Posted Originally on Aug 17, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
Washington State farmer Joel Gross says government officials turned the regulatory machinery against him after he publicly criticized what he viewed as an unconstitutional assault on his private property. Gross operates nearly 5,000 acres outside Wilson Creek, including about 400 acres of irrigated alfalfa and wheat and another 4,400 acres of rangeland supporting Black Angus cattle. He wanted to build a home on his own property, and instead discovered just how little the concept of private property means once unelected bureaucrats decide they have authority over your land.
Gross wanted to build a 6,000-square-foot home on his own farm, but Washington’s shrub-steppe conservation rules require landowners to offset protected habitat disturbed by construction. Gross says that for every acre affected by his house, driveway, and required solar infrastructure, he may have to permanently preserve at least two additional acres where future development would be restricted. Otherwise, he could be forced to pay mitigation fees. He owns the land, pays taxes on it, yet must sacrifice additional acreage or pay the government for permission to build on his own property.
Gross called the arrangement “extortion,” and his anger is understandable when you look at the economics. AgWeb cites research from the Building Industry Association of Washington estimating that state and local regulations account for approximately $203,976, or 29.5%, of the $690,701 median new-home sales price in the Washington counties it sampled. The comparable nationwide regulatory burden was estimated at 23.8%. Gross says merely obtaining the required habitat inspection from an accredited biologist could cost another $2,000 to $10,000 before construction even begins. Then politicians hold hearings about why nobody can afford housing anymore while their own regulations have added six figures to the cost of putting a roof over someone’s head.
Gross finally did what Americans are supposedly permitted to do under the First Amendment. He complained. On June 25, 2026, he posted his criticism of Washington’s regulations on Facebook under the title “CONFISCATED,” attacking what he viewed as government encroachment on private property. Two days later, Grant County Development Services Director Jim Anderson-Cook responded with a roughly 1,500-word Facebook post disputing Gross’ claims. Anderson-Cook said county employees had received death threats following Gross’ public criticism, while Gross maintains that his complaints were directed primarily toward state-level regulations and he never incited violence.
What happened next is precisely why his allegation deserves scrutiny. Months before the Facebook dispute, county representatives had visited Gross’ property because he wanted to crush rock from his own farm into gravel to maintain his farm roads, cattle pads and erosion controls. Officials had given him the green light in February and indicated that he would not need a commercial mining permit so long as the material remained for on-farm use. Gross says he invested $400,000 in rock-crushing equipment so he could maintain his own property. The gravel was not being hauled off and sold commercially. It remained on his farm.
After Gross publicly attacked the regulations in June, he says the county suddenly treated that same activity as an “industrial surface mine.” That classification could require a conditional-use permit, a Mining Resource Overlay, and review under Washington’s State Environmental Policy Act, potentially creating a multiyear process costing as much as $200,000. Gross contends agricultural grading for his purposes is exempt under Washington law and says no farmer in Grant County history has been required to obtain an industrial mining permit merely to crush rock for use on his own farm.
Agriculture becomes less about producing food and more about satisfying an expanding army of administrators who have never risked their life savings on a crop, worried about rainfall, paid for fertilizer, repaired machinery at midnight, or wondered whether commodity prices will cover the year’s expenses. Regulators are coming after this man for daring to utilize his own land.
Farmers are already being crushed economically. Costs remain elevated, fertilizer has again become a major concern in 2026, financing costs remain painful, equipment has become extraordinarily expensive, and farm debt continues mounting. Farmer’s Keeper survey of 4,000 farmers found 20% were cutting corn acreage as fertilizer prices and supply problems forced them to reconsider planting decisions. The government should be asking how to keep these people producing food rather than inventing another permit, environmental review or mitigation scheme that requires them to hire consultants simply to use their own property.
Private property means absolutely nothing if government can dictate its use without assuming the financial burden of ownership. This has been one of the most destructive changes throughout the West. Politicians discovered they do not always need eminent domain to control land. They can leave your name on the deed while regulating what you may build, where you may build it, how much land must remain untouched, what environmental studies you must purchase and how much you must pay for the privilege of receiving permission. Gross still receives the property-tax bill, naturally, because government never seems confused about who owns the land when the taxes become due.
People vote for legislators, but they do not vote for the thousands of administrators who interpret rules, issue permits, conduct inspections and decide whether ordinary activity falls inside another regulatory classification. Those decisions can destroy a business without a politician ever casting a vote. A bureaucrat does not need to confiscate $200,000 from a farmer if he can create a regulatory process that forces the farmer to spend $200,000 defending the right to continue operating.
Gross declared rural Washingtonians are being “regulated to exhaustion,” and that description extends far beyond Washington. The people producing food are being squeezed by debt, energy, fertilizer, equipment, insurance, environmental mandates, taxes and increasingly complex land-use restrictions while government continues demanding more. Then everyone acts surprised when farms consolidate, small operators disappear and food production becomes concentrated among fewer enormous corporations capable of employing entire departments of attorneys and compliance specialists.
