Posted originally on Sep 16, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |
President Donald Trump believes that companies should cease reporting on a quarterly basis and switch to semiannual reports instead. Trump said that the concept is “subject to SEC approval” and would “save money, and allow managers to focus on properly running their companies.”
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and Warren Buffett also once voiced support for semiannual reporting. “In our experience, quarterly earnings guidance often leads to an unhealthy focus on short-term profits at the expense of long-term strategy, growth and sustainability,” the pair wrote in an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal in 2018.
The SEC currently has a 3-1 Republican voting majority, but why does this seem to be a bipartisan issue? The issue is global, in fact, as Norway’s sovereign wealth fund recently proposed switching to semiannual reporting, and the UK and Europe do not currently require quarterly reports. Providing the consumer and investor with less, infrequent information alludes to bad news. Companies would willingly share praise of quarterly earnings with the public if they were bullish on their future, but in the current stagflationary trend, companies are cautious. Those at the top are losing confidence in their company’s ability to meet or exceed expectations.
Dimon and Buffett argued that the public’s attention should be on the long-term results. That aligns with Buffett’s buy and hold strategy but does not work for most portfolios that require investment strategy changes based on incoming data. In Trump’s personal predicament, the price adjustments due to tariffs are a reason to halt quarterly reporting.
Still, lowering transparency raises market risk, and the markets do not respond well to volatility. Columbia Law Schoolpublished an article that looked at the 2017 regulatory adjustment on the Tel-Aviv Exchange (TASE) when small-cap firms switched from mandatory quarterly reports to semi-annual updates. “The stocks of firms that chose that option dropped an average of 2 percent in price in a window of (-5,+5) days,” the analysis found. “Conversely, the stock of firms that chose to continue quarterly reporting rose an average of 2.5 percent over an immediate window of (-5,+5) days.”
The study also noted that while compliance costs dropped by 19.8% by eliminating two annual reports, the firms that chose to maintain four annual reports did not see a significant change in audit fees. There was a clear trade-off between cost reduction and maintaining investor confidence, the study noted.
The US markets cannot be compared to the TASE, and that 2% reduction in investment would likely rise for US firms, as consumer confidence is absolutely paramount. The proposition of semi-annual reports stems from the belief that companies will be unable to provide optimistic earnings reports. Reducing reporting fees is not the concern, and the repercussions are vast as massive portfolio shifts would ensue as investors and money managers need to reduce risks and would be less likely to take short-term risks if the data is unavailable to them. Reducing transparency would shake up confidence in the markets overall, and as mentioned, capital does not like volatility.
Posted originally on Sep 16, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |
After months of legal turmoil, the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the United States can secure its borders and has the right to end the temporary legal protections granted to migrants under the Biden Administration.
Joe Biden provided 430,000 migrants from Haiti, Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua with temporary protected status (TPS). Biden later expanded this status to those from Sudan, Ukraine, and El Salvador. People from Myanmar (Burma), Cameroon, Haiti, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen were also often granted TPS status. “We are glad the Biden Administration has committed to protecting the citizens of four troubled countries, including 190,000 Salvadorans who have worked and contributed to this country for decades. […] Citizens of Honduras and Nicaragua, among other countries, deserve TPS extensions also, and they are still waiting. Like other immigrants, they will face great danger when the next president takes office. The current administration needs to protect them, too,” the TPS Alliance stated ahead of Trump’s presidency.
Basically, anyone from a less than desirable nation was suddenly permitted to live and work in America without going through the proper immigration process. Open border policies at their finest. Over one million migrants enjoyed the protections granted to them under TPS, until now.
The Trump Administration has been attempting to reverse this policy since March, arguing that the protection was only meant to be temporary and the Department of Homeland Security should have the authority to expel those who overstayed. The purchased courtrooms ruled that each case needed individual due process, which could never feasibly happen.
Now, the court has ruled that the Department of Homeland Security can revoke TPS status for over 430,000 migrants, or less than half who are in the nation. This status was originally meant to last for two years, but once someone enters the United States, the legal system makes it very difficult for them to leave involuntarily. The entire intent of open border policies was to flood the nation with as many migrants as possible to alter elections, prop up the dollar, and replace the declining working class. There was no plan or budget and the American people will be paying for open border policies for generations to come. Mass deportation is the only way to prevent the United States from becoming Europe. Import the third world and you become the third world.
