Rigging Elections


Posted originally on Jul 15, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

QUESTION: You previously stated that the 2020 election was rigged by the Neocons, and that they attempted the same in 2024 but failed due to a Panic Cycle and Directional Change. I’m now noticing what appears to be another Panic Cycle forming around the 2026 election. Looking further ahead, you’ve mentioned that 2028 could be extremely volatile, potentially to the point where an election may not even occur. Do you have any updated perspective on this timeline?

Blinken Nuland Garland

Antony Blinken, Victoria Nuland, Merrick Garland

REPLY: If we look at the 2020 election objectively, it was clearly rigged for the Neocons, and they then installed three people, Blinken, Nuland, and Garland, in the Biden Administration who all claimed that their families had been persecuted by Russians. We would not have this endless war against Russia using Ukraine as a PROXY, if it were not for the Biden Administration. That was no coincidence.

Cheneys

They tried like hell to rig the 2024 election. Every Neocon was out for blood, lining up to endorse Kamala, because they knew she’d be just another Biden, nodding along to whatever they wanted.

2020 Arrays

Here is a tape of former CIA Director James Woolsey openly admitting that the CIA has rigged elections—”only for a very good cause,” he says, “in the interest of democracy.” He also refused to rule out continued interference in foreign elections. If you believe for one second that the 2020 election was fair, you’re a fool. The Neocons got rid of Trump and immediately launched into war.

Now look at the arrays: they show we should have seen a sharp rise in voter turnout—which also registered as a Directional Change. Then, looking at the 3rd Party data, we see another Directional Change. And in 2023, we hit a Panic Cycle, right on schedule. 2024 was projected to be a turning point, followed by another Panic Cycle in the 2026 midterms. But the real seismic shift comes in 2028, and it points to one thing: neither Democrats nor Republicans will win.

US Combined Capitol Hill 2022

This chart aggregates the total number of seats across both the House and Senate and plots the combined figure. Nothing in the data supports the notion that the 2020 election was fair or accurate. It all comes to a head in 2024. The Democrats, ironically, claim they’re defending democracy—while simultaneously working to remove Republicans from the ballot. It’s a totally absurd contradiction and, in reality, a genuine insurrection against our free system of government. The people are supposed to decide—not a party that will stop at nothing to win, even if it means dragging us into totalitarianism and World War III.

Left v Right 2023

Even technically, we can see that the trend for the Republicans (RIGHT) has been punching through the Downtrend Line. The Democrats (LEFT) are clearly in a bear market trend long-term. None of the statistics supported an overwhelming victory for Biden in 2020 to the point he got more votes than Hillary or Obama. If that were true, we should expect to have seen a major spike high. They claim the election was NOT rigged in 2020, but the Russian inferred in the 2016 elevation to “Trump’s benefit” according the propaganda of MS Now. There was no way that Biden got more votes than Obama and Hillary.

They are going to fight tooth & nail for 2026. You will also have the Israeli lobby interring as they did to get rid of Massie. There are so many people with a finger in the pie and it is all to wage war – not peace.

2024 Presidential Election by Popular Vote

The 2024 election was too overwhelmingly against the Neocons to stop a Trump victory.

2024 Combined House Senate
Right Combined Array 2024
Left Combined Array 2024

They took out John F. Kennedy because he, too, was against the war. Johnson took us right into Vietnam.

Video Player

Newsmax’s Rob Finnerty has introduced a bombshell revelation hidden within the newly released JFK files—one that raises serious questions about a likely CIA cover-up. When someone is there to upset their grand plans, don’t count on free elections.

Categories:Politics

Viva la Vida


Posted originally on Jul 15, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Viva_la_Vida_Watermelons_by_Frida_Kahlo

COMMENT: This is what inspired song by Cold Play

How ever it really perfectly portrays life of Puyi and as you mentioned King Louis XVI

Regards,
GD

caracalla
Tetreacrhy R2

REPLY: Yes, I love that song. The line, Who would ever want to be king, has always fascinated me in the life of history. Roman Emperor Caracalla was assassinated in 217AD, and Diocletian became emperor in 284 AD. However, from the year of Caracalla’s death (217AD) to Diocletian’s rise (284AD), there were at least 26 emperors who held power. The period between the assassination of Caracalla and the rise of Diocletian who reformed the Empire creating the Tetrarchy of co-emperors to end the revolving door of emperors, is known as the Crisis of the Third Century (235–284AD). This was a time of immense instability for the Roman Empire, marked by numerous civil wars and military usurpers. Did each one think he would make a difference?

