LIVE: AG Todd Blanche Delivers Rem


Posted originally on: rumble, on Bright Bart News Network on Aug 13, 2026

Chinese v American Views on WAR with Taiwan


Posted Originally on Aug 14, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

China v Taiwan 3

The Center for Strategic and International Studies conducted an extraordinary survey of 64 leading experts on China, Taiwan, and cross-Strait relations, including 28 former senior U.S. government officials, 23 former government policy and intelligence analysts, and 13 academics and think-tank experts. What their answers reveal is not that China is preparing to invade Taiwan tomorrow, as the neocons would like everyone to believe, but that Beijing remains willing to wait so long as nobody crosses the line of formal Taiwanese independence. Some 84% said Beijing is willing to wait for unification but will not accept the status quo permanently, while only 10% believed China seeks unification at the earliest opportunity. Not one of the 64 experts believed Beijing would ever accept an independent Taiwan.

This is precisely why Taiwan has become so dangerous. The West keeps portraying the conflict as if Xi Jinping wakes up every morning staring at a calendar trying to decide when to launch an amphibious invasion. Yet 83% of these experts said China did not plan to use significant kinetic force against Taiwan by 2027, and 80% said China’s enormous 2022 military exercises did not indicate Beijing had accelerated its timetable. Only 6% of respondents outside the former senior government group saw 2027 as a hard deadline, while not one former senior U.S. official did. The obsession with 2027 has nevertheless become extremely useful for the military establishment because every supposed deadline becomes another justification for weapons, deployments, bases, and spending.

The survey found that 44% believed Beijing has a hard deadline of 2049, the centennial of the People’s Republic, while 42% believed China could wait indefinitely provided unification remains possible. This is an important distinction because China thinks in terms of generations while Western politicians think in terms of the next election. Beijing does not need to invade Taiwan if economic, political, and military pressure can gradually change the situation in its favor. Only 20% of those surveyed believed China even possessed a coherent roadmap for peaceful unification, which tells us this is not some perfectly scripted invasion plan sitting in Xi’s desk drawer.

TaiwanMagnified

Where the numbers become alarming is not an unprovoked invasion but what happens when politicians begin crossing China’s red lines. More than three-quarters of the experts, 77%, believed China would invade within six months if Taiwan formally declared independence. Among former senior U.S. officials, that number was 79%. Even some of those who did not expect an immediate invasion believed Beijing would respond with a blockade or enormous military exercises. This is why politicians encouraging Taiwan toward formal independence are playing with the lives of 23 million people. They can deliver all the speeches they want about democracy from Washington, London, or Brussels, but they will not be the civilians sitting underneath the missiles if their political experiment goes wrong.

Not one expert believed an explicit American commitment to defend Taiwan would cause China to invade immediately, but 64% believed Beijing would respond strongly enough to provoke a U.S.-China or China-Taiwan crisis, while another 31% expected a more limited negative response. Only two of the 64 experts believed formally committing America to Taiwan’s defense would actually deter China from using force because Beijing already assumes that the United States will intervene anyway.

A direct invasion is not even the most likely path toward conflict. Only 8% of the experts described an amphibious invasion within ten years as likely, while 63% called it possible and 27% unlikely. Force short of invasion received much higher probabilities, with 52% saying deliberate escalation such as a blockade was likely or very likely. An accidental military incident was considered even more dangerous, with 34% saying a collision or accident around the Taiwan Strait was likely and another 22% calling it very likely. When warships and aircraft from opposing nuclear powers continually operate around the same small body of water, war does not require some grand master plan. It requires one mistake followed by politicians who refuse to back down.

A later CSIS survey of American and Taiwanese experts reinforces that point. Roughly 90% of U.S. experts and 62% of Taiwanese experts believed China already possessed the capability to impose a law-enforcement-led quarantine that substantially reduces trade into Taiwan. Around 80% of American experts and 60% of Taiwanese experts believed Beijing could execute a PLA blockade, while Taiwanese experts were considerably more skeptical that China could successfully carry out an invasion. If Beijing wanted to coerce Taiwan during the following five years, experts considered a quarantine the most likely option. If China decided it wanted immediate unification, however, approximately 80% regarded a highly kinetic joint blockade as likely or very likely.

