Posted on 01/24/2025 5:19:22 AM PST by MtnClimber
Could there be anything less MAGA than the annual gathering of the 55th annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland? This year, with a shriveled attendance, the assembled corporate leaders, socialist governments, assorted big thinkers, United Nations officials, and woke NGOs don’t seem very happy. Indeed, they seem downright glum about their plans for world government run by euro-centric and Third World globalist elites.
Once a favorite place for preening politicians to show their world-humanitarian feathers, the affair has lost some luster.
“This year the leaders of the world’s most powerful nations are skipping the meeting,” Breitbart reported. Why? It seems Trumpism has put a cloud over the once-festive gathering of one-worlders.
Trump addressed the group by video Thursday, stressing that during his second term he would seek to reduce oil and gas prices, slash regulations, cut taxes for domestic companies and put tariffs on goods from countries who treat the U.S. unfairly.
The response by the clique of elitists to Trump’s decidedly non-globalist agenda was entirely predictable, drawing “pockets of laughter and a few moans with his blunt comments to an international audience … “
Laughter? Has the wind gone out of the globalists’ sails? Sure looks that way.
Consider that heavy hitters such as Chinese communist dictator Xi Jinping, India’s President Narendra Modi, France’s President Emmanuel Macron, Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and embattled British Prime Minister Keir Starmer didn’t bother to show up. Only one G7 leader attended: Desperate German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, whose economy is now shrinking.
Trump’s reception by the smirking, wealthy poobahs is quite a shift from the last president.
Former President Joe Biden, or whoever made his decisions for him, was loved by the Davosians and their adjunct, the United Nations. They saw eye-to-eye on so many issues, ranging from the need for higher taxes on corporations to the importance of more stifling regulation, multinational censorship, “net zero” CO2 emissions, and the necessity of strong “global governance” (i.e., world government), there’s really no difference.
Quietly, and with very little media coverage, over the last four years Biden took major steps to weaken the U.S. in world affairs, while often deferring to the EU, U.N., China and others that despise America’s strength, freedom and republican (small “r”) virtue.
It culminated with Biden backing the horrendous United Nations “Pact for the Future,” an innocuous sounding agreement that in fact would have built the foundations for world government, or as the U.N. euphemistically called it, “transforming global governance.”
“There was no debate, no media coverage, no press releases, and no interviews about the Biden-Harris administration’s surrender of United States sovereignty to the U.N.”, Robert Williams of the Gatestone Institute noted.
In short, Biden backed it, the media ignored it, and no one made too big a stink about it, except for conservatives and libertarians.
And behind all, giving the initiative a mighty push, was the World Economic Forum and its founder Klaus Schwab, along with a bevy of “forward-thinking” post-industrialists and failed politicians.
Indeed, the U.N.’s initiative is merely a riff on the WEF’s own “Great Reset,” an attempt to create a new global order from the ground up, with WEF elites at the very top.
Most of all, they agree that the old concept of a nation-state democratically representing the interests of its own citizens was obsolete. In its place, they seek global governance by corporate and governmental elites, one in which any individual nation’s own citizens would have a diminished, disempowered role.
The perfect example of this already exists: The feckless failure that is the European Union. Over the last decade or so, the 28-nation EU has presided over a near unparalleled economic stagnation. The same organization that boasted its economy would “leapfrog” the U.S. in 2000 now displays a moribund economy not even two-thirds the size of America’s. It’s losing ground fast.
This corrupt incompetence is no longer admired or accepted by people around the world. Just look at recent elections outside the U.S. and you get the picture. Trump vanquishing first Biden (who quit because his party knew he couldn’t win) and then Vice President Kamala Harris showed his power as a politician.
It didn’t hurt that he survived two potential assassinations without missing a beat. And in his first days in office, he (again) pulled out of the corrupt World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Accords, and began closing our border to illegal immigrants, including potential terrorists and other criminals. People around the world wish they had leaders like him, leaders who brought more freedom, more safety and more economic growth.
“Winning the 2024 election was only the beginning — the Trump effect is now sweeping the globe,” recently wrote PJ Media’s Daniel McCarthy. “From Canada to the U.K. and continental Europe, left-liberal governments are tottering while right-leaning voters, especially young men, gravitate toward populist politics and take inspiration from Donald Trump’s success in America.”
