Posted originally on Feb 4, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
The Trump administration is moving to create what is being described as a strategic stockpile for rare earths and other critical minerals, branded “Project Vault,” with reported financing of around $12 billion, involving a major loan structure and private participation from large industrial users. This is a defensive move akin to a petroleum stockpile and designed explicitly to mitigate dependency on Beijing’s control.
Raw materials have become strategic geopolitical weapons and a determinant of sovereign power. Rare earth elements are not rare in the sense of scarcity, but they are rare in terms of reliable supply chains and processing capability. These 17 metals underpin everything from high-performance magnets in EV motors and wind turbines to sophisticated defense systems and satellite electronics. Their demand is projected to rise dramatically as the world electrifies and digitizes.
China controls roughly 70 % of mining and over 90 % of refining and magnet production as a result of decades of industrial strategy and investment, subsidized to suppress competition and capture global markets. China is now asserting strategic control by leveraging a near-monopoly over the midstream and downstream processing that most countries simply do not possess.
Efforts by Japan to extract rare earth-rich seabed sediments, and by Western companies to develop rare-earth-free magnet technologies, are steps in the right direction but cannot meet current demand.
Greenland sits on one of the largest untapped deposits of rare earth minerals, critical minerals, and uranium outside of China’s control. That alone makes it strategically priceless. But more important is who does not control it yet. China tried. Russia is watching. The United States understands that if Greenland falls into the wrong hands, it is not just a territorial loss — it is a strategic chokehold on future technology and defense supply chains.
Ukraine sits on enormous reserves of rare earths, lithium, titanium, graphite, and strategic metals. These are not theoretical deposits. They were mapped decades ago under the Soviet geological surveys. What changed is that these materials suddenly became strategic rather than merely commercial.
Europe, meanwhile, is in an even worse position than they publicly admit, because they built an entire “green” policy regime on top of supply chains they do not control. The European Court of Auditors is now warning about the EU’s dangerous dependence on imports for critical minerals, including major reliance on China for key rare earth inputs. You cannot run an industrial policy on wishful thinking.
Control of critical materials has replaced control of oil as the pivot of strategic industrial strength. Whoever controls the inputs for next-generation technologies and war machines has a serious advantage.
Posted originally on Feb 4, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
Once again, we are watching the political system weaponize the courts to decide elections before the people ever get the chance to vote. The appeal trial involving France’s Marine Le Pen is not really about accounting procedures or parliamentary reimbursements. This is about removing a political opponent who cannot be beaten at the ballot box.
If the appeals court upholds the ruling, Le Pen would be barred from running for president in 2027. That is not a minor penalty, but a political execution by judicial means. When courts determine who may or may not stand for office, democracy becomes ceremonial. You still vote, but only among candidates pre-approved by the establishment.
This is not unique to France. We have already seen this play out in Germany with Alternative für Deutschland. The AfDhas gained massive support precisely because the public is rejecting mass migration, energy insanity, and endless war policies. Yet every other party agreed to a “firewall” to ensure the AfDcan never govern, regardless of election results. The German government even considered labeling AfD as an extremist hate group to hurt its legitimacy.
The pattern is always the same. When a political movement threatens the existing power structure, the response is criminalization. The media declares guilt in advance. Courts are pressured to “save democracy,” which always seems to mean saving those already in power.
Romaniahas seen similar tactics, where conservative and nationalist figures are buried under investigations timed conveniently around elections. Across Europe, the message is clear: you may vote, but only within approved ideological boundaries. Step outside those boundaries and the system will remove you.
This is exactly how republics decay. The Roman Republic did not fall because people stopped voting. It fell because the law became a political weapon, and courts served factions instead of justice. When law loses neutrality, confidence collapses. And once confidence collapses, capital flees, social cohesion fractures, and instability rises.
Those in power insist they are protecting democracy. In reality, they are accelerating its demise. You cannot suppress half the electorate and expect peace. You cannot criminalize opposition and expect legitimacy. History is very clear on this point, even if modern politicians are not.
What we are witnessing is not a defense of democratic values. It is the fear of the voter.
Posted originally on Feb 4, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
In Portugal, self-described conservatives have openly backed a left-wing candidate, António José Seguro, not because they agree with his policies, but explicitly to prevent a nationalist candidate from winning the presidency. The target of this is André Ventura, leader of Chega, whose rise reflects the same voter revolt seen across Europe. “They are not fighting for Portugal, they are afraid that, if I win, the thievery will come to an end,” Ventura claimed.