Recent parasitic food pandemonium have led the public to question: where are the smaller farms? How does Taylor Farms have a near monopoly on lettuce? Where is our food grown? Many are not waking up to the fact that agriculture has been regulated into oblivion and smaller operations simply cannot compete.
There is something fundamentally wrong when a farmer must hire experts and potentially spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to convince government that crushing rock from his own property for roads on that same property does not transform him into an industrial mining company. There is something even more disturbing if regulatory treatment changes after that farmer publicly criticizes the people administering those rules. America was built upon private property and the right to challenge government authority. If exercising one right causes bureaucrats to threaten the other, then the problem is much larger than Joel Gross’ farm.
Posted Originally on August 17, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
Germany spent decades building one of the most successful industrial economies in the world and then its politicians began dismantling the very foundations that made that possible. Reuters is now reporting that Germany’s trade deficit with China exploded to roughly €55 billion during the first half of 2026, up from €40 billion during the same period last year. German exports to China collapsed by more than 12% to less than €37 billion while imports from China surged 8.9% to €91.8 billion. This is not simply a trade imbalance. Germany is discovering that China increasingly does not need what Germany is selling.
China was Germany’s second-largest export market as recently as 2021 when German companies sold €104 billion worth of goods there. China has now fallen all the way to ninth place among German export destinations, behind economies as small as Austria and Switzerland. Think about that for a moment. German industry spent decades treating China as one of its primary engines of growth, and now Austria is buying more German goods than China.
The politicians will blame Trump, tariffs, China, Putin, COVID, climate change, or whatever excuse happens to be fashionable this week. They will never look in the mirror. Germany voluntarily destroyed its competitive energy structure, abandoned nuclear power, severed itself from cheap Russian energy and embraced an EU regulatory regime that makes producing almost anything more expensive. Meanwhile, China did what any rational industrial nation would do. It invested in manufacturing, infrastructure, technology, energy, supply chains, robotics, batteries, automobiles, and domestic production.
China learned from the West and then began replacing the West. Germany taught China how to manufacture many of the sophisticated products China once imported. German corporations poured capital and technology into China because labor was cheaper and the Chinese market was enormous. Beijing never intended to remain permanently dependent upon European engineering. China used foreign investment to climb the technological ladder and develop its own domestic supply chains. Corinne Abele of Germany Trade & Invest told Reuters that falling German exports reflect China’s increasing focus on domestic value chains. Commerzbank economist Vincent Stamer reached the more important conclusion: China’s declining reliance on Germany demonstrates that it is becoming increasingly independent of Western powers and catching up technologically.
This is precisely what Western politicians refuse to understand about China. They still speak about China as though it were the China of 1995, producing cheap toys, textiles, and plastic junk for Walmart. That China no longer exists and Beijing is determined to force the world to see it as an economic powerhouse. China produces electric vehicles, batteries, solar technology, industrial machinery, electronics, drones, ships, high-speed rail equipment, and increasingly sophisticated technology. Reuters recently described the current export wave as “China Shock 2.0,” with China gaining enormous market share in advanced manufacturing sectors such as EVs, batteries, and solar cells.
Germany is being squeezed from both directions because the entire German economic model was based on globalization remaining frozen in time. Germany imported cheap energy, manufactured high-value industrial products, and exported them to China and the United States. Berlin assumed those arrangements would continue forever.
The automobile industry demonstrates the problem better than anything else. Germany once possessed an almost mythical reputation for automotive engineering. Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche represented German industrial superiority. Then politicians forced the industry toward electric vehicles while China spent years building the battery supply chain, securing critical minerals and developing enormous manufacturing scale. Europe created the demand through regulation while China positioned itself to supply it.
Chinese EV manufacturers are now competing directly with European manufacturers on price, technology, software, batteries and increasingly quality. German manufacturers are consequently being squeezed inside China itself, a market they once expected would provide decades of growth. Reuters notes that the pressure from Chinese competition and American tariffs is already contributing to major job reductions at industrial giants including Volkswagen.
There is another dimension here that the politicians will not discuss. German corporations themselves increasingly manufacture inside China rather than export finished products from Germany. That means even when a German company sells something to a Chinese consumer, the economic benefit does not necessarily flow back through a German factory employing German workers. The multinational corporation may survive while the domestic industrial base contracts.
German companies are producing more inside China itself.
China has also overtaken the United States again as Germany’s largest overall trading partner. Total German-Chinese trade exceeded €128 billion during the first half of 2026, approximately €3 billion more than trade with the United States. Yet the composition of that trade is changing dramatically because Germany is buying far more from China than China is buying from Germany.
Germany is therefore becoming increasingly dependent upon Chinese production at precisely the same time China is becoming less dependent upon German production.
Germany imports the products. China acquires the manufacturing capacity. Germany regulates industry. China expands it. Germany worries about carbon emissions. China worries about market share. Germany’s politicians talk endlessly about strategic autonomy while implementing policies that make their own industries less competitive.
