Interview WORLD FIRST: The Plot to Seize Russia, War Propaganda, and More

Armstrong Economics Blog/Armstrong in the Media Re-Posted Sep 22, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Listen to my latest interview with Maria from Zeee Media.

Description from Maria:

World renowned economist Martin Armstrong joins us to break the story of the several-decade long plan to seize Russia, detailing how he has obtained declassified documents from the Clinton Administration, and how he was previously targeted for possessing this knowledge – which he is finally able to release.

Martin takes us through his encounter with an alleged terrorist from 9/11 while he served in prison, who was actually a Pakistani Christian that was framed by the US Government. We also discuss world events, war propaganda, and Martin’s insight into where we are heading.

Citing the Need to Defer to National Security Claims of DOJ, 11th Circuit Court Grants Motion for Stay Over Florida Judge Ruling in Mar-a-Lago Document Case, Special Master Blocked from Reviewing Classified Documents

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on September 21, 2022 | sundance

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of the U.S. Dept of Justice, National Security Division, and blocked the lower court order instructing the Special Master to review the DOJ claimed, “classified documents.” [pdf Ruling Here]

Essentially the order of the appellate court is based on the DOJ calling the material “classified” and “vital to national security”, and the court’s determination they have no authority to question the decision of the executive branch when it comes to matters of national security.

The court (judicial branch) openly states they defer to the DOJ (executive branch) as to any/all claims of harm to national security that may be caused by a review of documents the DOJ-NSD determine, on their own authority, to be identified as classified (sensitive, secret or top-secret).  Therefore, if the DOJ states sharing the “classified documents” with a special master may harm national security, they court must accept that position without challenge.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is doing what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) does with the DOJ-NSD and any matters defined by the originating Main Justice officials as “national security.”   The 11th Circuit is deferring to the DOJ.

The DOJ is granted legal benefit of the doubt on all matters of national security, which puts the DOJ-NSD in ultimate control over the star chamber they operate.

In the post 9-11 surveillance state, this approach by the DOJ-NSD is a pillar holding the Fourth Branch of Government in place, as we have outlined.  The other pillars are (2) the Dept of Homeland Security, (3) the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and (4) the secret FISA Court system.

All four pillars maintain an omnipotent fourth branch of government that operates entirely without oversight.  As you can see in the 11th Circuit Court ruling, there is no check or balance in the post 9-11 national security state.

The only way to deconstruct this post-constitutional construct is to deconstruct the four pillars.

Eliminate the Dept of Homeland Security.

Eliminate the Office of the Director of National Intelligence

Eliminate the DOJ National Security Division

Eliminate the FISA Court.

Take down the pillars that hold up the fourth branch of government and the Omnipotent surveillance state is removed.



PS. People made fun of my prior suggestion for how President Trump should have declassified those documents.  Perhaps now the ‘smart set’ people see why my method, while unorthodox, was the best way.

~Reminder Here ~

Things Might be WORSE than You Think!

Awaken With JP Published originally on Rumble on September 8, 2022 10,189

It might be worse than you think…

Weapons Dealers

Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption Re-Posted Sep 3, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

DeSantis Beats Trump on Fundraising – However, Donor Financials Highlight Corporate Version vs Grassroots Version of The Republican Party

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on August 25, 2022 | Sundance 

A solid dive by Law.Com and Daily Business Review into the background of who is financing Donald Trump versus who is financing Ron DeSantis should help to clarify the nature of the difference between them.

President Trump is funded primarily from massive amounts of small contributions from small donors, the MAGA base.

Governor Ron DeSantis is funded primarily by a small group of exclusive Wall Street corporations, billionaires and hedge fund managers, and almost no small donors.

Essentially, if you are thinking about MAGA populism -vs- corporate republicanism; well, there’s the issue in easiest to understand data form.

Additionally, the new managers of DeSantis have recently noticed the vulnerability and hired firms to try and stimulate small donor amounts in an effort to avoid the jaw dropping difference in average donation.  A strategy deployed by Jeb Bush in 2015.    Pay attention to the names giving large donations to DeSantis and you will see: (a) where the economic policy distinction comes from; and (b) where the RDS branding and consulting image is coming from.