When conservatives tell their own voters to support the left in order to stop a populist challenger, they are admitting they no longer represent the electorate they claim to lead. Their loyalty is not to policy, principles, or voters but to the system itself. These politicians represent the establishment, and anyone who fails to fall in line with establishment and/or globalist sentiment is considered “far-right.”
The establishment insists this is necessary to “defend democracy.” But democracy does not require protection from voters. When elites decide that certain outcomes are unacceptable regardless of how people vote, democracy becomes conditional. You may participate, but only if you choose correctly.
We saw this during the last US Presidential Election when conservative neocons jumped on the “anyone but Trump” bandwagon. Portugal is simply being more honest about what others are already doing quietly. In Germany, nationalist parties are fenced off regardless of election results. In France, courts are being used to determine who may run for office. In Portugal, the mask is off entirely: better to abandon your own ideology than allow a movement outside the approved consensus to gain power.
The voters supporting Chega, the National Rally, or the AfD are not radicals by nature. They are people reacting to rising costs of living, uncontrolled migration, endless war spending, and governments that no longer listen. Suppressing those voters only deepens the problem.
Posted originally on Feb 4, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
I have often received emails asking why I did not want to become a lawyer. The rule of law has no true validity. It is applied without reason and often technically. The law is NEVER applied with reason. A high-profile case that mirrors this scenario is that of Genarlow Wilson in Georgia. In 2003, at age 17, he engaged in consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old at a New Year’s party. He was convicted of aggravated child molestation, a felony requiring a mandatory 10-year prison sentence and sex offender registration. Public outcry and media attention eventually led to his sentence being re-examined; he served over 2 years before the law itself was changed and he was released. His case highlighted the potential cruelty of laws without close-in-age protections.
A man read a story about an illegal alien being deported who was from Afghanistan and pleaded not to be deported for he would be killed by the Taliban. The prosecutor did not care. When the story was reported, a reader wrote to the prosecutor.
“Mr. Dernbach, don’t play Russian roulette with H’s life,” he wrote. “Err on the side of caution. There’s a reason the US government along with many other governments don’t recognise the Taliban. Apply principles of common sense and decency.”
As the Washington Post wrote, “five hours and one minute later, Jon was watching TV with his wife when an email popped up in his inbox. He noticed it on his phone. “Google,” the message read, “has received legal process from a Law Enforcement authority compelling the release of information related to your Google Account.” Listed below was the type of legal process: “subpoena.” And below that, the authority: “Department of Homeland Security.”
As the Post went on, “soon would come a knock at the door by men with badges and, for Jon, the relentless feeling of being surveilled in a country where he never imagined he would be.” The American Revolution began over the 4th Amendment – illegal search and seizure. The courts have undermined that right because they are the hand-maiden of government. There are NOT there to restrain government, but to enable them to circumvent your human and constitutional rights they regard as a nuisance.
There was a legal case that became the seminal beginning of the American Revolution known as Entick v. Carrington and Three Other King’s Messengers (1765), reported at length in 19 Howell’s State Trials 1029. This case was the start of the American Revolution and was also based upon abuse of the king’s agents. The action, dated November 1762, was for trespassing and interfering with the plaintiff’s dwelling by breaking open his desks and boxes and searching and examining his papers.
After George III became king in 1760, by February 1761, Parliament enacted the Writs of Assistance that was challenged in court in Boston, Massachusetts. These were writs that empowered the king’s agents to search anything they suspected, like the NSA today at their discretion. The defending lawyer James Otis (1725-1783) pronounced these writs as “the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty, and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an Englishlaw book.”Otis warned that the king placed discretion in the hands of every agent to act as he desired. Nothing has changed, for our current government can do whatever it desires today, and it is always the burden of the citizen to prove he has any rights whatsoever.
John Adams (1735–1826; 2nd President 1797–1801) was in the audience at that hearing that day, and the four-hour speech of James Otis so moved him that he declared:
“Then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there, the child independence was born.”