The numbers are now exposing the consequences. Germany’s Federal Statistical Office reported that imports from China were already up 6.2% during the first five months of 2026 to €72.4 billion. China remained Germany’s most important source of imports. Germany’s overall merchandise trade with China had already reached €252.4 billion in 2025, allowing China to reclaim its position as Germany’s largest trading partner.
This is bigger than Germany. Europe is losing its industrial position because Brussels believes prosperity can be legislated into existence. You cannot tax energy, regulate businesses into submission, impose endless environmental mandates, increase labor costs, suffocate entrepreneurs and then demand that European companies compete against China.
Capital does not care about political speeches. It moves to where it is treated best.
China certainly has enormous domestic problems, including its property crisis, weak consumer demand and indebted local governments. This should not be portrayed as China becoming economically invincible. Reuters reported second-quarter growth of only 4.3%, while retail sales actually contracted 0.6% in May before increasing just 1.3% in June. Beijing is responding to domestic weakness partly by pushing manufacturing outward through exports, which only increases the competitive pressure on Europe.
This is why the trade numbers matter. China does not have to possess a perfect economy to displace European manufacturing. It simply has to remain more competitive than Europe.
Posted Originally on Aug 17, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
The relationship between Israel and Britain is deteriorating in a way that would have been almost unthinkable only a few years ago. Benjamin Netanyahu has now taken a direct verbal shot at Britain, referring to it as the “Islamic Republic of Britain” and invoking the joke that Britain could become the first Islamist country with nuclear weapons. This is no longer some disagreement behind closed doors over Gaza. Netanyahu is openly mocking one of Israel’s longstanding Western allies while Britain’s government has moved steadily away from the unconditional support Israel once enjoyed.
Netanyahu made the remarks while discussing how British attitudes toward Israel have changed since the 1967 Six-Day War. After praising Winston Churchill’s grandson for being a “lover of Israel,” Netanyahu said, “Just try to find that kind of attitude in Britain now,” before referring to the country as the “Islamic Republic of Britain.” He then recalled the remark that Britain would become the first Islamist nation to acquire nuclear weapons and connected that directly to Israel’s confrontation with Iran.
This is Netanyahu’s style. Anyone who questions his government’s policies eventually becomes an enemy of Israel. Britain, France, Canada, the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, journalists, humanitarian organizations, and even members of the Israeli opposition have all been attacked when they refuse to fall in line. The distinction between supporting Israel’s existence and supporting Netanyahu personally has been deliberately blurred. Criticize Netanyahu, and suddenly you are accused of abandoning Israel and antisemitism.
London supported Israel after October 7, defended its right to self-defense and maintained a relationship that goes back to the very creation of the modern Israeli state. Britain has also confronted antisemitism domestically, and only last month banned Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a national-security threat. Netanyahu nevertheless appears willing to insult the entire country because its government will no longer provide him with unquestioning political support.
The deterioration has been building for years. Britain suspended some arms export licenses to Israel, halted free-trade negotiations and sanctioned Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich over what the British government described as repeated incitement of violence against Palestinian civilians. London joined Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway in imposing those sanctions. That was an extraordinary development because these were not sanctions against some obscure settler organization. Britain sanctioned sitting ministers of the Israeli government.
Then came the Palestinian question. Britain’s movement toward recognizing a Palestinian state infuriated Netanyahu, who accused the British government of rewarding Hamas. The relationship deteriorated further as criticism of Israel’s conduct in Gaza grew across Europe. By July, Israeli officials were openly describing relations with the new British government as effectively “frozen.”
This is becoming a serious geopolitical problem for Israel that Netanyahu apparently refuses to acknowledge. Israel cannot indefinitely alienate Europe and assume Washington will compensate for every diplomatic relationship it destroys. Netanyahu has even recently rejected a U.S.-backed Gaza peace proposal, although Gaza has been bombed into oblivion and hardly exists. Israel is increasingly behaving as though its allies require Israel more than Israel requires its allies. That is a dangerous assumption for a nation of roughly 10 million people surrounded by a region of hundreds of millions.
Now is a poor time to abandon European allies. Turkey has become increasingly confrontational toward Israel, and Ankara sees an enormous opportunity emerging from Israel’s deteriorating relations with Europe. Netanyahu may think he is simply insulting Britain, but geopolitics does not operate according to personal grudges. Every ally you drive away creates an opening for somebody else.
Britain certainly has serious problems with uncontrolled migration, social fragmentation, radical Islam and the political establishment’s refusal to confront any of it. But that makes his statement even more reckless because he is exploiting Britain’s domestic divisions to attack its government over foreign policy. That will not strengthen relations between the two countries. It will poison them further.
Israel once enjoyed extraordinary bipartisan support throughout the West. That consensus is breaking apart, particularly among younger generations. Netanyahu appears to respond to this deterioration by attacking anyone who questions him, which merely accelerates the process. You cannot insult entire countries into supporting you.
Netanyahu should be very careful what he wishes for. Britain helped shape the political order from which the modern state of Israel emerged. Today, an Israeli prime minister is publicly ridiculing Britain while relations with Europe continue to deteriorate. The Middle East is realigning rapidly. Israel cannot afford to discover too late that Netanyahu succeeded in winning every argument while losing its allies.
