Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has asked former President Donald Trump’s lawyers about whether they challenged special counsel Jack Smith’s authority to bring charges against the president.

On April 25, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case about President Trump being immune from prosecution for official acts carried out during his presidency. During the hearing, Justice Thomas asked John Sauer, the attorney who represented Trump in court, “Did you, in this litigation, challenge the appointment of special counsel?” Mr. Smith was appointed to the case by Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Mr. Sauer said that Trump attorneys have not raised such concerns “directly” in the current case at the Supreme Court. However, “it points to a very important issue here, because one of [the prosecution’s] arguments is, of course, that we should have this presumption of regularity,” Sauer stated.

“That runs into the reality that we have here an extraordinary prosecutorial power being exercised by someone who was never nominated by the president or confirmed by the Senate at any time. … We hadn’t raised it yet in this case when this case went up on appeal.”

Mr. Sauer said he agrees with the “analysis provided by Attorney General [Edwin] Meese and Attorney General [Michael B.] Mukasey,” referring to the amicus brief the two former attorneys general submitted to the Supreme Court on March 19.

In it, the two attorneys general noted that irrespective of what one thinks about the immunity issue, Mr. Smith “does not have authority to conduct the underlying prosecution.”

“Those actions can be taken only by persons properly appointed as federal officers to properly created federal offices. Smith wields tremendous power, and effectively answers to no one,” they wrote.

“However, neither Smith nor the position of special counsel under which he purportedly acts meets those criteria. And that is a serious problem for the rule of law, whatever one may think of the conduct at issue in Smith’s prosecution.”

Attorney General Garland appointed Mr. Smith as Special Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) citing several statutes.

However, none of these statutes even “remotely authorized the appointment by the Attorney General of a private citizen or government employee to receive extraordinary criminal law enforcement power under the title of Special Counsel.”

The two attorneys general added there are times when the appointment of a special counsel would be appropriate and that the U.S. Constitution allows for such appointments.

However, “the Attorney General cannot appoint someone never confirmed by the Senate, as a substitute United States Attorney under the title ‘special counsel,’” they added.

“Smith’s appointment was thus unlawful, as are all actions flowing from it, including his prosecution of former President Trump.”

The Case Against Trump

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing President Trump’s immunity case as part of Mr. Smith’s indictment of the former president alleging an attempt to subvert the transfer of presidential power following the 2020 election. President Trump is charged with four criminal counts in the case.

President Trump had requested the lower courts to back his claims of presidential immunity as the actions were undertaken while he was serving as president.

After the lower courts refused to grant the request, the 45th president appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, contending that his actions as president are covered by presidential immunity.

The Supreme Court agreed to consider the following question—“Whether and, if so, to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

In court, Mr. Sauer warned the justices against giving a judgment that undermines presidential immunity, noting that an American president would no longer be able to carry out his job properly if he was unsure whether his actions would trigger prosecution years after leaving office.

“The implications of the court’s decision here extend far beyond the facts of this case,” he said. “For 234 years of American history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official acts. The framers of our Constitution viewed an energetic executive as essential to securing liberty.”

“If a president can be charged, put on trial, and imprisoned for his most controversial decisions as soon as he leaves office, that looming threat will distort the president’s decision-making precisely when bold and fearless action is most needed.”

Moreover, a lack of presidential immunity will denote that every president becomes a potential candidate for extortion by political rivals while still in office, Mr. Sauer added.

“Prosecuting the president for his official acts is an innovation with no foothold in history or tradition, and is incompatible with our constitutional structure,” he said.

The Supreme Court Justices appeared skeptical about President Trump’s claims that he has the right to absolute immunity for his actions as president. However, the justices also appeared to be open to accepting that presidents have some level of immunity.

The court could decide to remand the case back to the Washington district court, with instructions for differentiating between official and private acts of a president so that additional fact-finding proceedings can be done.

Such a move would delay the former president’s trial in Washington and potentially proceedings related to three other cases as well. This gives President Trump a strategic win as he attempts to hold off cases until after the elections.

By Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management

“What is the sound of one hand clapping,” asked Kazuo Ueda, sitting alone in seiza. The dollar had just crossed above 158 to the yen, a level not seen in 34-years, back when he joined the University of Tokyo as professor of economics.

“What is the sound of one hand clapping,” asked Ueda, letting the question drift gently across his mind. It is one of the great Zen koans, a question without answer, a tool to help us achieve satori, awakening.

After its utter destruction in the war, Japan had become an economic wonder. By 1989 its Nikkei 225 equity index had surged to 38,915, the yen followed, and the governor’s palace was estimated to be worth as much as California.

“What is the sound of one hand clapping,” asked Ueda, desperate to tap into the power of being fully present, but unable to calm his mind. From that wild 1989 market peak, it all came crashing down. Had policy makers and politicians allowed a short depression, the nation would have experienced something profoundly different from its lost deflationary decades.