I am sure the king’s men also viewed their power as necessary, as the government does today. The abuse of the king’s agents was simply that they could enter someone’s home and search all their papers. If you wrote anything derogatory against the king, off you went to prison. This is what inspired the Fourth Amendment, which stated that there had to be a reason to search, not just an arbitrary desire to see what we could find. This is the very essence of LIBERTY. You cannot pretend to be the leader of the free world and then advocate that the government has a RIGHT to know everything everyone is doing or what wealth they have. This is incompatible with the term “FREEDOM.”
Administrative Subpoenas
Administrative subpoenas have been extensively challenged in both the U.S. Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court. The challenges form a significant body of administrative law and the court have effectively eliminated the entire foundation of the 4th Amendment. They willo routinely do precisely the same as took place in Entick v. Carrington. Agencies circumvent all your Constitutional Rights with total impunity. The Supreme Court has established the foundational constitutional and procedural limits on administrative subpoenas. Here are the legal cases that have rule you have no rights whatsoever.
The Supreme Court has long held that administrative agencies have the power to issue subpoenas as part of their investigatory functions, provided they are within the agency’s statutory authority and not overly broad or oppressive.
FTC v. American Tobacco Co. (1924): An early limit, where the Court struck down a “fishing expedition” demand for all documents without any reason to believe they contained evidence of wrongdoing. However, later cases like Morton Salt have significantly narrowed this restriction.
The first case addressing Administrative Subpoenas took place in 1924. At first, they ruled that a “fishing expedition” was illegal.
Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling (1946): This is a cornerstone case. The Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to administrative subpoenas, but the standard is less stringent than for criminal searches. An agency need NOT have “probable cause” as in the criminal sense; it only must show that the investigation is for a legitimate purpose, the inquiry is relevant to that purpose, and the demand is not too indiscriminate or burdensome.
The court played the fiction between civil and criminal. They used this fiction against me. I was thrown in “civil” contempt where you have no right to a trial by jury as you would in a criminal contempt. The statute set the maximum as 18 months and the court every 18 months would renew it until the Supreme Court was taking my case. Then they had to release me.
United States v. Morton Salt Co. (1950): Reinforced that agencies can investigate “merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not.” This grants agencies broad “fishing license” authority for routine oversight.
The next case in 1950 reaffirmed that an agency need only have a suspicion. That is no different that Entick v. Carrington.
See v. City of Seattle (1967): While affirming agency power, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does apply to administrative inspections of commercial property. This led to the development of specific rules for inspection subpoenas.
This was followed by a 1967 decision that said an “inspection” subpoena was subject to the 4th Amendment.
Here is how they then dispose of the Constitution. Someone can absolutely be charged criminally based on evidence obtained through an administrative subpoena. This is a common and legally permissible practice. Administrative agencies (like the SEC, EPA, FDA, IRS, or FBI) often conduct civil or regulatory investigations. If, during that investigation, they uncover evidence of what appears to be a crime, they can refer the matter to the Department of Justice or a state prosecutor. The evidence obtained via the administrative subpoena can be used to secure an indictment or support a criminal prosecution.
“Parallel Proceedings”
It’s common for an agency to pursue both civil/administrative and criminal investigations simultaneously or sequentially based on the same underlying conduct. Evidence gathered through the administrative subpoena powers often forms the foundation for the later criminal case. Thus, the Department of Justice would have evidence thrown out if it illegally conducted a search as in Entick v. Carrington, so it uses a parallel civil proceeding to complete eliminate your Constitutional Rights.
There are two books I highly recommend. The first was written by the historian Charles Hibbert wrote in his classic book, the Roots of Evil, how government used the law to be cruel as well as to confiscate wealth. At the time of the American Revolution, there were about 240 felonies. These all carried the death penalty. Why death? The king then got to confiscate your property and threw your family out on the street. The accused would be tortured to try to force him to confess. They would throw you in prison indefinitely just to win without a trial as the US government has now authorized thanks to one of the most ruthless Senators of all time, Lindsey Graham.
A misdemeanor carried the penalty of indentured servitude. The king sold you as a slave for a specified period. He would relieve you of supporting your family and could care less what their fate would be. It was all about the king making money. Hibbert wrote in his classic work quoting from court record of Chief Justice Jeffreys the actual sentence of many he shipped to America:
It was Ben Franklin who responded to this practice. When the American Revolution took place, England sent their prisons to Australia and the South, which had relied on prisoner labor from England, turned to buying blacks from the Dutch who were supposed to be the spoils of some war in Africa.
