Mercury BANNED in US Vaccines


Posted originally on Aug 5, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |  

Child Vaccine

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s next step toward making America Healthy again is an outright ban on thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative, found in common vaccines. “I’m proud to finally deliver on a long-overdue promise: protecting our most vulnerable from unnecessary mercury exposure,” Kennedy stated on a video posted on X, noting that the chemical is a known neurotoxin that has been administered to millions of Americans.

The former director of the FDA, Willian Egan, admitted in 2001 that the safety of this preservative had never been studied. The government simply allowed the pharmaceutical agencies to incorporate it in vaccines to extend their shelf lives. PubMed and PubChem, as Kennedy stated, have published countless peer-reviewed studies citing thimerosal as a known carcinogen and neurotoxin. The FDA has a clear understanding that this chemical can cause reproductive issues. They are also aware that the chemical is linked to mild to severe retardation, autism, and/or motor skill impairment in children, but children are encouraged to take the vaccine to stop the spread. One study found that women had a 7.7x greater chance of miscarriage if they received the common flu vaccine while pregnant, but pregnant women are still encouraged to take the vaccination. “They had the science but chose to ignore it,” Kennedy announced. Every agency was aware that this was an ongoing danger to the public for decades. In fact, the current amount of mercury found in the common flu vaccination is 25,000 times over the EPA’s current safety level for drinking water.

These chemicals are so hazardous that they are required to be disposed of in special landfills for hazardous waste, and yet, we were permitting the pharmaceutical agencies to inject these toxins into our bodies and convincing the public that they must blindly take the vaccine for the greater good of society. No one has been allowed to comment on the dangers despite the various studies that warn against its use in humans.

VAXXED

Why is this controversial? As Kennedy stated, he has been attempting to ban mercury from fish, but no one has deemed him “anti-fish.” Anti-vax or any skepticism regarding vaccinations has been deemed a threat to the government, as the people should not question their guidance, or they will be labeled a crazed conspiracist.

This chemical was known to cause harm in humans, but it helped big pharma to increase its bottom line. It is simply a preservative with ZEO benefits. Kennedy’s declaration comes weeks after Bill Gates invested another $1.6 billion into the GAVI vaccine alliance program. The World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF, the World Bank, vaccine manufacturers, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are all responsible for the GAVI program and they have already vaccinated 760 million children worldwide. Bill Gates happens to be the foundation’s largest donor, already contributing $7.7 billion to the cause. The European Union recently partnered with Gates to contribute funding toward GAVI as well, since all the Build Back Better nations believe in the outdated science.

Now, the only reason thimerosal is controversial is that it puts government authority into question. “The science” is never wrong, allegedly. The people should not think independently or question their overlords when they deem health precautions necessary. It’s for the greater good of the public, so they say. Yet, the public already lost trust in the government long ago, and the fallout from COVID completely dismantled any remaining trust the people had in “the science.” Kennedy’s work could actually encourage vaccinations as the people now demand transparency from their government.

Yet, vaccinations are the least of our troubles now as the government is plotting a swifter demise for the masses through warfare.

Sanctions – the Neocon Tool That Has Never Worked Even Once


Posted originally on Jul 30, 2025 by Martin Armstrong 

The fact that Trump is threatening sanctions against India for buying Russian oil and to hammer Russia to somehow force Putin to his knees and accept whatever terms Europe demands, proves that Trump is now taking advice from Lindsey Grachm, NATO, their puppet EU leaders, and the Neocons with the likes of Cheney in the background witgh a HUGE smile on her face.

Cuba Sanctions 1960

Cuba (1960s-present): U.S. sanctions have failed to topple the Castro regime or force democratic reforms. Despite economic hardship, the government adapted through alternative trade partners and domestic resilience, suggesting sanctions can entrench regimes and slter the world economy, which has taken place with the development of BRICS. The U.S. embargo (blockade) against Cuba remains in place, requiring Congressional action to lift it entirely. While some sanctions have been eased temporarily, no administration has completely ended them. After more than 60 years, this stands as a prime example of how sanctions have NEVER worked even once.