“What would have happened,” asked Ueda, instantly angry his attention had drifted from the koan. It had been one year since he became Bank of Japan Governor. He had restored simplicity to policy, returning interest rates to positive from negative, letting go of yield curve control. He accomplished this without compromising government finances, which are so vulnerable after decades of the stunningly large deficit spending required to maintain economic and social stability, that even a modest interest rate rise would prove catastrophic.

“What is the sound of one hand clapping,” whispered Ueda.

In his year at the helm, the Nikkei 225 had surged to finally reclaim the 1989 highs, driven in part by the collapsing yen, which showed no signs of stabilizing in the absence of material interest rate hikes. And this, of course, risks devastating Japan’s government finances.

“What is the sound of one hand clapping.”

Qatar has had a lot of fingers in a lot of pies. While we knew about the EU’s ‘Qatargate,’ investments with the Kushner family, and of course Sen. Bob Menendez advancing Qatar’s interests, Politico reports that the Biden family’s ties to Qatar “would constitute some of the closest known financial links between a relative of President Joe Biden and a foreign government,” if courtroom testimony about Jim Biden’s foreign fundraising efforts is substantiated.

In June 2017, Qatar’s neighbors – led by Saudi Arabia, banded together and cut diplomatic ties with the country, citing its alleged support for terrorism. As a result, the country was thrown into a sustained crisis.

To dig themselves out, Qatari rulers began showering well-connected Westerners with gifts and financial benefits, according to Politico, “sometimes in the form of investment funding.”

Around this time, Jim Biden was trying to raise $30 million for embattled hospital chain Americore – teaming up with Florida businessman Amer Rustom, CEO of the Platinum Group, who boasted of his ties to officials in the Middle East, as well as fund manager Michael Lewitt. Together, the three sought investment funding from various Middle Eastern sources for Americore and other ventures – “which came to focus largely on Qatar,” according to a former Americore executive who spoke on condition of anonymity.

According to public records obtained by the outlet, Jim Biden leveraged ties to his older brother and “sought workarounds to restrictions on international money movements,” including one discussion about trying to move money across a Middle Eastern border in the form of gold bars that may or may not have happened.

“My family could provide a wealth of introductions and business opportunities at the highest levels that I believe would be worthy of the interest of His Excellency,” Jim Biden and Rustom wrote in a draft letter to an official at the Qatari sovereign wealth fund, the Qatar Investment Authority. “On behalf of the Biden family, I welcome your interest here,” the draft continues.

Transactions related to the efforts are central to a recently-settled fraud case brought by the SEC, and are under fresh scrutiny as part of a federal criminal investigation in South Florida.

Jim Biden suggested to congressional investigators in February that his fundraising efforts stalled for lack of viable projects to back. But the previously unreported testimony by fund manager Michael Lewitt about the ownership of the two companies — the Platinum Group USA and Obermeyer Engineering Consulting — indicates that Jim Biden forged closer ties to Qatar’s government than previously understood. -Politico

In February of this year, Jim Biden told impeachment inquiry investigators that roughly $600,000 in payments from Americore were for his role in arranging a series of bridge loans – of which $200,000 was transferred to Joe Biden in March 2018 for what the White House claims is a repayment of an unrelated loan between brothers.

In a March 10, 2018 draft presentation emailed from Jim Biden’s wife, Sara Biden, to a Platinum Group executive, Julie Lander, Americore touted Jim as “Brother and Campaign Finance Chair of former Vice President Joe Biden.”

One month later, Lander emailed Jim Biden about the fundraising efforts – referencing an apparent meeting with a high-ranking Qatari official.

“I am following up from the meeting we had with the Minister,” wrote Lander. “Your approach with him was flawless. He requested more information on Americore.”

In the previously unreported email, Lander suggested a potential request of $200 million and asked Jim Biden to provide more information on the potential benefits to Qatar of an investment deal.

Lander’s email came five days after a large delegation of Qatari officials and business leaders visited Miami. It is not clear which minister Lander, who did not respond to requests for comments, was referring to. -Politico

“Snags”

Despite Lander’s upbeat email to Jim Biden, fundraising efforts hit a ‘series of snags,’ according to Politico‘s anonymous former Americore source, who said that they were facing restrictions on moving investment funds across borders, and that the former executive “recalled discussion at one point of trying to move money across a Middle Eastern border in the form of gold bars, but said they were not aware of any action taken on the idea.”

In order to solve their problem, Jim Biden explored working with payment processing company “Billerfy,” described as an “open network for global payments,” for which Jim Biden could be their “chief global banking emissary” – until Americore’s outside counsel, Christopher Anderson, shot it down. 