Eventually, the rule of law collapsed in Britain during the 19th century. The Second book I recommend is John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, published in 1859. Even the novelist Charles Dickens in his 1853 opening Chapter in Bleak House said suffer any wrong rather than go to the corrupt English court system.
By the late 19th century in England (roughly 1870-1900) was a period of profound legal and social reform, often described as an “upheaval” or a “quiet revolution.” This era, part of the broader Victorian period, saw the state take a more active role in regulating society, the economy, and individual lives.
The Prison Act 1877 nationalized prisons, moving them from local control to a centralized, standardized system under the Home Office, aiming for more uniform and “reformative” regimes. The Probation of First Offenders Act 1887 introduced the concept of probation, allowing courts to suspend sentences for minor first-time offenders—a move towards rehabilitation over pure punishment.
The Judicature Acts of 1873-1875 was a monumental overhaul. It fused the historically separate courts of Common Law and Equity into a single Supreme Court of Judicature. This simplified procedure, ended conflicting rulings from different courts, and made the administration of justice more efficient and accessible.
If you have watched the movie Gladiator, the emperor in question was Commodus (177-192AD). The rule of law simply collapsed during his reign because like today, the government must always win. When the rule of law collapses, it is no longer safe for investment. How do you buy a house if the courts do not honor the rule of law? Whenever the rule of law has reaches 90%+ this is when the system collapses. I have offered to testify before the House Judiciary Committee but there is absolutely NOBODY in Congress that is interested in addressing this issue.
Here is what AI looked up with the conviction rate in New York City compared to Adolf Hitler. This is part of the collapse in the entire system as we head into 2032 because there is NOBODY interested in reform or even questioning what is going on. Consequently, the system will implode. It cannot historically survive and this is what is bringing the CONFIDENCE in government crashing down. Without the support of the people, no government can survive.
The very duty of the king from ancient times was to mitigate disputes between private parties. That is the famous story of King Solomon and ruling who is the mother of the baby. It was after Magna Carta when the English king, to restore his revenue from fines, suddenly claimed to be a victim by a dispute between two private people disturbed his peace. That was the beginning of the decline and fall of the rule of law. It was all about money. When the rule of law collapses from the abuse of the state, this is often the very definition of the collapse of government legitimacy itself. While it doesn’t always lead to immediate overthrow, it marks the point where a government transitions from a lawful authority to a regime reliant on pure coercion, making its downfall not merely highly probable, but inevitable.
The Rule of Law as the Foundation, Not Just a Pillar
A government isn’t just about armies, taxes, and borders. Its modern legitimacy rests on its role as the impartial guarantor of a predictable, just, and transparent legal order. When that collapses, everything crumbles. Civilization cannot exist without the rule of law for then there is no purpose for people to come together. Contracts become unenforceable and thus the economy seizes up. Property rights vanish redenering investment impossible, and thus capital flight begins and this is obvious when a state nationalizes private assets like Iran did to the oil companies. Personal security is at risk and this necessitated the privatization where history shows that militias and gangs surface. The state’s monopoly on force evaporates. This is how Rome collapse and people fled the cities and became serfs working the land for a landlord in return for protection behind his castle walls. People no longer see themselves as a nation, but separate typically into ethnic groups as in the Middle East as well as in the Balkans and Ukraine. This isn’t just a problem; it’s the unraveling of the social contract.
Historical Patterns: How the Collapse in the Ruke of Law Precedes the Fall
The French Revolution (1789) serves as just one example. The Ancien Régime’s legal system was seen as arbitrary, unequal, and a tool of the aristocracy. The paralysis and illegitimacy of the royal courts (like the Parlements) were a primary catalyst. The revolution began with the demand for a constitutional and lawful order.
We saw the same pattern during the Russian Revolution (1917). The Tsarist state had long governed by decree and repression (“Autocracy, Orthodoxy, Nationality”). During WWI, its institutions buckled, law broke down, and the Provisional Government that followed failed utterly to establish legal authority or order, creating the vacuum the Bolsheviks filled.
The 1918 German Revolution that even saw many seeking to join Russia and its Communist Revolution led to the the Slow-Motion collapse that followed the Weimar Republic (1933). The Nazis didn’t just seize power; they used legalistic maneuvers (the Reichstag Fire Decree, the Enabling Act) to destroy the rule of law from within. Once judges were coerced, the press silenced, and opponents “legally” imprisoned, the government’s democratic form was hollowed out. The collapse of law was the essence of the Nazi takeover.
