Posted Originally on Sep 7, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
he United States added 162,000 jobs in August, nearly three times the 53,000 expected, while unemployment remained at 4.1%. The report appears impressive until you look beneath the surface and see where these jobs were created, who has left the labor force, and whether wages can still keep pace with the cost of living. Washington measures economic health by counting paychecks, but the average person measures it by what remains after paying for food, fuel, housing, insurance, and debt. A nation can add jobs on paper while its people continue losing purchasing power, and that is precisely the divide now emerging across America.
The composition of the report matters. Food services and drinking places added around 59,000 jobs, while local government education added approximately 42,000. Government employment increased by 35,000 overall, and the information sector lost 23,000 positions. Manufacturing added 16,000 jobs and construction gained 22,000, which is encouraging because those are productive sectors that build actual goods and infrastructure. Nevertheless, restaurants and government education accounted for a substantial portion of the headline increase. That is not the broad private sector employment boom the political class will attempt to portray.
Wages rose 0.3% for the month and 3.1% over the year, but inflation has been running above that pace. This means the average worker can receive a raise and still become poorer in purchasing power terms. The government counts the job and the wage increase, then ignores what remains after the worker pays for food, gasoline, housing, insurance, and interest. People understand instinctively that a larger paycheck means nothing if every essential expense consumes it before the next payday.
The participation rate edged up to 61.6%, but it remains half a percentage point below January. More than 1.3 million people have reportedly left the labor force over the past year. They are not all counted as unemployed because the unemployment rate does not measure everyone without a job. It measures those who meet the government’s definition of actively seeking work. A person who has given up searching can disappear from the statistic without finding employment. This is how the government can maintain a low unemployment rate while millions feel that the job market has become nearly impossible to navigate.
There were 7 million officially unemployed people in August, including 1.9 million who had been without work for at least 27 weeks. The long-term unemployed now account for 27% of everyone officially classified as jobless. These are not people casually moving between positions. They are workers becoming detached from the economy. Employers are reluctant to add people, workers are afraid to quit, and anyone who loses a job may remain outside the system for months.
The white collar labor force is also beginning to feel the change that blue collar workers endured when manufacturing was shipped overseas. Information employment fell by 23,000, including losses in data processing, web hosting, computing infrastructure, and publishing. Artificial intelligence is not eliminating every office job overnight, but it is allowing businesses to expand output without expanding payrolls at the same rate. Young people were sold the fantasy that any college degree guaranteed security while skilled trades were treated as occupations for those who supposedly failed academically. Now many graduates have debt, no practical experience, and must compete with machines capable of performing an expanding share of entry-level work.
June was revised from 20,000 jobs to 31,000, while July was changed from a loss of 23,000 to a gain of 21,000. Those revisions added 55,000 jobs to the previous estimate. The numbers are surveys that are revised as additional information becomes available. The media nevertheless presents the first release as unquestionable fact because it needs an instant narrative for the markets and politics.
The Federal Reserve will now be pressured to raise rates because stronger employment gives it less reason to tolerate inflation. Treasury yields rose after the report because investors understood that the prospect of easier money had weakened. This is where the Sovereign Debt Crisis collides with monetary policy. Washington has surpassed $40 trillion in debt and is spending over $1 trillion annually on interest. Higher rates may be required to restrain inflation, but they also make refinancing government debt increasingly expensive. The Fed cannot protect the purchasing power of the currency and permanently subsidize reckless government borrowing at the same time.
The August report was better than expected, and the manufacturing and construction gains deserve recognition. Yet one month does not erase the underlying divide. Those who already have stable employment may see an economy holding together, while those seeking work face frozen hiring, automated entry-level positions, and wages failing to keep pace with their living costs. The headline says America added 162,000 jobs. The public knows the more important question is what kind of jobs were created and whether those wages can still support a life.
Posted Originally on Sep 7, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
Taiwan has proposed another $4.6 billion in defense spending, and what is particularly interesting is where a substantial portion of that money is going. Taipei wants more than 600 coastal surveillance and reconnaissance drones, over 40,000 coastal attack drones, and an initial fleet of more than 100 unmanned suicide boats. This comes only days after Taiwan’s parliament approved a six-year drone program capped at NT$240 billion, roughly $7.6 billion. Taiwan is not buying drones as some technological experiment. It is preparing for what it believes a future war with China would actually look like.
Ukraine changed warfare because it demonstrated that a relatively inexpensive drone can destroy equipment costing millions of dollars. The Middle East has reinforced the same lesson. Taiwan has obviously been watching. President Lai Ching-te’s government originally sought roughly NT$210 billion to purchase about 210,000 military drones over six years, arguing that modern warfare has made unmanned systems essential to Taiwan’s asymmetric defense. Parliament ultimately approved its own larger NT$240 billion framework, and Taiwan is now moving aggressively to build the industry domestically rather than remain dependent on foreign suppliers.
This is precisely the type of weapon Taiwan would need if there were ever a conflict with mainland China. Taiwan cannot match China ship for ship, aircraft for aircraft, or soldier for soldier. China’s advantage in conventional military power is simply too great. Taiwan’s strategy therefore has to make the cost of crossing the Taiwan Strait and attempting an amphibious invasion so high that Beijing concludes the operation is not worth undertaking.
That is where drones become extremely important. Thousands of inexpensive unmanned weapons can be dispersed around the island, hidden far more easily than conventional aircraft, and launched against ships approaching the coastline. Surveillance drones can identify targets while attack drones strike landing craft, vehicles, supply lines, and troops. Unmanned boats add another dimension by threatening vessels offshore without placing Taiwanese sailors directly in harm’s way. This is asymmetric warfare, and Taiwan clearly believes quantity matters.
Taiwan is also fortifying the Penghu Islands in the Taiwan Strait, which would become strategically important in any invasion scenario. The military established its first drone force there in July and deployed UAVs during the annual Han Kuang exercises. Penghu sits roughly 50 kilometers from Taiwan’s main island and could provide Taiwan with positions from which missiles and drones could threaten Chinese forces attempting to cross the Strait. Beijing understands the importance of these islands just as well as Taipei does.