Inflation Declines, But the Crisis Is Far From Over


Posted originally on Jul 15, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Oil Production Crude Energy 1

June’s Consumer Price Index fell 0.4% for the month, pulling the annual inflation rate down to 3.5% from 4.2% in May. Core inflation, excluding food and energy, remained flat for the month and slowed to 2.6% year over year. Predictably, markets immediately began betting that the Federal Reserve will soon ride to the rescue with lower interest rates. They continue trying to force the economy into a textbook model that has never explained how the world actually functions.

The biggest driver behind the decline was energy. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, gasoline prices plunged 9.7% during June while the overall energy index dropped 5.7%, the sharpest monthly decline since the COVID lockdowns. Shelter costs rose just 0.1%, the slowest pace in years, while motor vehicle insurance, apparel, communications, and several medical categories also eased. On paper, it all looks encouraging. Unfortunately, economies do not move on paper. They move because of confidence, politics, and capital flows, which is precisely what Keynesian economists have never understood.

Everyone is pretending this is some great achievement by the Federal Reserve when the reality is that oil simply backed off after the temporary ceasefire between Israel and Iran allowed shipping through the Strait of Hormuz to normalize. Oil retreated, gasoline followed, and CPI reflected that decline. Yet the geopolitical situation has hardly been resolved. The Middle East remains on the edge, shipping risks have not disappeared, and energy markets can reverse far faster than politicians can hold another press conference claiming victory. Anyone who believes one month of cheaper gasoline means inflation has been defeated has learned nothing from the last several years.

Food prices certainly did not get the memo. Americans continue paying more at the grocery store, restaurant prices remain elevated, and household budgets are still being squeezed from every direction. Shelter inflation may have slowed, but housing remains one of the largest burdens facing ordinary families. Insurance premiums continue climbing, property taxes are rising almost everywhere, financing costs remain substantially above where they were just a few years ago, and governments continue finding new ways to extract revenue from their citizens. This is why people no longer trust official statistics. They know perfectly well what it costs to feed a family, insure a home, or buy a vehicle.

The Federal Reserve now finds itself trapped in the same position I have been warning about for years. Inflation remains well above its mythical 2% target, yet economic growth continues to slow. The markets still cannot decide whether the Fed will raise rates again or begin cutting them because everyone continues looking only at inflation while ignoring the far bigger problem sitting underneath the entire system. Sovereign debt has reached levels where governments themselves have become the greatest source of financial instability.

This is where our computer has always differed from conventional economics. Interest rates are not driven simply by inflation. They are driven by confidence. Capital moves toward political stability and away from governments that investors no longer trust. During periods of geopolitical uncertainty, both the USD and gold can rise together because money is fleeing risk, not because someone solved an equation in an economics department.

The computer has never been focused on a single CPI report because one month’s inflation data does not change the trend. We are moving through a Panic Cycle where sovereign debt, geopolitical conflict, and the collapse in public confidence are converging at precisely the same time. Temporary declines in gasoline prices do not alter that trajectory any more than temporary rallies in the stock market end a bear phase. The people celebrating today’s inflation report are looking in the rearview mirror while the next crisis is already forming on the horizon.

Europe Is Closing the Door on Ukraine’s Fighting-Age Men


Posted originally on Jul 15, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Zelensky Profile

Governments opened their borders and welcomed millions of Ukrainian refugees while the television cameras were rolling. Politicians competed with one another to demonstrate their compassion. Now that the war has dragged on for years, the tone has completely changed. Suddenly, humanitarian principles have collided with military reality, and military reality always wins.

The European Union is preparing new rules requiring newly arriving Ukrainian men of military age to provide official documentation proving they are exempt from military service before qualifying for temporary protection. If they cannot prove Kyiv authorized them to leave the country, they may no longer receive the protections that millions of Ukrainians have enjoyed since 2022.