Business Daily Review – Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has raised more money than Donald Trump since the former president left office, relying on deep-pocketed donors rather than the small-dollar contributors he’ll need if he seeks the White House in 2024.

DeSantis … has amassed $142 million from the start of 2021 through Aug. 5 this year from donors such as the hedge fund billionaires Ken Griffin and Paul Tudor Jones.  That tops the $136 million Trump collected over a slightly shorter period.

Unlike Trump, who relies largely on a network of small-dollar donors to fund his postpresidential political operations, DeSantis has raised the bulk of his money from a small number of wealthy donors writing him giant checks. That gives him plenty of money for his reelection effort in Florida, where laws allow unlimited contributions.

But it also raises doubts about the level of grassroots support for DeSantis and suggests he’ll have to widen his fundraising base for any presidential bid because federal rules limit direct contributions to candidates to just $2,900 per donor.

About 500 donors have given $50,000 or more to Friends of Ron DeSantis, his political action committee which under Florida law can accept donations in unlimited amounts, accounting for $88 million of his fundraising haul. His big donors come from finance and real estate, health care and construction and a wide range of other businesses, a Bloomberg analysis of Florida campaign finance filings shows.

By contrast, donors who made contributions of less than $200 accounted for $8 million, or just 6%, of his haul. Unlike Trump, who’s raised $74 million or 54% of his total from January 2021 through June 30 from small-dollar donors, DeSantis doesn’t send multiple, daily fundraising pitches to supporters. Recently his campaign went a month without sending a text message to potential donors who signed up to receive them.

His top 500 donors include 10 billionaires, including Citadel’s Griffin, who moved his hedge fund’s headquarters to Miami from Chicago 14 months after giving $5 million. Other contributors include Tudor Jones, the chief executive officer of Tudor Investment Corp., Home Depot Inc. co-founder Bernard Marcus and Thomas Peterffy, the chairman of Interactive Brokers Inc. (read more)

Ron DeSantis has done a great job in Florida, mostly on social impact issues.  However, on a national policy level, specifically on a presidential level for 2024, the donor influence becomes troubling.

Issues around school choice, school boards, woke policy and social issues in general are easier to handle for voters at a local level.  City, county and state representatives, and the elections they come from, are the people and places where voters can make a substantive difference in their own outcome.

As a parent or individual you have the ability to fight back against social and ideological issues at a city, county and state level.   However, when it comes to issues of national economics, international trade policy and national energy policy, those battles happen at the federal level.  That’s where the President of the United States has a major influence.

As examples, the price of gasoline and energy are influenced by the president through regulatory policy.  Similarly, international trade agreements, economic policy and monetary policy, have consequences for domestic investment, economic growth, jobs, employment, wage growth and expanded domestic wealth.

Simply put, the president has a strong impact on the nation, and the people within it, from an economic perspective.

All modern republicans are incapable of executing a policy that is pro-U.S. worker, because every modern republican is a beneficiary of Wall Street, hedge funds and multinational corporate contributions; exactly like those outlined for Ron DeSantis.  As a consequence, economic policy adverse to the interests of Wall Street, Banks, hedge funds and multinational corporations do not come from modern republican politicians.

This dynamic reflects the distinction that made Donald Trump unique.

Unlike traditional republicans, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both agreed on the problem.  Where they disagreed was the solution.

Donald Trump used domestic economic policy tools like trade tariffs and countervailing duties to change the corporate behavior of the multinationals.  Bernie Sander’s approach is to regulate the corporations and force a behavior change.

Put another way, Bernie wants to change the economic referees, while Trump’s approach is to change the economic rules of the game and let the teams play it.