The government is not hiding its intentions. Taiwanese officials have openly discussed creating what American strategists have called a “hellscape” in the Strait, where enormous numbers of drones, missiles, mines, and unmanned vessels could overwhelm an invading force. Whether such a strategy would actually stop China is another question entirely, but this is clearly the direction military planning has taken.
What concerns me is the timing because Taiwan is not acting as if war is some impossible event decades into the future. Defense spending for 2027 is proposed to exceed NT$1 trillion for the first time, with the broader defense budget projected at roughly $35 billion. President Lai has said Taiwan intends to raise defense spending toward 5% of GDP by 2030. Governments do not make investments of this magnitude unless they believe the geopolitical environment has fundamentally changed.
This does not mean China invades Taiwan tomorrow, nor should every military procurement announcement be portrayed as proof that war is inevitable. Nevertheless, the entire region is preparing for a confrontation that politicians continue telling the public they supposedly want to prevent. China is expanding its military capabilities, Taiwan is rapidly increasing defense expenditures, Japan is rearming, and the United States continues restructuring its forces throughout the Pacific. Every participant says these preparations are intended to preserve peace while simultaneously preparing for war.
China itself dominates the global commercial drone industry and much of the supply chain required to manufacture them. Taiwan obviously cannot prepare for a conflict with China using critical components that would disappear the moment hostilities began. Taipei is therefore attempting to establish what it calls a “non-red” supply chain that excludes Chinese components while building domestic production capacity. This is as much an industrial policy as a military one.
This is where the world is moving as globalization continues to fracture. Defense is no longer simply about possessing weapons. Governments are realizing that they must control the factories, semiconductors, communications equipment, raw materials, energy, and supply chains necessary to replace those weapons during an extended conflict. Taiwan happens to possess one of the world’s most important semiconductor industries, but even that becomes a vulnerability when the island depends upon imported energy and materials.
Modern warfare is rapidly moving away from the assumption that victory belongs exclusively to whoever owns the most expensive weapons platform. A $100 million aircraft or multimillion-dollar armored vehicle can now be threatened by technology costing a fraction of that amount. The battlefield is becoming increasingly automated, decentralized, and dependent upon enormous quantities of relatively inexpensive systems.
Taiwan has clearly absorbed that lesson. The proposed supplementary budget alone includes more than 40,000 coastal attack drones, and the broader six-year program could ultimately produce a drone force numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Taiwan is preparing to saturate the battlefield rather than merely purchase a handful of extraordinarily expensive weapons and hope they survive the opening days of a conflict.
The political danger is that every military buildup creates another buildup on the opposite side. Taiwan says it needs drones because China threatens invasion. Beijing points to Taiwan’s expanding military cooperation with Washington as evidence that separatist forces are preparing for confrontation. Washington then cites China’s military expansion to justify additional weapons for Taiwan. This is how an arms race develops even when every government insists it is acting defensively.
Taiwan is therefore becoming one of the places to watch closely as we move toward the end of this decade. The investment in drones is not simply another defense contract. It reflects a fundamental change in how Taipei believes a war with China would be fought and demonstrates that Taiwan is preparing seriously for the possibility that deterrence could eventually fail.
Posted Originally on Sep 7, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
|
Some people have complained that I said that Iran was winning and all they have to do to declare victory is survive. I am not here to read the propaganda. I have to call the shots according to what my computer is forecasting. I have also warned that the Neocons advising President Trump should be taken out of their positions in chains. They are putting not just the USA at risk, but the entire world with their warmongering stupidity.
I have also written about how they have launched so many missiles at Iran, assuming they would bomb it into submission to the point that the stockpile is depleted by about 2/3rds and these things are far too sophisticated so the military-industrial complex can make their fortune as the new merchants of death, that it will take until 2029 to restore the stockpile. That means the USA will be defenseless conventionally.
This past Thursday, Kuwait’s air defenses lit up over the Gulf again with the patriot batteries and radar networks tracking another wave of Iranian ballistic missiles and drones headed for US military installations across the country. The intercepts worked this time. However, Iran is waging a war of attrition, and it knows how to play the game. Every patriot missile fired in defense comes at a huge price tag that defense analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies say the United States is running out of time for it has already burned through roughly 2/3rds of its pre-war Patriot missile interceptor inventory since February. Production lines cannot restock these missiles until 2029 and no matter was Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent think his financial siege will collapse Iran, the numbers to not add up.
Bessent may ne an old market-manipulator with Soros, but his podium does not bestow him with a greater power to manipulate the world economy with hollow words. Iran understands that:
they can deplete the patriot stock and then rain down missiles to utterly destroy US basis in the Middle East pushing the Great Satan out once andfor all, which has been a goal since 1979.
They also know that dragging this out means they have a shot at overthrowing Trump in the Midterm Elections and just flipping the House willyield 2 years of impeachments, disruptions, and feed the hatred of Trump from the Democrats ensuring this war effort may even come to an end to make Trump go down in history as a loser.
The October elections in Israel have a shot at removing their arch enemy Netanyahu once and for all.
Cyclically, Netanyahu has made a huge mistake. He got Trump to attack Iran in 2025 and assassinated several of their military leaders. This was the end of the 72-year Revolutionary Cycle on Iran so he just began a whole new cycle and that demonstrated that this would NOT end in one day killing the Ayatolla as he told Trump.
While Jared Kushner, the Jewish son-in-law of President Trump and real estate developer, along with Benjamin Netanyahu have known each other for years, I believe that is how Trump was persuaded to let Netanyahu into the Situation Room to sell his war. Trump trusts Kushner way too much.
The connection between Benjamin Netanyahu and the Kushner family is a long-standing, multi-generational relationship that blends deep personal friendship, significant political alignment, and substantial financial ties. The foundation of their connection is a personal friendship that predates Netanyahu’s political career and Jared Kushner’s role as a White House advisor.