Taiwan ECM 2

This is where the economic consequences become enormous because Taiwan does not need to be invaded for the world economy to be thrown into chaos. A quarantine or blockade would immediately threaten shipping, insurance, semiconductor supply chains, electronics, automobiles, communications equipment, and virtually every modern industry dependent upon advanced chips. The later CSIS survey found most American and Taiwanese experts did not believe Taiwan could withstand a Chinese blockade for longer than three months without substantial U.S. intervention. Washington would then face the decision nobody wants to discuss honestly: accept China’s blockade or attempt to break it militarily and risk direct war between two nuclear powers.

Taiwan is also the world’s semiconductor pressure point. The island’s importance to advanced chip manufacturing means a serious blockade would not remain a regional event. Factories thousands of miles away could discover that a conflict they thought had nothing to do with them suddenly prevents them from obtaining critical components. Markets would begin repricing the risk immediately, shipping premiums would explode, companies would scramble for inventory, and governments would discover once again how fragile global supply chains have become. This is why capital will react long before politicians formally declare that a war has begun.

What I find particularly revealing in the later CSIS survey is the difference between American confidence and Taiwanese confidence in Washington. An astonishing 96% of American experts were completely or moderately confident that the United States would intervene militarily if China invaded Taiwan during the following five years. Taiwanese experts were less confident in American intervention and considerably less confident that U.S. allies would join the fight. It is always easier for people thousands of miles away to be certain about somebody else’s war.

This is precisely why Taiwan remains one of the critical geopolitical pressure points as we move toward 2029. The danger is not simply that China arbitrarily decides to invade. The greater danger is escalation, miscalculation, political promises that cannot be withdrawn, and Western policymakers convincing themselves that every additional provocation somehow produces deterrence. China has made its position on formal independence perfectly clear, and even the experts inside the Western foreign-policy establishment overwhelmingly acknowledge that Beijing would react with force if that line were crossed.

If Taiwan declares formal independence, 77% of the experts surveyed believed China would invade within six months. That is not a statistic policymakers should treat as another war-game scenario. It is a warning about what happens when politicians deliberately remove the ambiguity that has helped keep the peace.

Categories:War

Wholesale Inflation Is Cooling, But Do Not Confuse That With Deflation


Posted Originally on Aug 14, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Eye on Inflation – GIS Reports

Wholesale prices were unchanged in July, coming in below expectations for a 0.2% increase. The Producer Price Index was flat after a revised 0.1% decline in June, while the annual rate fell sharply to 4.7% from 5.5%. Wholesale prices are still 4.7% higher than a year ago, and beneath that flat headline number there are several very different forces moving in opposite directions.

The primary reason July looked so tame was goods, and particularly energy. Final-demand goods prices declined 0.7%, with energy falling 3.1% and food dropping 0.9%. This follows the enormous energy shock earlier this year when final-demand goods surged 2.8% in May, the largest monthly increase since that series began in 2009. Energy jumped 10.7% that month and gasoline alone surged 23.4%. You cannot look at the subsequent decline and pretend the original price increase never occurred. Energy exploded, retreated from that spike, and therefore dragged July’s monthly PPI downward.

This is precisely why I would be extremely cautious about declaring victory over inflation. July PPI probably did not fully capture the late-July increase in oil prices. Energy works its way through virtually everything because businesses do not simply purchase gasoline. They pay for diesel, electricity, transportation, plastics, fertilizer, chemicals, refrigeration, manufacturing, shipping, and eventually higher insurance costs when geopolitical tensions threaten transportation routes. A temporary decline in petroleum can make an inflation report look beautiful for a month, but if energy reverses, those costs begin working their way through the entire production chain again.

Services tell a very different story from goods. Final-demand services increased 0.2% in July, and portfolio-management fees surged 6.5%. Freight transportation costs declined 1.8%, providing some relief, but the underlying service economy remains under pressure.