You might remember a large percentage of Bernie Sanders voters joined team Trump in 2016.  That’s because both teams agreed on the problem within our national economic situation.   The result was MAGA, a massive coalition of working-class voters, based on economics, that cuts through every social distinction of race, color, sex, orientation, etc.  The issue that binds the MAGA voters together is economic policy.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is a good governor for Florida, and he should be reelected easily.  However, do not fool yourself into believing the massive coalition of MAGA voters would ever transfer to a corporate republican.  It will not. EVER.

When people ask me who should come in after Trump, my answer is simple….  Show me the economic nationalist.

If there isn’t another one,… well, what does that tell you about the Republican party?

Last point.  Florida republicans have a major blind spot they keep ignoring and DeSantis is very lucky Charlie Crist doesn’t have the resources to exploit it.

Housing costs, rents and homeowners’ insurance in Florida have skyrocketed.  In some places home insurance has tripled just this year; yes, tripled.  Energy costs also increased massively in Florida, in many areas electricity rates have doubled.  Water utility costs in Florida have consistently been the highest in the nation due to the nature of the infrastructure and rapid expansion of the population.  Additionally, property tax costs -even with homestead protections- are a serious issue for lots of voters.

Put those economic issues, all being ignored by the governor’s office – as he campaigns around the country to raise his national profile, on top of high gasoline and food prices and DeSantis is very vulnerable on the way Floridians feel about their economic security.

Focusing on wokeism and social issues is an option when economic issues are not in crisis.  However, focusing on social issues while ignoring the economic pain and crisis, and you find yourself looking detached. aloof and vulnerable to political attack….. Then again, a typical republican.


The Managing of DeSantis HERE

The Branding of DeSantis HERE

The Selling of DeSantis HERE

US Embezzles an Additional $3 Billion to Ukraine

Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption Re-Posted Aug 26, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

America has pledged to embezzle (donate) another $3 BILLION into Ukraine. The Associated Press claims that this money will be used for equipment and training Ukrainian troops. Additional NATO countries are also offering additional funds, such as Germany who pledged an additional $500 million to the proxy war. Yet, America is donating more money than any other NATO country to a non-NATO country. How does this benefit American taxpayers? Answer – it does not. It steals resources from our nation as the average American grapples with record-high inflation amid a recession that is expected to worsen into next year.

This is taxation without representation. Joe Biden is not reaching into his personal wallet to funnel money into Ukraine. The defense contractors, US and Ukrainian governments are finding a way to line their pockets with these large “donations.” America has already sent 19 packages of weapons from the Defense Department’s arsenal to Ukraine. So far, the US has sent $10.6 billion to Ukraine to fund what many are calling the new “forever war.”

The last US census stated there were 123.6 million households in the US. At $13.6 billion total, this means that every household in the nation could have donated $110 directly to Ukraine. Zelensky is basking in the funding and fame. He has indicated that he intends to provoke Russia and worsen relations. He originally wanted to protect the Donbas region, but now he also wants Crimea to be fully within Ukraine. There is no winning this war as it has become too profitable for the people behind the curtain.

Biden’s Student Loan Forgiveness Bribe

Armstrong Economics Blog/Education Re-Posted Aug 26, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

While many are praising Biden for maintaining his campaign promise to cancel student debt, others are furious that the costs will be passed on to the taxpayers. Even Mitt Romney accused Biden of bribing voters before the midterms. “Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan may win Democrats some votes, but it fuels inflation, foots taxpayers with other people’s financial obligations, is unfair to those who paid their own way & creates irresponsible expectations,” the perhaps most liberal Republican senator wrote on Twitter.

Under the plan, borrowers earning under $125,000 annually will receive a $10,000 debt cancelation, while Pell Grant recipients will see a $20,000 reduction. The Penn Wharton School conducted a study in which they believe this program will cost the average taxpayer $2,000. The study found:

"We estimate that a one-time maximum debt forgiveness of $10,000 per borrower will cost around $300 billion for borrowers with incomes less than $125,000. This cost increases to $330 billion if the program is continued over the standard 10-year budget window. Eliminating the borrower income limit threshold produces a 10-year cost of $344 billion. Increasing the maximum amount forgiven to $50,000 per borrower increases the total cost to as much as $980 billion."