The relationship goes back to the 1980s, when Netanyahu was an Israeli diplomat in New York. He was a frequent overnight guest in the home of Charles
Kushner, Jared’s father, in Livingston, New Jersey. On these visits, he would often sleep in Jared’s bedroom, with Jared moving to the basement. Charles Kushner, was a wealthy real estate developer and major donor to Jewish and pro-Israel causes, has been a significant financial backer of Netanyahu’s political career. This support reportedly included donations to the Israeli Likud party and was a factor in legal disputes within the Kushner family.
The personal friendship has translated directly into a strong political alliance, particularly during Jared Kushner’s tenure as a senior advisor to President Donald Trump. That is what I believe the Democrats will have a field-day with after the Mid-Terms.
Kushner’s connection to Netanyahu is indeed inherited through his father, Charles Kushner, who was a longtime donor to Israeli causes. President Trump pardoned Charles Kushner after he was sentenced to prison for fraud-related crimes. In 2005, he was convicted and sentenced to two years in federal prison for 18 federal charges connected to his real estate business and political activities and included:
Tax evasion
Illegal campaign contributions
Witness tampering, which specifically involved a scheme to intimidate a cooperating witness by hiring a sex worker to seduce his brother-in-law and sending the recording to his sister
Destroying your own sister’s marriage revealed the character of Charles Kushner. He was sentenced to two years in federal prison and served his time. Years later, on December 23, 2020, President Donald Trump granted him a full pardon. Despite all of this, he was confirmed as the U.S. Ambassador to France in May 2025.
Jared Kushner and Netanyahu have had a working relationship (2016-2021). The most significant period of their interaction occurred when Kushner served as a senior advisor to President Donald Trump. During this time, he was the lead architect of the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations.
After leaving the White House, Kushner has remained involved in the region, establishing an investment fund that has received backing from Gulf nations. That raises serious questions of a conflict of interest with anything involving Israel.
Discussions of redeveloping Gaza began long before the war. Kushner discussed plans for redeveloping portions of Palestine in his 2020 peace plan. This has cause some to question if the war on Gaza was in fact to grab beach front. That may also become a hot topic of investigations by Democrats post-Midterms.
Real estate developers have been eyeing Gaza and have proposed numerous construction projects for Gaza. Harey Zahav, an Israeli real estate firm, created blueprints for luxury settlements along the West Bank. The company envisions beachfront homes build upon demolished land.
President Donald Trump allowed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to be in the White House Situation Room. The February 2026 meeting was reportedly a high-stakes, almost secret pitch by Netanyahu to convince Trump to go to war with Iran. The meeting took place on February 11th, 2026, a highly unusual event where a foreign leader was invited into the White House Situation Room to brief the U.S. president and his senior advisors to see his life-long dream of destroying Iran and achieving regime change by sheer force.
During the presentation, Netanyahu laid out his vision for the war, making several key predictions:
Iran’s ballistic missile program could be destroyed in weeks.
Tehran would be too weak to block the crucial Strait of Hormuz.
The regime was ripe for collapse and that an uprising could be sparked from within.
Netanyahu’s scenario was the sales-job of the century to convince Trump’s decision to go to war. Netanyahu claimed that Iran would be able to deliver a nuke to the USA as always in a matter of weeks. Trump reportedly responded to the presentation by saying “sounds good to me” or something to that effect, which was seen as a clear signal of his intent. Little did he know that Netanyahu was destroying Trump’s legacy.
The initial optimism in the Situation Room was not shared by key members of Trump’s own administration. An overnight assessment by U.S. intelligence officials deeply undercut Netanyahu’s predictions. Sources say that CIA Director John Ratcliffe reportedly described the regime-change scenarios proposed by Netanyahu as “farcical.” Sources also say that Secretary of State Marco Rubio went even further, calling the idea “bullshit.”
Despite these warnings, and opposition from other advisors like Vice President J.D. Vance, Trump ultimately decided to proceed with the war, pursuing the more limited goals of striking Iran’s military leadership and nuclear program rather than the full regime change Netanyahu had sold.
I believe Trump listened to Kushner over everyone else. The Kushner and Netanyahu family ties and Netanyahu trying to get the United States to fight his war has been a sales-pitch since 1996. As stated, Netanyahu;s career was also funded by his long-time friend of Charles Kushner.
Jared Kushner is amazingly Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor. He was present at key meetings and played a central role in Middle East policy, being the architect of the “Deal of the Century” and involved in pre-war negotiations with Iran. While the specific person who “arranged” the meeting is not named and will no doubt be shrouded in secrecy that the Democrats will no doubt di into, this deep web of personal and political relationships between the Kushners and Netanyahu likely served as the background context that made such an extraordinary invitation even possible.
It is time President Trump admit he made a mistake listening to Netanyahu. The world knows this is Netanyahu’s War. Why do down with the sinking ship for Netanyahu? He admitted to a mistake before. We all make mistakes. Own it! He said in regard to that Hollywood tape: “I’ve said and done things I regret, and the words released today on this more than a decade-old video are one of them. I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize.”
It’s time Trump throws Netanyahu under the bus. He is a sick individual and an obstacle to any peace deal EVER in the Middle East. What Netanyahu has done and any American who conspired with him to manipulate Trump could even rise to the level of treason.
The U.S.-Israeli military strikes on Iran, including the killing of its leader, unquestionably violated international law that Netanyahu always disregards. The foundational rule is found in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state has only TWO exceptions.
Authorization from the UN Security Council .
Self-defense under Article 51, which permits force only in response to an actual armed attack
The UN Security Council did NOT approve the U.S.-Israeli military strikes against Iran, including, and MOST CERTAINLY, the killing of its Supreme Leader. In fact, multiple official statements and reports explicitly describe these actions as being taken without Security Council authorization. Netanyahu’s perpetual claim since 1996 has been his justification being “preventive” or “anticipatory” self-defense is NOT accepted in international law, as Iran did not pose an “imminent” threat at the time of the attack and US intelligence agreed with the assassment.
The strikes also raised serious concerns regarding the specific targets. International law grants heads of state special immunity, meaning they are not to be made targets of military attack. The deliberate killing of a nation’s supreme leader has been specifically condemned as a severe violation of this principle and an act of political assassination. This is constantly Netanyahu’s agenda and he never cares about international law.
