Posted originally on Jul 2, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
The city of Los Angeles declared a state of fiscal emergency amid a $1 billion deficit. The council approved of the emergency declaration unanimously in a 14-0 vote. This comes after Mayor Karen Bass approved a $14 billion budget for the fiscal year that began on July 1. The city is a prime example of what happens when socialist policies are allowed to run rampant at the expense of the people.
Bass approved of raising the budget from $12.9 billion in FY2024-25 to $14 billion in 2025-26 despite the looming $1 billion deficit. Unsurprisingly, overspending is the main culprit for the deficit, and yet, lawmakers have every intention of spending more. Over 600 public sector workers will be let go as a result of fiscal mismanagement, and although small government is usually applaudable, the city plans to fire 248 LAPD employees, 44 sanitation workers, and 41 firefighters. LA is experiencing a significant uptick in crime, but plans to defund the police to appease the mobs.
California Governor Gavin Newsom boasts of California’s robust economy but fails to acknowledge that it’s a state basically living “paycheck-to-paycheck,” with the payee being the taxpayer. Read the state’s plan to cover its budget deficits – endless taxes. Spending growth from 2025-26 to 2028-29 is 5.8%, above the average of 3.5%. Growth over the same period is just above 4%, “lower than its historical average, largely due to policy choices that end during the forecast window. Taken together, we view it as unlikely that revenue growth will be fast enough to catch up to ongoing spending.” Even residents who choose or are forced to leave the state will incur taxes to cover government thievery. Los Angeles is one of countless examples of how the public sector will virtue signal to rob Peter, not to pay Paul, but to pay themselves, as they are not hiding the corruption.
Liability costs totaled $546 million in the past years, as there have been numerous lawsuits, mainly involving the Los Angeles Police Department, which is forbidden by law to enforce order. The city refused to budget for these growing legal battles. Not only does the city plan to fire officers, but they also reduced hiring by 50% last year, recruiting 240 new officers instead of the 480 needed to patrol the city.
I’ve reported numerous times how California uses the homeless epidemic to fund NGOs that merely steal from the taxpayers. Mayor Bass stated she plans to cut 10% of funding to the “Inside Safe” program. The city has spent millions on combating homelessness, and the numbers continue to rise.
Crime is more expensive than funding the LAPD. Criminals have cost the city of Los Angeles an estimated $7.6 billion annually. Gang violence alone costs the city around $1 billion per year, according to the Vera Institute of Justice, which is half of the annual budget of the LAPD. The California Department of Justice has acknowledged that property crime has risen in recent years and accounts for 60–70% of total losses. Yet, violent demonstrations are permitted to occur whenever Washington enacts a policy that displeases the Democrats.
Blue policies such as the net-zero climate initiative have caused businesses to flee Los Angeles and California as a whole. From 2020 to the present day, over 164 companies have left California. In the last year, 12 major companies like SpaceX, Chevron, X, and KFC have fled CA for TX. Los Angeles shed 106 corporate headquarters between 2018 and 2024, the second-highest number of losses in US metros behind San Francisco/San Jose.
Taxpayers are fleeing the state en masse. State and local taxes are among the highest in the nation and disproportionately harm the middle and upper classes to fund the growing public sector. Energy costs have skyrocketed, with major refiners abandoning California. Gas is expected to rise 75% by 2026, and residents are already paying the highest price for gas in the nation. The cost of living is exorbitant. Those who can have already fled as the government must continue to leech of the taxpayers to fund their failures.
There should be checks and balances against these elected officials who recklessly spend with no end in sight. Downsizing the police force is a political move that will only cause crime and the costs associated with crime to rise. Los Angeles is becoming a failed city as a direct result of socialist policies that have historically NEVER worked.
Posted originally on CTH on July 1, 2025 | Sundance
President Trump, Governor DeSantis and Secretary Noem deliver remarks from the Alligator Alcatraz facility. WATCH:
During a tour through Alligator Alcatraz (raw feed below) President Trump and DHS Secretary Noem were asked about the legality of CNN Promoting an ICE Block app to help illegal aliens avoid capture and detention. WATCH:
It is highly doubtful that CNN will hold any legal liability for their role in discussing the ICE Block app; however, the creator of the app may find himself facing investigation.
