Posted originally on May 19, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
COMMENT: Marty, I just had to comment that anyone who does not interview you is either part of the Deep State, or they listen to the Deep State. You have more experience than the rest of the crowd combined; you have been persecuted for knowing too much. It was great to put Marcus on the stage at the WEC and let him explain how they tried to prevent people from meeting with you or interviewing you when you were being silenced. Oliver Brown in the Forecaster said the FBI was at his door trying to discourage him from being in Marcus’ movie. It was interesting to hear how the New Yorker Magazine had to threaten Washington, asking why they could not interview you when they could get an interview with even terrorists.
Anyone who refuses to interview you is part of the same agenda as the Deep State. Plain and simple. I will no longer listen to any program that does not interview you. They are indistinguishable from mainstream media. That’s why they are making movies about you, nobody else.
Jed
I have written to _______ and ________ and never got a reply. They are not to be trusted in my book.
REPLY: I cannot disagree. I know a few people who interviewed me and then got calls not to have me on again. They have joined mainstream media while pretending to report the truth. There is no difference between Europe and the suppression of free speech, and how they are handling the press here in the USA. They do it covertly here in the States. The government makes phone calls, and they do as they are asked. We saw that in COVID. Let me explain something, since this will be in the new version of the Forecaster. During the 2007-2010 Great Recession, I communicated with the House Financial Services Committee and others. I am really the only one with the same level of experience as the top bankers, but I’m on the other side of the fence.
I believe I was thrown in the hole to cut off my communications at the request of the bankers applying pressure to the DOJ. I was writing from the hole thanks to some guards who were sneaking them out. When you are in the hole, they cut off all phone privileges. Mail is censored in and out. Most of the guards were pissed off at what they were doing to me. The reason Oliver Brown wanted to be in the movie was that when the first 18-month contempt sentence was up, they refused to release me and told him I was probably innocent and they were just trying to break me.
Then a letter from Congress was sent to the prison asking to investigate who threw me in the hole and why. I was suddenly taken out, and everyone threw the warden under the bus. The extent to which they have tried to silence me is unprecedented. It has led to even more institutions coming out and saying that now they know I am not part of the NY Crowd, so that they can trust me.
The real question that bothered me was how they knew Marcus Vetter would film Oliver Brown that day? They must have been illegally tapping Marcus’ phone calls for the FBI to show up the day before to intimidate him. You can’t make up this stuff. They have gone to extreme lengths to prevent people from listening to anything I have to say. Period! Welcome to free speech in America.
Anyone with 10% of brain function still working can just read my plea, which was written by the government that I had to read. It said I failed to tell my clients that the bank stole the money for its own benefit, not mine.
I was not allowed to speak in my own words. Like any hostage, I had to read a script written by the government, which is unconstitutional, but they do not give a shit in NYC. I went to my lawyer on Friday, August 27th, 1999, and he sent a letter demanding the return of the money on Monday. They claimed I should have told my clients over the weekend, who were all major public companies.
This is the Department of Justice. Charles Dickens wrote in Bleak House about how corrupt the justice system was, and that was in England in the mid-19th century. Nothing has changed.
I received no restitution, there were no defaults on my part, and my clients supported me. I instructed them to sue the bank, and they did. The government was pissed off that I was helping my clients since the bank stole $1 billion after losing billions in the Russia collapse. That meant the bank would have to return the money instead of pretending I had it stashed somewhere, even though it is impossible to get $1 billion out of a bank, and nobody knows where it went since that can only be done by wire.
Let me know if any lawyer has succeeded in suing Wikipedia, which the government controls. The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, is now warning the public not to trust the website he helped to create. “You can trust it to give an establishment view,” Sanger admitted, explaining that the website’s original design has been destroyed.
The government put a gag order on me to stop me from helping my clients against the bank – HSBC.
So I am the piece of shit – and the bankers walk on water in NYC.