Furthermore, attacks that target civilians or civilian infrastructure, such as a school, taking out the water supply, are considered potential violations of international humanitarian law and may constitute war crimes. The Iranian representative to the UN has formally characterized the attacks on civilian sites as constituting “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity.” It seems that getting Trump involved was Netanyahu’s security blanket that would absolve him of all war crimes.
While the CIA has NOT been the primary agency issuing formal “threat” warnings, the U.S. intelligence community and the Pentagon have expressed serious concerns about Israeli actions that could be seen as threatening U.S. national security. The core of the concern appears to be about espionage, not military aggression. They have been funding opposition to candidates for Congress they see as anti-Israel.
Vice President JD Vance stated in a 2026 interview that Epstein “seemed to be connected to the elements of the Israeli deep state that were left of center.” There are now allegations in newly released FBI documents mention that Jeffrey Epstein had links to Israeli intelligence and that Jared Kushner was a central power broker within the Trump presidency, who also had ties to Israeli intelligence-adjacent networks.
I have stated before that Robert Maxwell was part of the “club” and he funded the coup against Gorbachev with the deal that having Israel then recognize the coup as a legitimate government that was seeking to take Russia back to the USSR hinged on the agreement that they would allow all Jews to migrate to Israel. Once again, nobody cared what they would do to the Russian people or to resurrect the Cold War. The coup failed and Epstein in an email wrote that Israel killed Maxwell after he wanted them to cover his trading losses.
The primary organization that makes political donations as part of its lobbying efforts is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) . It is considered the most powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States . Its influence is felt through its direct lobbying of Congress and, significantly, through the massive sums it spends on elections via a connected “super PAC” that appears to be a grey area of lobbying for a foreign government.
In June 2016, Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., and Paul Manafort met with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. That was a meeting about the lies that were used to create the Magnitsky Act, which imposed sanctions on Russia promoted by Bill Browder and pushed by John McCain. That was a total fabrication.
Democrats are feeling confident about their chances of retaking the House even as the GOP successfully redrew more seats to their advantage in the past year’s controversial mid-decade redistricting fight. However, the Senate, once seen as a longshot for Democrats, now appears in striking distance. And both parties are investing major resources in states and districts where Trump won by double digits in 2024.
Nonetheless, the Democratic position in the Senate after electing a Yearly Bullish Reversal previously leaves this door open plus we have a Panic Cycle in 2027 in the Senate. If this proves to be a Democratic VICTORY, they are going to make not just Trump’s life a living hell who will curse the day he ever listened to Netanyahu, they will target Jared Kushner and try to send him off to tax-free living like his father did.
Posted Originally on Sep 6, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
COMMENT: Marty, I hear you cook for your dogs, and you have said they are your greatest companions. My dog detected cancer in me before any doctor. She saved my life. They say they have always been our spirit guides, like a guardian angel in the physical world. Keep them close. They will love you more than any human can possibly fathom.
Jake
REPLY: There is perhaps no greater story of loyalty and devotion than that of Hachikō, the Akita who waited for his owner, Professor Hidesaburō Ueno, for over nine years following the professor’s sudden death in 1925. Each day, Hachikō returned to the train station where he had once greeted his master returning from work. His vigil lasted from May 1925 until his own death on March 8, 1935—a period often recorded with remarkable precision as 9 years, 9 months, and 15 days. So profound was this devotion that a bronze statue was erected in his honor, marking the very spot where he died waiting for his beloved companion.
Yet Hachikō is but one chapter in a far longer story. Ancient writers frequently wrote about dogs, with accounts ranging from detailed manuals on hunting to tender epitaphs for cherished pets. Beyond their practical roles as hunters and guardians, dogs were clearly valued as companions from the earliest times. Some of the most moving evidence comes from funerary inscriptions. Consider the 3rd-century AD epitaph for a dog named Stephanos, whose owner, Rhodope, wrote that she “shed tears for and buried like a human.” Another inscription speaks of a dog named Parthenope, whose owner buried her “giving this favor in return for that pleasure.” These are not the words of mere pet owners; they are expressions of genuine grief and love.
If you have seen the latest film adaptation of The Odyssey, you may recall Homer’s inclusion of Argus, the loyal dog who serves as a powerful symbol of fidelity and loss. After waiting twenty years for his master Odysseus’s return, Argus is the only one to recognize him—and he dies shortly after. It remains one of the most famous and poignant stories of a dog in all of classical literature.
You may have heard the saying that all dogs go to heaven. I believe that sentiment may trace its origins to ancient Egypt. There, dogs were believed to be spirit guides and companions for the deceased in the afterlife. This belief was rooted in both religious mythology and the deep personal affection Egyptians held for their canine companions. It was thought that a beloved dog who guided and comforted its master in life would do the same in death. Dogs were often buried with their owners—sometimes sacrificed after the master’s death and mummified—to ensure they would remain together forever. This theme appears in tomb paintings of pharaohs like Tutankhamun and Rameses the Great, who are depicted hunting with their dogs.
The Egyptians envisioned the afterlife, the “Field of Reeds,” as a perfect version of earthly life. There, the soul would be reunited with loved ones—including, surely, their faithful dog, waiting at home.
The bond formed when you sleep with your dog is directly linked to the release of oxytocin, often called the “love hormone,” which is known to reduce stress and promote feelings of well-being. The science behind this bond is truly fascinating.
The positive feelings are part of a feedback loop, well supported by research. Studies show that when you and your dog share loving interactions—such as gazing into each other’s eyes or cuddling—it triggers a surge of oxytocin in both of you. This is the same hormone that bonds a mother to her baby. The release of oxytocin is particularly powerful because it directly counters the stress hormone cortisol. The relaxation and calm you feel from snuggling with your dog at night are a direct result of this hormonal shift. I can personally attest to this effect, for my own dogs have often reduced my stress when human interactions have sent it soaring.