The raw feed walkthrough of the Alligator Alcatraz facility is below.
Posted originally on Jul 1, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
New York City’s far-left mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani is the human embodiment of the WOKE Socialist agenda. His “progressive” views are based on policies that have failed countless times. Mamdani’s most recent proposal has sparked controversy as he believes that predominantly white neighborhoods should pay higher taxes.
Socialists feed on increased taxation to support the welfare state, which comprises their voter base. They need people who are utterly dependent on big government to gain and maintain control. Equality to a Socialist means that everyone is equal in poverty. Not only does he want to raise property taxes, but he stated that “wealthier and predominantly white neighborhoods” in New York City should disproportionately shoulder the majority of the tax burden.
That’s right—he wants to raise taxes on people based on skin color. Naturally, he would have been banished from politics and forced to step down if he spewed this rhetoric at any other demographic. “That is just a description of what we see right now. It’s not driven by race. It’s more of an assessment of what neighborhoods are being under-taxed versus over-taxed,” the mayoral candidate confessed.
Unfortunately, our models indicate that NYC will decline sharply in 2026. I warned in 2021 that the city was heading into a crash mode. It is fascinating how the 309.6-year cycle, marked by the time when NYC was on the brink of bankruptcy in 1975, aligns precisely with the year NYC was founded in 1665. It is striking how closely New York has followed the ECM model, which does not bode well for what is to come.
His proposed policy, “Stop the Squeeze on NYC Homeowners,” is based on the belief that less affluent neighborhoods are overtaxed. The plan would redistribute the tax burden from outer boroughs like Brownsville and Jamaica to more affluent neighborhoods where the demographic is predominantly white. In his words, he wants to target “predominantly white” neighborhoods specifically. The additional tax revenue will first fund the coffers of big government, which will multiply in size, and then seek to provide social programs to the “undertaxed,” such as universal childcare, free public transportation, rent freezes, and city-run grocery stores. Astonishing that a candidate could propose price controls and receive support.
Taxing white neighborhoods is one of many methods Mamdani plans to use to squeeze out every last penny from NYC residents. He said he approved of raising corporate taxes, income taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes, among others. The rich may be the first target, but his voter base does not realize that these taxes will eventually be passed on to absolutely everyone. The city could never profit enough in taxes to fund these social programs, and instead of shrinking government or admitting to failed policies, they will continue to raise the cost of living to fund those who completely rely on big government.
There is no quantifiable plan to fund these programs that sound nice on the campaign trail. It is not economically feasible. NYC residents already pay some of the highest taxesin the nation. Those in affluent neighborhoods pay far more into state and local taxes through income, property, sales—the list goes on, as there is nothing that the city will not slap a tax on and continue to raise year after year.
Cities begin to fall into ruin when high-net-worth individuals flee, and the government no longer has access to pockets to dip into. No one would have imagined something of this nature could happen in New York City, but realtors have begun reporting a surge in new home listings as higher-net-worth individuals want to get out before it’s too late. This is merely one of countless disastrous policies Mamdani is proposing.
The only people who succeed in such a system are the ruling elite who enjoy power and wealth created by corruption. The more the government tries to control the economy, the more freedom it must take away to enforce its policies. This is why every socialist system ultimately descends into authoritarianism. History proves this time and time again, yet people continue to believe that “this time will be different.”
Posted originally on Jun 28, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
COMMENT: Marty,
After reading AJP Taylor’s History of WW1 (an esteemed English historian), I realized that your statement about the Lusitania bringing the USA into WW1 is rather inaccurate: the Lusitania was sunk in May 1915; USA entered WW1 in April 1917, essentially two years later.