Producer prices excluding food and energy increased 0.2% in July and remained 4.2% higher than one year ago. More importantly, the measure excluding food, energy, and trade services increased 0.4% for the month and 4.7% annually. That tells us that once you strip away the volatile decline in energy and some of the distortions from trade margins, underlying producer inflation is hardly sitting at the Federal Reserve’s 2% target.

This is the problem with reducing inflation to a single number. A farmer looks at fertilizer, diesel, machinery, interest rates, seed, labor, and transportation. A restaurant owner looks at food, electricity, rent, wages, insurance, and financing. A manufacturer looks at commodities, energy, components, shipping, tariffs, and borrowing costs. Each business experiences a completely different inflation rate, and eventually those costs either have to be absorbed through lower profit margins or passed along to consumers.

CPI rose only 0.1% in July and 3.4% annually, while core CPI came in at 2.5%. Now PPI has also surprised to the downside, and naturally everyone will begin demanding that the Federal Reserve ease. Reuters reports that the federal funds rate remains at 3.50% to 3.75%, while the latest inflation and labor data strengthen the argument for leaving rates unchanged at the September meeting rather than tightening further. Estimates derived from the latest inflation data put July core PCE at approximately 0.2% for the month and 3.3% annually.

There is also a tremendous difference between producer inflation and consumer inflation because companies do not pass costs through immediately. Businesses initially absorb higher expenses by reducing margins, changing suppliers, shrinking products, eliminating employees, automating operations, or postponing investment. Only when those measures become insufficient do they raise prices aggressively. PPI therefore gives us a look into the pipeline, but it does not tell us exactly when or how much of that pressure ultimately reaches the consumer.

This is particularly important now because American businesses are already dealing with a consumer who is stretched thin. Grocery spending is slowing, small-business bankruptcies are rising, foreclosures are increasing, credit card balances remain enormous, and households are becoming increasingly price-sensitive. Companies may therefore have less ability to pass higher costs onto customers even when their own expenses increase. That does not necessarily eliminate inflation. It can instead destroy margins and eventually businesses, which is an entirely different economic problem.

The July report is certainly better than another 2.8% explosion in goods prices like we saw in May, but it does not demonstrate that inflation has been defeated. Goods fell because energy and food provided substantial relief while services continued higher and the broad core measure excluding food, energy, and trade services rose 0.4%. The annual PPI remains 4.7%, and the late-July oil increase may not yet be fully reflected in these numbers. That is hardly an environment where anyone should assume prices are about to return to what Americans remember before the inflationary surge.

What we are seeing is inflation moving through different layers of the economy at different speeds. Energy can plunge one month and surge the next, commodities respond to war and supply, services remain sticky, businesses absorb costs until their margins break, and consumers finally see whatever remains at the end of that chain. July provided relief at the wholesale level, but the underlying numbers remain far too elevated to declare that this cycle is finished.

The Midterms 2026 & Beyond into 2036


Posted Originally on Aug 13, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

2026 Midterms

Many requests have been pouring in for an updated forecast for the 2026 Midterm Elections and beyond. We have put this report together with the computer forecast arrays out to 2036. This report dives into the Great Divide politically and this is part of the process as we move into 2032 when we get to redesign government and enjoy perhaps a Direct Democracy and what that will mean. For the first time, we dive into the rigging of the 2020 election. Trump was looking in all the WRONG places. This was an international conspiracy that was even linked to COVID to lock people down leading to a massive surge in mail-in ballots all intentional.

This offers a view beyond 2032 at least for major decisions like war bringing an end to this UNELECTED usurpation of foreign policy all for the vengeance of these Neocons who want perpetual conflict for vengeance or profit. They love to stay safe in their bunkers while sending other people’s children to death. Robert McNamara apologized before he died for the Vietnam War saying Russia was not involved, it was just a civil war. They have lied about every war or were just too biased to see the truth like WMD in Iraq didn’t exit.