This urge to sleep together is deeply rooted in our shared history. For centuries, dogs and humans have co-slept for warmth and protection, and some experts suggest this instinct may even be genetic. Your dog likely sees you as part of its “pack” and feels safest and most comfortable when you are close. When I first brought Napoleon home, I placed her in a small cage beside my bed, and she cried. I thought perhaps she missed her mother, so I brought her into my bed. That was the end of the cage—and the beginning of a nightly ritual we have never abandoned.
The health benefits extend beyond mere comfort. Sleeping with your dog is associated with stronger feelings of security and comfort. One study found that people who slept with their dogs felt more secure and comfortable than those who slept with a human partner. I can certainly attest to the stress-reducing effect of oxytocin; I have no heart issues or blood pressure problems, and I have been told this is one of the benefits derived from the bond with a dog. Whether or not that is scientifically proven in my particular case, I am inclined to believe it.
Even throughout Asian culture, the core idea was that dogs served as protectors, companions, and even guides for their owners in the afterlife. It was a widespread and deeply rooted belief across many traditional Asian cultures. The tomb guardians and psychopomps was a key concept. In ancient China, the belief in dogs as afterlife companions was incredibly strong, dating back thousands of years.
From as early as the Shang dynasty (c. 1600–1046BC), dogs were found buried in human tombs. By the Han dynasty (206BC – 220AD), this practice evolved into placing ceramic dog sculptures (known as mingqi) in tombs. These were not just decorations; they were meant to serve and protect the deceased in the netherworld.
Some ancient texts describe dogs in the role of a psychopomp, a spiritual guide that leads souls to the afterlife. One famous text even tells a story of a white dog being sent by underworld authorities to dig a man out of his tomb, allowing him to return to life to teach the living about proper burial rites for the afterlife.
The fierce, bared-tooth poses of many ceramic tomb dogs suggest their primary role was to be guardians, warding off evil spirits and protecting the tomb from disturbance. This protective role was also seen as a form of companionship for the soul’s journey. It is a fascinating long history of dogs and why they call them man’s best friends.
Augustus, the first Roman emperor, had a small, white dog named Rufus, who was such a constant companion that Augustus would bring him to meetings and public events. When Rufus died, the emperor was reportedly so heartbroken that he ordered a statue of his dog to be erected in his honor.
Here is a Roman silver denarius of Augustus picturing a dog on the reverse. They have been part of our culture for thousands of year. Yes, I cook for my dogs. No kibble and no MNRA vaccines. Test that first by sticking that in Bill Gates’ ass. They often attribute “never trust anyone who does not like dogs” to Bill Murray.
Posted originally on the CTH on September 6, 2026 | Sundance |
Apparently, there was an organized boatlift of north African migrants crossing from France into the U.K earlier today. Various non-governmental organizations were in place with tents and supplies to assist the migrants upon arrival.
By most accounts the influx appears to have been facilitated by NGO’s working with British authorities. However, at various ports where the migrants arrived, they were met with hundreds of young British men who attempted to blockade the activity of the police and nefarious human traffickers.
Telegraph – Hundreds of protesters have clashed with police in Portsmouth after a mega-dinghy carrying 140 migrants reached the UK from Normandy.
Around 500 demonstrators are believed to have joined a protest in the area on Sunday night, with some dressed in all black – similar to those who joined an anti-illegal migrant protest which blocked the Port of Dover on Saturday.
The large boat of migrants – believed to be the longest-ever Channel crossing by people-smugglers – was intercepted in the Solent between the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth earlier on Sunday.
Police used riot shields and pepper spray to force the crowds back, but the line broke through the weight of numbers. Protesters then made their way inside the marina compound.
Earlier, George Madgwick, the leader of Reform UK in Hampshire, wrote in a post on X that “over 100 migrant men” had arrived on the Portsmouth shore.
The French coastguard said it had detected the mega-dinghy, which was shadowed by a number of rescue boats in case it got into difficulties. Authorities estimated that up to 140 people were on board the vessel, 90 short of the record 230 who crossed on a similar boat last month.
[…] In a livestream from the scene, Daniel Thomas, known as Danny Tommo – an associate of Right-wing activist Tommy Robinson – encouraged viewers to travel to Portsmouth to join the protest.
Thomas could be seen standing in the sea at the Eastney shingle beach, alongside a small group of other protesters, with police officers looking on.
“Roads are all blocked, they are never going to be able to leave here,” Thomas said.
He added: “It was only yesterday (at the protests in Dover) when we warned them that we will not accept this any more, and that this is no longer an option to tell us that the boat numbers are down.
“This isn’t about the numbers being down… this is about understanding that this has to come to an end now.”
The mega-dinghy – launched from a beach east of Cherbourg in the Baie de la Seine – reflects a change in tactics used by people-smugglers, who have started loading more migrants on to fewer and larger vessels, partly because of the success of law enforcement in disrupting boat and equipment supply chains. (read more)
Posted originally on the CTH on September 6, 2026 | Sundance |
You might remember former Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall (under Biden) who was stripped of his classified security clearance following an investigation which revealed him as the source of leaks surrounding Air Force One and President Trump’s security detail {GO DEEP}.
Today, ABC This Week with Martha Raddatz called upon Kendall to frame their latest attack against President Trump and Secretary Pete Hegseth. Mr Kendall expressed his disappointment that “senior military official and leaders” are taking orders from the Commander in Chief, President Trump, without upholding an expectation to defy the constitutional civilian leadership structure.
On one hand the disgraced former officer admits it is not the role of the military to consider politics; however, on the other hand he claims they have a responsibility to listen only when Democrat politicians are in power. Failing to adhere to this standard weakens the ability of the military to conduct unilateral operations outside the structures of American government. This, Kendall claims, is a serious problem.
Kendall points the finger at Secretary Pete Hegseth who has removed or downgraded military officers who believe they have more power than the elected President of the United States. Essentially, Frank Kendall advocates for the Mark Milley approach to the military system, where uniformed flag officers control policy irrespective of who is in the White House. Kendall believes if the Generals were in charge, the Iran conflict would never happen.