Nordstream Pipeline Russia

The United States has imposed sanctions on German and other European companies involved in the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, which was designed to transport Russian natural gas to Europe. In 2019–2021, the U.S. sanctioned firms like Swiss-based Allseas (forcing it to withdraw) and later targeted Russian and German entities.

The U.S. imposed sanctions on the Soviet-European gas pipeline in 1982 (under Reagan), targeting Western companies supplying equipment for the Urengoy–Pomary–Uzhhorod pipeline, which supplied gas to Western Europe. The U.S. opposed this project due to concerns over European energy dependence on the USSR. They, too, failed and had to be relaxed under Allied pressure.

Adenauer 1955 visit Russia

The Neocons, from the outset of any negotiations between Germany and Russia back in the communist days, did everything in their power to deny Germany access to Russian energy. It was 1955 when West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer (1876-1967) visited Moscow in June and then established diplomatic relations for the first time between the new Federal Republic of Germany and the Soviet Union. The Neocons were outraged, but President Eisenhower saw it as no threat given Adenauer’s oppression by Hitler. The Necons wanted to prevent any meeting but Eisenhower declined.

Adenauer Konrad 1876–1967 Chancellor 1949 1963

Adenauer was Chancellor from 1949 to 1963. Adenauer was one of the first opponents of the leader of the Nazi Party. Konrad Adenauer helped draft a constitution completed in May 1949. He opened the door for the trade agreement that followed in 1958, and by 1960, bilateral trade between the countries was booming.

1958 Russia German Trade Agreement

The Trade Agreement was reported worldwide by the Associated Press on April 9th, 1958 (1958.271). Even so, from the very beginning, that trade link between Germany and Russia was controversial, to say the least. The United States, at the direction of the Neocons, was always against it and would criticize Germany behind every closed-door session. However, the US intimidation failed because it was necessary for the German people and their future.

While the U.S. did not impose formal sanctions on German pipe producers in 1955–1958, it actively discouraged such trade, setting the stage for the 1960s pipe embargoes. The major crackdown came later, but diplomatic and economic pressure began in the late 1950s.

Iraq (1990s): UN sanctions after the Gulf War devastated the economy, reducing GDP by nearly 50%, but Saddam Hussein’s regime remained intact. Political change only occurred after the 2003 invasion, not sanctions alone, and civilian suffering often strengthened regime propaganda.

North Korea (2000s-present): Decades of sanctions have crippled the economy but haven’t shifted the Kim regime’s policies or structure. Black market trade and Chinese support have mitigated impacts, and the regime uses isolation to reinforce control.

South Africa (1980s-1990s): Comprehensive sanctions, including trade bans and financial restrictions, the Neocons insist, contributed to ending apartheid. However, there was already internal resistance. It still took 14 years before any democratic reforms took place by 1994. Studies estimate that the sanctions reduced South Africa’s GDP only by 1-2% annually.

Iran (2010s): Heavy U.S. and EU sanctions targeting oil exports and banking, which the Neocons insist forced Iran to negotiate the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA). Oil revenues dropped by over 50% from 2011 to 2013, and inflation soared, but the regime did not fall. The regime didn’t fundamentally change its political system, showing again that sanctions have NEVER even once overthrown the core governance.

Hawaii Tribune

FDR deliberately imposed sanctions on Japan to get them to attack the United States, all because Congress would not authorize joining World War II in Europe. That led to a Senate investigation later because it became so obvious that FDR even knew when Pearl Harbor would take place and deliberately allowed thousands to be killed just so he could enter the war. It came out that US had broken the Japanese code and knew all about the attack. There was even a lead to the press a few days before reporting that they were about to be attacked.

Before the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) imposed a series of escalating economic sanctions on Japan in response to its aggressive expansion in Asia, particularly its invasion of China. These sanctions were meant to pressure Japan into halting its militaristic actions, but ultimately contributed to the tensions that led to war.

In 1938, FDR imposed a “moral embargo” on aircraft and aviation parts sales to Japan following its bombing of Chinese civilians. This was not a formal ban but a strong discouragement of exports. Then in July 1939, FDR announced the termination of the 1911 U.S.-Japan Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, removing legal barriers to future trade restrictions. This took effect in January 1940.