With progress in Qatar slowing in mid-May of 2018 during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, tensions grew between Jim Biden and his comrades – with Jim Biden venting to Americore CEO Grant White in a May 17 email that he had “agreed to go to Qatar, Saudi Arabia and China (at my own expense).”

A week later, Jim Biden complained to Rustom over the unsecured funds – writing that “The $30 million was committed to over two months ago and we made moves predicated on that available line of credit,” adding “Things have happened in the interim that are completely understandable, but the fact remains that the $5 million at this point in time is critical in order to get by for the big picture.”

Then in late June, Lewitt emailed Jim Biden and White about trying to move money from Dubai to Qatar, referencing an unspecified “blockage” that was hindering the process.

“Amer would like me to join Jim for the presentation to the Finance Minister in Doha so as soon as we have the date I will plan my travel,” the email concluded.

The former Americore executive said that Jim Biden and Lewitt traveled to Qatar in mid-2018 as part of the fundraising efforts, but it is not clear whether any meeting between Jim Biden and Qatar’s then-finance minister, Ali Sharif Al Emadi, took place.

Al Emadi left his post in 2021 after Qatar’s attorney general ordered him arrested on suspicion of corruption. In January, Reuters reported that he was convicted on charges that included laundering more than $5 billion and sentenced to 20 years in prison. -Politico

Efforts to secure funding continued into August of 2018, as Jim Biden continued to work with Lewitt and Rustom to secure financing from the Qatar Investment Authority for other health care ventures, according to filings in a since-settled federal court case in Tennessee in which the three were named as co-defendants.

As they continued to work together, Jim Biden’s financial ties to Lewitt deepened – with Lewitt’s investment fund, Third Friday, paying Jim Biden’s company, Lion Hall Groujp, $225,000 over the course of 2019. While Biden testified that this was a forgiven loan, Lewitt disputed it – telling Politico that Jim Biden’s debt was assumed by an unnamed third party.

At the end of the day, Qatar and everyone else balked at the deal.

“We weren’t able to show the financial bona fides of any one particular project,” said Jim Biden during his impeachment inquiry interview. “We got pretty far down the road on several hotel complexes, but they never came to fruition.”

Meanwhile, in 2022, investors in Third Friday sued Lewitt, accusing him of embezzlement through Americore to Jim Biden and others. Lewitt has denied wrongdoing in the ongoing case, while Jim Biden has not been named a defendant.

Lastly, the partners are now locked in a bitter legal dispute. During the course of Americore’s bankruptcy litigation, documents produced by Lewitt included an agreement between his fund and a Delaware company, Obermeyer Engineering Consulting – which calls for Obermeyer to purchase Third Friday’s loans to Americore, along with a 35% stake in the hospital chain, for $30 million.

The agreement includes a signature from Azzam Rustom as Obermeyer’s “authorized signatory,” which Amer Rustom – Obermayer’s ‘manager,’ contested – saying it the signature was faked.

Lewitt said during testimony that Amer Rustom ‘verbally authorized’ him to fake his signature on the disputed documents.

Towards the end of the hearing Lewitt was asked why, if the agreements he produced were valid, the Rustoms were contesting them.

Lewitt testified that the Rustoms owned both Obermeyer and the Platinum Group with “members of the Qatari government.” He speculated that the brothers had not cleared the agreements with the Qatari officials, whom he did not name. “I don’t think they expected these to become public,” he testified, “and I think they were trying to cover themselves.” -Politico

According to the judge in the case, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” adding “and this is a black haze right now.”

By Mish Shedlock of MishTalk

Food away from home has risen at least 0.3 percent for 34 out of the last 36 months

Sticker Shock in California

Higher state minimum wage went into effect April 1; chains say burritos and burgers are getting more expensive in response.

The Wall Street Journal reports California Fast-Food Chains Are Now Serving Sticker Shock

Since September, when California moved to require large fast-food chains to bump up their minimum hourly pay to $20 in April, fast-food and fast-casual restaurants in California have increased prices by 10% overall, outpacing all other states, the firm found in an analysis of thousands of restaurants across 70 large chains.

Prices at Chick-fil-A, Domino’s, McDonald’s (MCD) Burger King (BKC), Pizza Hut (YUM), Jack in the Box (JACK ) and other fast-food chains have increased since September, the firm found. Chipotle (CMG) said in an investor call Wednesday that prices at its nearly 500 California restaurants climbed 6% to 7% during the first week of April compared with last year, playing out across its menu.

“The state isn’t making it easy,” Chipotle Chief Executive Brian Niccol said in an interview.

In Los Angeles on a recent April afternoon, Seth Amitin, a 39-year-old therapist, said his usual $16 meal that he picks up weekly at the Chick-fil-A in Hollywood, Calif., now costs $20. The price for a spicy chicken sandwich at that location had gone up to $7.09 from $6.29, or 13%, since mid-February, according to research by Gordon Haskett Research Advisors. Chick-fil-A’s prices increased 10.6% on average in California during that time period, Gordon Haskett found.

