Jul 20 2026

Why Democrats are terrified of valid elections and why black players are terrified of Caitlin Clark


Posted originally on Rumble By Strictly Speaking: Unfiltered with Bob Frantz on July, 14,

Jul 20 2026

Conservatives Debate Data Centers in Ohio: What is the best path forward?


Posted originally on Rumble By Strictly Speaking: Unfiltered with Bob Frantz on July, 13

Jul 20 2026

Mamdani Allows Open Air Illegal Prescription Drug Markets


Posted originally on 2026 Rumble by The Salty Cracker on: July, 19,

Jul 20 2026

Did Nick Shirley Kill Charlie Kirk ReeEEestream 07-15-26


Posted originally on 2026 Rumble by The Salty Cracker on: July, 15,

Jul 20 2026

New Face of Democrat Party ReeEEestream 07-19-26


Posted originally on 2026 Rumble by The Salty Cracker on: July, 19,

Jul 20 2026

Guy Speaking Spanish is Afraid ICE is Going to Shoot Him


Posted originally on 2026 Rumble by The Salty Cracker on: July, 19,

Jul 20 2026

Obese Woman Needs AIRLIFT Only 2 Miles into a Hike at Yosemite


Posted originally on 2026 Rumble by The Salty Cracker on: July, 18,

Jul 20 2026

One of the Greatest Betrayals of Public Trust in American History


Posted originally on Jul 20, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Corruption 2

There is a vast difference between making an error and deliberately concealing intelligence from the American people. The newly declassified White House documents do not describe mere bureaucratic incompetence. They allege a coordinated effort to downplay and suppress intelligence regarding Chinese election meddling while protecting the reputation of the agencies involved. Democracy has been obliterated.

According to the documents released by the White House, intelligence officials obtained information indicating that Chinese actors had acquired approximately 220 million American voter records. The administration also alleges that reports connecting China to election-related intelligence were softened or omitted from senior intelligence briefings and that documents later surfaced from burn bags designated for classified destruction. These are allegations contained in the released material and remain subject to ongoing investigation rather than established judicial findings. Trump stated that those tasked with discarding of the documents failed to perform their tasks, leaving a trail of evidence for his administration to uncover.

What infuriates me is the double standard that has infected Washington. Imagine for one moment that the political parties were reversed. Suppose documents emerged alleging that a Republican administration had concealed intelligence pointing to foreign interference by one of America’s chief geopolitical adversaries. Suppose classified records were reportedly found in burn bags after years of being withheld. Cities would burn. Trump would be publicly executed in the streets like Mussolini.

Instead, we are told to remain patient and trust the very institutions accused of suppressing the information in the first place.

Government employees do not swear an oath to protect an agency. They swear an oath to the Constitution. When bureaucrats begin deciding what elected officials should or should not know because they dislike the political consequences, they cross a line that no free society should tolerate. Intelligence belongs to the nation—not to unelected officials who believe they know better than the people they are supposed to serve.

China spent decades acquiring American technology, purchasing farmland, infiltrating universities, stealing intellectual property, conducting cyber espionage, and expanding influence across every major strategic sector. To pretend that election-related data would somehow be off limits demonstrates either astonishing naivety or deliberate blindness. Neither explanation inspires confidence.

A foreign government may have decided the results of the 2020 US Presidential Election. The American public should be absolutely outraged and insisting on answers from past administrations. On the hook for billions in tariffs, China has numerous motives for wanting Trump out of office. America appeared weak on the international stage under Biden.

If officials truly possessed intelligence suggesting that China had compromised massive amounts of voter information and failed to pursue every available avenue to expose and confront it, that level of complacency would be nothing short of treasonous against the public trust. Whether those actions ultimately meet any criminal standard is for investigators and the courts to determine. But if public servants knowingly placed institutional or political interests above the security of the nation, the American people deserve complete accountability.

What has always astonished me is how Washington treats transparency as the enemy instead of the cure. Every scandal follows the same script. Deny. Delay. Classify. Seal the records. Attack anyone asking questions. Years later, documents quietly emerge showing that far more was known than anyone admitted at the time. By then, the damage has already been done.

This is exactly why public confidence continues to collapse. It is not because people have suddenly become cynical. It is because governments repeatedly ask citizens to ignore contradictions that become impossible to ignore. Every concealed report, every sanitized briefing, and every document hidden from public scrutiny chips away at the legitimacy of the institutions themselves.

If these newly released records withstand scrutiny, then the outrage should not be confined to one political party. Every American, regardless of ideology, should demand answers. A government that cannot be trusted to honestly confront foreign threats cannot expect the public to simply accept assurances that everything is under control.

Jul 20 2026

Deep State Media Censorship


Posted originally on Jul 20, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

A lot of people assume there are hundreds of independent media companies competing for their attention, but over the past few decades, mergers and acquisitions have concentrated much of the entertainment and

Something has fundamentally changed in America, and it should concern everyone regardless of politics. The press was never supposed to decide what the public is allowed to hear. Their job was to report the news. Somewhere along the way, they decided their real job was deciding which information is acceptable and which information should be filtered before it ever reaches the public.