This should surprise absolutely no one. The European Commission already proposed extending temporary protection for Ukrainian refugees until 2028 while specifically excluding newly arriving military-aged men who lack authorization to leave Ukraine. EU Migration Commissioner Magnus Brunner openly admitted the objective is to balance humanitarian protection with Ukraine’s ability to continue fighting the war. Even more revealing was his statement that this exemption was requested by the Ukrainian government itself. Europe is no longer simply offering refuge. It is becoming an extension of Kyiv’s mobilization system.

From the very beginning I warned that this war would consume an entire generation of young Ukrainian men. Wars are never fought by politicians. They are fought by ordinary people who are sent to die while those who make the decisions remain comfortably behind their desks. As casualties mounted and voluntary enlistment disappeared, Ukraine inevitably turned to forced mobilization. Videos have circulated for years showing military recruitment officers dragging men off sidewalks, pulling them from shopping centers, restaurants, and public transportation. That was never sustainable because eventually the only people left to draft are those desperately trying to escape.

The European Union is now acknowledging what it refused to admit publicly. Refugee policy has become military policy. Back in 2024, Zelensky’s government suspended passport renewals and many consular services for military-aged Ukrainian men living abroad. At the time, many dismissed it as a temporary wartime measure. It was the first indication that Kyiv intended to reach beyond its own borders to keep men from escaping military service. Europe initially hesitated, but today the position has changed dramatically. The latest proposal effectively tells Ukrainian men that unless Kyiv approves their departure, Europe may no longer recognize them as refugees.

Zelensky with EU leaders

More than 4.33 million Ukrainians currently receive protection across the European Union. Hundreds of thousands of military-aged men also reside throughout Europe. Every man who remains abroad is one less soldier available to replenish units that have been fighting continuously for more than four years. Governments can dress it up in humanitarian language, but the objective is painfully obvious.

Men in Ukraine are trapped. They cannot leave. They cannot vote for a change in policy or leadership. I have written extensively that Ukraine is simply running out of men. Earlier this year I noted that over one million men had already been mobilized since 2022, while reports suggested as many as six million military-aged men were attempting to avoid conscription. Zelensky lowered the draft age from 27 to 25 because the supply of volunteers disappeared long ago.

Europe is now becoming an accomplice. Instead of offering sanctuary, Brussels is discussing whether military-aged Ukrainian men should be denied protection unless Kyiv certifies they are exempt from service. Think about what that means. Refugee policy is no longer based on humanitarian principles. It is being subordinated to military necessity. The European Union is quietly helping ensure that men cannot escape the battlefield.

The greatest irony is that Europe spent years proclaiming it stood for human rights, freedom of movement, and the protection of refugees. Those principles are now being redefined according to military necessity. Refugee status is no longer determined solely by humanitarian need. It increasingly depends on whether a government fighting a war believes it can spare you.

Our computer has consistently warned that this conflict would not remain confined to the battlefield. War changes everything. It changes financial markets, destroys economies, erodes civil liberties, and eventually transforms legal systems themselves. The line separating civilian life from military obligation becomes increasingly blurred. Europe is now crossing that line.

Britain Wants to Control Your Algorithm


Posted originally on Jul 15, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Social Media

Britain is becoming one of the most aggressive governments in the Western world when it comes to policing opinions, regulating speech, and deciding what information its citizens should consume. Every year the excuse changes. It was terrorism. Then it became misinformation. Then hate speech. Now they have set their sights on YouTube itself because they no longer trust the public to decide what they want to watch.

The latest proposal would allow the British government to pressure platforms like YouTube and TikTok into changing their recommendation algorithms so that content from government-approved broadcasters such as the BBC, ITV, and Channel 4 receives preferential treatment over independent creators. Ministers claim this is necessary to combat misinformation and protect democracy, meaning it must control information to save democracy. History tells us democracy is already in trouble.

Think about what they are actually proposing. YouTube’s algorithm currently attempts to recommend videos based upon what users choose to watch. The British government wants that replaced, at least in part, with political priorities determined by Whitehall. They call it “prominence.” Throughout history governments have always invented pleasant-sounding names for censorship. They never admit they are controlling speech. They simply insist they are promoting trusted information.