Is It the “Final Straw”?
More accurately, it’s the point of no return unfolds with the collapse of the rule of law. Earlier symptoms might include economic crisis, corruption, and political deadlock. But the collapse of the rule of law is the phase change. It signals that the ruler cannot protect their property or enforce contracts. People begin to defect. (This was crucial in the fall of the Shah of Iran and the Philippines’ Ferdinand Marcos). It means the state is now a source of danger, not security. Passive obedience turns to active resistance or flight. When orders are clearly illegal or the chain of command fractures, soldiers and police may refuse to fire on civilians or even switch sides. We saw that during the 1991 attempted Russian Coup.
The Search for External Enemies
When a state begins to see the writing on the wall, they will typically point to an external enemy. The Ayatollah Khomeini (1902-1989) during the 1979 Islamic Revolution needed an external enemy in order to defeat his opponents who did not want a religious state. He turned the United States into the Great Satan justifying the taking of the American Embassy and held them hostage for 444 days. This was how he secured domestic power for anyone who dared to speak against him was am American sympathizer or supporter.
An Overwhelming External Threat is a strategy and we are witnessing this in the EU and NATO using Putin. A wartime unity that temporarily papers over institutional failure. As in North Korea, where the state prevents the organizational alternatives to itself from forming, through pervasive terror and ideology.
Historically, the sustained collapse of the rule of law is a near-certain predictor of governmental collapse. It is less a “final straw” and more the accelerant that turns a smoldering crisis into an uncontrollable fire. It dismantles the reason for the state’s existence in the eyes of its citizens and elites. While a regime can survive for a time through sheer terror or wealth, it has, at that point, ceased to be a functioning government in any traditional sense and becomes a predatory or failing entity living on borrowed time.
Posted originally on Feb 3, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
The letter I received from Trump, dated January 15th, discusses foreign policy, not domestic economics. It also says thank you for writing. This refers to the Peace Plan i wrote back in 2025 I was asked to write. Most of what I stated in that plan appears to have been implemented, except for my recommendation to exit NATO, which the letter addresses. However, I specifically included how this war began and laid the blame on the Neocons for installing an unelected government in Kiev and ordering them to invade the Donbas to kill Russians, trying to draw in Putin. They succeeded, but they control the press, which has been putting out the bullshit that Putin invaded “UNPROVOKED” to get young, stupid men and women to volunteer for war with the rally-around-the-flag psychological ploy to wage World War III. I believe I have shaken the ground that the Neocons stand on, so if I suddenly die by suicide, you know who really did it.
Of course, the European press are saying that to surrender the Donbas, Ukraine will commit suicide. They love war so much and are willing to sacrifice the future of their family all for the Donbas which the original Minsk Agreement was to allow them to vote on the fate of their own future. Chancellor Merkel admitted that she negotiated in bad faith and never intended to honor that peace agreement. They wallowing in the mud of propaganda.
The Road to Peace is undoubtedly attainable. I urge everyone to read my Peace Proposal that details the intricacies of restoring global order. The importance of restoring peace is paramount. Without peace, we will be forced to endure World War III—the destruction and loss of life is unfathomable. Share this document with whoever is willing to listen.The core of the peace plan is as follows. Yet, it is essential to read the full proposal to understand why these solutions could restore peace and change the course of history.
A plausible scenario / Restoration Deal Package
Putting the above together, a possible realistic “Restoration Deal” (from Russia’s perspective) might look like this:
Russia agrees to end the Ukrainian War in return for the honoring of the Minsk Agreement, a freeze of conflict lines, and allow the Donbas to vote on their basic human right to decide their own fate
In return, the U.S. (and EU) lift key sanctions on energy, rare earth exports, and financial transactions in stages
Russia commits to independent oversight (by international monitors) of resource exports, pricing, and revenue accounting
What the U.S. might realistically demand
(and what Russia would have to give)
From the U.S. (and allies) side, the demands would likely include:
Full transparency, auditing, and verification (to ensure that Russia does not exploit the relief to fund further military aggression)
Oversight on technology transfers and security constraints
Guarantees that lifted sanctions are reversible if Russia reneges
Some quid pro quo on Ukraine: withdrawal, territorial concessions, ceasefire, no reparations payments for Ukraine
Human rights, protection of minority groups, recognition of international law norms, and any Ukrainians located in the Donbas should be compensated to vacate the region
Russia would effectively have to offer more than just trade goods—it would have to offer political concessions, oversight, and legal guarantees that would enable it to join the world economy as an equal partner
Would such a deal restore Russia’s economy?
