Posted originally on Aug 1, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
Joe Biden’s proposed IRS army has been dismantled. An astounding $80 billion was granted to the IRS under the Inflation Reduction Act to militarize the tax agency against US citizens who are expected to pay for government mismanagement. The Inflation Reduction Act had hidden provisions to hire tens of thousands of new agents, but the trend has officially reversed.
There were around 102,100 IRS employees when President Donald Trump began his second term in January 2025. During his first six months, the agency declined to 75,700 employees, or a 26% reduction. June 2025 saw a steep decrease of 26,400 workers, as many stayed on through the most recent tax season. Layoffs continued in July, although the exact count has not been published at the time of this writing.
The Oxford Academic published a study in February 2025 that found that the IRS generates $12 in revenue for every dollar it spends on auditing households earning above the 90th percentile. Audits of below-median-income taxpayers yielded $5 in revenue, and this is the demographic most likely to be hunted by the IRS as easy prey. They do not have the same resources and outlets to maximize tax benefits, and study after study has shown that middle America feels the brunt of the tax burden. On average, the study found, $1 spent on audits in general initially raises $2.17 in revenue.
Did people actually believe that the IRS needed 87,000 new employees to target the 600+ billionaires living in America? There is no loose change in taxes, the higher you go up in income. Yet, some politicians believe that the economy will suffer due to the reduction in the tax police.
The US government slashed its IRS annual budget by nearly 20% or $2.5 billion from $12.3 billion for FY2025 to $9.8 billion for FY2026. America has not seen faster or larger budget cuts to the tax authority in modern history. The IRS may be collecting less revenue BUT the people are NOT the problem. The government continues to spend in perpetuity with no end in sight, budgets are a mirage for the public. For you see, the government could NEVER collect enough in tax revenue to cover its spending—plain and simple. Reducing government spending in general is a small step in the right direction.
Posted originally on Aug 1, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |
Wages in America have been unable to keep up with inflation. A new report by the Atlanta Fed found that 40% of America’s workforce now earns less than the inflation-adjusted cost of living, which is primarily affecting the lowest earners. Wages outpace inflation in thriving economic conditions, but we are amid a wave of stagflation.
The Wage Tracker data found that 57% of the US workforce experienced pay increases that did outpace the cost of living, but the remaining 43% are facing a decline or stagnation in lifestyle. Nominal wage growth was 3.4% from June 2024 to June 2025 while inflation was 2.7% for that same period, meaning that pay has outpaced inflation by a mere 0.7 percentage points. Last month, the three-month average annual growth in the Atlanta Fed Tracker was 4.2% or 1.5 percentage points above CPI. Real wage growth adjusted for inflation was around 0.7%, adding about $9 per week extra for the average American.
Low and middle-income households reported feeling the brunt of the price increase, with 76% of lower and moderate-income respondents declaring that their financial well-being is in jeopardy as the essentials are rising rapidly in comparison to pay.
Electrical engineers saw the highest increase in wages with a 6.3% rise, followed by legal and marketing with an increase of 5.1%, and project management at 4.6%. Physicians and surgeons saw the highest increases amid COVID, but that pay growth trend has not continued as they are earning only 0.8% more this year on average. Driving (1%), software development (1.4%), and logistic support (1.7%) were among the slowest growing categories. Naturally, many of these professionals were already earning a living that outpaced any inflationary gains.
Wages were outpacing inflation as of early 2024, a stark turnaround from the historically high inflation felt in 2022. It is of no surprise that over half (52%) of Americans reported that they believe their income is not rising to meet inflation, with only 11% of respondents feeling that their wages are surpassing inflation. Northwestern Mutual’s 2025 Planning & Progress Study also found that 51% of US adults believe inflation will continue to rise in 2025. In comparison, only 25% believe prices will come down, while 24% believe it will stagnate.