Yet, this does nothing to prevent predatory lending, albeit dismissing some interest on loans. This does not reinstate Glass Stegall, the provision that Bill Clinton erased to make student debt non-dischargeable in the case of bankruptcy. In fact, Clinton’s top financial advisor, Larry Summers, believes that this measure will increase inflation. “It consumes resources that could be better used helping those who did not, for whatever reason, have the chance to attend college. It will also tend to be inflationary by raising tuitions,” Summers wrote on his Twitter page. He also warned against continuing the moratorium of benefits expected to last until the end of the year.

Some state that we should be happy for those who are receiving relief, but the true culprits are the predatory lenders offering asinine interest rates and the universities that continually raise their fees. It also causes a disconnect between classes as those who chose trade school or blue-collar roles to avoid college fees will not be too fond of this initiative. It certainly will not help America’s plea to recruit more military personnel either. This is a temporary solution to a deeper problem.

The Inflation Reduction Act – A Change We Don’t Believe In

Armstrong Economics Blog/Inflation Re-Posted Aug 26, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

President Biden agreed to waste billions on the Democrat-supported Inflation Reduction Act. According to a survey of 1,500 Americans as presented by the Epoch Times, neither Democratic nor Republican citizens believe this expensive act will combat rising prices.

Respondents were asked if they believed that the bulk of the package, the $369 billion set aside for climate change initiatives, would reduce inflation. Only 13% said they believed fighting climate change would combat inflation, while 26% admitted they had no clue. Yet, 38% replied by saying it will increase inflation, and an additional 22% think it will have no impact.

Only 8% of Republicans polled agreed with the act (no voting Republican lawmakers supported the measure), while 23% of Democrats were in favor. Around 68% of Republicans warned that the bill would increase inflation; 40% of Independents agreed, as did 17% of Democrats.

This leads one to believe that the measure would never have passed if the taxpayers had the opportunity to vote on how their money was spent. The Congressional Budget Office admitted that the measure would have a negligible effect on inflation. Currently, American households are paying an additional $717 per month due to inflation. This act will only cause Americans to be treated as criminals by the growing and armed IRS, which is training to use lethal force against civilians. Audits will soar, small and medium businesses will suffer, and no one besides those supporting the Green agenda will benefit from the Inflation [Expansion] Act.

Study, No Quantifiable Benefits from COVID Treatment Drug Paxlovid for People Aged 40 to 65

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on August 25, 2022 | Sundance 

In April 2022, the Biden administration ordered 20 million doses of Pfizer’s antiviral Covid-19 treatment called Paxlovid.

Now a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine shows the medication shows “no measurable benefit” for the treatment of COVID-19 in patients 40 to 65-years of age.

WASHINGTON — Pfizer’s COVID-19 pill appears to provide little or no benefit for younger adults, while still reducing the risk of hospitalization and death for high-risk seniors, according to a large study published Wednesday.

The results from a 109,000-patient Israeli study are likely to renew questions about the U.S. government’s use of Paxlovid, which has become the go-to treatment for COVID-19 due to its at-home convenience. The Biden administration has spent more than $10 billion purchasing the drug and making it available at thousands of pharmacies through its test-and-treat initiative.

The researchers found that Paxlovid reduced hospitalizations among people 65 and older by roughly 75% when given shortly after infection. That’s consistent with earlier results used to authorize the drug in the U.S. and other nations.

But people between the ages of 40 and 65 saw no measurable benefit, according to the analysis of medical records. (read more)

“Huh, imagine that”…

Tucker Carlson and Harmeet Dhillon Discuss Facebook Suppression of Hunter Biden Laptop Story

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on August 25, 2022 | Sundance

During a segment on his broadcast this evening, Fox News host Tucker Carlson interviewed Center for American Liberty founder and lawyer, Harmeet Dhillon about how Facebook censored and supressed he Hunter Biden laptop story just before the 2020 election. {Direct Rumble Link} – WATCH: