Peloni: In his opening segment, Mark discusses the recent ruling by the US Court of International Trade which ruled against Trump’s use of emergency powers to address the economic crisis in the US. Mark explains that the core of the ruling is based upon the concept and practice of separations of power, and even the court itself addresses this fact. The problem with acknowledging this fact, however, is that Congress is not only not supporting the complaint in the case, but that there is no material Congressional objection to Trump exercising the emergency powers. Mark also raises the point that Congress has not even attempted to draw back the powers delegated to the president in a bill which was signed into law back in 1977, further demonstrating that Congress has no objections to Trump’s actions on this topic. While stating that the case is a dispute between executive and legislative powers, the Trade Court ignores the fact that there is no dispute between the executive and legislative branches, as the case in question is exclusively based on private complaints, which begs the question from where does the court draw its authority to intercede in a the president exercising the authority empowered to the presidency by the legislature some 50yrs ago.
The answer is once again to be found in the original judicial overreach which was established out of thin air with the case. Rather than instructing the complainants to address their grievances with the congress, Mark notes that the Trade Court chose to obviate the authority of the president granted to him by the congress, which is an extra-constitutional act. Noting that the judges, lawyers and legal institutions all share a common perspective that the SCOTUS has the final say in matters such as this, Mark addresses the fact that this perspective of judicial supremacy is based upon a single extra-Constitutional judicial ruling rather than upon the actual Constitution from which the powers of the courts, as just one of three co-equal branches of govt, are both defined and limited. Ignoring the limitations of checks and balances as described in the Constitution is the basis for which judicial tyranny was developed and continues to be practiced, without regard of the real focus of power under the constitution, which is the consent of the governed, not the whim of the courts. In his second segment, Mark interviews Hudson’s Institutes’ Mike Doran about the ongoing Iran negotiations. Mike explains that while Trump has made it clear that his position is to eradicate Iran’s nuclear program, but that the negotiations which Trump has authorized will not achieve that outcome. He explains that the Iranian gambit in the negotiations is to agree to an interim deal which will pause the enrichment of uranium in exchange for a US guarantee that they have in principle the right to enrich uranium, as well as the lifting of sanctions, and a block on any potential Israeli attack on Iran. By doing so, it will provide Iran with a long term protection of their uranium enrichment program, prevention of any Snap Back Sanctions, while also creating a wedge between Israel and the US. Mike also charges that when the US accepted a deal with the Houthis not inclusive of Israel, it created daylight between the US and Israel which emboldened and strengthened Iran, and that it also provided the pretext by which the Iranians, the Saudis, and the Turks could act in unison to project Israel as the problem in the region while ignoring the fact that the problem is actually Iran. Mike also notes that US and Israeli interests are completely aligned vis a vis Iran, so by creating daylight between them, it only serves to ultimately defeat the US goals in the region. While indicating that there is a potential for the US to veto Iran’s requested interim deal and move with Israel to apply pressure on Iran, the US has entirely lifted all pressure off of Iran to make any concessions right now by warning Israel to stand down while negotiations are ongoing. In Mark’s third segment, he talks with David Mamet about his latest book, The Disenlightenment in which he tries to identify the many bizarre things being advocated today, and the same time, try to make sense of what the purpose might be in doing so. His conclusion is that the US is currently in a state of civil war, and these bizarre acts are acts of sedition intended to push the ongoing coup in the US further towards success.
May 31:
Peloni: In his first segment, Mark reviews the recent UN IAEA report that Iran can now produce enough bomb-grade fuel for 10 nuclear weapons, doubling its existing stockpile over the past 3 months while negotiating with the Trump administration. Mark reminds us of the first America First movement which took form about a century ago, in which an isolationist movement took hold in the US, while the roots of WWII and the Holocaust took hold in Europe and around the world, and which even led to the passage of neutrality acts in the late 1930’s, preventing any attempt by the US to stop the Nazi enslaught. Mark makes the comparison of the array of ideological figures supporting this movement last century by the likes of Charles Lindberg, Col. McCormick of Chicago Tribune and Norman Thomas, a socialist leader, and the antisemitic Father Coughlin, with a similar array of ideological figures of today, including AOC, Bernie Sanders, George Soros and Charles Koch. The consequence of this movement last century saw millions of people perishing due to American withdrawal from the international stage, as Europe fell prey to the Nazi onslaught. Mark notes additionally that the America First movement of the 1930s was repeatedly noted for its antisemitic and pro-fascist sentiments, further highlighting the similarities between the 1930’s movement opposing war with Hitler and the one today opposing war with Iran. While the isolationists of today are claiming that the situation with Iran is manageable, they ignore the very nature of the threat which emanates from Iran, much as was typical of the 1930’s movement’s determination to ignore the nature of the Nazi threat last century. The principle of Mutually Assured Destruction provides no deterrence to those whose entire ideology is based upon a death cult, whose determination is to bring forth such world chaos as to draw out the Twevler’s Madhi. Mark continues by reminding us that these ideologues are in both Central and South America, in the Artic Circle, and that they have a West African base with the Chinese, and a base in the Solomon Islands. In closing this segment, Mark highlights that while Trump is not part of the isolationist movement, they are using their influence to silence Trump’s more rational supporters, such as Mark, himself. In his second segment, Mark talks with Zudhi Jasser to discuss the nature of the Iranian regime. Jasser reminds us of the suicidal nature of the attacks carried out by via suicide bombing, and its preference for national fratricide. According to the ideology of the Iranian Mullahs, sewing the seeds of chaos will bring about the end of times and the emergence of the 12th Imam and Armageddon. Jasser asserts that the humanitarian solution would pre-empt the Iranians gaining access to a nuclear bomb, because they will use it. He also highlights the ongoing protests within Iran, from bakers to truckers, just over the past few months, and that the Mullahs are on their heels, as it were, and that a nuclear bomb would provide them with the protection which they need to survive both internationally and domestically, and only the inaction of the West will allow them to do so. In his third segment, Mark talks with Newt Gingrich about his new book detailing Trump’s amazing comeback. Mark’s show was pre-empted by the coverage of the Colorado terror attack in which a pro Hamas advocate used a flame thrower and Molotov cocktails to attack a pro-Israel, Hostage advocacy group.
June 1:
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.