California restaurants already had some of the highest fast-food prices in the country, according to market-research firm Revenue Management Solutions. Every month since October, California fast-food and fast-casual restaurants have raised prices across a greater percentage of their menus compared with restaurants in the rest of the country, Datassential found. 

When I was in California for the Nuggets game on Thursday, we stopped at Chipotle. The same double steak bowl I get for $17 in Nevada is now $39 in California. The new minimum wage law is insane. Not even the rich will be able to afford to eat out anymore. Thank you Gavin Newsom!

— Mike Alfred (@mikealfred) April 28, 2024

Auto and Home, Insurance & Maintenance Costs Soaring and People Are Angry

Insurance, repairs, and maintenance costs are up for both homes and autos.

On April 19, I noted Auto and Home, Insurance & Maintenance Costs Soaring and People Are Angry

Some homeowners are skipping home insurance. What’s going on and who is to blame?

Growth in Spending Exceeds Growth in Income for Most of the Last 10 Months

A deeper dive into personal income and outlays for March shows significant signs of consumer stress to maintain standards of living.

For discussion, please see Growth in Spending Exceeds Growth in Income for Most of the Last 10 Months

Would you believe …

On April 20, I noted Truflation Claims Inflation is 2.06 Percent

Would you believe believe year-over year inflation is barely over two percent? That’s the Truflation claim as of April 17, 2024.

Some otherwise bright people on Twitter whom I follow actually believe that Trufltion nonsense. Click on the above link for details.

Authored by Matt Margolis via PJMedia.com,

This week in Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon unsealed a trove of new documents that Jack Smith fought to keep hidden. And you’ll soon find out why. Among the documents unsealed were extensive exhibits, motions, and other filings shedding light on the intricate web of communication between the Biden White House and the National Archives and Records Administration in the lead-up to Trump’s indictment.

Investigative journalist Julie Kelly found something interesting in the documents that could change everything.

The first things is testimony from an FBI agent who testified that the General Services Association (GSA) had been in possession of Trump’s boxes in Virginia before ordering Trump’s team to come get them.

WELL WELL WELL I am pretty sure we never heard this part of the “classified documents/box” story!

More from unredacted motions in FLA–this is from an unsealed transcript of witness interview.

FBI agent says GSA was holding large quantity of Trump’s boxes in VA and then ordered… pic.twitter.com/0i4tGdWZ9A

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 27, 2024

“So an entire pallet full of boxes that had been held by GSA somewhere outside of DC is dumped at Mar-a-Lago,” Kelly notes. “Apparently these are the boxes that ended up containing papers with ‘classified markings.'”

“I will double check indictment but I don’t recall this event in the timeline,” she added.

So, it appears that the Biden administration may have been responsible for shipping classified information to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in Florida. This development is significant because Trump has previously blamed the GSA for packing the boxes that contained the classified documents, only to later accuse Trump of essentially stealing them and using that as pretext for sending the  FBI to raid his Mar-a-Lago home in August 2022.

“It was a set-up from the get-go,” remarked Tom Fitton, the founder of Judicial Watch.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden had classified information that he was never entitled to have stored in boxes in his garage for years, but was not charged. Biden blamed staffers for packing the classified information. 

While this may not prove the Biden administration set up Trump in the classified documents case, considering the way the Biden administration has abused the legal system against Trump, no one can confidently say they wouldn’t.

Even so, it still raises other legitimate questions.

For example, if the GSA had been in possession of the boxes, why wasn’t a review of the materials conducted before they instructed Trump’s team to get them?

When it comes to classified information, they wouldn’t have expected Trump and his staff to be responsible for ensuring that classified documents weren’t among the records.

Perhaps they did review the contents of the boxes and knew classified documents were contained in them before they told Trump’s people to come get them.

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

I’ve been thinking a lot about one of the first lessons I was taught as a junior trader. We were warned that when something happens, say a piece of economic data comes out, and the market doesn’t respond as you expected, to cut positions and be very careful. It is a sign that “something” is wrong in how you are thinking.

On Friday, Treasuries rallied strongly on data that didn’t seem that great for rates. But the reality is (or so I believe) that Thursday’s sell-off was overdone, the “whisper” number was much worse than what came out, there are no longer term Treasury auctions, and the month-end index “extension” is usually good for bonds. So that doesn’t bother me much. What bothers me is that we had:

• NVDA, a $2.2 trillion market cap company, drop 10% last Friday.

• TSLA, a $500 billion market cap company, rise 10% on Wednesday.

• META, a $1.1 trillion market cap company, drop 10% on Thursday.

• GOOG, a $2.1 trillion market cap company, rise 10% on Friday.