Now that the door was open for sanctions, in July 1940, the U.S. restricted exports of aviation fuel, lubricants, and high-grade scrap metal to Japan under the Export Control Act. That was followed by the September 1940 complete embargo on scrap iron and steel.

Then, FDR, like the West has done to Russia, froze all Japanese assets in the U.S. (July 26, 1941), effectively cutting off trade and financial transactions. That was followed by a complete oil embargo along with Britain and the Dutch government-in-exile. Since Japan relied on the U.S. for 80% of its oil, this was a crippling blow. FDR knew that Japan would take it as an act of war, as they then saw these sanctions as an existential threat, as they crippled its ability to fuel its military and industry.

1945 1946 US Senate Investigation Pearl Harbor

The oil embargo, in particular, forced Japan to either negotiate a withdrawal from China (which it refused) or seize oil-rich territories in Southeast Asia (which risked war with the U.S.). The sanctions contributed to Japan’s decision to attack Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941) to neutralize the U.S. Pacific Fleet before invading British and Dutch colonies. These sanctions deliberately pushed Japan toward a desperate military confrontation, culminating in the attack on Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entry into World War II, which was the objective of FDR from the outset. The outrage was so intense that in 1945, after the war, the Senate was forced to investigate FDR’s action and whitewashed the affair, claiming they were unsure if FDR had been fully advised of the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, even though leaks made the papers in advance.

SANCTIONS

There is NOT a single incident to demonstrate that sanctions have EVER worked. Nevertheless, the Neocons constantly advise heads of state to impose sanctions, hoping that they will bring about the collapse of that government. They will not work this time either and the real risk is that they will lead to war as we saw in FDR’s actions against Japan.

Should India Continue Buying Russian Oil?


Posted originally on Jul 31, 2025 by Martin Armstrong 

Crude Oil Production

President Trump announced a 25% on India beginning August 1 due to its continued purchase of Russian oil. “Remember, while India is our friend, we have, over the years, done relatively little business with them because their Tariffs are far too high, among the highest in the World, and they have the most strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary Trade Barriers of any Country,” the president posted to Truth on Wednesday morning. “Also, they have always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia, and are Russia’s largest buyer of ENERGY, along with China, at a time when everyone wants Russia to STOP THE KILLING IN UKRAINE,” he added.

India began drastically increasing its imports of Russian crude at the start of the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022, with good reason, as the oil became significantly cheaper and India was able to resell it at a premium to nations that simply wanted to bypass all things Russia. In January 2022, India was importing around 68,000 barrels per day (bpd) in Russian crude, which represented only 0.2% of crude imports. The war broke out a month later and by June India was importing 1.12 million bpd from Russia who overtook Iraq as the nation’s top supplier. Nearly a year later in May 2023, Russian imports peaked at 2.15 million bpd, with India currently importing around 1.7 million to 2.1 million bpd as of July 2025.

Around 35% to 40% of India’s crude oil now comes from Russia. Now, Russian crude was around $50 per barrel in May 2025 when imports to India peaked. Middle Eastern grades were around $10 to $20 higher at the time. The deal was a no-brainer.

India-US bilateral trade hit $118.4 billion in 2024. India exported approximately $79.4 billion in goods to the US and imported $39 billion. The current trade deficit with the US sits at $45.7 billion. A 25% tariff could cost India billions in lost revenue from exports and threaten jobs in key sectors such as autos, chemicals, jewelry, gems, electronics, and textiles. Other Asian exporters would become more desirable, but China actually purchases more Russian crude than India at this point and other nations in the region have drastically smaller economies. Estimates state India could risk losing $15 billion to $20 billion annually as a result of the 25% tariff.

Now, if India were forced to buy from the Middle East for $10 to $20 more per barrel, the nation would need to spend around $6 to $10 billion more on energy annually. India does refine and resells Russian crude and is said to bring in around $1.5 billion to $3.5 billion from that practice.

On paper, it would seem as if India has more to lose by continuing to purchase Russian oil. However, the US is showing the world that it has the ability to dictate political policy through economic warfare. India declared that it remains committed to continuing “mutually beneficial bilateral trade” with the US after the 25% tariff was announced. The US will go after all BRICS nations in an attempt to dismantle the alliance, but BRICS members have shown that they no longer need to rely on the West, and tariffs from the US may not hold the same leverage as they once did.