Never has any banker been sent to prison for their schemes. NEVER!
Posted originally on May 19, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas believes that the federal government should provide each child $1,000 at birth to be invested in the stock market. “Every child in America will have private investment accounts that will compound over their lives, enhancing the prosperity and economic participation of the vast majority of Americans,” Cruz said. Around 3.6 million children were born in the US last year, meaning that the federal government would need to set aside $3.6 billion a year to fund this program.
Cruz’s program would permit family and friends to add $5,000 annually to these private investment accounts, with the hope that the compounding interest will give these kids a head start in life. “What I’m interested in is giving these kids the ability to climb the economic ladder much, much faster to accumulate wealth,” Cruz told CNBC. “I think there’s a real power to making them investors and stakeholders in the economy.”
This is not a completely new concept. Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey proposed providing newborns with funds for investing that would be worth up to $2,000, but rather than investing in the private sector, they would hold treasuries or “baby bonds.” Hillary Clinton also proposed a “baby bond” worth up to $5,000 during her first presidential campaign, costing the public $18 billion annually.
Future generations pay for social programs and the surmounting national debt. Cruz, Clinton, and Booker fail to realize that these programs require funding which comes from these future taxpayers. In a December 2024 interview, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell stated, “We’re borrowing from future generations. And every generation really should pay for the things that it needs.” Massive spending packages are detrimental in the long run and cause more harm than good.
There’s a strong chance that many parents would simply pocket the funds or not know how to properly invest it in the market. Around 62% of Americans currently hold equities, but the majority own through retirement accounts. Only 21% of American families directly own stocks. The public education system should begin teaching future generations about investment and personal finance, as one in four Americans are financially illiterate.
Suppose lawmakers actually want to improve the lives of future generations. In that case, they need to stop adopting policies that saddle the American public with debt that they then forcibly collect through increased taxation.
Posted originally on May 19, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
Nordic nations have been leading the cashless society revolution. Masked as a manner of efficiency, digital transactions are not demanded by governments globally as they seek to rake in all money off the grid for taxation purposes.
Sweden is nearly a cashless society, with less than 2% of transactions occurring in physical currency as of 2020. Some estimates believe cash transactions have risen to 10% as of 2025, but it is becoming less commonplace. Swish transfer, launched in 2012, is a mobile payment system that enables users to transfer money in real-time. Accounts are linked to bank accounts, and transactions are authorized by Mobile BankID. As of February 2025, Swish had over 9 million users with 8.9 million private accounts and 318,000 business accounts. Only 10.5 million people currently live in Sweden.
The governor of Risbank declared in 2017 that “half of Swedish traders believe they will stop accepting cash by 2025” and Swish would be used for “Transaction that used to be mostly cash based.” In 2010, around 40% of transactions occurred in cash compared to 2-10% today.
Norway is also close to becoming cashless. Similar to Swish, Norway uses a program called Vipps that is owned by DNB Bank. Around 90% of Norwegian bank customers are using this program. Vipps began accepting crypto last year as well.
The National Bank of Denmark reported that cash was used in only 11% of transactions in 2024. Finland has seen a drastic drop in cash transactions, accounting for under 20% of payments.
Customers across Nordic nations report having a high level of trust in their banking institutions and government. Polls and reports vary, but the aforementioned nations typically have a higher level of confidence in their national government compared to other OECD nations. The 2024 OECD poll found 48% of Norwegians had high or moderately high trust in their national government, exceeding the OECD average of 39%. Yet, that figure has declined 16% since 2021. Around 77% of Finns reported having a high level of trust in their government, and 43% of Swedes felt similarly.
Using a credit card or mobile pay option has become the new normal everywhere. Cash transactions are becoming increasingly rare. Cash is still legal tender, and governments have not banished physical currencies—yet. It will be easier for governments to mandate CBDC as the majority of citizens have already gone digital.