The real impetus was the unrestricted submarine warfare declared by Germany, which targeted US corporate profits that impelled the US to declare war on Germany, as Germany declared unrestricted submarine warfare in February 1917. Initially, this was a great success for Germany, but through the introduction of convoys, it failed dramatically, especially as it instigated the US ago enter WW1.
Hope you’re doing well,
LB
REPLY: In all analyses, you can never reduce anything to a single cause and effect. The sinking of the RMS Lusitania on May 7th, 1915, by a German U-boat was a major event during World War I, but it did not immediately cause the U.S. to enter the war. However, it significantly turned American public opinion against Germany and contributed to the U.S. eventually joining the conflict in 1917. Claiming that it was the unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany in 1917 that instigated the war downplays the role of the Lusitania and the likelihood of those in the Deep State who sought war back then, counter to President Wilson’s neutrality position.
The Lusitania was a British passenger ship carrying 128 Americans (out of 1,198 total deaths). The attack provoked outrage in the U.S., but President Woodrow Wilson initially sought a diplomatic response rather than war. Germany argued the ship was carrying munitions (which was true, though it was primarily a passenger liner). The US was using civilians as cover for arms transfer to Britain when they pretended to be neutral. As shown here, the Germans even took an advertisement in the NY newspaper warning people not to sail on the Lusitania. Following international pressure, Germany temporarily halted unrestricted submarine warfare in 1915 to avoid further provoking the U.S.
Zimmermann Telegram & Final Push to War (1917):
The resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in February 1917 (sinking U.S. ships) and the Zimmermann Telegram (a secret German proposal for Mexico to ally against the U.S.) were the final triggers for U.S. entry into WWI in April 1917.
The Lusitania was a significant factor in shifting U.S. opinion against Germany because it was carrying civilians. Still, it was not the sole reason for the United States’ entry into the war. The combination of continued submarine attacks and the Zimmermann Telegram ultimately led to the U.S. declaring war in 1917.
My main point about the Lusitania is that it was a Neocon quasi-false flag. After years of denying the German claims, the government lied as always to get us into every war. The CIA and Pentagon did not exist during the Lusitania incident. The relevant U.S. agencies were the State, Navy, and War Departments. These departments, particularly the State Department under William Jennings Bryan (1860–1925), were aware of and concerned about the British practice of carrying munitions on passenger ships.
The two members of Wilson’s Cabinet who were in a position over the question of war were the Secretary of the Navy, Josephus Daniels (1862-1948), who was the last member of the cabinet to advocate for war in 1917, and the Secretary of War, Lindley Garrison (1764-1932), the Neocon who was replaced after the Lusitania. There is no evidence that Secretary of War Lindley Garrison authorized or had any direct involvement in the munitions shipment aboard the Lusitania. His department (War) was responsible for the Army, not naval shipping or maritime commerce.
The decision to load munitions on passenger liners like the Lusitania was a British Admiralty policy aimed at utilizing fast liners for vital war supplies while maintaining passenger service to generate revenue and improve public perception, thereby covering up their shipments. US covert involvement was limited to customs oversight and the controversial policy of allowing passengers on ships carrying munitions.
Garrison was a strong advocate for military preparednessbefore and after the sinking of the Lusitania. He advocated for building up the U.S. Army and National Guard to be ready for potential threats. His “Preparedness Movement” gained momentum after the Lusitania, much like Homeland Security was born from the WTC 911 attack. While Wilson pushed for neutrality and diplomatic responses even after the sinking, Garrison’s Neocon views clashed with Wilson and congressional leaders who felt his plans were too ambitious or militaristic. Garrison was compelled to resign in February 1916 primarily over disagreements with Wilson and Congress regarding the scale and control of military expansion. He had wanted a standing army of 140,000, which he called the Continental Army Plan, vs. strengthening the National Guard. The sinking of the Lusitania hardened attitudes towards Germany among many Americans.