Again, 57% of the workforce is experiencing a rise in pay that has outpaced inflation. The problem here is that low-wage earners lack the ability to increase their value at their place of employment. Companies are routinely outsourcing these roles to third-party nations like India where lower wages are sufficient to meet the cost of living. This risks an increase in the welfare state that ends up trickling down to the taxpayers.
Posted originally on Jul 31, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, is the US in the hands of the Neocons all over again? Trump’s threats against countries buying Russian oil seem to violate international law, and Congress’s imposition of 500% tariffs for noncompliance with Trump’s demand appears to be fulfilling your computer forecast. Would you comment on this 500% tariffs bill?
FK
ANSWER: The two Neocons Senators who belong in prison for hate crimes in any other country, Lindsey Graham (R‑SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D‑CT), who introduced this bill for a sweeping 500% tariff on countries buying Russian oil/gas. This bill has not yet passed. Unfortunately, this is a measure gaining significant support. This is the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025, which would authorize such steep tariffs on countries that continue buying Russian energy products. It has 84 co-sponsors, and it indeed proposes a 500% tariff on goods imported from countries purchasing Russian oil, gas, uranium, or petrochemicals—even if those goods are otherwise unrelated. President Trump has publicly endorsed the bill, while retaining a waiver provision—meaning he could choose whether to apply or exempt countries if the bill is passed.
This is yet another nail in the coffin of destroying Western Civilization. As I explained, sanctions are always the tool of the Neocons that makes them feel powerful and all warm and fuzzy inside. As I mentioned, they imposed sanctions on Cuba in 1960, as Castro was a horrible communist leader. Well, he dies, and the sanctions are still there to this day. I am sure Trump’s 180-degree turn is transforming him into an economic dictator threatening the world economically, which is putting a big grin on Liz Cheney’s face.
Trump is now following the Neocon Rule Book. Threaten your opponent, call him hateful names, and do not talk to ensure there will be no possibility of peace. I am shocked at Trump’s 180 turn. He may think he can intimidate Putin, but he is DEAD WRONG! Worst yet, imposing sanctions on Russia is one thing. Now, threatening actions against anyone who buys energy or used shoes from Russia can be sanctioned up to the proposed 500%.
The sanctions of removing Russia from the SWIFT system were a red flag to the world. The US is becoming a dictator to the world. If you do not comply with the demands of the US, they will remove you from the SWIFT system, and you will be isolated from the world economy. They led to BRICS, especially after the Biden Administration threatened China that it would be removed if it helped Russia. Thus, BRICS was born from that geopolitical threat, and they destroyed the world economy. The dollar can no longer be used as a weapon.
Trump wants to destroy BRICS and protect the dollar’s role in the world economy, which is a joke. You cannot threaten countries that they must comply with US demands and expect them to follow you over the edge. BRICS was created in response to these strong-arm tactics of the Neocons. They are in charge of US foreign policy, and Liz Cheney is popping the champagne – they have Trump following their rule book.
Though the Neocon bill has bipartisan support because there are Neocons on both sides of the aisle, thanks to this strong sponsorship from two ruthless, un-American Neocons, this is a significant threat to international security. This bill has not yet passed Congress, and any person in Congress who votes for it should be dragged out of Congress, kicking and screaming, for they do not represent the people. Moreover, there is also a broad package requiring congressional approval for new tariffs—the Trade Review Act of 2025 (S.1272)—that is also under consideration. It faces opposition from the White House, which has threatened a veto.
Parallel to the legislative process, courts are examining whether Trump’s existing tariffs—imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—were lawful. A May 28, 2025, ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade struck down these tariffs, though enforcement is paused pending appeal. Then on July 31, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is currently reviewing the legality of President Trump’s tariffs, with judges expressing skepticism about his authority to impose them without congressional approval. A ruling is expected soon, which could have significant implications for trade policy and presidential powers. This could go to the Supreme Court.