It is astounding to see public figures expose their agendas on social media. Former FBI Director James Comey was publicly humiliated during Donald Trump’s first term when he was dismissed from the bureau for mishandling the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server. Comey launched a fraudulent investigation into Trump, becoming a main player in the “Russian collusion” hoax that sought to blame Russia for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential defeat. Comey is once again making headlines for attacking Donald Trump, but this time, his message was a direct threat.
“Cool shell formation on my beach walk…,” Comey posted on Instagram, with an image featuring seashells forming “86 47.” The number 86 is commonly used as slang for “kill” or “to eliminate,” and Trump is of course the 47th president. The post received immediate backlash and was deleted with a follow-up post. “I posted earlier a picture of some shells I saw today on a beach walk, which I assumed were a political message,” the subsequent post from Comey said. “I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.”
Comey was the Director of the FBI—he knew what that ominous message meant and posted it online for a reason. Authorities are now concerned that his message was a subliminal call to action “to eliminate” the president.
Oddly enough, Comey’s post was exactly 8,647 days since the largest terrorist attack on US soil–9/11.
Donald Trump told reporters that he believed the social media post was a direct call for an assassination attempt. “He knew exactly what that meant. A child knows what that meant … That meant ‘assassination,’” Trump said in an interview with Bret Baier on Friday.
Tulsi Gabbard, serving as Director of National Intelligence, believes that Comey should be imprisoned because “there are individuals who take him very seriously.” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem called the matter “deeply concerning” and is urging an investigation.
“We are in communication with the Secret Service and Director Curran,” Patel said. “Primary jurisdiction is with SS on these matters and we, the FBI, will provide all necessary support.” This is a serious matter, as there have already been numerous attempts on the president’s life. Comey has direct ties to the dark establishment.
The hashtag “#8647” is trending online. The far left is hoping this becomes a political movement as they continue to protest against Trump and his administration violently.
James Comey stated that he did not intend any violence with his Instagram post featuring the number “8647” and took it down after realizing some interpreted it as a threat against President Trump. He emphasized his opposition to violence and clarified that he was unaware of the potential implications of the message.
Posted originally on CTH on May 18, 2025 | Sundance
Nicușor Dan was the pro-EU, pro-war and pro-NATO Romanian presidential candidate supported by Brussels.
When Nicușor Dan came in second place in the first round of elections, CTH noted he was very likely to succeed because the stakes are just too high for the European Union. The largest NATO military base in Europe is being built in Romania.
There was simply no way the collective assembly of the Intelligence Community, the military industrial complex, the pro-Ukraine elements, the anti-Russia NATO/EU alliance were going to allow defeat. As expected, Dan won.
BUCHAREST — Romania elected a centrist president in a major surprise after an intense campaign in which voters looked likely to propel another hard-right populist to lead a large European country.
Despite coming a distant second in the first round two weeks ago, the moderate mayor of Bucharest, Nicușor Dan, won by a decisive 8-point majority over his radical rival, George Simion, who conceded defeat early Monday after initially declaring himself the winner.
With 99.8 percent of polling stations counted by 1:50 a.m. local time Monday, Dan had won 53.8 percent to 46.2 percent for Simion. Turnout was 65 percent, the highest since 1996.(more)
Posted originally on CTH on May 18, 2025 | Sundance
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent appears on NBC Meet the Press to discuss the current status of the trade negotiations, tariffs and pending trade deals. In addition, Secretary Bessent outlines the construct of President Trump’s tax proposals and the intended benefits therein to middle-class working Americans. WATCH (Transcript Below)
[Transcript] KRISTEN WELKER: Welcome back. There are new economic warnings after the credit ratings agency, Moody’s, downgraded the United States’ credit rating one notch from its AAA rating. Moody’s citing concerns over the nation’s rising debt. It comes as President Trump’s tax bill suffered a setback in Congress this past week. Joining me now is Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Secretary Bessent, welcome back to Meet the Press.