While the sinking of the Lusitania caused massive outrage, shifted public opinion significantly against Germany, and led to demands for a strong diplomatic or even military response, it set in motion the calls to enter war and blamed the Germans as they hid the covert use of civilians to disguise the US violating its pretended neutrality position. By itself, it was not the final act to compel the US to enter the war. Secretary of War Garrison was pushing for a standing army. Garrison advocated for intervention using military force overseas, clashing with Wilson. This surfaced regarding Mexico. Garrison advocated for American intervention in the Mexican Revolution to restore order. In 1916, Garrison supported a plan for expanding the US military, which he referred to as the Continental Army Plan. Garrison’s proposal would establish a standing army of 140,000 and a national, volunteer reserve force of 400,000 men. Garrison encountered opposition from those who believed his plan went too far in establishing a large standing army. Allies in Congress convinced Wilson to back an alternative strategy which emphasized not Garrison’s national volunteer force, but a continued role for the states’ National Guard. Garrison resigned in February 1916 over these differences. Garrison’s public stance was that of a Neocon. He left office nearly a full year before the US actually declared war in April 1917.
While the U.S. government publicly downplayed the munitions cargo initially to maintain moral outrage against Germany, there’s no credible evidence, as always, that U.S. departments lied to President Wilson about its existence. Secretary Bryan claimed he actively warned Wilson because he believed munitions were present and made the ship a target. With the Germans taking out newspaper advertisements warning against sailing on the Lusitania, it is hard to imagine that there were no conversations, even at the Presidential level.
There was no specific Senate or House investigation focused solely on whether President Woodrow Wilson knew about the munitions aboard the RMS Lusitania before it was sunk in 1915. However, the issue was examined within broader contexts by other official U.S. bodies and touched upon in congressional hearings. Just as the investigations into whether FDR knew in advance about Pearl Harbor, no such committee will EVER admit the wrongdoing by the President that took the country into war.
Congress did not even launch a formal investigation specifically targeting Wilson’s foreknowledge of the Lusitania’s cargo. While there was significant public debate and congressional interest in the sinking and its role in pushing the U.S. toward war, no committee was empaneled with the primary purpose of investigating the President’s prior awareness of the munitions. They too, conspired to cover up the foreknowledge.
The Mayer Arbitration (1915) was formed shortly after the sinking. The U.S. government initiated an investigation led by federal judge Julius Mayer, who was from the Second Circuit in New York City. He had presided over cases dealing with the Titanic. While primarily focused on establishing facts for potential legal claims against Germany, the investigation confirmed the Lusitania was carrying small-arms ammunition, claiming that they were non-explosive rifle cartridges and artillery shell casings (shrapnel shells without explosive charges). This information became part of the official record, meaning the government (including the administration) knew about the munitions afterthe sinking, but the investigation didn’t address what Wilson knew beforehand.
In the US, there were 67 claims for compensation filed against Cunard, which were all heard together in 1918 before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Judge Julius Mayer as well. In the Titanic case, he had ruled in favour of the shipping company. Mayer had a reputation for being pro-government in matters of national interest. The two sides agreed before the jury trial that no question would be raised regarding whether Lusitania had been armed or carrying troops or ammunition as part of the cover-up. Evidence produced by the British was presented only behind closed doors. The Defence of the Realm Act was invoked to protect British witnesses, ensuring that the truth would not be heard.
The decision was rendered on August 23rd, 1918, and Mayer’s judgement was that “the cause of the sinking was the illegal act of the Imperial German Government”, that two torpedoes had been involved, that the captain had acted properly, and emergency procedures had been up to the standard then expected. He ruled that further claims for compensation should be addressed to the German government (which eventually paid $2.5 million in 1925).
After WWI, this U.S.-German commission handled claims arising from the war, including those related to the Lusitania. Its findings (1923) explicitly stated that the presence of non-explosive munitions did not deprive the Lusitania’s passengers of their neutral rights or justify the attack without warning. Crucially, it found no evidence that the ship carried high explosives (like the German government claimed). Again, this established the nature of the cargo officially but didn’t investigate Wilson’s prior knowledge.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings in 1916 on broaderissues of preparedness and neutrality, leading up to the war. While the Lusitania was discussed, the focus was not on Wilson’s foreknowledge of its specific cargo. Critics of the administration questioned why Americans were allowed to travel on belligerent ships carrying contraband. Still, the hearings did not yield evidence or conclusions regarding Wilson’s personal knowledge before May 7, 1915.