These proposals will help stabilize and revive parts of the Russian economy, but it will take time to establish a full “restoration” since that is not possible in the short-term. Some likely outcomes:
Increased export revenues from resource and rare-earth deals
Inflow of foreign investment (if investor confidence returns)
Technology and capacity rebuild via joint ventures
Partial reintegration into global financial systems (banking, capital markets)
Pressure/drive for domestic reforms (if tied to the deal)
If Trump stops listening to these losers who have never won a single war to date yet have created the largest perpetual rolling debt for their personal hatreds. Perhaps we stand a chance for peace. In these meetings with Zelensky, Trump must abandon Europe and the Neocons and be the real peacemaker. Zelensky must be stripped of his arrogant, greedy power.
My ultimatum would be simple
(1)You will honor the Minsk Agreement and allow the people of the Donbas to vote on their human right to remain as part of Ukraine, which hates their very existence and has engaged in ethnic cleansing.
(2) If Zelensky refuses, I will impose sanctions on Ukraine, and NO American company will be allowed to invest in Ukraine to cut off his trillion-dollar rebuild dream to become the richest billionaire of Ukraine.
(3) If NATO or the EU refuses to honor the very agreement that they signed, the US will withdraw from NATO.
(4) We cut a deal with Russia, allowing American companies to enter joint ventures in Russia to exploit the rare earths and resources with a joint guarantee that their investments will be safe.
(5) All sanctions of Russia are to be lifted, including the Magnitsky Act, with the sole exception of sanctions that were against individual spies.
(6) Agree to do a joint venture in the Arctic and Antarctica for natural resources and accept Putin’s proposal for a tunnel to Alaska.
Bottom line
(1) Drop all Sanctions
(2) Allow Joint Venture in Russia Jointly Guaranteed
(3) Agree to establish free trade zones
(4) Allow the Tunnel from Russia to Alaska
(5) EU must honor the Minsk Agreement or the USA exits NATO
(6) Ukraine must allow elections and must honor the Minsk Agreement or executive order prohibits all investment in Ukraine by any American company directly or indirectly
(7) If the Donbas votes to separate as in Czechoslovakia and in the Balkans, then they are to recognized by the United Nations or US withdraws all support for the United Nations.
Economic decline produces tensions, and this is what we are witnessing on a global scale, primarily due in part to the crisis in sovereign debts that nations are increasingly finding more difficult to service. The risk of a sanction producing war is far greater during an economic contraction, especially when Russia looks at this as a confrontation with NATO rather than Ukraine.
Posted originally on Feb 3, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
Every state with rampant social programs also has prevalent fraud. California has become an utter drain on the federal tax system. CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz revealed that California, Los Angeles County in particular, now accounts for 18% of all US Medicare home health and hospice billing to the tune of $3.5 billion annually. That equated to 2.5% of the population consuming 18% of healthcare funds.
There are over 2,000 hospice agencies in Los Angeles County—red flag. That means Los Angeles has more hospice agencies than 36 states COMBINED. Florida was once touted as “America’s waiting room” due to the aging population, but Los Angeles has 30X more hospice agencies than the entire state of Florida AND California.
LA County is the nationwide hotspot for Medicare fraud, but investigators have only scratched the surface. Over 100 hospices are registered under the same addresses. One doctor claimed to treat 1,900 patients in a single year, and received a $120 million check from the government. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has had LA-based home health agencies (HHA) and hospice agencies on their radar for years. State auditors in California estimated that hospice agencies in Los Angeles County overbilled Medicare by $105 million in 2019. By 2022, 31% of all US hospice agencies were based in Los Angeles County, and yet, the county only hosted 1.49 million seniors. CMS noted an improper payment error rate of 7.7% ($1.2 billion) in 2023, with hospice fraud costing the American taxpayer $198.1 million in FY2023.