Eisenhower warned against people like Frank Kendall. WATCH:
Posted originally on the CTH on September 6, 2026 | Sundance |
The Sunday pearl clutching begins with CBS’s Margaret Brennan directing her adversarial prose toward U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright.
Secretary Wright is such a pro in this interview. “It’s the western hemisphere, Margaret” 😂🤣😂 Priceless!
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We begin today with the U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, who joins us from Denver. Mr. Secretary, it is Labor Day, and Secretary Bessent had predicted we’d see three-dollar gas by September 20th, depending on the Iran talks. Do you think we’re going to be back at three bucks in the next two weeks?
SECRETARY OF ENERGY CHRIS WRIGHT: Well, we’ve passed peak demand time with Labor Day tomorrow, the end of the summer driving season, and the Trump administration a couple weeks ago rolled out a change in regulations that’ll allow American refiners to produce more gasoline and diesel with their existing equipment. So, seeing demand likely go down in the next few weeks and supply going up, I think prices headed downward is- is not an unreasonable expectation.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What about the diesel fuel that trucks and trains rely so heavily on? We saw that record high price of $5.89 a gallon this week. Is for example, an export ban off the table?
SEC. WRIGHT: You want to keep as much energy flowing as possible. The diesel situation has been challenging because Russian refineries have suffered significant damage. Russia used to be a meaningful exporter of diesel. Today, today they don’t export any diesel, and in fact, they’ve become a meaningful importer of gasoline. So its global refining capacity is why gasoline and diesel prices are high, even more than oil prices. And this is- for 17 years, Democrat policies have been attack hydrocarbons, get as many refineries and coal plants closed. You could summarize their energy and climate policies in two words, expensive energy.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you could also say Russia shouldn’t have invaded Ukraine, and then they’d still be able to export. But to the point of what you’re going to do about it, are you looking at an export ban?
SEC. WRIGHT: We consider all options of how you can move prices that are favorable for American consumers, but right now we’re leaning in on maximum production, energy addition. Again, in gasoline, in diesel, in the electricity sector, the way to solve a supply shortage is to grow supply.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, I want to ask you about Iran. You were on another network this morning, and you said the U.S. may not reach a nuclear deal with this current Iranian government and may have to wait for a new regime. If that is the current assessment, should the American people prepare themselves that the new normal will be these, for example, strikes like we saw just two days ago on Iranian oil tankers. Are you shutting down diplomatic outreach?
SEC. WRIGHT: No, we are always open for a deal. That’s President Trump’s goal is always to have a negotiated settlement and not use a military solution unless absolutely necessary, but the biggest role of our military in the region right now is to stop the export of any Iranian crude or crude-related products, natural gas, whatever. We are strangling their economy to try to bring either a change in policy from the existing regime or a new regime, their current strategy is- is slowly failing for them. Our exports of oil through the Strait of Hormuz are at the highest they’ve been since the conflict started, but they’re still causing trouble. But what we can do is add supply in Alaska, in the Gulf, in Venezuela, everywhere we can, and continue to grow the rate of exports from the Middle East as well.
MARGARET BRENNAN: but I mean to that point, Secretary Bessent said something like the Strait of Hormuz will be irrelevant in two years. It takes time to build pipelines to avoid the strait. How do you go from $90 a barrel now back to where we were pre-war, like 50 buck range? How quickly?
SEC. WRIGHT: You know that’s that’s as as soon as we can get barriers out of the way to grow production. Venezuelan production is well ahead of schedule. 50% growth in oil exports in the eight months we’ve been involved-that’s pretty tremendous. Alaska has been sanctioned more than Iran by Democratic politicians. We’ve got to unleash Alaska, and that’s happening. The Gulf of America has enormous oil and gas reserves there; those are growing as well. And of course, we’re in constant dialogue with the Canadians, our neighbors to the north. They’ve got huge room to expand oil production capacity. So we’re trying to center the world on bettering people’s lives and economic growth in the long run. Every month, production is growing. Every month, production is growing.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You you mentioned–
SEC. WRIGHT: Refineries is a bigger challenge.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah, you mentioned Venezuela a few times there, sorry, go ahead.
SEC. WRIGHT: Go ahead, Margaret. Go ahead.
MARGARET BRENNAN: This is the problem with remote. We’d love having you in studio, so we don’t step on each other. I apologize there. You mentioned Venezuela a few times. How is U.S. investment in Venezuelan oil production consistent with American energy dominance and independence?
SEC. WRIGHT: Well, first of all, it’s the Western Hemisphere, it’s Americas, and the great thing about this deal, the United States did no cost, zero cost to American taxpayers, but we’re going- to we’re going to get massive amounts of discounted oil price and ownership interest in some production there. But it’s a win for Venezuela as well because it helps the investment climate to draw more and more foreign capital in, mostly American capital, but from elsewhere around the world, to grow their production, lift the incomes and job opportunities for Venezuelans, and lower energy prices for the United States-a classic win-win business deal.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But is it really sustainable if the deal is with an unelected and arguably illegitimate government that has not committed to holding elections, which the U.S. says are a priority. How can you instill confidence when it’s a deal with Delcy Rodríguez?SEC. WRIGHT: There will be elections, of course. Those are coming, but this is a win-win deal.
MARGARET BRENNAN–When?–
SEC. WRIGHT: Any government that took power in Venezuela would say, “wow, we’re going to draw more capital, grow our production, increase jobs and tax revenues in Venezuela, and tighten our relationship with the United States.” That’s a pretty big win. I don’t think it’s that dependent upon which government is in power on whether that deal is a win. So there’s also a lot of refining capacity in Venezuela that we will see investment to drive that back up. Under President Biden, we had over a dozen refineries closed in the United States, and Gavin Newsom doubled down and strangled two more refineries in California in the last 12 months. Okay, that’s the way to expensive energy in the long term, not just during a conflict.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But just to button that up, you said there will be elections. Do you have a timeline for that? Does this deal with the current government make it impossible, for example, for María Corina Machado, person who won- party won the last election, to actually return for democracy to return?