The best and worst of humanity have revealed themselves in the week following the death of Charlie Kirk. Over 800 Americans have been forced to resign from their jobs after spewing hate online. Suddenly, harassing conservatives and inciting violence has consequences.
Democrats are continuing to use Kirk’s untimely passing as a method to promote gun safety. In his own words, Kirk explained that the right to bear arms has a deeper meaning than merely personal safety. The Second Amendment exists for the citizens to protect themselves against tyrannical governments. No actual dictatorship would permit the people to bear arms. No real communist or socialist regime would permit the people to bear arms. Lethal protection against government was precisely the intend of the Founding Fathers.
“Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty,” Kirk explained, comparing gun ownership to the risk of driving as everything comes at a price. “You get rid of driving, you’d have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you’re not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen,” he continued.
“Does it take shooting a conservative to start to realize the gun scourge? I hope they realize it,” Rep. George Latimer (D-NY) commented. “Pass some gun laws!” Rep. Jahana Hayes screamed during the moment of silence for Charlie Kirk. “I believe that anyone who has committed their entire career to obstructing gun safety legislation in this House has no right to blame anyone else for the consequences of their actions,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) chimed in.
Criminals do not abide by the law. The majority of these shooters obtain firearms illegally. It is also curious that we do not hear of conservatives shooting down liberals for discussing their views. Conservatives are not setting buildings on fire or vandalizing property in the aftermath of Kirk’s death, and yet, the media continues to portray the right as dangerous. Every aforementioned representative parades around Washington D.C. with armed security. They want YOU to be disarmed and unsafe while they enjoy the protection offered under 2A.
Kirk argued that places with armed security—banks, sporting events, airports—do not have shootings. Why? Law-abiding citizens are exercising their right to bear arms and ensure law and order. Disarming the public only enables the government to have blanket control over the population. It’s what they did in China, Cuba, the Soviet Union—the list could go on. The historical evidence is glaringly clear that gun ownership is the best protection against tyranny.
Here is the full transcript of Charlie Kirk’s dialogue:
AUDIENCE QUESTION: How's it going, Charlie? I'm Austin. I just had a question related to Second Amendment rights. We saw the shooting that happened recently and a lot of people are upset. But, I'm seeing people argue for the other side that they want to take our Second Amendment rights away. How do we convince them that it's important to have the right to defend ourselves and all that good stuff?
CHARLIE KIRK: Yeah, it's a great question. Thank you. So, I'm a big Second Amendment fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good politician, or maybe I would, I don't know, because I actually speak my mind.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that" — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.
Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.
You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.
So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?
Posted originally on Sep 16, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |
Keith Kellogg’s stupid statement that Russia’s war in Ukraine would end very quickly if Beijing withdrew its support for Moscow. He made the comments at a security conference in Kiev. He called Russia the “junior partner” to China and said it is losing the war in Ukraine. Such a statement is just insane. Like Iraq, nobody ever asked, if Ukraine defeats Russia, what would happen in Russia? This would be like saying What if Mexico invaded the USA and won?
After Germany lost World War I, there was a revolution that overthrew the monarchy, and the Weimar Republic was born, which then ended in hyperinflation. Even the Russian Revolution of 1917 was enabled by Russia’s disastrous performance in WWI, including massive casualties and economic collapse, which sparked widespread strikes and mutinies. The Tsar abdicated in March 1917, ending 300 years of Romanov rule; the Bolsheviks then seized power in November, leading to civil war and the Soviet Union.
Austria collapsed in 1918 after losing World War I. The empire’s multi-ethnic collapse after defeat led to ethnic revolts and declarations of independence in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and elsewhere. The monarchy ended in November 1918, fragmenting into nation-states amid famine and military desertions.