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT: Kristen, good to see you. Thanks for having me on.
KRISTEN WELKER: It’s wonderful to have you on after a long foreign trip. Thank you for being here. Let’s start right there with Moody’s downgrading the nation’s credit rating. And they do cite the debt. I want to read you a little bit of what Moody’s says. It says, quote, “If the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is extended, which is our base case, it will add around $4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade.” Several Republicans, Mr. Secretary, are citing similar concerns. Does the president’s tax bill need to do more to address the nation’s debt and deficit?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT: Well, Kristen, first – first of all, I – I think that Moody’s is a lagging indicator. I think that’s what everyone thinks of credit agencies. Larry Summers and I don’t agree on everything, but he said that’s when they – they downgraded the U.S. in 2011. So it’s – it’s a lagging indicator. And just like Sean Duffy said with our air traffic control system, we didn’t get here in the – in the past 100 days. It’s the Biden administration and the spending that we have – have seen over the past four years. We inherited 6.7% deficit to GDP, the highest when we weren’t in a recession, not in a war. And we are determined to bring the spending down and grow the economy.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Fair enough. But under President Trump’s first administration he added $8 trillion to the nation’s debt in his first term. So there’s plenty of blame to go around. Let me –
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
No, no, no, no, no. But let’s review. We were in the rescue portion of Covid. The Biden – the Biden administration was in the recovery portion. And Kristen, it would’ve been if not for Senators Manchin and Sinema, who are no longer the – in the Democratic caucus, that it would’ve been $4 trillion or $5 trillion more.
KRISTEN WELKER:
It did include the – the tax cuts as well. But let me ask you about Walmart, this big news from Walmart. It says it will start raising prices on its consumers, Mr. Secretary, as early as this month due to the tariffs. Now, President Trump out with a very stern warning on social media saying Walmart, quote, “should eat the tariffs,” adding the company made far more than expected last year. Is the president asking American companies to be less profitable?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
I – I was on the phone with Doug McMillon, the CEO of Walmart, yesterday. And Walmart is in fact, going to, as you describe it, eat some of the tariffs, that – just as they did in ’18, ’19, and ’20. The other thing, though, that we are seeing that Doug passed along to me, that with their consumers, the single most important thing is the gasoline price. Gasoline prices have collapsed under President Trump. So we – we are seeing that. The other thing that will happen, that is a direct tax cut for consumers. Then the transportation costs are also a big input. So let’s see what happens. What you’re describing was Walmart’s earnings call. The other thing the companies have to do, they have to give the worst case scenario so that they’re not sued. So you know, I – I think overall we are seeing a decline in services, inflation, and I – and we saw inflation come down for the first time in four years.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, you know, in my conversation with former Vice President Mike Pence, he says he sees tariffs as a tax. How far, Mr. Secretary, is the president, is the administration willing to go to prevent CEOs from increasing prices?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Well, I – I think what we are hearing here is tax – people are saying tax increases are inflationary that – when I was testifying before Congress last week, one of the congressmen said that. And I said, “Well, Congressman, if taxes are inflationary, let’s cut taxes.” So let’s get this tax bill done, bring down taxes, which according to this line of thinking, should be disinflationary.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But the Federal Reserve has said that tariffs are inflationary. Just to be very clear, you said you called Walmart. Is that what CEOs can expect, that you, that the president, that other members of the administration will apply pressure to try to prevent them from passing on these prices to CEOs?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
I – I didn’t apply any pressure. The – the – Doug and I have a very good relationship, so I just wanted to hear it from him rather than – than second, third-hand from the press. And again, as I said, this is all from their earnings call. And on an earnings call, you have to give the – the worst case scenario. Kristen, to go back to what you said, the Federal Reserve is not saying that tariffs will cause inflation. They’re saying they’re not sure, and that they’re in wait and see mode.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let’s talk about the other big news that you were a part of a week ago in Switzerland, negotiating with China’s officials. You and the administration lowered tariffs from the high rate of 145% to 30% for 90 days, to allow talks to continue. But President Trump had said previously, and I’m quoting from him, “China needs to make a deal with the U.S. We don’t have to make a deal with them.” So why did the United States back down?