True enough. Headlines such as these have become increasingly common recently: “A new age of politics is upon the world — as toppled leaders lose their grip on power,” “The Vibe Shift Goes Global,” and “Will Trumpism Go Global?” among many others. The world desperately wants leadership from America. Trump is providing it.
So maybe our long, national globalist nightmare is over. Whether the WEF and the literally dozens of globalist-socialist NGOs, billionaire CEOs, played-out “intellectuals,” and lefty hedge-fund managers that make up its core realize it or not, Trump’s model is far more appealing than the corrupt one-world socialism they’re offering.
Federal law supersedes state law based on Article VI to the U.S. Constitution, which declares the Constitution and the Laws of the United States as the Supreme Law of the land. Except for issues that Federal banking regulations cede to the states, e.g., usury laws or foreclosure proceedings. the states have no ability to regulate the actions of a national bank, a Federally chartered savings association or a Federal credit union. For example, the state of Texas forbade chartering of state banks from admission into the Union until 1903. During that period, national banks operated in Texas unrestricted by state laws.
Yes, and Barron too. From Yahoo:
"Barron Trump was denied a bank account because of the 'cancel mob,' former first lady Melania Trump reveals in her new book. In her memoir Melania, the former first lady discusses the 'venom of cancel culture' she experienced after leaving the White House, just weeks after the January 6 Capitol attack.
Former President Donald Trump was in the political doghouse over his role in the brutal riot, but Melania writes that she and Barron were impacted too.
'I was shocked and dismayed to learn that my long-time bank decided to terminate my account and deny my son the opportunity to open a new one,' she said."
You know what I do for a living? I work in risk management with major banks. Believe me when I tell you banks are very much subject to all kinds of state laws. They can be inspected by state auditors. Cuomo when he was governor of NY threatened the banks with exactly that in order to get them to support gun grabbing. If NY can do it, other states can lean on them in the opposite direction using the exact same means.
Are the banks you work for chartered by the state banking department or the OCC?
The state banking departments or credit union regulators have zero authority over Federally chartered institutions. The Texas Department of Banking can enter a national bank but have no more authority than that agency would have over a sheet metal fabricator or a wholesale food distributor. Only the OCC and the Federal Reserve (in the latter case if the national bank has a bank holding company) have the authority to review the records of a national bank or a Federally chartered savings association.
A national bank or other Federally chartered financial institution is subject to state taxing authority or the state corporation commission if the Federally chartered financial institution has a bank holding company. If you are at a national bank, you may be seeing auditors from the state tax authority.
Nevertheless, state governments do have leverage over national banks because state agencies and pension funds have enormous deposit funds on which they can set conditions. There is also the publicity leverage; in a liberal state like New York, there is a lot of support for gun grabbing. Conversely, conservative states like Texas and Florida have used their influence to discourage banks from supporting ESG initiatives.
The global elites will have more heartburn when Marine le Pen is president of France and Nigel Farage is UK Prime Minister. The world seems to be waking up and even economic basket cases like Argentina are now prospering under conservative values.
They already pushed for this in Romania's election ("But on Tuesday the Strasbourg-based court threw out his case, ruling it fell “outside the scope of application of Rule 39,” which relates to when the court can issue such urgent orders. It did not rule on the merits of his case otherwise".
Supreme Court Announces Standard For Determining Whether Federal Law Preempts State Laws Regulating National Banks
Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 22-529 – Decided May 30, 2024
Today, the Supreme Court held 9-0 that there is no categorical rule for determining whether federal law preempts state banking laws when applied to national banks, and instead adopted a test focused on whether the law interferes with a national bank’s exercise of its powers.
What It Means:
The Supreme Court expressly rejected the competing categorical approaches advanced by the parties. The Court declined to adopt the bank’s proposed rule, which would “preempt virtually all state laws that regulate national banks.” It also rejected the plaintiffs’ proposed preemption standard, which would “preempt virtually no non-discriminatory state laws.”
The Supreme Court decided 9-0 against broadly defining federal power to regulate banks exclusively and severely limiting state’s power to regulate banks. Its right there in the decision.
So no change in the status quo.
What changed is they shot down the theory that states have little power to regulate national banks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.