Investigators began to question the county’s method for authorizing home health and hospice agencies. Similar to the childcare fraud in Minnesota, people were permitted to create fraudulent practices with minimal vetting and bill the federal government for services not rendered.
The California State Auditor found that licensed hospice agencies in Los Angeles County increased from 109 in 2010 to 1,841 in 2021, a 1,589% increase. Over 1,732 additional licenses for home hospices were granted in an 11-year period between 2010 and 2021.
These agencies enroll as many beneficiaries as possible even if they fail to meet clinical criteria. Those beneficiaries are often billed on a daily per-diem basis for care they may or may not receive. Others have a physician order a 30-day “period of care” window that is then submitted as a Notice of Admission (NOA) to Medicare. The patients never leave the system and their billed care continually grows. “As a hospice owner, I could sign up everybody in this room for hospice,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta explained during a recent hearing. “It’s all just paperwork. I could fill [an application] out in Kazakhstan if I want, and get a hospice license.”
The average hospice stay is under 18 days, but in LA, patients are surviving for over 18 months. The Federal government has been shelling out an average of $260 per day for each senior receiving care. “A Medicare MIB number is more lucrative than a credit card,” says Sheila Clark, president of the California Hospice and Palliative Care Association, referring to the 11-character code each Medicare recipient has that allows federal reimbursement. “They’re human traffickers. They’re trafficking beneficiaries in and out of hospices, home health.”
Fraudsters have begun recruiting vulnerable seniors by offering to enroll them in a complimentary Medicare program that will provide them with minimal health care. The victim’s beneficiary Medicare number is then sold to these fraudulent agencies.
Social programs are a prime target for taxpayer fraud. Authorities knew that fraud was prevalent back in 2019 but looked the other way. The fraudsters likely donated to the right politicians and paid off the right people. The average American who works hard and pays into the system is always penalized by the same politicians who claim to represent the “average man.”
Posted originally on Feb 3, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
In a recent interview, Donald Trump claimed he could “very easily solve” the United Nations’ financial problems by requiring member states to pay their dues, much as he pressured NATO allies to increase defense contributions during his first term. Trump would not be able to do this with funds, as that is not the true nature of the problem. The core of the institution has rotted; global powers no longer have strong confidence in the United Nations.
Yesterday, I wrote about theUnited Nations warning that it was facing an “imminent financial collapse. I argued that when institutions fail to adapt to shifting power dynamics, they collapse under their own contradictions. That is exactly what we are witnessing now.
The UN’s financial crisis is not primarily about $4 billion in unpaid dues. Rather, it’s about the loss of legitimacy and mutual trust among sovereign states. The UN is a creature of consensus and shared obligations, but the financial obligation has fallen on the US, and the American people no longer wish to foot the bill. This is precisely why there is a rising tide of nationalism, as people demand that their politicians and taxes stay within the domestic realm.
“When I’m no longer around to settle wars, the U.N. can,” Donald Trump said, acknowledging that he won’t always be the one intervening in global conflicts. “It has tremendous potential. Tremendous.”
Now, the UN has international respect and the ability to function based on SHARED interests. The United Nations was never designed to be a global government; it was a forum for negotiation among sovereign powers. It worked as long as the major powers had a shared interest in maintaining stability. But that shared interest has eroded.
The West is fracturing internally, with the US and Europe increasingly at odds on security, economic policy, defense obligations, and industrial strategy. Countries are less willing to fund an institution they no longer see as effective, fair, or aligned with their interests. Expectations regarding payment compliance are rooted in a bygone era when the UN’s agenda broadly aligned with American and Western strategic leadership. That alignment is gone.
Democrat Mayor Michelle Wu of Boston does not understand US law. “Every single human being has the legal right to come to the United States and seek shelter,” Wu stated back in March 2025. As of 2024, Massachusetts housed 1.3 million foreign-born residents, accounting for 18.8% of the state’s population. In the Boston-Cambridge-Newton metro area, one in five residents (19.7%) is foreign-born. Can the city or state afford these newcomers? No.
Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee summed up the Democrats’ position: “The quiet part out loud: The entire world has more right to America than Americans.”
Traditionally, immigration policy was a matter of sovereign control. The nation determines who may enter, under what conditions, and with what responsibilities. This model predates modern America and is rooted in centuries of legal, cultural, and economic practice.