Posted Originally on Aug 17, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
COMMENT: Hello Marty,
I hope you are well. I’ve been thinking of you and hope all is going well on your end.
Peter and I went to visit a customer, Safran, in Sarasota the same week I attended your conference in Tampa. You looked energetic and healthy. It was great to see so many young people engaged and involved. I also saw your posting for the 2026 conference, and I’m really looking forward to it. Possibility for Technical Analysis or Geometry of Time?
…
You should read some of the crazy contracts that we have to agree to, it leans 99% to their favor , really unfortunate. Plus, the big “Primes” in aerospace are asking the Tier 2 suppliers to Tier 3 (Sunset) to push payments out 120 days. I asked them would they like not getting paid for 4 months?
How are you doing? Josephine and Napoleon? I hope we can grab a cup of coffee one day and catch up.
Take care, and I’ll see you in December!
K
REPLY: Josephine and Napoleon are best buds. It was the best thing I did to get my dog a dog. Yes, there is brewing a credit crunch as we move into 2028. A number of our institutional clients are issuing bonds locking in rates. I have suggested that they look to private equity to lock it in rather than bid the market up. With war on the horizon, rates will press higher and that is separate from domestic inflation.
The Tampa Conference was really great to see nearly half the audience was students. Some people are greedy and just seek how much money they can get even if they would not be able to spend it. They leave nothing behind and often when they finally die begrudgingly trying to hold on to that last breath, they have nothing for they cannot take it with them. They are despised and might as well put then in black trash bad and put them out for the next trash collection. They are nothing but solent green to feed the worms. They never had any purpose in life.
No matter what the subject, there are two sides to every coin. Unfortunately within humanity there are the greedy ones who measure life only by how much they can accumulate, even if they’ll never live long enough to spend it. They leave nothing behind. And when death finally comes, they cling to their last breath as if it’s a possession they can hold onto. Yet, they take nothing with them. They’re despised. You might as well toss them in a black trash bag and set them out for collection. They’re nothing but Soylent Green – food for the worms. They never had a purpose in this life and assume if they had more than someone else they were better some how. They never even looked for a purpose in life. They are just consumed with greed and leave nothing behind.
I was raised with the belief that I have a purpose in life, and that it is my duty to discover what that purpose is. We are given only this one journey through life, and with it, the opportunity to acquire knowledge. It then becomes our responsibility to pass that knowledge on to the next generation.
As for the socialists—they are the greedy ones. They invented inheritance taxes because all they see is money. In their view, it was somehow unfair that one parent could pass something on to their children while another could not.
I am undertaking this work in the twilight of my years, not at the start of my career, and not for money. I am fully aware that my work will never reach the mainstream, because those who despise me will do everything in their power to prevent it from gaining traction. That is to be expected—new ideas are rarely appreciated in their own time; they are only embraced after the originator has long since departed.
This conference was always meant to be a passing on of what I have learned. My goals were twofold: first, to show that you can never truly predict where life will take you; and second, to demonstrate that much of what is taught in economics and finance is still rooted in the gold standard era, when currencies were fixed against the dollar. No one ever seriously considered what would happen under a floating exchange rate system—one that was, after all, supposed to be only temporary.
It was Milton Friedman who came to listen to me speak about the FOREX markets and how I was getting called in from country by country all because of a currency crises one way or another. It was Milton who told me what I was doing as a trader was important for this was a whole new field that had to be experienced to understand.
I am trying to have this book to hand out at the December WEC on the Business Cycle and the discovery of the ECM. This is so important because both Marx and Keynes saw recessions or depressions as a FLAW in capitalism so the strived to eliminate the business cycle. Most economists have struggled to try to control it at minimum or devise schemes to eliminate it like “You will Own Nothing and Be Happy.”
This, the Geometry of Time and Modern Analysis for the 21st Century (Technical Analysis) are what I am trying to pass on to the next generation before Scotty beams me up..
I just did the Understanding the World Economy, adding to the previous works: Fiat, Plot to Seize Russia, and Manipulating the World Economy. As I said at the conference, I was a trader, not an academic. All major advancements typically come from the outside looking in. Even the discovery that the computer was forecasting wars was NEVER my intent. Like penicillin, which was discovered by mistake, there are always uninteded consequences. The establishment always rejects it or in my case they call it “controversial” since they cannot disprove that the business cycles exists or all the forecasts the model has produced.
Posted originally on CTH on August 16, 2026 | Sundance
Representative Jim Jordan appears on Fox News to discuss the recently declassified and released information that highlights ongoing corruption within the FBI.
As noted by Jordan, within the documents the FBI continued operations to interfere in U.S. elections beyond 2016 into 2020 and 2024. WATCH:
Posted originally on CTH on August 16, 2026 | Sundance
Approximately six days from now I will share a great deal of information on World War Reddit. I took the insert picture about a week ago as a Ukraine drone struck a venue 500 meters from my location. Suffice to say, I’m not reporting information to you based on propaganda media, seriously skewed alt-media or misinterpreted/intercepted Telegram channel discussion; there’s an information war on that platform also.