The legal argument before the panel of 11 members of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington was stunning. Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to circumvent Congress’s power to levy tariffs was, in fact, I believe, illegal. Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, argued that Trump’s citation of a statute that doesn’t even mention tariffs to launch an unprecedented trade war was a “breathtaking claim to power that no president has asserted in 200 years.”
A majority of the panel from both camps, Democratic and Republican, expressed varying levels of skepticism about Trump’s position. Any decision will likely take weeks and would almost certainly be stayed to give the US Supreme Court time to consider a request for review. I believe this is in part behind the pending legislation to grant this authority that Trump has usurped.
The NEOCON of the 17th Century was King Louis XIV, who waged endless wars, bankrupted France, and only on his deathbed did he finally lament: “I have been too fond of war.” It is hard to get into their head to come up woth some logical explanation of their thought process.
Here is Lindsey Graham talking about just killing Russians and how that puts such a smile on his face. This is, I believe, a psychopath. There is just no explanation for what has caused his deep-seated hatred of the Russian people. They care nothing for human life or all the people who must die to carry out their objectives. That includes our troops who die on the battlefield to put that smile on Graham’s face, along with Cheney’s.
Posted originally on Jul 30, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
The fact that Trump is threatening sanctions against India for buying Russian oil and to hammer Russia to somehow force Putin to his knees and accept whatever terms Europe demands, proves that Trump is now taking advice from Lindsey Grachm, NATO, their puppet EU leaders, and the Neocons with the likes of Cheney in the background witgh a HUGE smile on her face.
Cuba (1960s-present): U.S. sanctions have failed to topple the Castro regime or force democratic reforms. Despite economic hardship, the government adapted through alternative trade partners and domestic resilience, suggesting sanctions can entrench regimes and slter the world economy, which has taken place with the development of BRICS. The U.S. embargo (blockade) against Cuba remains in place, requiring Congressional action to lift it entirely. While some sanctions have been eased temporarily, no administration has completely ended them. After more than 60 years, this stands as a prime example of how sanctions have NEVER worked even once.
The United States has imposed sanctions on German and other European companies involved in the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, which was designed to transport Russian natural gas to Europe. In 2019–2021, the U.S. sanctioned firms like Swiss-based Allseas (forcing it to withdraw) and later targeted Russian and German entities.
The U.S. imposed sanctions on the Soviet-European gas pipeline in 1982 (under Reagan), targeting Western companies supplying equipment for the Urengoy–Pomary–Uzhhorod pipeline, which supplied gas to Western Europe. The U.S. opposed this project due to concerns over European energy dependence on the USSR. They, too, failed and had to be relaxed under Allied pressure.
The Neocons, from the outset of any negotiations between Germany and Russia back in the communist days, did everything in their power to deny Germany access to Russian energy. It was 1955 when West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer (1876-1967) visited Moscow in June and then established diplomatic relations for the first time between the new Federal Republic of Germany and the Soviet Union. The Neocons were outraged, but President Eisenhower saw it as no threat given Adenauer’s oppression by Hitler. The Necons wanted to prevent any meeting but Eisenhower declined.
Adenauer was Chancellor from 1949 to 1963. Adenauer was one of the first opponents of the leader of the Nazi Party. Konrad Adenauer helped draft a constitution completed in May 1949. He opened the door for the trade agreement that followed in 1958, and by 1960, bilateral trade between the countries was booming.
The Trade Agreement was reported worldwide by the Associated Press on April 9th, 1958 (1958.271). Even so, from the very beginning, that trade link between Germany and Russia was controversial, to say the least. The United States, at the direction of the Neocons, was always against it and would criticize Germany behind every closed-door session. However, the US intimidation failed because it was necessary for the German people and their future.
While the U.S. did not impose formal sanctions on German pipe producers in 1955–1958, it actively discouraged such trade, setting the stage for the 1960s pipe embargoes. The major crackdown came later, but diplomatic and economic pressure began in the late 1950s.