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Neither side backed down. Both sides realized that this, as I had said, the – was unsustainable. So we had the equivalent of an embargo, which is not what either side wanted. You know, it was this constant tit-for-tat escalation. So both sides brought the tariffs down by 115%. So for 2025, we have increased tariffs on China by 30%, they have increased them by 10% on us. We now have a mechanism in place to continue talks.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. On Friday, as a piece of this, President Trump, while he was on the foreign trip, said that countries should expect letters from you, from Secretary Lutnick, saying this is what the tariff rate is going to be. Mr. Secretary, does that effectively mean that these negotiations with other countries are over? And how high should they expect tariffs to go? Above 10%?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
This means that they’re not negotiating in good faith. They are going to get a letter the – saying, “Here – here is the rate.” So I would expect that everyone would come and negotiate in good faith.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You expect that rate, though, that you would slap on any country that you think is not negotiating in good faith to be above 10%?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Well, I think that it would be the April 2nd level. Some countries were at 10%, some were substantially higher. And the negotiating leverage that President Trump is talking about here is if you don’t want to negotiate then it will spring back to the April 2nd level.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I have to ask you about the war in Ukraine. President Trump saying he is going to speak with President Zelensky and Putin on Monday. Former Vice President Pence told me, “It is time to impose harsh sanctions now.” What say you, Mr. Secretary: is it time to impose sanctions against Russia?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Well, I think we will see the – what happens when both sides get to the table. President Trump has made it very clear that if President Putin does not negotiate in good faith that the United States will not hesitate to up the Russia sanctions along with our European partners. What I can tell you is the sanctions were very ineffective during the Biden administration because they kept them low because they were afraid of pushing up domestic oil prices.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Very quickly, how long for the timeline until you move to sanctions? Obviously there’s a call. But if the president doesn’t feel like there’s progress how much time is he going to give them?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
I – I – look, I – I’m not going to tie the president’s hands in his negotiations.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you, former Vice President Mike Pence echoed several of President Trump’s, quite frankly, own allies in expressing concerns about this plane that Qatar has offered to President Trump. They are saying it sends the wrong message. It sends the wrong message and raises concerns ethically, raises concerns constitutionally and about security. Why is it appropriate for the president to accept a $400 million jet from Qatar?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Well, it’s not the president accepting it, it would be the United States government. And Senator Mullin said this weekend that the talks had actually begun under the Biden administration. So – but Kristen, what I can tell you is I think this is an off-ramp for many in the media not to acknowledge what an incredible trip this was. You know, President Trump has brought back trillions of investments in the United States. Every stop we made, the – the enthusiasm in – in Saudi Arabia, in Qatar, in the United Arab – Arab Emirates to invest in the United States that they want to push more and more, they have funds here. And if we go back to your initial question on the Moody’s downgrade, who cares? Qatar doesn’t. Saudi doesn’t. UAE doesn’t. They’re all pushing money in. They’ve made ten-year investment plans. So this administration, we’re doing peace deals, trade deals and tax deals.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And just very, very quickly, President Trump has said he plans to keep that plane in his presidential library after. But what do you say to some Republicans who argue it sends a message that the United States can be bought, or that other countries can curry favor if they offer gifts?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT: I say that the gifts are to the American people. These trillions of dollars of investments that are going to create jobs in the U.S., whether it’s the UAE building this gigantic aluminum plant in Oklahoma, whether it’s these data centers that Qatar is going to do, is $600 billion on its way to $1 trillion from Saudi, it all accrues to the American people.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right, Secretary Bessent, I know you’ve had a long week traveling with the president. Thank you so much for being here. We really appreciate it.