When President Trump delivered his address on the newly released election-related documents, several major television networks chose not to carry it in full. ABC and NBC declined to air the speech on their broadcast networks. CBS began airing it but cut away before it concluded, while other outlets focused immediately on commentary and fact-checking rather than simply letting viewers watch the entire address for themselves. Whether one agrees with the President or not is beside the point. The public should be able to hear a presidential address in full and make up its own mind. The editorial decisions themselves became part of the story.

The press increasingly tells people what to think before they have even been allowed to hear what was said. Every story arrives prepackaged with analysis, approved conclusions, and a warning label. The assumption seems to be that the public cannot be trusted to evaluate information on its own. Yet, as the press is refusing to broadcast an announcement from a sitting president, one can see that the legacy media’s loyalty is to the actors behind the curtain. The deep state is controlling the narrative—you’ve been warned.

ABC is no longer simply a television network. It sits inside one of the largest entertainment conglomerates on the planet. Disney acquired ABC decades ago, transforming what was once a standalone broadcaster into another division of a multinational corporation whose interests extend far beyond journalism. When news becomes one business unit among countless others, people naturally begin asking whether protecting the corporate brand becomes just as important as reporting the story.

mediabrainwashing
Media Conglomerates and Their Impact | Media Literacy Class Notes | Fiveable

NBC is owned by Comcast through NBCUniversal, placing one of America’s largest news organizations under the umbrella of a telecommunications and media giant with billions invested across broadcasting, internet infrastructure, film, advertising, and entertainment. The larger these corporations become, the fewer truly independent voices remain. Consolidation has reshaped the media landscape until a handful of companies control what hundreds of millions of people watch every day.

CBS operates under Paramount Global, another massive media conglomerate whose holdings span television, streaming, film, publishing, and digital media. Once again, the question is not simply who owns the network. The question is whether concentrating so much influence over news and entertainment into the hands of a few multinational corporations ultimately serves the public interest.

If the press believes a president is wrong, then report the facts, investigate the claims, and challenge them where appropriate. Deciding millions of viewers should not even hear the speech is censorship and a direct assault on the First Amendment. The “news” should not vary from organization to organization. The censorship became blatant during the COVID years, but now, the public is under direct assault.

Every era has had its gatekeepers each convinced that the public should receive only the version of events they deemed acceptable. When institutions begin deciding that some information is too dangerous for people to hear, public confidence inevitably erodes. Trust cannot be demanded; it must be earned through openness, transparency, and the willingness to let the facts stand on their own. The deep state believes the masses are puppets to be programmed. WAKE UP. The truth is available for those who seek it out.

Jul 20 2026

Wars End With An Invoice – IMF Drops Global Growth Forecast


Posted originally on Jul 20, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

We confront the spectre of a global recession': UN Secretary-General

The IMF has once again reduced its outlook for global growth, pointing to persistent geopolitical tensions, expanding trade barriers, and growing uncertainty surrounding conflicts stretching from Eastern Europe to the Middle East. Global output is now expected to grow at roughly 3% this year, a pace well below the historical average.

Modern economists often separate military conflict from economic performance as though they are unrelated subjects. Every prolonged conflict diverts resources away from productive investment and toward military production. Steel that might have built factories instead becomes armored vehicles. Microchips are directed into missile systems rather than consumer electronics. Governments absorb increasing amounts of capital through debt issuance while businesses delay investment because they cannot predict where the next geopolitical crisis will emerge. Those developments do not remain confined to defense ministries. They eventually work their way into every household through higher prices, slower growth, and declining purchasing power.

IMF

Europe is steadily increasing defense budgets after decades of reducing military expenditures. Germany has abandoned many of the fiscal restraints that once defined its economic policy. Poland continues purchasing military equipment on a scale unprecedented in its modern history. Finland has spent years constructing extensive underground civil defense infrastructure capable of sheltering nearly its entire population. Governments are discussing emergency preparedness, strategic stockpiles, expanded ammunition production, and even renewed conscription. These are not isolated policy decisions. They represent an entire continent reorganizing itself around the assumption that geopolitical confrontation will remain a defining feature of the years ahead.

Every additional defense commitment must ultimately be financed either through taxation, inflation, or borrowing. Since raising taxes remains politically unpopular, governments overwhelmingly choose debt. The United States is approaching $40 trillion in federal obligations. France continues struggling with chronic deficits while attempting to finance both social spending and military expansion. Britain faces rising borrowing costs alongside growing defense commitments. Similar pressures exist throughout much of the developed world because every government believes it can postpone today’s expenses until tomorrow’s taxpayers arrive.

Most forecasting models begin with the assumption that political conditions remain reasonably stable. Once that assumption disappears, many of the underlying projections quickly lose their value. Energy markets respond to military developments rather than supply and demand alone. Shipping costs fluctuate because of security concerns instead of commercial activity. Capital begins seeking jurisdictions perceived as politically safer rather than merely offering higher returns. Central banks discover that adjusting interest rates cannot reopen disrupted trade routes or restore confidence damaged by expanding conflicts.

Wars have always carried two battlefields. One is fought with soldiers and weapons. The other is fought on government balance sheets, in bond markets, and through the purchasing power of national currencies. Politicians generally devote far more attention to the first battlefield because the second is less visible to the public. Yet history repeatedly shows that financial exhaustion has brought down governments every bit as effectively as military defeat. That is why the economic consequences of prolonged conflict deserve far greater attention than another routine revision to a global growth forecast.