Only during the 1030s, the Senate Special Committee Investigating the Munitions Industry (Nye Committee) investigated the arms industry and its influence on U.S. entry into World War I. It extensively documented the shipment of war materials(including those on the Lusitania) by U.S. companies to the Allies, often facilitated by the State Department despite U.S. neutrality. While it highlighted Wilson’s administration’s general awareness of and involvement in the arms trade with the Allies, it did not specifically focus on whether Wilson knew the Lusitania specifically carried munitions on that voyage before it sailed.
The U.S. government, particularly the State Department and Customs officials, was generally aware that British liners, such as the Lusitania, sometimes carried small arms and non-explosive munitions under the guise of passenger service, exploiting loopholes in neutrality rules. The government did everything it could to claim that President Wilson had no credible evidence that he received specific, advance warning about the exact nature and quantity of the munitions loaded onto the Lusitania for its final voyage before it sailed from New York. This was even though the German Embassy in Washington did place newspaper ads warning passengers that ships flying the British flag in the war zone were subject to destruction, but this was a general warning, not specific intelligence about the Lusitania’s cargo.
Wilson’s public stance after the sinking focused relentlessly on the illegality of attacking a passenger vessel without warning and the loss of civilian life, deliberately downplaying the munitions issue to maintain the moral high ground against Germany. While the fact that the Lusitania carried munitions was established by U.S. investigations after the sinking, and the broader policy of allowing munitions shipments to the Allies was controversial and later scrutinized (notably by the Nye Committee), there was never a dedicated Senate or House investigation specifically targeting President Wilson’s personal foreknowledge of the Lusitania’s cargo before its fateful voyage. Historians generally agree he likely knew such ships could carry contraband, but lacked specific, timely intelligence about the Lusitania’s final manifest.
Wilson was acutely aware of the deep public divisions and his own desire to avoid war if possible. He pursued a diplomatic path. His demands to Germany were extreme, pushing the US and Germany to the brink of war. Germany, wanting to avoid US entry at that time, eventually offered concessions and temporarily scaled back unrestricted submarine warfare (though it resumed in 1917). It is UNLIKELY that Wilson deliberately sought a false flag to enter World War I. Nevertheless, nobody wanted to look too closely at the actors in the State Department and the War Department who were eager to take the US into war against Germany.
Wilson was president between March 4th, 1913, and March 4th, 1921. Newton D. Baker (1871-1937), who had played an essential role in Woodrow Wilson’s nomination in the Democratic National Convention of 1912, was appointed Secretary of War by President Wilson, replacing Garrison. He remained in the Cabinet to the end of Wilson’s term of office. Although he was, as he himself said, so much of a pacifist that “he would fight for peace,” he soon submitted to Congress a plan for universal military conscription. He efficiently presided over the mobilization of more than four million men during World War I.
The press was divided back then and not entirely under the control of the Neocons, as they are today, pushing for World War III. Congress, while angry, largely followed President Wilson’s lead in pursuing a diplomatic solution first. The event marked a significant step towards war, erasing the pretense of neutrality and laying the groundwork for intervention. However, the actual, decisive push for war came nearly two years later, primarily driven by the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmermann Telegram in early 1917.
Posted originally on Jun 25, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
The UK government has warned that the nation must “actively prepare for the possibility of the UK coming under direct threat, potentially in a wartime scenario”, following a tense 12-day war between Iran and Israel, which threatened to spill over at any moment. The UK has also acknowledged, as has the US Department of Homeland Security, that domestic terrorism is likely because of the Iran-Israel War, but also war with Russia. The UK government said that “confrontation with those who are threatening security,” with Russia’s war in Ukraine described as “the most obvious and pressing example of this.” They added “Iranian hostile activity on British soil” is to be expected and that they will attempt to disrupt critical supply lines and energy infrastructure.
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