Almost everything being told, shared and sold about the Russia vs Ukraine conflict is entirely made-up nonsense that has zero basis in reality. My goal has been to find out why there is this much effort toward twilight-zone level propaganda being pushed by unified interests in western media. Honestly, it’s beyond crazy.
According to Ukraine/NATO media, and probably soon to be shared by President Trump, “Russia suffered 42,860 battlefield casualties in July, its highest monthly losses since January 2025.” This type of stuff is so far beyond silly no one can figure out where they come up with the ideas for the rates.
In media headlines you might have read that Ukraine is celebrating the biggest launch of drones against Russia in a single day, Sunday. The Russian media counter by saying they have shot down 822 drones, with 600 of them targeting the Russian capital of Moscow.
Inside Russia, none of this stuff is happening; however, the govt of Putin finds some sort of purpose/value (personally I think it is just Russian humor) in countering the Ukraine nonsense by accepting the claim and then reiterating it in their claims of interception.
It’s all an illusion. First, the illusion makes it look like Russia is under bombardment (western happy), and then the Federation flips the script (it is indeed a script) and uses the claim as evidence of their exceptional capabilities at interception of the non-existent.
If you are suddenly cross-eyed, yes, that’s the level of crazy I’m talking about.
(VIA CBS) – Ukraine launched hundreds of drones across Russia Sunday, killing at least six people in one of Kyiv’s largest aerial attacks of the war.
Russia’s Ministry of Defense said that it had destroyed 822 Ukrainian drones overnight. Some 600 drones were detected headed toward the Russian capital, Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin said, with a third of those destroyed over the Moscow region itself.
An 83-year-old man was killed after a Ukrainian drone hit a private home in the Moscow region, local Gov. Andrey Vorobyov said. He also confirmed that a Ukrainian attack had sparked a blaze at a Wildberries warehouse in the town of Podolsk.
A drone attack targeted three towns in Russia’s southwestern Rostov region, killing five people, local Gov. Yury Slyusar said. The attack, with more than 150 drones, damaged several homes and a railway station and sparked a forest fire.
Kyiv has stepped up its attacks on Russia this year, with long-range missiles and swarms of drones increasingly targeting military industries and energy facilities. It has also increasingly pummeled giant Wildberries depots, burning billions of dollars’ worth of merchandise belonging to the Russian online retail giant and bringing the war home to the Russian public nearly four and half years into Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. (read more)
It is accurate that Ukraine drones have hit about a half dozen Wildberries distribution centers. Think about Wildberries as if you combined Amazon with E-Bay. What would life be like in America if a dozen (out of 1,300) Amazon distribution centers caught fire? Well, that’s the sum of the disruption.
All those stories of gasoline refineries taken offline(?). More nonsense.
Gasoline shortages(?), total gibberish – beyond silly.
Beyond the overstated drone attacks all this stuff about military industrial centers, energy facilities and infrastructure being damaged is non-existent. So, why is this such a common thing to read about? Factually, I have no idea. It’s like me telling you that right now there’s a gorilla in your bathtub playing chess, and all your neighbors believe it.
Somewhere there is also a story about a new FP-9 Ukraine ballistic missile about to go into operation (next 60 days). They are supposedly working out an issue with the rocket engines. However, where they are being built is not easy to determine. All indications are in Europe somewhere.
The FP-9 is part of a rushed missile and defense system from a company called Fire Point {citation} that is hoped to replace the missing U.S. Patriot Missile (defense) and Tomahawk missile (offense) that Ukraine and Germany have desperately been seeking. As the story is told, the funding comes from Ukraine, the targeting system from Germany and the build operations are taking place somewhere unknown.
I don’t have it all figured out yet, but from what is visible on the surface is there appears to be a plan to drag out the conflict as long as possible, often with as outlandish claims as needed, in order to structure some kind of narrative that will eventually bring Europe -maybe NATO- into a direct combat operation against the Russian Federation.
Two Ukrainian Warriors defended their position just 30 meters from Russian forces for more than five months.
They took up the position in February. The relative calm lasted only a month; for the rest of the time, Russians regularly assaulted their dugout.
Posted originally on CTH on August 16, 2026 | Sundance
On its face this seems like a rather remarkable statement from President Trump. However, below the surface the geopolitical ramifications are perhaps not as surprising.
Today, President Trump notes the administration is shifting its position of military support toward South Korea.
PRESIDENT TRUMP – Based on my very good relationship with Kim Jong Un, of North Korea, I am not happy with the fact that the United States has, long ago, agreed to participate in Joint Military Exercises with South Korea. These exercises are not only costly, with much of these costs paid for by the United States of America (as usual!), but send a signal that is totally inappropriate and hostile, to a Country that, as long as Donald J. Trump has been President, has been unthreatening and respectful. Therefore, and based on the fact that it is too late to cancel, I have instructed Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to substantially reduce the Joint Military Exercises!