SEC. WRIGHT: Oh, there are dialogues going on right now between the former leaders of the parliament, the election that was the last sort of fair election in 2015. The opposition leaders that fled the country are back in the country meeting with the existing powers. You need to get secure voter rolls. You need to have rule of law, we need to release the political prisoners and get the conditions for free and fair elections. But those are coming.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, but no time frame on that. Okay, I’m told by the producer that we are going to have to leave it there. Secretary Wright, thank you, and we do hope to have you in person again so that we’re not stepping on each other. Face the Nation will be back in a minute. Stay with us.
Posted originally on the CTH on September 6, 2026 | Sundance |
First, there are many voices criticizing President Trump for the use of emissaries and negotiators during geopolitical events. CTH is not one of those voices; exactly the opposite is true. In 2024 we shared the importance of using emissaries to conduct important and strategic policy/negotiations; a direct conduit between the President and principals that matter, outside the controls of the U.S. Intelligence Community which has historically manipulated everything – including the President.
Do not forget the CIA willfully, and with specific intent, lied to Kusher/Witkoff while they were in Doha negotiating with Turkey, Egypt and Qatari leaders during critical moments in getting the Gaza situation under control {Go Deep}. Additionally, Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio is currently working on securing the western hemisphere and North American fortress; vis-a-vis a Latin-America focus.
Emissaries Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff arrived in Kiev, Ukraine, to further the peace initiative. Western media then avoid noticing that Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says he does not have the power to make decisions. Instead, Zelenskyy says another round of talks will be required “together with the USA and the E3 countries: the United Kingdom, France, and Germany” to back him up.
Ultimately Zelenskyy is not a decisionmaker, nor has does he carry any power as an elected President. Zelenskyy has rejected all efforts to hold an election, even when demanded by his since replaced Defense Minister Fedorov. The world can see that Zelenskyy is a puppet to London and the EU-NATO group, the so-called “coalition of the willing” who manage him, which, we should remind ourselves, recently added Canada to the team.
As a consequence, both Witkoff and Kushner are attempting to negotiate with a President who does not have any decision-making power. This is unfortunate, but it is the reality of the situation and reasonably why this continues to be World War Reddit. Everything is framed around public perceptions, geopolitical interests of Europe, the needs and demands from the banking system and other elements of control.
Simply because of the World War Reddit dynamic, following the meeting Zelenskyy organized an outside press conference between himself, Kushner and Witkoff so that aligned Ukraine media could snark about Russian President Vladimir Putin as a “war criminal.” If it was factually a goal to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the bloodshed a national leader does not conduct such affairs with purposeful antagonism.
It has become transparently obvious what the agenda of Zelenskyy is here, and it’s certainly not peace or a settlement of conflict. However, in order to see that agenda a person must stop pretending and start asking brutally obvious questions.
ZELENSKYY: “Today, we had three rounds of negotiations. All of them were very substantive. I want to thank Steve and Jared for coming. And we are grateful to the President of the United States. We had good discussions. Thank you for devoting sufficient attention today to the winter period and all the challenges that may arise. We hope that we will be able to reach arrangements with our American partners in this domain, and we hope for the support of European partners. If the war continues into the winter, we are counting heavily on the winter package, which I discussed in detail today with Steve, Jared, and our European partners. We are counting on support for air defense and the energy sector, as well as substantial volumes of American LNG and the ability to use them.”
“The territorial issue remains a relevant one. I think such complex issues can only be resolved at the level of leaders. But the main thing is that today we have the opportunity to discuss everything – security guarantees, Ukraine’s future, and the prosperity plan. We are talking not only about security guarantees, but also about economic guarantees for Ukraine – to recover and rebuild. We all understand the challenges that lie ahead once the war ends, and we are discussing them among ourselves. Our army must be strong, and for us this is a key security guarantee. The guarantees must be strong and clear. We must not fear any future challenges. It is also important that European colleagues joined us for the third part of our negotiations. We agreed that Ukraine, Europe, and the United States will meet in the near future.”
Posted originally on the CTH on September 6, 2026 | Sundance |
Before getting into the details it is worth noting, the indications of this historic victory were visible recently when the German people, not the politicians, the people, completely rejected the government claim that Russia was behind the drone issue at the Leipzig airport. The propaganda effort backfired spectacularly. The best campaigner for the opposition was Chancellor Friedrich Merz himself.
The Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) party has won a historic election, stamping a desire for commonsense back into the German political system. The AfD platform nationally is very simple: Normalization of German-Russian relations, a halt to all immigration, the recommissioning of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines and an exit from the European Union. In short, a return to sovereignty and economic commonsense.
Germany’s Alternative for Germany scored a victory in today’s Saxony-Anhalt election, with exit polls showing the party winning 44.5 percent of the vote and finishing well ahead of its rivals. Yes, the result marks the strongest performance by a conservative nationalist party in a German state since World War II.
BERLIN, Sept 6 (Reuters) – The Alternative for Germany (AfD) surged into first place in state elections in Saxony-Anhalt on Sunday, exit polls showed, putting a far-right party on the cusp of power at state level for the first time since World War Two.
The AfD won 44.5% of the vote, with Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s conservatives trailing well behind on 18.5%, and the centre-left Social Democrats and environmental Greens both clearing the minimum threshold to enter parliament, according to an exit poll from the ARD broadcaster.
“We have made history in this country,” said Ulrich Siegmund, the 35-year-old AfD lead candidate in Saxony-Anhalt, who drew thousands to his campaign rallies and who repeatedly cast victory in the state as a first step towards securing national power in federal elections due in 2029.
The result marks a major advance in the AfD’s push for national power and a significant setback for Merz’s coalition government, although it remained unclear whether the party would be able to form a state government. Turnout was around 76%, well above levels typically seen in state elections. (source)
Posted originally on the CTH on September 6, 2026 | Sundance |
History has a tendency to rhyme.
There is one move on the geopolitical chessboard that can put all of the U.S. and President Trump’s problems into an immediate checkmate. However, the forces against the alignment are significant. If President Trump can end the Ukraine-Russia conflict and end the sanctions regime against Russia, everything changes.