Four “megacap” companies moved around 10% (or more) in a day!

I understand small cap companies do that. I understand that periodically something happens that is highly unusual – M&A, a scientific breakthrough, FDA approval, fraud, or something so unusual (but so profound) that a well-followed company gaps by that much. This was “just” earnings. Maybe I’m being overly dramatic? Maybe I haven’t adjusted my thought process to how large companies really are (probably part of the issue)? In any case it feels completely strange (even unnatural) for such large companies to move so much in a single session (let alone seeing it occur 4 times in 6 days)!

I am willing to believe that this is just my perception, and maybe it is more common than I perceive, but it is so different than how I’ve been thinking, that I have to respect it. As a “macro” strategist, I think about broad indices. Normally that is quite “macro,” but when some of the largest components of these indices (and associated ETFs) move so much more than I tend to think they can, then I need to question if it is still macro.

I can hear my first boss telling me that it is time to cut, sit back with less risk on the table, and think about what is going on. Maybe it is nothing. Maybe it is the new norm? Maybe 10% is the new 1%? Maybe moves close to 10% have always happened with market leaders and I just failed to notice that? I find it hard to believe, but knowing the T-Report audience, someone will likely send me a chart showing how common it is and that I need to “get over it.”

But I don’t think in terms of megacaps moving like that. To me, it reduces the macro, and is highly relevant as we have some other megacaps reporting this week. Should I assume 10% in either direction is a valid range? MSFT, for example, followed a more “normal” pattern. Some wild swings post-earnings in the after-market and pre-market. Stops getting triggered. Options at play. Digesting the first headlines, reading the details, listening to the call. All things that have conditioned me to see reasonably large moves in after-hours sometimes continuing into the next day of trading, typically ending with a meaningful change, but not a 10% change – especially for megacaps.

If this T-Report sounds like a broken record fixating on something that maybe isn’t important, I apologize, but it is bothering me a lot.

China

For the past 3 months, the CSI 300 (one measure of Chinese stocks) is up 8.5% versus 3.5% for the S&P 500 and 2% for the Nasdaq Composite.

One could look at this and say that:

• The Chinese economy has turned the corner, helping stocks.

• If China is doing better, it should help the global economy and sales into China, which should be good for all markets.

I remain firmly in the camp that:

• Investors were too pessimistic on the Chinese market and positioning was too underweight or short. The unwind of structured notes sold to retail (that had leverage) was happening, but that has slowed.

• It hasn’t taken much on the economic side to help the stock market (and there are some direct intervention techniques being used to help the stock market, without doing much for the economy). Less about the market.

• Some of this is also linked to the performance of Chinese companies. Some are selling more products (Huawei phones in China, for example).

Since I think:

• The reasons for the Chinese market rise have little to do with the economy (and I have recommended to clients to cut exposure here to FXI/KWEB).

• The Threat of Made By China 2025 is real, so any rebound in China is not going to benefit global companies as much as it would have in prior years.

I have to caution against betting on global stocks because of what we are seeing in China.

Geopolitics

The pressure from global leaders calling on Israel to be cautious is mounting.

Iran, assuming they had hoped for a modicum of success with their 300+ missile and drone strike, is unlikely to do anything while they figure out why their attack was such a failure. See my base case in Should I Stay or Should I Go.

It would be a surprise if a geopolitical event caused problems for the markets this week, but then that is often the case. It is interesting that last weekend’s question of “Should I Stay or Should I Go” is as relevant as before, with some new factors added to the mix.

Bottom Line

Rates.

I am most comfortable with my view on rates.

• We will get some “soft” data and Powell won’t be hawkish enough to convince the market that we are only going to get 1 cut (basically what is currently priced in). I do not see how we get to 0 and think that we could see the case for 2 to 3 (what the dots had, depending on whether you use median or average). Buy 2s at 5% (or 4.98% as the case may be).

• While I expect fears of the deficit, supply, etc. to push us higher at some point, I like owning 10s above 4.6% and think that 4.45% is a reasonable near-term target. As mentioned earlier, there are a number of factors that could take us there as early as this week.

Equities

Since I’m bullish on Treasuries, should I in theory be bullish on equities? Maybe, but that correlation has been weak to nonexistent of late. We’ve addressed this in Changing Times Impacting Signals and Correlations and Rorschach Test. I’m hesitant to be bearish stocks, but bullish on Treasuries. More importantly, I’m reluctant to be too committed in any direction until I can make better sense of these large, single day moves for megacaps. When something is bothering me and I should have a better idea of what is going on (but I don’t), then it is prudent to be cautious.

So, I will remain bearish on equities and expect us to break the lows set on April 19th. It briefly looked like that was possible as recently as Thursday morning, but it seems less realistic now as the S&P gained 2.7% and the Nasdaq rallied 4.2%. I just cannot be too aggressive on this because I could easily see some additional 10% moves, which I’ve never really accounted for. Those moves could go in either direction.