The collapse of the Ottoman Empire also took place after World War I. The Turkish War of Independence and the abolition of the sultanate (1919–1923) unfolded. Allied occupation post-armistice fueled nationalist resistance led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. The sultanate was abolished in 1922, and the caliphate in 1924, birthing the Republic of Turkey after revolutionary reforms.
Xinhai Revolution (1911) followed the defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War of 1895. Humiliating territorial losses to Japan exposed the dynasty’s weakness, sparking anti-Manchu sentiment and Sun Yat-sen’s republican movement. The last emperor abdicated in 1912, ending over 2,000 years of imperial rule and ushering in the Republic of China.
Franco-Prussian War of 1870 saw the Paris Commune and fall of the empire (1870–1871). Napoleon III’s defeat led to the Third Republic’s proclamation. Radical workers then revolted in the Paris Commune, which was brutally suppressed, but the monarchy was permanently ousted.
These modern historical events illustrate a pattern without having to catalogue all the countless such events throughout human history. Wars drain resources, erode legitimacy, and amplify grievances (e.g., food shortages, casualties), creating fertile ground for revolutionaries. Not all post-war unrest leads to full regime change—e.g., Bulgaria’s monarchy survived WWI initially, only falling later in 1944. Nonetheless, these are clear instances of direct causation between revolution and the loss of a previous war.
In a post on his Telegram channel, Medvedev made the realistic statement that granting NATO members permission to down Russian drones operating in Ukrainian airspace would mean “war between the Alliance and Russia.” His comments followed growing calls in Europe and NATO to intervene in the war, demanding stronger Western action against Russia for its drone incursions while supporting Ukraine to use Western long-range missiles to attack even Moscow. On Sept. 12, Bundestag Defense Committee Chair Thomas Röwekamp urged NATO to begin intercepting Russian drones over Ukraine.
I have repeatedly stated that the psychological war tactic is that you MUST claim that an adversary has attacked you to get people to sign up. The support hasn’t been this low since 2022. This is why false flags are so important. They are used to claim you have been attacked, and then the common people will sign up to die on the battlefield for a noble cause.
That works on all sides. A new poll made by the independent Russian institute Levada shows that the Russians are growing tired of the war in Ukraine. The poll showed that 66%, or roughly two out of three, of the participants want the Kremlin to engage in peace negotiations with Ukraine. That is the highest number since 2022, when the war began. If NATO attacks Russia using a false flag, this will support the Rally Around the Flag for Russia. Let’s face it. Russians are treated with disdain as were the Jews before World War II. That is not a scenario that implies world peace lies ahead.
Senior military leaders from NATO member states have publicly assessed that the alliance would prevail in a conventional war against Russia relatively quickly due to overwhelming advantages in personnel (over 3.4 million active troops vs. Russia’s 1.3 million), aircraft (22,000+ vs. 4,000), ships (1,100+ vs. 400), defense spending (3.5 times Russia’s), and GDP (20 times larger).
In a February 2024 speech, UK Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral Sir Tony Radakin stated that “NATO would defeat Russia quickly,” citing Russia’s struggles in Ukraine as evidence of its military weaknesses and NATO’s growing strength with the addition of Finland and Sweden. Similarly, analyses from outlets like Al Jazeera and The Week conclude that NATO’s integrated command, superior training, and equipment would lead to a “quick” conventional victory. However, they warn that this could escalate to nuclear risks if Russia faces total defeat. As I have said, if I have a gun and you break into my house and threaten to kill me, I think I may shoot back.
Sensational claims, such as NATO submarines “destroying Russia in 30 seconds,” appear in YouTube videos and informal discussions but stem from hyperbolic speculation about nuclear scenarios, not official statements. Recent X posts echo debates on NATO’s superiority but often tie it to broader geopolitical tensions without referencing its past defeats. Overall, while NATO officials project confidence in deterrence, they prioritize avoiding direct war over public victory projections.
This push for war with Russia leaves out TWO critical factors
(1) China will support Russia because it knows it will be next, as they plainly told Kallas.
(2) This will turn nuclear, and Europe, with all its conventional power, can be turned to dust in minutes, not days.