Bringing Russian oil, gas and natural resources back into the global economy not only removes all leverage held by Iran, but it also wipes out intransigent resistance against the geopolitical reset and upends over a hundred years of EU and Commonwealth financial manipulation.
Not only does the Iran problem immediately shift, but so too does any/all leverage carried by Canada on behalf of London and the broader commonwealth structure. With a U.S-Russia strategic economic alliance, something factually stated at the end of every message from Moscow, the dynamics of global structures is entirely different. However, all the oppositional interests are well aware of the consequence and their actions reflect it.
The United States and Russia ended World War II. A U.S-Russia alliance would change everything.
Who would benefit from such a strategic partnership? The USA, Russia, India, China, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States (GCC), ASEAN countries and even Japan and the Caribbean, including Cuba.
Who would oppose such a seismic shift? The U.K, specifically the financial constructs within the City of London, Canada, the EU-NATO states, all the Commonwealth countries and the Five-Eyes group (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the U.K and the U.S. Intelligence Community).
Now we have appropriate context for the dynamic of the issue, along with context for exactly why all oppositional elements are conducting current activity. A strategic partnership between the U.S. and Russia represents an existential threat to all the old systems – everything.
The first step would be solving the Ukraine-Russia conflict. So, let’s look at that problem specifically and how a transactional approach might frame the four corners of an end to it.
Russia now occupies approximately 20% of the Ukraine land mass in eastern Ukraine and they are not going to ever concede it again. For the Federation of Russia, represented by Vladimir Putin and the overwhelming majority of those within influence inside the Federation, the NATO encroachment is an existential threat long term.
Russia views the objective of the legacy system powers as intent on taking Russia apart. Ukraine represents their immediate shot to stop this from happening. All prior agreements and treaties by EU and NATO agreements were violated. Russia will no longer allow the wolves to circle their camp.
Looking at the challenge through the transactional prism, a ceasefire may include Russia retaining their current land gains, while giving up the confiscated $500 billion sovereign wealth fund as the purchase price. The fund could be considered reparations by Zelenskyy and his EU-NATO handlers, it matters not. What matters more than the sovereign wealth fund in this transaction, is the elimination of western sanctions.
With sanctions removed, immediately the Russian economy surges with sales of oil, gas, minerals and raw materials back to the global market. With the Iran conflict still afoot all that oil and gas carries a higher value. That is the pricing dynamic that makes loss of the Russian sovereign wealth fund more contextualized. However, with all of those abundant natural resources now back in the global supply chain, the leverage for all other western countries that rely on their natural resources, specifically Canada, is diminished.
Russian oil and gas could flow immediately and easily back into Europe. Currently, the power structures within the EU, those more concerned about raw power and control than the financial health and livelihood of their citizens, are against a return of cheap and abundant energy. They should think about the return of lower energy costs as a value to their economies and people; however, the EU ‘leaders’ are more concerned about the geopolitical reset -ultimately their diminished power, that would lay in the background.
As a consequence, the EU doesn’t really care about how much financial benefit there would be to their economic condition. For them this is a zero-sum power issue. Just as Russia doesn’t want to be torn apart by the grand ambitions of London, so too does the EU not want to lose the power to assist in the tearing apart aspect.
The rest of the problem is one of the future. A problem of security guarantees; of agreements that are bolstered against some significant non-wavering constant that can ensure no further expansion of NATO intent and no further threat to create purposeful conflict. The United States has constant regime changes, that takes the U.S. out of the ability to be the guarantor. However, THAT level of security guarantee is possible through the one construct that has put tentacles into every geopolitical economic structure in the world, CHINA.
There is a visible deal where President Trump sets up the transactional end to the conflict, the payments and economic mechanisms that conclude the Ukraine-Russia war, while Chairman Xi sets up the security guarantee aspect by leveraging everything that Beijing has created for decades.
As paradigm resetting as that sounds, it’s not impossible. In fact, I would argue that’s exactly what China is saying HERE.
The Washington Post is getting the direction correct, but they are unaware of the destination.
TDS infects all media analysis. They put the review of Chairman Xi’s comments through the prism of anti-Trumpism. That’s not at all what this looks like to me.
From my perspective, Trump is looking to solve problems beyond his tenure in the White House. After all, how many times has each Trump supporter said, “well yeah – great, but what happens after Trump leaves office?”
Think about it carefully, through the prism of peace and stability – while understanding that President Trump is structuring long-term U.S. economic stability and retaining the perspective that Beijing influence in U.S. economic matters must be removed.
Handle the transaction. Solve the Ukraine-Russia crisis. Form a strategic partnership and build fortress north America. Leverage the systems that Beijing has already put in place, including leverage upon the EU, and make Chairman Xi the minder for everything OUTSIDE our hemisphere.
President Trump looks to have gamed this out quite well.
The tool that cuts the gordian knot is in the relationship.
“Security Guarantees!”
It’s a phrase you see in every discussion of the Ukraine-Russia conflict. However, has anyone ever paused to look at the other side of the equation?
The U.S. led NATO alliance has violated every agreement and accord ever established between NATO and Russia.
Every agreement constructed by the USA is but one presidential election away from being nullified, ignored and manipulated by the western financial interests who control the geopolitics behind it.
We think, because we have been trained to think, about the term “security guarantee” through the prism of western interests. Against the reality of the situations we have created, we should think about the term from both directions.
The greatest thing U.S. President Donald Trump could do for the long-term interests of global stability, would be to support and assist in the construction of an equalizing element. President Trump should support the other side of a security guarantee that frames China as the guarantor against NATO encroachment toward the Russian Federation.
The U.S-EU/NATO coalition can be on one side of the ledger. If Russia makes hostile western moves, NATO responds. However, if U.S-EU/NATO elements make hostile moves against Russia, then China responds.
If the U.S/NATO genuinely has no adversarial intents toward expanded conflict, then such a security guarantee poses no concern. We should embrace such a system.
If, however, the U.S/NATO alliance is duplicitous, as has been the historic outcome, then allied elements would oppose such a system.
“Security Guarantees” should mean something. And that something should exist regardless of who is the United States President.
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