The one thing that does make some sense about 10% moves is that if we really are on the cusp of a viable revolution in technology, the entire market seems cheap. But, if the cost/benefit ratio is not great right now (less than revolutionary improvements at rapidly rising prices), then we could move down rapidly. So maybe 10% moves, even in megacaps, is normal when we are at an inflection point in technology and potential valuations? That is plausible, though I’m not sure how to incorporate that into my framework, other than moving more and more into options to express long and short bets.

Credit.

Yawn. Not a lot of room to tighten. Can widen a bit more, but primarily as a function of stocks going down than any obvious change in fundamentals. With supply likely slowing, relative to cash earmarked for new issues, I’m biased to be mildly bullish credit spreads, even while moderately bearish equities.

May the stocks you own all go up 10% every day. I don’t completely understand it, but cannot ignore it, and might as well hope people benefit!

Authored by Kevin Roberts via The Epoch Times,

The Republican establishment doesn’t know it yet, but last weekend was a watershed moment for their party.

On April 20, House Republican leadership facilitated passage of a foreign-aid package that sends roughly $60 billion to Ukraine, $26 billion to Israel and Gaza, $8 billion to Taiwan, and exactly zero dollars to the southern border. The bill has since passed the Democrat-led Senate and was signed by President Joe Biden.

The vote will be remembered for the choice Republican leadership made to brazenly reject its own voters in favor of the “uniparty” in Washington, DC.

In a move that can only be described as “McConnell-esque,” House Republican leadership teamed up with Democrats to overrule the position of their own conference, their voters, and the will of the American people. Democrats on the House Rules Committee made an unprecedented move by crossing the party line and overruling Republican opposition in committee, signaling an end to the typically Democrat versus Republican battle and the beginning of the conservative versus “uniparty” war.

The disconnect between the Swamp and small-town America could not be more profound. How can a political party be so tone-deaf to the plight of the everyday American suffering under inflation, crime, and societal rot? How can a Republican-led House prioritize the borders of another country over our own border, even as American citizens are killed by illegal immigrants? How can so-called fiscally responsible Republicans sign off on what is now $174 billion in direct Ukraine aid with a national debt of $34 trillion, more than $250,000 for every American household? And how can House Speaker Mike Johnson, who had pledged repeatedly that no foreign-aid legislation would advance without first securing the border, so quickly be steamrolled by the Establishment?

In their desire to send billions of dollars to a conflict that our commander-in-chief has still, to this day, offered no plan for winning, the GOP’s leadership not only spurned their party’s own supporters but overlooked an opportunity to appeal to independent Americans frustrated by both political parties.

According to recent polling that The Heritage Foundation conducted with RMG Research, an overwhelming three out of four swing voters opposed sending any additional aid to Ukraine without also allocating funds for our own border. A majority (56 percent) of swing voters in key battleground states thought that the $113 billion the United States had already committed to Ukraine was too much.

The entire Heritage enterprise fought for over a year and half on this issue. Heritage Action engaged our millions of grassroots members to voice their concerns to their representatives. Scholars at The Heritage Foundation presented a national security alternative package that included limited military aid to Ukraine but made border security the central focus. In an unprecedented move, we even issued a “key vote” on our legislative scorecard against Speaker Johnson’s convoluted rule, which was a gimmick that lowered the threshold to a simple majority (not a supermajority under suspension) and provided political cover for members to vote against individual pieces without jeopardizing the package.

Powerful interests were aligned against us, however, and we lost on the day. Though we lost this battle, all signs indicate that we are winning the war for the soul of the GOP. A majority (112) of Republicans voted against Ukraine aid on April 20. Younger and newer members are particularly fed up with leadership’s conciliatory approach and manipulative tactics that have led us to this point. The average age of the Senate Republicans who voted “nay” is 59, while the average age of those who voted “yea” is 66. The average “nay” vote has been in office since just 2016, while the average “yea” vote has been in Washington since 2010. The same dynamic was true with the recent $1.2 trillion omnibus spending bill.

This generational shift can be ignored by the “uniparty,” but it’s not going away. Newer, younger representatives want a choice, not an echo, and increasingly they’re adopting a populist form of conservatism that champions “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” above all else. In other words, they want a GOP that puts America first, something a government in any healthy republic would do. They want a GOP that acknowledges the reality that America is a nation in decline but is not yet too late to save.

As Ronald Reagan said in his 1980 address accepting the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention, “For those who have abandoned hope, we’ll restore hope and we’ll welcome them into a great national crusade to make America great again!”

And that brings us to the importance of this year’s election.