Britain has already crossed lines that much of the democratic world once considered unimaginable. Police have investigated citizens over social media posts, individuals have been arrested for offensive online comments, and the Online Safety Act dramatically expanded government oversight of digital platforms.

Now they want to influence what millions of people even see before they decide what to watch. That is a completely different level of control. If independent creators are pushed down in search results while state-backed broadcasters receive preferential placement, the government is no longer merely regulating speech. It is actively shaping public opinion by deciding whose voice deserves to be heard first. YouTube itself has warned that forcing platforms to give special treatment to government-selected organizations undermines the principle that creators compete based on what audiences actually choose to watch.

Governments spent years attacking so-called monopolies in technology while simultaneously demanding those same companies manipulate their algorithms to achieve political objectives. They criticize platforms for exercising editorial judgment and then insist they edit content exactly as the government prefers.

Europe has become increasingly hostile toward free expression whenever speech challenges official narratives. Whether the subject is immigration, climate policy, COVID, Ukraine, or government spending, the response is remarkably consistent. Debate is no longer answered with better arguments. It is answered with censorship, de-platforming, algorithmic suppression, and criminal investigations.

This is exactly what history warns happens during periods of declining confidence in government. As public trust collapses, politicians become less tolerant of criticism. Instead of asking why people no longer believe them, they conclude the public is consuming the wrong information. Their solution is always to regulate speech, monitor communications, and now even redesign the algorithms that determine what people watch.

Once government decides it can choose which opinions deserve greater visibility, freedom of speech becomes little more than a slogan. Britain is discovering what every empire eventually learns. When governments begin fearing their own citizens more than they fear losing liberty, censorship always follows. It never ends with one platform, one algorithm, or one law. It grows until the government believes it owns the truth itself, and history has never been kind to nations that reach that point.

The Song the Capture 2032 – Viva La Vida


Posted originally on Jul 15, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

QUESTION: Someone said that you view of history inspired Chris Martin, the English singer and songwriter of the rock band Coldplay, in his hit sone “Viva La Vida” and that this fit the last emperor of China, Puyi right down to him sweeping the streets he use to own. It is certainly a song of revolution and the cyclical rise and fall of nations.

Pete

ANSWER: That is one of my favorite songs. Yes, it fits Puyi almost perfectly.

He ruled as a child emperor.
He lost his throne after the Xinhai Revolution.
He later became the Japanese-backed ruler of Manchukuo.
He ultimately lived as an ordinary citizen after the Communist victory.

I never met Chris Martin nor communicated with him. The song is generally understood to be about a deposed ruler reflecting on the loss of power. I do not believe that he has said it was inspired by by Puyi. From what I know, it is clearly the cyclical nature of power surrounding kings and revolutions rather than a specific historical figure. I don’t think the Biblical references, especially the line “I know Saint Peter won’t call my name,” suggesting judgment after a fall from power, would apply to China. I believed this is more about the broadly, the universal theme that even the most powerful rulers eventually lose their kingdoms. This is what we face by 2032. I am certain we can apply the words to many parallels to other fallen rulers besides Puyi such as Napoleon Bonaparte, Nicholas II, Louis XVI of France, and partially to George III of England. But these are interpretations rather than confirmed inspirations.

Perhaps I should invite him to sing one time at one of our WECs.

Turkish FM Believes Israel a Global Security Threat


Posted originally on Jul 14, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Ottoman Empire ECM Economic Confidence Model Civilization 1857.6

For years, I have warned that analysts have been looking in the wrong direction. Everyone obsesses over Russia, China, Iran, or even North Korea, while ignoring one nation that has quietly been positioning itself to become the dominant regional power. That nation is Turkey.

You cannot understand today’s geopolitical landscape unless you understand that the Ottoman Empire ruled much of the Middle East, North Africa, and southeastern Europe for centuries. Those ambitions never simply vanished.

Turkey possesses one of NATO’s largest armed forces and controls perhaps the single most strategic piece of geography on earth, the Bosporus and Dardanelles. Every major power has sought influence over that region for centuries because whoever controls the gateway between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean possesses leverage that cannot be replicated elsewhere.