While somewhat unrelated (?), I recently asked the President of South Korea if they would like to join us in the Denuclearization of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and they said, “No thanks!” Thank you for your attention to this matter.” – President DONALD J. TRUMP
Implied directly within the last paragraph was President Trump resetting the relationship based on South Korea’s unwillingness to support the U.S. goals toward Iran.
In essence, if South Korea is unwilling to support the U.S. military operation and strategic objective, then the U.S. will -as previously announced toward NATO- reset the nature of the administration outlook. As a consequence, South Korea will no longer have the direct military assistance traditionally in place from the USA.
President Trump had previously hoped the relationship between North and South Korea would be healed and slowly the divisions between the Korean people would soften. This was a direct effort during the first Trump administration.
The U.S. retreating from South Korea changes the dynamic considerably, especially when you overlay the Chinese perspective toward the region and Beijing’s heavy hand operation inside the DPRK. The U.S. pulling back from South Korea is not something Chairman Xi would disfavor; in fact, it is something Xi would welcome.
This pushes Japan into the solid position as the U.S. number one ally in Asia. Obviously, South Korea becomes less valued.
There are increased indications that China is potentially moving to pull Taiwan closer into their control. The recent ‘Han Kuang exercise’ within Taiwan in preparation for direct Chinese takeover was met with a dismissive attitude by Beijing. However, it is also a factual reality that if China would make a military move against Taiwan the U.S. is not in a strong enough position to stop it.
There is more to this U.S-South Korea shift than appears on the surface.
Professional Republicans are going to go bananas.
[All these worlds are yours, except Japan – Attempt no landings there?]
Sunday Talks: AG Todd Blanche -vs- DSA Advocate Kristen Welker
Posted originally on CTH on August 16, 2026 | Sundance
This Sunday, following the ridiculous effort by Margaret Brennan to defend Anthony Fauci and attack the administration over the change in the vaccine schedule, the Trump team have embargoed CBS from administration participation. No officials gave CBS any time at all.
Dept of Justice Attorney General Todd Blanche appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press to debate mini-me Kristen Welker, as she clutches Brennan’s pearls and asks questions about AG Blanche having the audacity to support President Trump and the domestic Law & Order agenda. [Video and Transcript Below]
[Transcript] KRISTEN WELKER: And joining me now is attorney general Todd Blanche. Mr. Attorney General, welcome back to Meet The Press.
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE: Thank you, good morning.
KRISTEN WELKER: Good morning. Thank you for being here.
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE: Of course.
KRISTEN WELKER: We appreciate you being here in person. As we just heard in your address to the Justice Department staff this week, you said you and the DOJ will, quote, “uphold the law without fear or favor.” You of course used to be President Trump’s former personal defense attorney. Can you pledge that the Justice Department will always act independently of the White House?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE: Well, there’s a big difference between saying we will always do our job and investigate any case and act independently of the White House. No, I’m not going to pledge that. And no attorney general should ever pledge that. The President, I mean, if I were to pledge I will be independent of the White House, what that means is that if President Trump says, “I want the Department of Justice to go after every violent criminal in this country,” which is what he has said, what you’re saying to me is I should say, “No, sir, I’m not going to do it.” So I will act with integrity. Our prosecutors will act with integrity. We will prosecute without fear or any sort of favor. And that’s exactly what we’ve been doing. And that’s what every Department of Justice should do.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, I guess, big picture: If the president asks you to do something that you feel crosses an ethical or legal line, would you do it?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
The president will never ask me to do something unethical or legal — or illegal. He never has. He never will. And no, I swore to the constitution of the United States like every cabinet secretary has done and like every attorney general before me has done. And so this, this narrative that’s mostly pushed by the left and pushed by the media that the president’s going to pull me aside and ask me to do something illegal is completely a false narrative, not true, will not happen, and hasn’t happened.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. Let’s delve into how you do see your tenure. You appeared with President Trump at the Nassau County Police Academy on Friday. You made some comments that did get a lot of attention. I want to play it and get your reaction on the other side. Take a look.