Iraq (1990s): UN sanctions after the Gulf War devastated the economy, reducing GDP by nearly 50%, but Saddam Hussein’s regime remained intact. Political change only occurred after the 2003 invasion, not sanctions alone, and civilian suffering often strengthened regime propaganda.
North Korea (2000s-present): Decades of sanctions have crippled the economy but haven’t shifted the Kim regime’s policies or structure. Black market trade and Chinese support have mitigated impacts, and the regime uses isolation to reinforce control.
South Africa (1980s-1990s): Comprehensive sanctions, including trade bans and financial restrictions, the Neocons insist, contributed to ending apartheid. However, there was already internal resistance. It still took 14 years before any democratic reforms took place by 1994. Studies estimate that the sanctions reduced South Africa’s GDP only by 1-2% annually.
Iran (2010s): Heavy U.S. and EU sanctions targeting oil exports and banking, which the Neocons insist forced Iran to negotiate the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA). Oil revenues dropped by over 50% from 2011 to 2013, and inflation soared, but the regime did not fall. The regime didn’t fundamentally change its political system, showing again that sanctions have NEVER even once overthrown the core governance.
FDR deliberately imposed sanctions on Japan to get them to attack the United States, all because Congress would not authorize joining World War II in Europe. That led to a Senate investigation later because it became so obvious that FDR even knew when Pearl Harbor would take place and deliberately allowed thousands to be killed just so he could enter the war. It came out that US had broken the Japanese code and knew all about the attack. There was even a lead to the press a few days before reporting that they were about to be attacked.
Before the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) imposed a series of escalating economic sanctions on Japan in response to its aggressive expansion in Asia, particularly its invasion of China. These sanctions were meant to pressure Japan into halting its militaristic actions, but ultimately contributed to the tensions that led to war.
In 1938, FDR imposed a “moral embargo” on aircraft and aviation parts sales to Japan following its bombing of Chinese civilians. This was not a formal ban but a strong discouragement of exports. Then in July 1939, FDR announced the termination of the 1911 U.S.-Japan Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, removing legal barriers to future trade restrictions. This took effect in January 1940.
Now that the door was open for sanctions, in July 1940, the U.S. restricted exports of aviation fuel, lubricants, and high-grade scrap metal to Japan under the Export Control Act. That was followed by the September 1940 complete embargo on scrap iron and steel.
Then, FDR, like the West has done to Russia, froze all Japanese assets in the U.S. (July 26, 1941), effectively cutting off trade and financial transactions. That was followed by a complete oil embargo along with Britain and the Dutch government-in-exile. Since Japan relied on the U.S. for 80% of its oil, this was a crippling blow. FDR knew that Japan would take it as an act of war, as they then saw these sanctions as an existential threat, as they crippled its ability to fuel its military and industry.
The oil embargo, in particular, forced Japan to either negotiate a withdrawal from China (which it refused) or seize oil-rich territories in Southeast Asia (which risked war with the U.S.). The sanctions contributed to Japan’s decision to attack Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941) to neutralize the U.S. Pacific Fleet before invading British and Dutch colonies. These sanctions deliberately pushed Japan toward a desperate military confrontation, culminating in the attack on Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entry into World War II, which was the objective of FDR from the outset. The outrage was so intense that in 1945, after the war, the Senate was forced to investigate FDR’s action and whitewashed the affair, claiming they were unsure if FDR had been fully advised of the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, even though leaks made the papers in advance.
There is NOT a single incident to demonstrate that sanctions have EVER worked. Nevertheless, the Neocons constantly advise heads of state to impose sanctions, hoping that they will bring about the collapse of that government. They will not work this time either and the real risk is that they will lead to war as we saw in FDR’s actions against Japan.
Posted originally on Jul 31, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
Data from the Commerce Department shows that the US gross domestic product rose 3% in Q2 on a seasonally inflation-adjusted basis. The figure may have surpassed estimates by around 0.7%, but it does not indicate the beginning of a rising trend.