EPA Pivots on Dangers of Greenhouse Gases


Posted originally on Jul 30, 2025 by Martin Armstrong 

Climate Change CO2 Global Warming

The Environmental Protection Agency determined in 2009 that greenhouse gases were endangering life on our planet. The agency put forth a study to promote the passing of the Clean Air Act, enabling the government to regulate energy. The EPA under Trump is now seeking to overturn this study as scientists now believe that greenhouse gases are not harmful to humans.

The Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the government is required to regulate and monitor carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, as mandated by the Clean Air Act. The EPA under the Obama Administration declared in 2009 that greenhouse gases posed a serious risk to public health and welfare. In May 2009, Obama implemented the first national policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. Since then, every sector using any form of fossil fuel has been targeted by government. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act under Obama, a much smaller-scale version of the Inflation Reduction Act under Biden, allocated $7 billion to the EPA to clean up the environment. The EPA experienced record-breaking funding in 2010 when it was awarded $10.5 billion to address climate change. The government has since gained control over the entire energy sector, weaponizing an allegedly potential threat to gain control.

The ”endangerment finding” from 2009 may be overturned. “This long-overdue finding cements 2009’s place in history as the year when the United States Government began seriously addressing the challenge of greenhouse gas pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform,” then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in announcing the decision. Reversing the 2009 decision would reverse regulations that the president stated has “imposed trillions of dollars of costs on Americans.”

“The Obama administration said that carbon dioxide, when mixed with a bunch of other well-mixed gasses, greenhouse gasses, that it contributes to climate change. How much? They don’t say… they say that climate change engenders human health, so because of these different mental leaps… then there were all sorts of vehicle regulations that followed,” Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin stated. “This has been referred to as basically driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion.”

Zeldin said that the Democrats used climate change scare tactics to “basically regulate out of existence” fossil fuels. He projects this massive regulation effort will save American taxpayers $1 trillion.

2023_07_14_20_54_50_Nobel_Prize_Winning_Scientist_Climate_Crisis_Narrative_Is_a_Hoax_Slay_News

“Even if the United States eliminated all of its greenhouse gas emissions, it would have little to no measurable effect on global temperatures,” Daren Bakst, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute admitted.

Look how far the agency was willing to go to stifle the production of emissions. They were seeking to limit our individual freedoms from banning cars to stoves and far-left climate zealots suggesting the government monitor everyone’s carbon footprint. America lost its energy independence between Obama and Biden and it was all tied into the globalist agenda of the Great Reset. Every nation that has adhered to climate change policies is experiencing an energy crisis for which they have no solution. You simply cannot eliminate fossil fuels without a reliable alternative and you definitely cannot significantly limit carbon emissions without changing life as we know it.

Critics believe the measure is merely to support Big Oil and permit coal and gas plants to pollute the environment. Trump did declare an energy emergency at the start of his presidency, famously saying “drill baby, drill,” as a nudge to begin extracting oil once more. The truth of the matter is that fossil fuels are essential for our survival. The EPA deliberately exploited the threat of greenhouse gases to grant the government authoritative power over energy.

LEAKE: “There’s This Enduring Myth That This Reduction Of Mortality Is Attributed To Vaccines.”


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannon’s War Room on: July 28, 2025

Are Volcanoes Erupting to Prove Climate Change is BS & Nature is in Charge?


Posted originally on Jul 28, 2025 by Martin Armstrong 

Yellowstone Super Volcano

According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), a supervolcano is any volcanic center that has explosively erupted at least 1,000 cubic kilometers (240 cubic miles) of fresh volcanic material in a sudden, violent manner. Yellowstone is a supervolcano, one of the largest and most active volcanic systems in the world. It has produced some of the most massive eruptions in Earth’s history. The Yellowstone Caldera was formed by a series of catastrophic supereruptions over the past 2.1 million years.

Huckleberry Ridge Eruption (2.1 million years ago) was one of the largest volcanic eruptions ever recorded. It ejected about 2,450 cubic kilometers of material. It managed to form the Island Park Caldera (the first Yellowstone caldera).