Hopefully, 2032 will bring into focus the light at the end of the tunnel. These Neocons have  been the problem since Vietnam, which was the subject of the song:

Creedence Clearwater Revival – Fortunate Son

Special Report – $39.95

2026 Midterms Index
2026 Midterms banner

Germany Imported a Crisis and Now the Prisons Tell the Story


Posted Originally on Aug 14, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

A

Germany opened its doors to 1 million refugees a decade ago. Here's how the  country has changed since | CNN

Germany has spent more than a decade lecturing everyone about the supposed moral virtue of opening the borders, and now the numbers coming out of its own prisons are becoming impossible to conceal. According to figures obtained from all 16 German state justice ministries, roughly 27,000 of the 60,408 people held in prisons or pretrial detention in March 2026 were foreign nationals. That is 44.8% of the entire prison population, compared with roughly 30% in 2015. Foreign nationals represent less than 17% of Germany’s overall population, yet they account for nearly half of those behind bars.

Think about what that means. The political establishment invited millions of people into Germany under the banner of humanitarianism, dismissed everyone who questioned the consequences, and insisted that diversity would somehow pay for itself. Now Berlin has reached the point where 59% of its inmates are foreign nationals and Hamburg is at approximately 58%. Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg, and Hesse have also crossed the 50% threshold. These statistics do not even count a foreign-born offender who later obtained German citizenship as foreign, so nationality data cannot tell us the full migration background of the prison population.

The government cannot simply dismiss this as right-wing propaganda because the prison system itself is sounding the alarm. René Müller, chairman of the German Association of Prison Officers, said that “language barriers are a major problem” and warned that officers are increasingly struggling to rehabilitate inmates or even communicate effectively with them. He further warned that communication failures contribute to aggression, isolated prison subcultures, and the danger of Islamist radicalization behind bars. Bavaria’s Justice Ministry has likewise acknowledged conflicts arising from language difficulties and what it called “culturally determined behaviors.”

Population change in Germany (2022-2026) : r/MapPorn

This is what happens when politicians make immigration policy according to ideology rather than economics, culture, security, or the ability of a society to absorb enormous demographic change. Angela Merkel’s government threw open the doors in 2015 and anyone who questioned the wisdom of that policy was immediately attacked. Yet the foreign share of Germany’s prison population has risen from around 30% in 2015 to nearly 45% today. You cannot indefinitely suppress statistics simply because they offend the political narrative.

The taxpayer is then forced to pay at every stage. They finance asylum processing, housing, welfare programs, integration programs, policing, courts, interpreters, incarceration, and eventually rehabilitation. Germany’s prison system was costing taxpayers roughly €4.14 billion annually, with approximately €1.82 billion associated with incarcerating foreign nationals at that time. That is not the fault of every immigrant, nor does being foreign make someone a criminal, but pretending that migration policy has no fiscal or security consequences is equally dishonest.

Europe’s political class refuses to understand that a government has a fundamental obligation to its own citizens. Immigration should benefit the country accepting the immigrant. It is not supposed to become an unlimited social experiment where politicians collect applause in Brussels while working people are forced to absorb every economic and social cost. Germany needed skilled workers because its demographic structure was deteriorating, but importing people without regard to skills, integration, culture, or criminal risk was never a coherent economic policy.

The most infuriating aspect is that ordinary Germans were never permitted an honest debate. Anyone who questioned Merkel’s migration policy was branded xenophobic, extremist, or far-right. The establishment learned that censorship was easier than answering uncomfortable questions. Yet you cannot censor a prison census. You cannot lecture a statistic into changing its opinion. When foreign citizens make up less than one-fifth of the population but nearly half of the people incarcerated, there is a disparity requiring serious examination, not another government-funded campaign explaining why citizens should ignore what they can plainly see.

This is also precisely how governments manufacture political extremism. They create a problem, refuse to discuss it, demonize anyone who raises it, and then act shocked when voters eventually abandon establishment parties. People do not suddenly wake up one morning and become angry at government. Governments spend years earning that anger.