First, the figure has already been adjusted for inflation to fit a narrative. The first quarter saw a sharp uptick in imports as businesses attempted to avoid tariffs. Imports then declined by an astounding 30.3% last quarter, with exports falling by 1.8%. A good portion of the final figure is due to net trade swings that distorted the reading. Demand did not necessarily fall in Q2, but was offset by the surge experienced during the uncertainty at the beginning of the year.
GDP rises when imports drop due to the Keynesian formula: GDP=C+I+G+(X-M).
C = Consumer Spending
I = Investment (business capital spending, housing, inventories)
G = Government Spending
X = Exports
M = Imports
Imports (M) are subtracted from this calculation as GDP measures the DOMESTIC production. A rise in imports is considered an indicator that more goods were produced abroad, therefore, they subtract them from GDP. When imports decline, (X-M) rises and leaves the impression that fewer foreign goods/services were consumed in the US. Imports declining should not be considered growth, but the US refuses to move away from Keynesian model thinking.
Consumer spending, two-thirds of total GDP, rose by 1.4%, but this was offset by a decline in business spending. Final sales to private domestic purchases rose 1.2% in Q2 compared to 1.9% in Q1, indicating weakening demand. Unemployment declined to 4.1% in June after the economy added around 150,000 new positions this year.
This is neither a reason to celebrate nor a reason for concern. Every headline is praising the 3% uptick as a major win without realizing that not much has changed—the American economy is still experiencing stagflation.
Posted originally on Jul 31, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
President Trump announced a 25% on India beginning August 1 due to its continued purchase of Russian oil. “Remember, while India is our friend, we have, over the years, done relatively little business with them because their Tariffs are far too high, among the highest in the World, and they have the most strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary Trade Barriers of any Country,” the president posted to Truth on Wednesday morning. “Also, they have always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia, and are Russia’s largest buyer of ENERGY, along with China, at a time when everyone wants Russia to STOP THE KILLING IN UKRAINE,” he added.
India began drastically increasing its imports of Russian crude at the start of the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022, with good reason, as the oil became significantly cheaper and India was able to resell it at a premium to nations that simply wanted to bypass all things Russia. In January 2022, India was importing around 68,000 barrels per day (bpd) in Russian crude, which represented only 0.2% of crude imports. The war broke out a month later and by June India was importing 1.12 million bpd from Russia who overtook Iraq as the nation’s top supplier. Nearly a year later in May 2023, Russian imports peaked at 2.15 million bpd, with India currently importing around 1.7 million to 2.1 million bpd as of July 2025.
Around 35% to 40% of India’s crude oil now comes from Russia. Now, Russian crude was around $50 per barrel in May 2025 when imports to India peaked. Middle Eastern grades were around $10 to $20 higher at the time. The deal was a no-brainer.
India-US bilateral trade hit $118.4 billion in 2024. India exported approximately $79.4 billion in goods to the US and imported $39 billion. The current trade deficit with the US sits at $45.7 billion. A 25% tariff could cost India billions in lost revenue from exports and threaten jobs in key sectors such as autos, chemicals, jewelry, gems, electronics, and textiles. Other Asian exporters would become more desirable, but China actually purchases more Russian crude than India at this point and other nations in the region have drastically smaller economies. Estimates state India could risk losing $15 billion to $20 billion annually as a result of the 25% tariff.
Now, if India were forced to buy from the Middle East for $10 to $20 more per barrel, the nation would need to spend around $6 to $10 billion more on energy annually. India does refine and resells Russian crude and is said to bring in around $1.5 billion to $3.5 billion from that practice.
On paper, it would seem as if India has more to lose by continuing to purchase Russian oil. However, the US is showing the world that it has the ability to dictate political policy through economic warfare. India declared that it remains committed to continuing “mutually beneficial bilateral trade” with the US after the 25% tariff was announced. The US will go after all BRICS nations in an attempt to dismantle the alliance, but BRICS members have shown that they no longer need to rely on the West, and tariffs from the US may not hold the same leverage as they once did.