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
My administration and my Department of Justice, if anybody touches a federal law enforcement officer in any way inappropriate, we will prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And yet, Mr. Attorney General, on President Trump’s first day in office, as you know, he pardoned everyone who attacked the Capitol on January 6th, including 172 people who pleaded guilty to assaulting police officers. How is that consistent with your pledge to always protect law enforcement?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
There’s nothing inconsistent about that. The president’s pardon powers, any president’s pardon powers are not limited. So when I say and when this Department of Justice says and when the FBI says, like we’re saying, and every U.S. attorney is saying that if you assault law enforcement, we will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law, that is absolutely what President Trump expects, absolutely what I expect of our prosecutors. And that’s completely separate from any president’s ability to pardon.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But he did the opposite of that effectively. I mean, on January 6th police officers were beaten with baseball bats and flagpoles. Do you believe it was wrong to pardon the people who assaulted police officers on January 6th given that you have vowed to protect law enforcement?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
Every attorney general vows to protect law enforcement including me. And so I’m not opining or in any way saying what President Trump did is wrong. Absolutely not. By the way, president–
KRISTEN WELKER:
Isn’t it inconsistent with what you said though?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
Absolutely not. There’s a difference–
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is it inconsistent with your pledge?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
No. There’s a difference, Kristen. We will prosecute anybody. If later a president chooses to pardon that individual, that is the president’s right under our constitution. Do not forget that a few days before President Trump pardoned the individuals associated and who had plead guilty to the conduct on January 6th, President Biden pardoned hundreds and hundreds of criminals, many of whom were quite violent. So that’s his right to do that just like it’s President Trump’s right to do that.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But what message does it send to police officers that people who assaulted them were pardoned?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
The message to police officers is consistent and the same every single day which is that we will protect you. And by the way, that’s a little bit interesting coming from a place where we see violent protests breaking out all over the country, in New Jersey, in Minneapolis, in Seattle and California. And instead of there being a full-throated defense by leadership on the Democrat side, on the Republican side, what you have is it’s as if we’re doing something wrong by saying we will protect law enforcement and we will prosecute those who assault law enforcement. We’re not.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let’s on this issue of January 6th, your confirmation was actually held up over the so-called anti-weaponization fund. I just want to remind folks what that means. That would effectively pay people who felt they were in some ways wronged by the federal government and could have included people who attacked the Capitol on January 6th. You signed a document. You testified under oath that the fund is dead. But President Trump has said he wishes it weren’t. If the president asks you to revive the fund, will you tell him no?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
Well, the president has said it’s dead as well. So you can, and as the president has said that he very strongly believes that those that had this Department of Justice weaponized against them should be compensated, he’s going to continue to say that.
KRISTEN WELKER:
He said it’s up to you. He was just asked about it. He said effectively it’s up to you what to do about this.
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
And I’ve said repeatedly it’s dead. And he has also said it’s dead. He said it in a cabinet meeting with the press there. And so I think it might be enjoyable for the media to continually ask me about whether the fund is really dead. And there is no fund. No money went from the treasury to any account. There were no commissioners established. And so there is no fund. There will be no fund. I’ve said it repeatedly. And the different angles coming almost every time I speak with the media, someone says, “Well, wait is it really dead?” And I say, “Yes, it is.” And then the next interview I give, somebody will say to me, “Is it really dead?” And I promise you I will say, “Yes, it is dead.”
KRISTEN WELKER:
So you’re saying you rule out ever reviving it. But just to be very clear, can you guarantee that under your Department of Justice anyone who attacked the Capitol on January 6th will not receive one dime of taxpayer money if they file a claim against the federal government?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
Well, anybody can file a claim against the federal government, not just anybody associated with January 6th. I’m not going to sit here and say on a news program whether a litigation that may or may not happen will result in money. I can’t do that. So what I will say is that there’s a process in place for decades where if somebody that believes they’ve been wronged or a tort has been committed against them by the federal government can seek redress. And, you know, beyond that, I’m not going to comment about hypotheticals and what will happen in any of those cases.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So potentially, they could get paid under another stream of government funding, but not the anti-weaponization fund–
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
Well, I don’t know. When you say, “They could get paid,” what is their claim? Is it somebody who’s plead guilty–
KRISTEN WELKER:
The Justice Department’s judgment fund.
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
No, no, no. So, right. But when you say, “They could get paid,” anybody who sues the federal government could get paid. It depends on the facts. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on what it’s alleged the government did. And so I don’t know the circumstances of any hypothetical case. And I’m not going to comment on a hypothetical case today. But there is a process in place where if you believe that you’ve had a tort committed against you by the government, whether it’s slipping on ice outside of a federal post office or a law enforcement officer assaulting you, you are allowed to seek compensation.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay, let’s talk about a case that was recently brought before the Justice Department. The DOJ dropped charges against the Olympic canoeist that it accused of vandalizing the reflecting pool on the National Mall saying the damage was caused by, quote, “botched installation and not vandalism.” President Trump though said U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro was wrong and that she should revisit the case. Do you support Jeanine Pirro dropping the case? Or do you support President Trump’s calls to revive the case?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
So we, yes, I absolutely support U.S. Attorney Pirro as does President Trump. Now, that’s different than whether the president is extraordinarily frustrated at what happened in that case. And I don’t in any way fault him for that. And by the way, the filings didn’t say that all of the damage was done by faulty construction, okay? So that’s where the media is getting some of the reporting wrong.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, it says–
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
There’s–
KRISTEN WELKER:
–the damage was done as a result of a botched installation and not vandalism as initially represented.
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
There was potential vandalism. And we know that there was vandalism because there’s witnesses. That’s also in the brief that you’re citing that there’s witnesses that talked about the fact that there was vandalism. And so–
KRISTEN WELKER:
What do you mean by potential vandalism? Who did it?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
Well, there’s a witness that said, “I observed the defendant vandalizing the reflecting pool.” Now, that’s different than whether ultimately we have the proof. And you saw what U.S. Attorney Pirro said about that in her filings. And I’ve said this before. We’re talking about a single case, okay? We’re talking about one case. We had another case of vandalism against a memorial earlier this week. This is horrible what’s happening in our nation’s capital with some of these really, really sick people vandalizing our national monuments. And U.S. Attorney Pirro is doing a phenomenal job enforcing that, going after anybody who’s doing it. And I think judging her on a single case because of the evidence that we had is not fair.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Should the president have a voice in individual prosecution decisions at all?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
Every American has a voice in prosecutions. I mean, we hear from Americans all the time. As a matter of fact, many of our investigations start with an American citizen coming forward and saying they saw something. And so whether President Trump should have a, quote, “voice,” it depends.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Would you take–
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
But yes.