Germany is already suffering economically from some of the worst policy decisions in its postwar history. It destroyed its energy advantage, crippled industry with climate mandates, sanctioned cheap Russian energy while pretending American LNG could seamlessly replace it, and increased military expenditure while the domestic economy struggled. Now the same population that is expected to pay for this economic incompetence is being told that discussing the consequences of mass migration is somehow morally unacceptable. A country cannot remain politically stable when its citizens begin to believe their government values an ideology more than their safety. That is the road Germany is traveling, and the prison statistics are simply one more visible symptom.

The elites will undoubtedly continue calling everyone who discusses these numbers an extremist. They have run out of arguments, so labels are all they have left. But Germany cannot imprison 27,000 foreign nationals and then demand that the public pretend there is nothing worth discussing. This is not compassion. It is government malpractice.

New Version: Is It Time to Nuke Kiev?


Posted Originally on Aug 13, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Is_it_Time_to_Nuke_Kiev

We uploaded the wrong version that did not have the 3 main solutions. Those who have purchased this report may download the correct version free of charge. There are only three ways to perhaps avoid the plans of these Neocons.

Trade Court Rules U.S. President Can Set De Minimis Rules/Rates and Foreign Nations Cannot Interfere


Posted originally on CTH on August 13, 2026 | Sundance 

This would seem like a no-brainer, but multiple nations are so dependent on abusing the de minimis process the multinationals actually sued the United States for eliminating the $800 de minimis tariff exception.

On August 29, 2025, the U.S. government eliminated the de minimis threshold for all countries via Executive Order 14324, making the rule apply regardless of origin.  {SEE HERE} Chinese companies like Shein and Temu are subject to paying import taxes to ship cheap products into the USA.

Truth Social – BIG WIN today at the U.S. Court of International Trade on one of the most DESPICABLE loopholes in American Trade Policy — The so-called “de minimis” exemption.
 
For years, Foreign Shippers could send packages worth up to $800 into our Country, DUTY FREE, NO TARIFF, far less scrutiny. It became a giant loophole for TARIFF Cheats — and a Pipeline exploited by Fentanyl Traffickers, Counterfeiters, and other Criminals shipping dangerous and illegal products into America. The numbers were staggering. In 2024 alone, de minimis cost America an estimated 10.8 BILLION DOLLRS in foregone TARIFF Revenue, and an astonishing share of narcotics and counterfeit seizures came through the de minimis channel. So, we CLOSED IT. With the stroke of my mighty pen — NO AUTOPEN!!! — we ended this ridiculous giveaway, and made Foreign Goods play by the rules. The Importers sued. Today, THEY LOST. The Court ruled that the President had the Legal Authority to rescind this so-called “privilege.”
 
America is now SAFER, our Workers are better protected, and BILLIONS in TARIFF Revenue that used to slip through this loophole can instead help pay for our Great Military, Tax Relief, NO TAX ON TIPS, and NO TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY. AMERICA FIRST TRADE — AND AMERICA FIRST LAW ENFORCEMENT!

President Donald J Trump

Canadian Trade Officials Threaten to Leave USMCA Trade Talks if Trump Triggers 50 Percent Tariffs


Posted originally on CTH on August 13, 2026 | Sundance 

The Canadian trade officials continue to misread the room.  Threatening the Trump administration with something the Trump administration benefits from, is not exactly the best trade strategy.

In the background the DOJ has just arrested a woman for her part in a trafficking operation, smuggling Indian illegal aliens into the USA through Canada {citation}.  Simultaneously, a petition within Canada to remove U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra, is gaining support because Hoekstra is focused on American best interests and not looking out for the best interests of Canadians {citation}.

On the economic front, Canadian trade minister Dominic LeBlanc met with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer for the third time in three weeks. However, it’s Canada’s Chief Trade Negotiator Janice Charette, who also participated in discussions, making headlines with threats.

Janice Charette is telling the Canadian public that formal trade discussions with the USA will end if President Trump and USTR Jamieson Greer trigger the 50% tariffs against Canadian goods which are scheduled to begin on August 19th.

President Trump and USTR Greer announced last month the U.S. would begin 50% tariffs on a range of Canadian products. the tariffs are intended as reciprocal action for Canada’s counter-tariffs on U.S. automobiles and steel, as well as decisions by Canadian provinces to boycott American alcohol. {CITATION} According to USTR Greer the tariffs will affect approximately $20 billion in Canadian imports, representing around 5.2% of the $383 billion in goods the United States imported from Canada in 2025. USMCA covered products would not be exempt from the tariff.