Mass migration has real economic consequences. Labor markets, social services, welfare systems, and community infrastructure are affected by the scale and timing of immigration flows. Far-left advocates often frame migration in purely humanitarian terms, but policymakers must grapple with the practical economics of assimilation, public expenditure, and labor dynamics.
It’s no coincidence that cities with declining populations or struggling economies have become proponents of more permissive immigration policies. Cities do not embrace mass immigration because they are prosperous. They do so because they are desperate. When a city loses population, it loses its tax base. Property values stagnate or decline, businesses relocate, employment opportunities shrink, and municipal debt becomes harder to service. The politicians are left with a shortage of people to rob. So they import bodies to increase the welfare system to rob the federal government.
You cannot endlessly import people into a system already failing without accelerating its collapse. Social services become strained, public trust erodes, and conflict intensifies between those contributing to the system and those drawing from it. This is when politics turns hostile and polarized.
The Democrats opened the borders and told the world that they could live a taxpayer-subsidized life if they made it to America. Budgets imploded, demographics rapidly shifted, the same politicians waving a welcome flag began to panic. And now we are witnessing a social uprising over deportations as law and order is restored. The chaos is calculated and deliberate.
Posted originally on Feb 2, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
Estonia is urging an EU-wide ban on entry for Russian soldiers who have fought in Ukraine. Estonia has already imposed permanent entry bans on some Russian combatants, and now the idea is being discussed among EU foreign ministers as a unified bloc response to a post-war security landscape that most Europeans are only beginning to comprehend.
Neocon Kaja Kallas is one example of Estonia’s view of Russians. “Russia has close to one million combatants. They are mainly criminals. They are very dangerous people,” Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna told reporters. “Europe is not ready for that.”
Europe permitted actual terrorists from the Middle East to enter its borders and seek asylum. Russia’s Putin implemented a draft; an entire generation of men has been sent to battle. Those who hold strong anti-Russian sentiment want to ensure that Russians permanently stay within Russia by banning an entire generation from migrating or seeking asylum.
“We need to protect European security, and we need to do it together,” Estonia’s Tsahkna said, adding: “There can be no path from Bucha to Brussels. This is the main message.”
Estonia has already imposed permanent entry bans on some Russian combatants, and now the idea is being discussed among EU foreign ministers as a unified bloc response. Kallas is championing the broad ban by claiming all Russians pose a threat to Europe’s existence. Identity politics is becoming policy.
If the EU begins banning individuals based on past association with an adversary state’s military, then Europe is redefining its own internal rules. Countless Russians have family ties to bordering Eastern European nations. Should they be punished for the mandatory draft? Kallas and others not only want to destroy Russia, but they also want to segregate Russians from Europeans.
When you label a class of people permanently undesirable because they served their country in a conflict, you create multigenerational resentment. We saw this after World War I with Germany. The attempt to morally and economically quarantine an entire defeated power did not produce peace. It produced rage that carried forward into the next cycle of war. You cannot humiliate one generation and expect the next to forget.
Posted originally on Feb 2, 2026 by Martin Armstrong
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has warned that the organization could face “imminent financial collapse” unless member states pay their dues in full and on time or unless the underlying financial structure is fundamentally reformed.
“The crisis is deepening, threatening programme delivery and risking financial collapse. And the situation will deteriorate further in the near future,” Guterres said. “Either all Member States honour their obligations to pay in full and on time – or Member States must fundamentally overhaul our financial rules to prevent an imminent financial collapse,” he added.
The United States has been bankrolling the UN for decades. It has functioned in many respects like a supranational agency funded disproportionately by American taxpayers, while policies coming out of that same body are often openly hostile to US interests. That contradiction could only last so long.
During his first term, Donald Trump warned that member nations were not making their required contributions. The UN repeatedly rebuked US policy and then wondered why the POTUS suspended funding.
You cannot build a permanent international bureaucracy assuming one country will always write the largest check regardless of behavior, efficiency, or accountability. When confidence declines at home, foreign commitments are always the first to be questioned. We see this pattern repeatedly with empires and reserve currency nations. External spending gets cut when internal stress rises.
We are moving away from the post-World War II global order where the United States carried the financial burden for international structures in exchange for geopolitical influence. Those with nationalist sentiments see this as a win for the United States who has been bankrolling globalist agencies and foreign governments for far too long. What does the US receive in return? Nothing.
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 