Then there was the Mesa Falls Eruption (1.3 million years ago). This was a smaller but still massive eruption that ejected about 280 cubic kilometers of material. That created the Henry’s Fork Caldera.

Then came the Lava Creek Eruption (approximately 640,000 years ago). This was the most recent supereruption, ejecting approximately 1,000 cubic kilometers of material, which formed the Yellowstone Caldera (approximately 30 x 45 miles wide).

Based on these estimates, the cycle of a supervolcano would be about 486,000 years. I would suspect the real number may be 430,000 since this Pi frequency governs the universe. The precession of the Equinoxes is approximately 25,800 years, which is 3 times 8,600 years.

The volcanic activity is never confined to a single volcano. They correlate to activity. Yes, there were significant volcanic eruptions between 150 AD and 200 AD. One of the most notable was the 186 AD eruption of Lake Taupō (New Zealand), also known as the Hatepe eruption. That was a big one, VEI 7, one of the most powerful eruptions in the last 5,000 years. This produced massive pyroclastic flows and ashfall that caused global climatic effects and a volcanic winter. The Chinese recorded red sunsets and Roman texts around this time. Of course, Mount Vesuvius (Italy) made its famous 79 AD eruption, and Vesuvius remained active, with possibly more minor eruptions around this time of 150AD.

In more modern times, Yellowstone has experienced smaller eruptions and lava flows, with the most recent one occurring approximately 70,000 years ago. A massive reservoir of molten rock currently lies beneath Yellowstone, fueling its geysers and hot springs. The volcano is perhaps overdue for an eruption. If it erupted, it could be catastrophic (global climate effects, ash fallout), but the most likely activity would be smaller lava flows.

The supervolcano eruptions were the Yellowstone Lava Creek eruption (USA, ~640,000 years ago), which ejected about 1,000 km of material, and the Youngest Toba eruption (Indonesia, 74,000 years ago), which ejected about 2,800 km of material. The most recent supereruption (defined as ejecting at least 1,000 cubic kilometers of volcanic material) was the Oruanui eruption of Taupō Volcano in New Zealand about 26,500 years ago (during the Last Glacial Maximum). That ejected approximately 1,170 km (280 cubic miles) of material and had a VEI of 8 (Volcanic Explosivity Index).

Naples Super Volcano 1024x551

There are several supervolcanoes around the world, and perhaps the most recent one to erupt was in Italy. The term “supervolcano” has been popularized by the BBC and the Discovery Channel’s 2005 story on Yellowstone. Campi Flegrei qualifies as a supervolcano due to its past eruptions exceeding 1,000 km³ of ejecta (when combining its largest events). Currently, Italy’s Campi Flegrei volcano has been showing signs for the first time in nearly 400 years that it is still active and capable of causing significant disruption, potentially affecting a large number of people. It is one of the most dangerous, given its proximity to the population. Campi Flegrei is experiencing heightened activity, including increased seismic activity and ground uplift. Scientists are closely monitoring the situation due to the potential for phreatic (steam-driven) explosions and the region’s history of volcanic activity. 

Aside from Yellowstone, the largest volcanic eruption in the Northern Hemisphere in the past 100,000 years has been attributed to a Supervolcano, which erupted some 39,400 years ago in what is known as the Phlegraean Fields near Naples, Italy. This has been documented from several sources. The ashes from this eruption were dispersed over the entire eastern Mediterranean and as far as central Russia. This was a huge event that also triggered a Volcanic Winter, and that is the worst thing for the rest of the world, which resides at a safe distance from the actual Supervolcano.

Naples, Italy, is situated near the Campi Flegrei (Phlegraean Fields), a vast volcanic region that encompasses a supervolcano. While not a single mountain-like volcano, Campi Flegrei is an enormous caldera system formed by massive eruptions. Campi Flegrei is still active and considered one of the world’s most dangerous volcanoes.

