they were wrong. While TIME did not give an endorsement, they appeared to give credence to why those endorsement would matter. Clearly, the press conspired against the people of the United States in droves by all trying to persuade the people to vote for Hillary.

Gibbs also wrote: “For reminding America that demagoguery feeds on despair and that truth is only as powerful as the trust in those who speak it, for empowering a hidden electorate by mainstreaming its furies and live-streaming its fears, and for framing tomorrow’s political culture by demolishing yesterday’s, Donald Trump is TIME’s 2016 Person of the Year.”

Given the headline on the cover: President of the Divided United States, reading between the lines, TIME appears to be really endorsing the division. They celebrate the division of the country and thus take the other side. They do not encourage calm or to just wait and see if there will be unity. They effect subtly endorse the cry of socialist protesters, Trump is Not My President. They are thus feeding into the very cycle of civil unrest that will lead to the breakup of the United States.


Climate Data Deniers Are Trying to ‘Bork’ Trump’s EPA Transition Leader


The Daily Signal

President-elect Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency transition leader, Myron Ebell, is a huge threat to the green gravy train. Now, with billions of crony dollars at stake, the green slander machine is doing all it can to slime him.

Following their standard tactic, advocates of big government cronyism have picked someone to demonize as the face of small-government, pro-freedom ideals.

Ebell is that face, and he’s enduring the left’s vilification for voicing reasonable thought on climate change policy. Though he bears the burden with grace and humor, there is no excuse for the personal attacks, which are designed to distract attention from the high stakes of the debate.

What’s at stake for big green is billions upon billions of dollars taken from taxpayers and consumers and given to green crony businesses. Just for wind energy alone, grants, tax credits, loan guarantees, and other subsidies add up to at least $176 billion.

What isn’t at stake—contrary to the left’s talking points—is the Earth’s climate.

As costly as our current energy and climate policies are to the economy (they would cost the U.S. a net loss t of 400,000 jobs and up to $2.5 trillion), they are projected to have negligible impacts on global temperatures—even if you believe the questionable climate models of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

When judged by their actual effect, it becomes clear that the real goal of international climate policies is a power and money grab that no one, not even its most vocal supporters, believes will have much impact on the climate.

In fact, Christiana Figueres—until recently the executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change—noted that the goal of those policies was to rearrange the world economy:

This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.

The big problem for the framework convention, the IPCC, renewable energy hustlers, and climate rent-seekers of all sorts is that Ebell is on to their game. So, out come the daggers of personal attacks and character assassination.

Many in the media are more than happy to abet the groups who perpetrate these attacks. The Media Research Center provides a nice sampler of these attacks and associated yellow journalism here.

It’s not at all clear what the name-callers mean when they call Ebell a “climate denier,” but in a bizarre semantic twist, they appear to mean that he is not a hysterical climate data denier.

Like most skeptics, Ebell recognizes the basic carbon dioxide science: Adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere may somewhat increase warming. But he also recognizes the much more important question: How much is this “somewhat”?

Ebell and those following the numbers know that the Earth’s warming to date is much less than the IPCC models predicted and that the actual data don’t point to a climate catastrophe.

In addition, the unhinged claims of ever-worsening, extreme climate events don’t square with the data either. There are no upward trends in droughts, floods, tornadoes, or hurricanes.

Because knowledge of these facts is such a threat to the climate-industrial complex, anyone who dares to expose the truth comes under threat of personal destruction.

In 1987, “Borking” became a term for getting shot down after the U.S. Senate torpedoed Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court. We should not allow green activists to make “Ebelling” a synonym for “Borking.”


Who’s Really in Charge of the Worldwide Economy?

“The Power to Manipulate is a Delusion”
By Martin Armstrong, Armstrong Economics

Part of the cycle is that the general public allows the government to become corrupt because we do not hold them accountable. It is not that the elite successfully manipulate society; it is more that society is complacent, and when it finally gets bad, they respond as they just did with Trump, BREXIT, and in Italy. People like Hillary have been scamming the system the entire time. To them, they think, “Well no one said anything when we stole $1,000, $10,000, and then $100,000, so why are they angry when I take $1 million?”

What I mean insofar as the system cannot be manipulated, is that nobody can alter the major trend against the cycle. The people will allow corruption up to a point. But those in power cannot manipulate it to the extent that they are capable of preventing the uprising; i.e. Tiananmen Square 1989. Even China and Russia learned that lesson where the socialist/Marxist agenda is to subjugate one group for the pleasure of another.

The elite and bankers can assume they have the power to manipulate, but they are just fools; drunk with their own importance. When they were wrong, and our forecasts were correct, like the collapse of Russia in 1998 which resulted in the Long-Term Capital Management collapse, they said I manipulated the world economy because I had more people than they did and my clients won while they lost. They judged me by what they were trying to do — rig the game. So in other words, they would have won, but for me. That was really absurd, but understandable when someone is drunk with power. Blaming me relieved them of failing to manipulate the system to prevent the crash. They preferred to assume I had more people than they did so the solution was eliminate me. They even went to the extent of then claiming I stole the idea of Pi from a movie that came out in 1998 in Australia. They even lied about the timeline and assume people are stupid and won’t bother to look at dates. I suppose I also had a time machine, when forward, and then took it back to 1985. They will say whatever they need to to try to discredit people to further their own power.

When Goldman Sachs had a programmer they accused of stealing their code, they warned that this was dangerous for he could manipulate markets. Of course, they would NEVER do such a thing. They only do “God’s work.” Every commodity has been manipulated within the trend for short bursts. It never is enough to change the major trend. They take their profit and then run to the next. They DO NOT manipulate markets systemically like suppressing gold to help the Fed or whatever. Those ideas are even more off the planet. They play markets for a quick profit – in out – goodbye.

The power that be in New York City could not prevent the crash in 2007 despite the fact that they own all the regulators, politicians, and the courts. Even Goldman Sachs needed to be bailed out. So the all-powerful was not so powerful after all was said and done.

This is why I say nobody can manipulate the business cycle to prevent anything from Russia, China, to the Fed and the bankers. The cycle rules and that, with time, will end the illusion that they are in charge. When it does, things will crumble. When Credit Anstalt failed in 1931 in Austria, it began the banking meltdown.  In the United States, 9,000 banks failed during the decade of the 30s. It’s estimated that 4,000 banks failed during the one year of 1933 alone. By 1933, depositors saw $140 billion disappear through bank failures. Why did the Austrian bank failure set off a global crisis? One of the shareholders was the Rothschilds. When that failed, the idea that the elite are above everything crumbled to the ground in dust. We will see the very same thing happen this time around.

So beware. The downside of this conspiracy theory that these people at the top can manipulate society comes with a price – when it crumbles, the confidence vanishes and people are rudely awakened by the fact that nobody is in charge. We are at the judgment of fate.

When the people had enough, the cycle changes.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is another brilliant blog post by Martin Armstrong, one of the foremost financial analysts/consultants in the world. His blog is free to all and can be found at this link.

Obama Urges Soldiers to Question Trump’s Authority, ‘Criticize Our President’


Breitbart News

Characterizing the military’s mission as a fight against “violent extremism,” Obama insisted that soldiers need to rise up against Trump if they feel he is pushing policies that are ill considered. Obama told the troops, “each of us has…the universal right to speak your minds and to protest against authority; to live in a society that’s open and free; that can criticize our president without retribution.”