“Europe is ready to take a step forward. We are ready to take control of the changes that are inevitable. Because we can’t let history push us around. This means that it is necessary to act now. Acting on a large scale is an indispensable condition for speed, scale and strength by 2030 … By 2030 Europe should have a strong European defense structure,” Ursula said.
This drone shot down in Poland from EVERY source I have states that this is a FALSE FLAG and there is no evidence that this every invaded Polish airspace. They desperately need to create a False Flag, get gullible people to sign their own death wish, so these failed EU leaders can keep their pensions. Ursula told the EU Parliament with great theatrics:
“Battle lines for a new world order based on power are being drawn right now,” von der Leyen told the European Parliament in her annual State of the EU address.
“So, yes, Europe must fight. For its place in a world in which many major powers are either ambivalent or openly hostile to Europe,” she said.
Putin is the smartest and responsible world leader at the table today. Remove him, and we will get an emotional leader like Medvedev. Speculating on a post-Putin Russia is inherently uncertain, as the regime’s opacity and Putin’s tight control over security services make a smooth transition debatable. An overthrow—whether via coup, elite infighting, or sudden death—would likely trigger a power struggle among siloviki (security elites), oligarchs, and technocrats, potentially leading to instability or even fragmentation. I would emphasize that no apparent clear heir exists, and the outcome depends on the circumstances: a managed handover (unlikely in an overthrow) versus chaotic removal.
I would list the potential replacements, prioritize loyalty to the current system, hawkish stances on Ukraine/NATO, and control over key institutions like the FSB, military, or economy, which will all come into play. Dmitry Medvedev is indeed a contender due to his proximity to Putin, but he’s not the top pick—his role is often seen as that of a “bad cop” provocateur rather than a unifying leader. Perhaps, but we are looking at an outright statement from the EU that Russia must be defeated and obliterated. We are not talking about just pushing Russia out of Ukraine.
Kaja Kallas, a ruthless Neocon, openly calls for the total destruction and breakup of Russia. This is the total destruction of the country. That is not something that should be taken lightly. That is the justification for nuclear war. Kallas is a greater threat to the EU than Putin.
MY LIST OF CONTENDERS:
Mikhail Mishustin, Prime Minister Nikolai Patrushev, Deputy Chair, Security Council (former FSB head) Sergei Sobyanin, Moscow Mayor Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chair, Security Council Andrei Belousov, Defense Minister Alexei Dyumin, Tula Governor (ex-bodyguard) Sergei Kiriyenko, First Deputy Chief of Staff
Medvedev’s name surfaces due to his history (tandem with Putin in 2008-2012) and recent high-profile positioning him as a “nuclear-ready” hardliner who could rally nationalists. X discussions often call him the “natural successor” for stability. However, he’s rarely ranked #1 in expert assessments—his provocative style (e.g., 2025 threats sparking U.S. sub deployments) makes him a Kremlin mouthpiece, not a consolidator. Others see him as a fallback, not a frontrunner, due to reputational damage from past “liberal” image and scandals. In an overthrow, elites might prefer Mishustin or Patrushev for their institutional grip.
Keep in mind that Khruschev was overthrown in a coup, and he was usurped by Bresnev because of his reckless handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Post-Stalin USSR saw infighting; a similar “vicious struggle” would be likely if Russia were defeated in Ukraine, with FSB vs. military clashes. No democratic shift should be expected. Any successor would most likely double down on authoritarianism and anti-West policies, and any hope of world peace will be completely obliterated.
Then, for a coup, any replacement inherits a quagmire; hardliners like Patrushev or Medvedev might escalate, while technocrats like Mishustin seek de-escalation for economic relief.
In summary, Mishustin or Patrushev edge out as most probable for their balance of competence and control, but Medvedev remains a wildcard—loyal enough for continuity, radical enough for drama. Russia after Putin looks more like Putinism 2.0 than reform. This is all upset if NATO pushes its agenda to destroy Russia and break it up, strip mining its assets. This goal, as articulated in part by Kallas, warrants a fight to the death with nukes, and in this case, I would put my money on Medvedev, who has the high-profile that would become more valuable when confronted with the destruction of Russia, not with just pushing it out of Ukraine.
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