What is becoming increasingly obvious is that Ankara no longer views Israel as merely another country in the region. The rhetoric has become increasingly direct, and European politicians are beginning to acknowledge that the conflict extends far beyond Gaza.

According to the report from Pars Today, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan declared after the NATO summit that “The policies of Netanyahu’s government are not only our problem; they are also a burden on Tel Aviv, the region, and international security, and they constitute a threat to all of them.” He added that European leaders are “increasingly recognizing the threat posed by Israel, but have not yet found a way to confront it.”

Fidan went even further regarding Syria, stating, “We are not sure that Israel wants to see a stable, strong, transformed, and prosperous Syria.” When asked whether Israel seeks to destabilize Syria, his response was blunt: “When you look at the past and present behavior patterns of the Israeli cabinet toward the countries of the region, the answer is yes.” In another speaking engagement, Fidan warned that Israel is a security problem for the whole world.

These are extraordinary statements coming from the foreign minister of a NATO member. Even within Europe, criticism of Netanyahu has become far more common than it was only a few years ago. Governments that once hesitated to publicly challenge Israeli policy are increasingly voicing concern over the regional consequences of continued military escalation. Whether they act upon those concerns remains another question entirely, but politically the conversation has unquestionably shifted.

This is why I have repeatedly warned that Turkey must never be underestimated. The mainstream press still views Turkey as simply another NATO member. That is a serious mistake. Turkey has its own agenda. It is building influence throughout Central Asia, strengthening ties across the Muslim world, expanding its military-industrial base, and positioning itself as the indispensable bridge between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Nations that once lived under Ottoman rule are once again becoming areas where Ankara seeks influence.

The Neocons continue to believe they can micromanage the Middle East indefinitely. They fail to appreciate that every military intervention rearranges the regional balance of power. Remove one rival, and another immediately rises to fill the vacuum. That has been the lesson of history from Rome to the British Empire. It never changes.

The computer has consistently shown that the War Cycle is not confined to Ukraine or Russia. The entire region stretching from Eastern Europe through the Middle East is becoming increasingly interconnected. Israel’s confrontation with its neighbors, Europe’s growing internal divisions, the instability in Syria, and Turkey’s expanding regional ambitions are all pieces of the same geopolitical puzzle.

Those who continue to analyze each crisis in isolation will never understand what is unfolding. The world is entering a period where old empires, old rivalries, and old borders once thought settled are returning to the forefront. Turkey has been preparing for that reality for years. The rest of the world is only beginning to notice.

Career Politicians Do NOT Represent the People


Posted originally on Jul 14, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

I am Auntie Maxine': Waters eyes leadership bid as Capitol Hill gerontocracy fights to hold on - POLITICO

Maxine Waters is 87 years old and is once again seeking another term in Congress. This is not about her age. There are people in their eighties who are far more capable than those decades younger. The real issue is that Washington has transformed public office into a lifetime career. Politicians are no longer expected to serve for a period and return home. They stay for decades, accumulating power, influence, and connections until they begin to believe the office belongs to them rather than the people who elected them.

The Founding Fathers never intended Congress to become a country club where politicians collected paychecks for half a century. Public office was supposed to be service, not a career. They feared concentrated power, which is why the president is restricted by term limits. Yet members of Congress can remain in office indefinitely, building political machines that become almost impossible to defeat. There is something fundamentally wrong with that.

Once politicians realize they never have to leave, their priorities change. They stop worrying about the country and begin worrying about protecting their seat. Every vote becomes political. Every crisis becomes another excuse to spend money that does not exist. Every campaign is financed by the same lobbyists who expect something in return. Washington has become an industry whose product is legislation.

Look at the Mitch McConnell situation. People requested proof of life. No one requested that he stand down or step aside, despite his inability to fulfill his duties. “Oh, well, it’s fine because he won’t seek re-election.” Really? Has public office become a charity of sorts? If someone is no longer capable of serving today, then the question is not what happens after the next election. The question is why they are still making decisions that affect the lives of millions of Americans. Public office is a responsibility, not a lifetime entitlement that ends only when the politician decides it is time to leave.

Lindsey Graham was in politics for roughly 36 years, spending about 31 of those years in Congress. Yet every favorable news story claims he had a long career ahead of him. Only in America do we expect politicians to remain in their positions indefinitely, as if they were actually dedicating their lives to public service rather than self-interest.

r/Conservative - Mitch needs to retire

History is very clear on this. Republics do not collapse because of one bad leader. They collapse when the political class becomes permanent. Rome reached that stage long before the empire officially fell. The government existed to preserve itself. Politicians fought over power while the people paid the price. Every empire eventually reaches the point where those in office believe they are entitled to remain there forever. That is always a warning sign that the system is in decline.

Term limits would not solve every problem, but they would be a start. Fresh blood matters. New ideas matter. More importantly, politicians would know there is an end to their time in office. They would have to return home and live under the very laws they passed instead of spending a lifetime insulated inside the Washington bubble.

This has never been about Maxine Waters alone. There are Republicans who have been in Congress for decades as well. The disease infects both parties equally. Washington has become a closed club where incumbents enjoy every advantage imaginable, taxpayer-funded staffs, massive fundraising operations, media attention, committee power, and connections that ordinary challengers simply cannot match. We tell ourselves elections are enough, but incumbency has become one of the strongest advantages in politics.

There comes a point when experience becomes an excuse for preserving power. Public office should never become a lifetime entitlement. No one should spend forty or fifty years writing laws for everyone else while never having to live in the real economy they created. If Congress had the courage to impose term limits on itself, it would probably be the first genuine reform Washington has enacted in decades. The fact that it never will tells you everything you need to know about the state of our republic.

Congress Never Authorized the Iran War


Posted originally on Jul 14, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

What Is the War Powers Resolution? - No Labels

Senator Adam Schiff says he will force Republicans to vote again on ending the war with Iran following the collapse of the ceasefire. That may be politically inconvenient for Republicans, but the constitutional question is not complicated. Congress never authorized this war in the first place.

The Hill reports that Schiff is introducing another War Powers Resolution intended to terminate American involvement in the conflict. He stated that the war has increased costs for Americans and described it as an unlawful “war of choice.” This comes after the United States resumed major strikes against Iran when the temporary ceasefire collapsed.

Let us stop pretending that this is some technical disagreement between lawyers. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war. The president is commander in chief of the armed forces, but that does not grant him the power to initiate an open-ended war wherever Washington’s foreign-policy establishment chooses.

There was no congressional declaration of war against Iran. There was no specific Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iran. Congress did not vote beforehand to send the United States into another Middle Eastern conflict. The war began first and Congress was consulted later.

This has become standard procedure in Washington. Presidents from both parties launch military operations, announce that they are defending national security, and then dare Congress to stop them. Congress holds hearings, introduces resolutions, gives speeches, and eventually votes on whether the president should end a war that Congress never approved.

That turns the Constitution completely upside down. The burden should never be on Congress to gather enough votes to stop an unauthorized war. The president should be required to obtain congressional approval before beginning one, except when an immediate attack requires defensive action. Iran did not invade the continental United States on February 28. The administration made a deliberate decision to enter hostilities alongside Israel after negotiations failed. Lawmakers from both parties immediately challenged those strikes as unauthorized acts of war.

Has Congress given too much of its war-making authority to the president? |  Share My Lesson

The War Powers Resolution was supposed to restrain precisely this type of abuse. It requires the president to report the introduction of American forces into hostilities and generally provides a 60-day period for Congress to authorize continued involvement. Yet Washington has treated the 60-day limitation not as a restriction, but almost as a complimentary trial period for presidential war.

The Senate initially rejected an effort to require congressional permission for the Iran campaign by a vote of 52 to 47. Rand Paul was the only Republican supporting that particular resolution, while John Fetterman was the only Democrat opposing it. The proposal would have ended unauthorized hostilities while preserving the ability of the United States and Israel to defend themselves against an Iranian attack.

That vote exposed the hypocrisy in Washington. Many senators claim to defend the Constitution until constitutional limits interfere with the foreign-policy agenda of their own party.

The Senate later approved a war-powers measure directing the removal of American forces from unauthorized hostilities against Iran. The official Senate description was explicit: these were hostilities “that have not been authorized by Congress.” One such recorded vote passed 50 to 47, and a later Senate resolution reportedly passed 50 to 48 with support from several Republicans.

But even those votes did not retroactively authorize the war. They confirmed the opposite. Congress was attempting to terminate military action for which the president had never received permission.

The administration later asked Congress for $87.6 billion in supplemental funding, including approximately $67.1 billion connected to the Iran conflict and $21 billion for munitions and the defense-industrial base. So Washington once again placed the American people in the familiar position of being ordered to finance a war their elected representatives never approved before the bombing began.

Once the first bomb falls, the political establishment argues that it is too late to debate whether the bomb should have fallen at all. Schiff is correct on the narrow constitutional issue, regardless of what anyone thinks of him politically. Republicans would have been screaming about executive tyranny had a Democratic president launched the same war without authorization. Democrats have also ignored congressional war powers when presidents from their own party were bombing foreign countries.

The Founders placed the war power in Congress because they understood that executives throughout history have used foreign conflict to expand domestic power, suppress opposition, increase taxation, and bury their own failures.

If Congress cannot decide whether America goes to war, then Congress has surrendered one of its most important constitutional functions. At that point, elections become little more than a ceremony. The United States was established as a republic precisely to prevent this.

Italy Says NO to Blank Checks for Ukraine


Posted originally on Jul 13, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Meloni and Zelenskyy discuss talks with Russia and situation in Middle East  | Ukrainska Pravda

The political mood across Europe is beginning to shift, and even governments that have strongly backed Ukraine are discovering that public opinion has its limits. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has reportedly argued that Rome must place the soaring cost of living, particularly energy and fuel bills, ahead of expanding military commitments before next year’s elections. According to the Kyiv Post, Meloni has also resisted the idea of writing endless checks for Ukraine through Brussels while Italian households continue struggling with inflation and rising utility costs.

Europe’s leadership has spent years insisting there is no limit to what taxpayers should sacrifice for the war. People do not pay their electricity bills with speeches about democracy. They pay with shrinking paychecks, higher fuel costs, and businesses forced to absorb ever-rising energy prices. Elections have a way of exposing the difference between political slogans and economic reality. Meloni understands that if governments cannot keep the lights on or make life affordable, voters eventually remove them regardless of how many standing ovations they receive in Brussels.

“The government must prioritize easing the cost of living, particularly energy and fuel bills,” Meloni declared, later adding, “If we invest in defense, that money must remain in Italy, in our factories, in our research, in our territories.” Italy has already agreed to numerous defense spending increases through its union with both Brussels and NATO–it’s never enough. “After six summits in three and a half weeks, I’ll pass,” the Italian president said. “There is no disengagement from Ukraine. But neither can I afford to disengage from Italy.”

The sovereign debt crisis and the war cycle are converging. Brussels continues to behave as though every crisis can be solved with another spending package financed by debt. That is precisely how governments eventually destroy themselves. The bureaucrats believe taxpayers exist to fund whatever grand geopolitical project they devise next. Meanwhile, families are asking why they are paying more for electricity, heating, transportation, and food while billions continue flowing abroad. Governments ignore that question at their own peril.

The cracks are becoming impossible to hide. Hungary has challenged Brussels repeatedly over Ukraine funding, and while there is a new man at the helm, nationalist sentiment has not dissolved. Slovakia has openly linked its support for new aid packages to its own national energy security after suffering through the Druzhba pipeline dispute. Now Italy is placing domestic economic concerns ahead of the demands coming from Brussels.

Brussels insists that all EU members must abide by their terms and conditions. It is not possible to cater to the needs of Europe as a whole. Elected leaders have lost their ability to prioritize their constituents who are grappling with a major cost of living crisis. The people do not want to continually fuel an endless war; the people merely want to afford a home and the basic necessities of life without struggling to survive financially.

Meloni’s comments are another reminder that domestic survival ultimately outweighs ideological commitments. Politicians may speak of European solidarity in Brussels, but they win or lose elections at home.