The Campanian Ignimbrite Eruption (39,000 years ago) is one of the most significant volcanic eruptions in European history. This resulted in a volcanic winter. This most likely impacted Neanderthal populations and early modern humans. This may have even contributed to the extinction of the Neanderthals around 40,000 years ago. Perhaps their loss in numbers allowed the arrival of modern humans in Europe. Neanderthal-derived DNA has been identified in the genomes of most contemporary populations, with notable variations by region. It accounts for 1–4% of modern genomes for people outside Sub-Saharan Africa. This suggests that perhaps the survivors did interbreed with modern humans, suddenly, due to a volcanic eruption. Who knows, if Yellowstone erupts, the survivors may witness interbreeding between Democrats and Republicans – something unthinkable today.

We then see the Neapolitan Yellow Tuff Eruption (15,000 years ago), which was smaller but still significant eruption (40 km of material). That one formed much of the volcanic landscape around Naples.

catacomb 1
Colli Albani Volanco

Anyone who has visited the catacombs in Rome will notice that they are carved out of tuff, a soft type of rock formed from consolidated volcanic ash. This material comes from ancient volcanic eruptions in the region, particularly from the Alban Hills volcanic complex (Colli Albani), located southeast of Rome. The most significant eruption responsible for the tuff used in Roman catacombs and other ancient constructions is believed to be the Pozzolane Rosse eruption, which occurred around 456,000 years ago.

The Pozzolane Rosse eruption was a volcanic event associated with the Colli Albani (Alban Hills) volcanic complex, located about 20 km southeast of Rome, Italy. A distinctive red-brown pyroclastic deposit (ignimbrite) that covers parts of Rome and its surroundings. The Romans later used the material as pozzolana, a key ingredient in hydraulic cement.

The ancient Romans were pioneers in developing concrete, utilizing volcanic materials to make it exceptionally durable. Their concrete, known as opus caementicium, was a key factor in the longevity of Roman structures, such as the PantheonColosseum, and aqueducts, many of which still stand today.

SevAlex AE Colessum

The Romans mixed:

    1. Lime (from heating limestone)
    2. Volcanic ash (from regions like Pozzuoli, near Mount Vesuvius)
    3. Water
    4. Aggregates (rocks, broken pottery, or brick)

This combination created a pozzolanic reaction, forming a strong, water-resistant binder. The volcanic ash (called pozzolana) reacted with lime to produce a cement that even hardened underwater—crucial for Roman harbors and bridges. Cracks could “re-seal” due to ongoing chemical reactions with water. However, it was this invention of concrete that is the reason their structures have lasted 2,000+ years. Modern concrete often degrades in decades and is unmatched by the Roman formulas.


Ring of fire 1

When we correlate all the data, what is striking is that approximately 90% of the world’s earthquakes, including most of the world’s largest earthquakes, occur along the Ring of Fire. I have personally experienced it in Vancouver, Tokyo, Australia, and New Zealand, all on one trip. It seemed to be following me with the first one hitting in Toronto. The Ring of Fire is home to 75% of the world’s volcanoes and 90% of its earthquakes. We’re talking about a massive 24,900-mile horseshoe-shaped zone that basically wraps around the Pacific Ocean like a geological death grip. In 2024, a total of 1,374 earthquakes with a magnitude of 5+ or more were recorded worldwide as of December that year.

Ring of Fire Earthquakes 2000 2023

Running that through Socrates revealed a cycle low was due in 2022 following the major high in 2011. This filtered it down to earthquakes that were 6.0 or higher. There were the 2004 (Sumatra M9.1), 2011 (Japan M9.0), and 2010 (Chile M8.8), which all saw spikes due to mega-thrust earthquakes.

The Ring of Fire typically experiences 150–170 M6.0+ quakes annually. The Deadliest Events were as follows:

  1. 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami (M9.1) – 230,000 deaths.
  2. 2011 Tohoku Earthquake (M9.0) – 16,000 deaths.
  3. 2010 Chile Earthquake (M8.8) – 500 deaths.