Ms. Charette is reported to have made it clear if the U.S. goes through with the tariffs, the Canadians will pull out of USMCA discussions and walk away from renegotiating the trilateral trade agreement.

This is apparently the threat from Canada.  However, when contrast against the intent to eliminate the multilateral trade agreement, the threat carries terms completely acceptable to the Trump administration.

CANADA – Canada’s lead trade negotiator with the U.S. Janice Charette has warned her American counterparts that if the White House imposes new 50 per cent tariffs on Aug. 19, it could put further trade talks at risk.

Industry sources tell CTV News there was no ultimatum given to U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, but that he does understand the reality of the situation.  Charette’s comments were first reported by The Globe and Mail on Wednesday.

According to one industry source, it was conveyed to Greer that there is no way the federal government can push the provinces to return U.S. alcohol to store shelves without comprehensive and meaningful tariff relief for affected industries like steel and aluminum. (more)

As previously noted by USTR Greer the Canadians are applying two separate metrics within their trade agreement with Europe and the USA.  Toward Europe there are no limits and quotas on dairy products, toward the USA there are severe limits and quotas applied by third party brokers (co-ops owned by Canadian dairy farms) leveraged by the Canadian government.  This is one example of Canadian duplicity.

Additionally, by the various provincial governments of Canada banning the import and/or sale of U.S. products, and with Canada putting caps and limits on automobiles, these USA trade actions are being confronted by the 50% countervailing duties against Canadian imports.

♦ Canada has no leverage.  Trump wants Canada to expand its trade partnerships with other countries.

President Trump wants Canada to diversify. Both U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra and President Trump have said, repeatedly, President Trump wants Canada to go make other bilateral deals with other nations.

Why?

Two main reasons:

• First, if Canada has to enter a bilateral trade agreement with another country, suddenly they learn what reciprocity means. They will have to give something in order to get trade benefit.

Reciprocity is a completely new concept for Canada who have taken advantage of the USA for a long time with ZERO reciprocity in mind.

This is what former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was talking to Trump about in Mar-a-Lago (December ’24).

In essence, Donald Trump wants Canada to go and try to cut more favorable trade deals, so they will learn how good they had it.

Right now, Canada is like the teenage daughter who has all her bills paid by daddy and is angered that she isn’t getting the benefits of unlimited spending.  Daddy is saying go find a job or better option.

Second, if Canada cuts a trade agreement with, say, Europe, the terms of that free trade agreement (FTA) become the baseline standard for Canada in all their trade allowances and agreements.

This baseline then permits team USA to turn to Canada and say, “we want the same terms, or else.”  We might even ask for most favored nation terms due to scale and scope of their dependency.

Canada is not prepared for this type of bilateral relationship at all.  The CUSMA trade negotiator Dominic LeBlanc discovered the problem following the current Canadian effort to diversify FTAs with deals toward China and Europe.  LeBlanc admitted quietly and internally to Prime Minister Carney they factually have no response to this approach.

For around 40+ years (USTR Greer would argue 60+ years) Canada has benefitted from the U.S. economy purchasing their goods, allowing their businesses unlimited access to the U.S. market and yet simultaneously restricting the Canadian market from similar reciprocity.  Those terms are no longer acceptable.

Prime Minister Carney and his trade delegation have only one card to play, political pressure and support from within the U.S. congress; Carney is relying on Democrats to support him.

The threat from Canada’s Chief Trade Negotiator Janice Charette to walk away is, well, structurally a little funny.

Bannon: Joe Biden cannot get a state funeral—no 21-gun salutes, nothing. He cannot be honored. Why? Because he’s a traitor!


Posted originally on rumble, on Bannons War Room, on:  Aug 12, 2026

Morning After MN | EP122 | The White House Podcast LIVE 🏛🔴


Posted originally on rumble, on Bannons War Room, on:  Aug 12, 2026