In 2016, despite staunch opposition from the GOP leadership, Donald Trump rejected the Washington consensus and initiated a generational realignment in American politics. If the conservative movement leans into the politics and policies President Trump made successful, the American people will again have the opportunity this fall to accelerate a new consensus in Washington, DC. This is why I remain optimistic about the future of our great nation.

The GOP establishment’s actions this past week portend the end of the GOP establishment, not its survival. Conservatives will win the soul of the GOP and with it the hearts of the American people.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

A Home Depot in New York has hired armed security guards and K-9 units to protect shoppers from aggressive migrants and thieves in the parking lots, the NY Post reports.

According to City COuncilwoman Kristy Marmorato, “Everybody is well aware of the culture here at Home Depot, that we have day laborers just trying to make an honest living, and they just started to feel like it just started to become a little more aggressive.”

“Where people are walking from the store with stuff in their cart, individuals were coming up to them and literally taking stuff out of their carts to help them and they just felt very concerned, very unsafe.“

Two men wearing MSA Security caps and bulletproof vests with a German shepherd in tow patrolled the Home Depot in New Rochelle on Tuesday.

“It’s more about omnipresence,” one guard said, explaining that the company was contracted a few weeks ago. “It’s not like we let them go bite anyone or anything.”

The guard said the store hired them for a number of reasons.

“It’s not just because of [migrants], but because of a myriad of other things too, like people breaking into cars, that kind of stuff,” he said.  -NY Post

A reporter for the Post observed at least 30 male migrants hovering near the doors of the Throggs Neck, Bronx location – with several day laborers aggressively confronting shoppers, trying to sell them fake Apple Airpods or trying to earn unsolicited tips for lifting items from shopping carts into cars. 

“You come out and you’re a woman by yourself, they literally leech onto your wagon, and you’re like, ‘No, I don’t need any help,'” said one employee. “And when they’re following you to your car, it’s unnerving.”

The employee said that a female supervisor saw one of the men washing his dick and balls with a water bottle in the lot, and that several women have called Home Depot customer service to complain of being robbed by migrants.

“I came to work one day and there had to be 100 guys out here,” she told the Post. “And I’m like, ‘Oh, my God!'”

A regular customer at the store, who asked to be identified only as Cheryl, said she and her husband had a frightening encounter last month.

A man “practically runs over and he goes to point like, ‘Can I take the stuff,’ and my husband said, ‘No, thank you,’” she recalled, noting that they only had a couple of boxes and a paint scraper.

“He’s still keeps following, like on top of us,” she said. “I said, ‘No, thank you.’” 

When her husband turned around to open the car door, the man “put his hand” on one of the boxes in their cart. “My husband said, ‘Don’t touch anything.’”

But the man didn’t stop. -NY Post

“It’s come to the point where they’re invading personal space, touching people’s belongings, just harassing,” said Home Depot customer service employee, LaurieAnn Masciocco. “I get it, you’re trying to make a buck. But when it becomes aggressive and harassing, there’s a major issue.“

Dexter Taylor, a software engineer and resident of Brooklyn, NY, took on gunsmithing as a hobby during the Covid-19 lockdowns.  He was already familiar with machining and found himself fascinated by the project, so he set out to learn the skills needed.  Taylor researched ATF rules regarding the building of firearms and wanted to follow them carefully.  Sadly, however, the state of New York has its own laws which leftist governments believe supersede federal law and the Constitution.  

Because Taylor was apparently not officially licensed as a gunsmith in NY, authorities decided to raid his home and arrest him for possession of gun parts (including 80% lowers) which are legal federally but require a smithing certificate in the state (a legal gray area which is being contested).  Taylor was easy to find because he purchased all the parts with his own credit cards thinking he was protected under ATF rules.

ATF rules state that the building of guns for personal use including 80% lowers and related parts is legal as long as the person does not build those weapons to sell.     

Taylor’s lawyer, Vinoo Varghese, noted that the case is a difficult one in New York, hinting at the leftist bias within NY courtrooms when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.  In fact, Varghese suggested that when Judge Abena Darkeh took over the case she was oddly hostile towards the defense.  He mentions that she interrupted his opening statements multiple times, claiming that he could not use 2nd Amendment arguments in her courtroom:

“She told us, ‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.'”

Of course, the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights surpasses the authority of the State of New York and the courtroom of Judge Abena Darkeh.  New York progressives might like to think their state is a separate country from the US with its own rules, but it’s not.  It’s clear that this is a situation in which an activist judge is seeking to make an example out of a law abiding citizen with no previous criminal record.  The goal is to send a message that blue states are going to fabricate their own rules when it comes to gun rights regardless of constitutional precedent. 