Posted originally on CTH on May 18, 2025 | Sundance
Former HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes is a man very familiar with the Russiagate nonsense and the weaponization of the DOJ, FBI and CIA against candidate Donald Trump and later President Trump.
Within this interview Nunes hits on a few good points, the most accurate is his focus on the motives and intents of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who was installed as the cover-up operation for Crossfire Hurricane. However, Nunes gets a part of the origin a little askew and inaccurately framed. My context after the interview. WATCH:
The original agreement between Clinton and Obama going back to 2008 was for Obama to take the nomination, the presidency and then eventually support Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election bid. Obama would appoint Clinton to Secretary of State, Hillary would then use her office to build wealth for herself and her family, and then HRC would exit the Dept of State to begin her presidential run.
John Podesta would enter the Obama administration as Hillary left in 2013. Podesta would look out for Hillary’s interests from his position inside the Obama White House. The Clintons and Obamas never fully trusted each other. Barack Obama would put all the mechanisms into place that would transition his administration into Hillary Clintons’. That was always the plan.
In 2015 Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had a check-in meeting; just touching base to firm up the goals and objectives as Hillary began her campaign launch. Podesta left the White House to take up position inside the campaign, and Team Obama would maintain Clinton’s interests as planned without an insider.
All of President Obama’s appointments in after 2015, were essentially through the prism of assisting Hillary Clinton to win in 2016. Attorney General Loretta Lynch (tarmac meeting), Deputy AG Sally Yates, Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and FBI Director James Comey were all part of that.
Technically Hillary had eyes and ears all over the White House at the time, and with Hillary Clinton being a foregone conclusion per the expectations of Washington DC, everyone would fall in line during the transition from Obama to Clinton. Again, this was the general plan. Obama would show up in 2016 to campaign for Hillary and all would be seamless.
The FBI was aware of the plan for transition from Obama to Clinton, hence their role in eliminating the threat later presented by the Clinton, as Secretary of State, laptop scandal and the subsequent issues of classified information. Remember, Clinton’s motive as Secretary of State was to sell her position for material wealth; that’s why she used a personal email, maintained her own servers, and generally controlled how her activity could be monitored and tracked. [Also, she didn’t fully trust Obama]
When the Clinton campaign launched the Russia Collusion dirty trick move against her opponent Donald Trump, originally using Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson, the role of the Obama administration was to facilitate the political hit, and at the very least not impede it. Hence, former CIA Director John Brennan briefing Barack Obama on the status of the Russia collusion hoax as it spread in 2016 via the Clinton campaign.
Specifically because President Obama was, by extension, now a participant in the Clinton created “Russia Collusion hoax,” and specifically because his administration officials were participants in the process (DOJ, FBI), when President Trump won the 2016 election President Barack Obama was now exposed by the threat the operation represented. This context is the impetus for the January 5, 2017, Susan Rice memo.
Following the surprising result in the 2016 election, the team around Obama was urgently framing plausible deniability.
President Obama did not orchestrate the Russia Collusion hoax; he facilitated it by not interfering with his administration officials who were assisting Hillary Clinton. This is a very key distinction. President Obama knew what was going on, he was willfully blind as it was carried out. However, the mess and fallout from the extreme lengths his FBI and DOJ officials went eventually represented a threat to Obama.
Robert Mueller and all 19 of his Clinton-aligned Lawfare operatives, were put into place to cover-up the entire mess created within the Russia Collusion operation. Mueller +19 continued the Crossfire Hurricane operation, while the extreme Lawfare strategy was deployed against the Trump administration.
That’s the short, encapsulated version.
The Russia Collusion hoax was created by Hillary Clinton, spread to media through Fusion GPS and given the patina of credibility by the DOJ and FBI. President Obama facilitated the operation by not interfering in the operation, until it became a threat to him personally.
Both the Obama and Clinton political teams supported and organized the Robert Mueller cover-up.
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!
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
Centinel2012 