KRISTEN WELKER:
–his opinions into consideration when he says, “I think this case should be revived”? Will you take that into consideration?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
So hold on. Will I take the president of the United States’s view on something into consideration? Yes, of course. And I hope every attorney general in history would not answer that question differently. Just let’s play that out. The president of the United States, the elected president of the United States, says something to me. And I’m supposed to say to you, “I would say nope.” I mean, that’s not the way it works. Now the president is extraordinarily — every day he wakes up with one mission which is making this country better and, as it relates to me, making this country safer. So if he has a view on that, he talks about it on social media. He talks about it when he speaks to the American people. That’s certainly something that I listen to.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I’m asking in part because we did this clash play out in his first term. Bill Barr, the attorney general during President Trump’s first term, did push back against President Trump. In 2020, as you recall, he told him his election claims were detached from reality. If you were faced with a similar situation, something that you did not think actually met the standard, the legal standard in your mind, would you stand up to the president?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
I mean, so I will always stand up for what’s right. And I do not, the president does not expect any of his leaders, including me, to just say yes to him no matter what he says. And so of course, there’s vigorous back and forth with every cabinet member of the president of the United States, which is exactly what President Trump expects. And there again, there is this extraordinarily false narrative that the president wakes up in the morning and calls me and says, “Todd, go prosecute X or Y.” He does not do that. He has never done that. He will never do that. And so if there’s something that he wants to do, that he needs to know that there’s a challenge or that we can’t do it, of course, I will tell him. It happens all the time with all of his leaders. And that’s what he expects.
KRISTEN WELKER:
One of the issues that he really cares about, the midterms. And there’s been a lot of focus on the midterms as it relates to the Justice Department, which has lost 22 cases trying to force states to turn over their voter rolls. State officials have pushed back against those moves. They say states dictate how elections are run, not the federal government. Is it time for the DOJ to drop this fight? And will you do it?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
Well, just, I mean, we’re relying on a statute passed by Congress that allows us in the right circumstances to review and get those voter rolls. And so yes, no, no, we’re not going to stop doing what I think every American should expect us to do, which is make sure that we have elections that are fair. And as that relates to the Department of Justice, that means making sure that there are no constitutional, legal violations even at the state level. So yes, President Trump, this administration knows and of course understands that states administer elections. And that will always be the case. But it doesn’t mean the federal government should play no role. And so the tension there is of course whether we should be playing the role that we’re playing. And that’s really what we’re litigating.
KRISTEN WELKER:
How far are you willing to take this fight? Because you’ve been ruled against now 22 times. Are you going to take this all the way to the Supreme Court, you anticipate?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
We’ll see. We’ll see what happens. We’re trying to work it out with states –
KRISTEN WELKER:
It’s a possibility?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
Of course. Yes, absolutely it’s a possibility. Election integrity is something that President Trump ran on. And the American people elected him. It’s something that every American should care about. And so the idea that the Department of Justice is trying to investigate issues around elections to make sure they’re fair and make sure they’re conducted the right way is not something that we should be running away from. That’s something we should be running right towards.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I want to finally shift gears here a little bit and ask you about an issue that is, full disclosure, close to us here at NBC, the kidnapping of Savannah Guthrie’s beloved mom, Nancy. The FBI told the Wall Street Journal, quote, “The state is the lead in this investigation, has always been the lead.” Mr. Attorney General, she has been missing for more than six months now. Is it time for the FBI to take the lead in this investigation?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
It’s a horrible situation. And I share the grief and the frustration that you and your colleagues have and that the whole country has in this situation. I mean, I think whether the FBI takes the lead, we are there to support and give. And President Trump pledged it, Director Patel pledged it. The resources, anything that that investigation needs. We are working as hard as we can with the state and local law enforcement in every area. And that means not only providing assistance with manpower, but any sort of forensic assistance. And so we’re going to continue to do that. Whether we come in with sharp elbows and take it over, that’s not necessarily the right thing to do for her or for anybody. But making sure it’s done right and making sure that this investigation is being conducted the way that it should be is something we’re doing.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is there an update? Are you any closer to solving this–
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
I don’t have any update–
KRISTEN WELKER:
–and finding Nancy Guthrie?
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE:
I don’t. And I’m sorry to say that because I wish I had an update. And I know that this type of case is heartbreaking especially when it plays out nationally like this one has. And all I can say is that Director Patel and his leadership and the leadership out in that area of the country, it will remain a priority as it should, with resources and with energy and with focus. And we hope that we get something soon.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Mr. Attorney General, thank you so very much for being here–
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 