Varghese hints in a recent interview that the Judge is married to the “biggest fundraiser” for the Brooklyn DA, which may present a conflict of interest.  Also, Joe Biden has made the issue of “Ghost Guns” a primary target for his administration the past few years.  To date, the use of ghost guns in criminal acts in the US is statistically negligible.  It’s simply not a problem that needs the attention of the White House. 

NEW: Brooklyn man convicted over his gunsmithing hobby after the judge says that the 2nd Amendment ‘doesn’t exist in this courtroom’

‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.’ – Judge… pic.twitter.com/cgfPO4ANnm

— Unlimited L’s (@unlimited_ls) April 23, 2024

The defense also asserted that the Judge pressured the jury to come back with a guilty verdict, which they did, convicting Taylor of a list of offenses including: 

Second-degree criminal possession of a loaded weapon, four counts of third-degree criminal possession of a weapon, five counts of criminal possession of a firearm, second-degree criminal possession of five or more firearms, unlawful possession of pistol ammunition, violation of certificate of registration, prohibition on unfinished frames or receivers.  Two lesser charges, including third-degree criminal possession of three or more firearms and third-degree possession of a weapon, were not voted on.

Keep in mind that in the vast majority of states in the US all of these charges sound ridiculous.  Possession of a loaded weapon?  Unlawful possession of pistol ammunition?  What?

Taylor now faces 10-18 years in prison and he awaits sentencing in Rikers Island, one of the worst prisons in the country.  The case is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court, where a number of gun cases involving 80% lowers are awaiting decision.  New York’s habit of punishing good people while letting criminals go free is becoming an epidemic, and it’s likely a primary reason why the state is now suffering a net loss of hundreds of thousands of residents every year.     

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

In an incredible moment at the annual White House correspondent’s Dinner Saturday, Joe Biden lectured reporters, telling them they need to “rise up” and get behind his campaign, insinuating that if they don’t there will no longer be a free press in America.

Biden addressed the press, stating that “the most urgent question of our time is whether democracy is still the sacred cause of America. That is the question the American people must answer this year and you, the free press, play a critical role in making sure the American people have the information they need to make an informed decision.”

Biden again calls on journalists to defend democracy (i.e. crush Republicans):

“Move past the horse race numbers and the gotcha moments, and the distractions, the sideshows that have come to dominate and sensationalize our politics and focusing on what’s actually at stake. I… pic.twitter.com/bdGSSCTgUr

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 28, 2024

First of all, Biden appears to be saying that he is ‘Democracy’ and if people do not vote for him that is somehow undemocratic.

Secondly, he is telling the press that they are capable of swaying public opinion in his favour, which is completely undemocratic.

He isn’t asking the press to report facts neutrally and let the people decide, as evidenced by his next sentence, which was replete with the usual disinformation about Donald Trump.

“The defeated former President has made no secret of his attack on our democracy. He said he wants to be a dictator on day one and so much more. He tells supporters he is the revenge and retribution. When in God’s name ever heard of another president say something like that? And he promised a bloodbath when he loses again,” Biden asserted.

While claiming he is not asking the press to “take sides,” he did exactly that.

“We have to take this seriously. Eight years ago, it could have been written off as just Trump talk but no longer, not after January 6. I’m sincerely not asking you to take sides, but asking a rise up to the seriousness of the moment,” Biden persisted.

“Move past the horse race numbers and the gotcha moments, and the distractions, the sideshows that have come to dominate and sensationalize our politics and focusing on what’s actually at stake,” he continued, adding “I think in your hearts, you know what’s at stake.”

“The stakes couldn’t be higher every single one of us has roles to play — a serious role, to play in making sure democracy endures, American democracy. I have my role, but with all due respect, so do you,” he lectured reporters.

He then had the gall to instruct reporters to provide “credible information,” rather than “disinformation,” while toasting the “free press.”

“In the age of disinformation, credible information that people can trust is more important than ever and that makes you, and I mean this with the bottom of my heart, makes you more important than ever. So tonight, I’d like to make a toast — to a free press, to an informed citizenry, to an American where freedom and democracy endure. God bless America,” Biden concluded.

A “free press” but I’m gonna tell you what to write about and what not to.

— Chrissy (@Chrissys067) April 28, 2024

So he’s saying don’t write anything about me, just go after Trump.

— linda thompson (@lthomps54) April 28, 2024

It’s a campaign rally. These are his constituents.

— Janice (@jannyfayray) April 28, 2024

In other words, take sides 🙄

— Jeff Trent (@JLTrent86) April 28, 2024

This all comes in a week when Biden has managed to ignite a war with The New York Times.

The Times is annoyed with Biden’s complete disinterest in providing interviews or access for reporters, while his administration is angry that the Times isn’t falling into line as a propaganda arm against Trump.

Biden ‘joked’ about it, Saturday. It’s funny because it’s true.

In other words, take sides 🙄

— Jeff Trent (@JLTrent86) April 28, 2024

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.