Posted originally on Jul 31, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
A farm with 175 years of family ownership will be seized by the state of New Jersey under eminent domain. The Henry family inherited the 21-acre farm in Cranbury Township in 1850. The farm is still profitable for the Henry family, and they intend to maintain it for generations to come. However, the state of New Jersey determined that the land must be reappropriated for affordable housing and has notified the family that their land now belongs to the government.
The township offered to buy the Henry farm with a multi-million-dollar offer. When the family declined to sell, Cranbury officials unanimously voted to steal the land by eminent domain. The New Jersey Supreme Court determined that the state must produce a set number of affordable housing options annually, and Cranbury has a target of creating 265 units over the next decade. “They saw this little patch of green out there and said, ‘oh, we’ll just snatch that up.’ It’s very disappointing to me,” a member of the Henry family stated.
There were alternatives such as changes in zoning laws or looking into voluntary land sales. Instead, the government began to conduct public hearings back in April regarding the farmland without the Henry family’s knowledge. Mayor Lisa Knierim insists, “there simply was no way to meet the 265 unit obligation.”
“There’s four generations of my family buried in that town,” says Henry. “I can’t imagine going back there and driving by and seeing that house having been bulldozed.”
The issue garnered attention from the federal government, and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins stated that the US Department of Agriculture is exploring “every legal option” to save the family farm. “On the phone with Andy Henry of Highland Ranch in Cranbury, NJ. The city govt has approved seizing his 175-year-old family farm via eminent domain for affordable housing units. Whether the Maudes, the Henrys or others whom we will soon announce, the Biden-style government takeover of our family farms is over,” Rollins posted on X.
What about the countless other Americans who are losing their land under eminent domain laws?
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Most know the right to remain silent provided by the Fifth Amendment. There is a “takings clause” clearly written in the Constitution that forbids the government from seizing private property. The current US Agriculture Secretary may be Republican, but both sides support eminent domain laws. Donald Trump wanted to invoke eminent domain to expand the Keystone XL pipelineand border wall, deeming it “an absolute necessity.”
We do not live in a free society. The government has absolute power over everyone, and everything we own is merely an illusion, as the government has granted itself the authority to seize anything on its soil. Eminent domain cases are a ploy for centralized power to confiscate private property and a total violation of our Constitutional rights.
Posted originally on Jul 30, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
Ukraine was well-known as the most corruptnation in Europe, if not the world. This is why Ukraine was not permitted to join the European Union, as the bloc determined that the country needed to implement harsh anti-corruption measures if it wanted to join. The EU decided to give that same corrupt government endless funds in their proxy war with Russia. Now, the EU is threatening to freeze funding to Ukraine if government corruption continues.
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) lost their independent statuses last week after President Zelensky signed a law to usurp these agencies that are tasked with investigating high-level corruption. The EU has insisted since the 2014 Revolution of Dignity that these agencies remain independent. The promise was a main component of Ukraine’s accession into the bloc, but Zelensky is using martial law to consolidate power. EU officials warned that these actions “cross a red line,” and they are now reluctant to provide unconditional funding.
This is an issue that the people of Ukraine have been speaking out on. They realize that their government is corrupt, and many initially voted for Zelensky as he campaigned on the promise to end government corruption. My sources have said there are ongoing protests over Zelensky’s recent actions that have not been aired on any mainstream media outlet.
The EU is now holding off on providing $20 billion of the $50 billion promised to Ukraine under the Russian asset confiscation scheme. If corruption continues, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) plan to pause funding. The next package to Ukraine’s Facility Program has been reduced to 3.05 billion euros ($3.5 billion) from 4.5 billion euros ($5.2 billion) as a direct result of ongoing corruption. “Everything has been put on hold until the situation is corrected,” EU officials stated to Ukrainska Pravda.
The European Union has provided Ukraine with $48.6 billion in funds since the war began, and provided another $9.3 billion through frozen Russian assets. Yaroslav Zheleznyak, deputy chairman of the parliamentary tax committee, admitted that Ukraine has only fulfilled 5 of the 11 requirements to join the European Union in a move that could cost Ukraine 3 billion euros. Ukraine is anticipating a 17.2 billion euro ERA loan and a 12.5 billion euro loan to the Ukraine Facility in 2025, but none of that will happen if Zelensky continues down his current path.
Ukraine’s government has no checks and balances for how it spends these loans or donations. The government claims it is operating at a $19 billion deficit despite the large increase in aid. Analysts estimate that the deficit will rise to $40 billion if EU aid ceases. Now, the IMF stipulated that Ukraine needs to reduce its budget deficit to 10% of GDP in 2026 to continue to receive financing.
Several parliament members voting on the future of the NABU and SAPO are currently under investigation by those agencies. They’re going to vote in their best interest, as no government employee is actually a public servant. The Verkhovna Rada will reconsider the future of these anti-corruption agencies on July 31. Rest assured that the corruption will continue, but Zelensky cannot be as blatant about his dealings now that funding is on the line.
Posted originally on Jul 30, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
The Environmental Protection Agency determined in 2009 that greenhouse gases were endangering life on our planet. The agency put forth a study to promote the passing of the Clean Air Act, enabling the government to regulate energy. The EPA under Trump is now seeking to overturn this study as scientists now believe that greenhouse gases are not harmful to humans.
The Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the government is required to regulate and monitor carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, as mandated by the Clean Air Act. The EPA under the Obama Administration declared in 2009 that greenhouse gases posed a serious risk to public health and welfare. In May 2009, Obama implemented the first national policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. Since then, every sector using any form of fossil fuel has been targeted by government. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act under Obama, a much smaller-scale version of the Inflation Reduction Act under Biden, allocated $7 billion to the EPA to clean up the environment. The EPA experienced record-breaking funding in 2010 when it was awarded $10.5 billion to address climate change. The government has since gained control over the entire energy sector, weaponizing an allegedly potential threat to gain control.
The ”endangerment finding” from 2009 may be overturned. “This long-overdue finding cements 2009’s place in history as the year when the United States Government began seriously addressing the challenge of greenhouse gas pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform,” then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in announcing the decision. Reversing the 2009 decision would reverse regulations that the president stated has “imposed trillions of dollars of costs on Americans.”
“The Obama administration said that carbon dioxide, when mixed with a bunch of other well-mixed gasses, greenhouse gasses, that it contributes to climate change. How much? They don’t say… they say that climate change engenders human health, so because of these different mental leaps… then there were all sorts of vehicle regulations that followed,” Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin stated. “This has been referred to as basically driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion.”
Zeldin said that the Democrats used climate change scare tactics to “basically regulate out of existence” fossil fuels. He projects this massive regulation effort will save American taxpayers $1 trillion.
“Even if the United States eliminated all of its greenhouse gas emissions, it would have little to no measurable effect on global temperatures,” Daren Bakst, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute admitted.
Look how far the agency was willing to go to stifle the production of emissions. They were seeking to limit our individual freedoms from banning cars to stoves and far-left climate zealots suggesting the government monitor everyone’s carbon footprint. America lost its energy independence between Obama and Biden and it was all tied into the globalist agenda of the Great Reset. Every nation that has adhered to climate change policies is experiencing an energy crisis for which they have no solution. You simply cannot eliminate fossil fuels without a reliable alternative and you definitely cannot significantly limit carbon emissions without changing life as we know it.
Critics believe the measure is merely to support Big Oil and permit coal and gas plants to pollute the environment. Trump did declare an energy emergency at the start of his presidency, famously saying “drill baby, drill,” as a nudge to begin extracting oil once more. The truth of the matter is that fossil fuels are essential for our survival. The EPA deliberately exploited the threat of greenhouse gases to grant the government authoritative power over energy.
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