We observed slightly lower activity in 2022, but large quakes still occurred (e.g., the 2021 Alaska M8.2 earthquake). (Data Sources: USGS Earthquake Catalog (USGS.gov))

VOLCANOES Y Array 11 29 22
VOLCANOES Y Chart 11 29 22

We warned back in 2022 that we had a string of Directional Changes between 2022 and 2025.  We may be looking at rising volcanic activity into 2025.  Our computer has identified a rise in volcanic activity during solar minima, which then produces more gamma rays that tend to penetrate the Earth’s surface. This current Solar Wave 25, which our model still shows ideally should peak perhaps here in July, then from here on out we will see a move into 2028/2029 for solar minimum. We are witnessing large ejection flares from the sun that were greater than most expected.

Initial predictions suggested a relatively weak maximum around July 2025. However, observed activity has been significantly stronger than predicted. Sunspot numbers, solar flares, and coronal mass ejections (CMEs) have consistently exceeded forecasts. Based on this intense activity, the peak (maximum) is now expected sooner and potentially higher than initially thought. The Sun has been very active recently, with frequent sunspot groups, powerful solar flares (including numerous X-class flares), and significant geomagnetic storms causing widespread auroras (even at unusually low latitudes) in May 2024.

What we must understand about cycles is that, given our entry into this high in July 2025, we have witnessed much higher volatility than expected. This suggests that, as we turn back down into solar minimum, ideally reaching the bottom of the ECM in 2028 or early 2029, the resulting decline should be lower than expected. Whenever you rise with greater volatility, it is like a market that crashes harder. That said, if we are to experience a similar event to the Sun falling into a Maunder-minimum-like (inactive) state (1645-1715), which created the mini-Ice Age, it appears that we must be concerned, as it has been 309.6 years since that event in general. If we observe an equally violent contraction, then we should expect greater activity from the Ring of Fire, and that 2022 marked a significant low in earthquakes.

1 ElectroMagnetic Wavelength 1024x293

Solar Minima appear to be occurring close to a 309.6-year cycle. There have been many studies on the impact of UV and gamma radiation during solar changes and events. Gamma rays are a form of electromagnetic radiation, as are radio waves, infrared radiation, ultraviolet radiation, X-rays, and microwaves. Gamma rays can be used to treat cancer, and astronomers study gamma-ray bursts. What becomes concerning is the potential for a pole shift. The poles on the sun shift every 11 years, meaning it takes 22 years to complete the cycle. The Moon does not have a global magnetic field today, so it doesn’t experience regular pole shifts like the Sun or Earth.

Pole Shift Arrows
earth_rotating_PA_300_clr_4197

My concern on a correlation basis is that what we do know is that the Earth’s magnetic field has been weakening over the past 160+ years (by about 9% per century since 1840). Then there is the South Atlantic Anomaly (a region over the Atlantic where the field is unusually weak), which some scientists suggest could be an early sign of instability, and this is growing. Studies of past reversals (like the Laschamps Excursion, 41,000 years ago) show that field strength drops significantly before a reversal.

It appears that as the field weakens, this should result in greater volatility in volcanic activity as we enter solar minimum. That raises the risk of a catastrophic volcanic winter period after 2029, which would extend into our computer target for 2032. This is why I suggest that you should have 2 years of food in reserve. What correlates with all of this is the disease cycle. Plagues follow volcanic winters for food production declines, and as malnutrition rises, so does disease.

I believe that people prefer to assume uniformity rather than a catastrophe. When people raise the question of a pole shift, they write it off as a Y2K Alarm Bell and thus a conspiracy theory. A stalagmite-based paleomagnetic record of the post-Blake excursion reveals that repeated polarity drifts have occurred during periods of low geomagnetic field intensity, approximately 100,000 years before present, around the time of the Naples Supervolcano eruption. One surprisingly abrupt centennial reversal transition occurred in 144,000 years, providing unprecedented evidence that raises fundamental questions about the speed of geomagnetic field shifts. Such rapid polarity changes could severely affect satellites and human society in the future if the current geomagnetic field intensity continues to decrease.

MAMOUTH in Ice

We have a pole shift, climate change, and volcanic eruptions seem to be interlinked on a correlated basis. Our correlation models have indicated that this is something that warrants further investigation. For the first time, laying out this record yields a single geological archive, establishing a precise chronological order. These types of events can occur, perhaps even instantly. Scientists for decades argued that such earth changes were slow, gradual events. Then the discovery of the frozen woolly rhinos and mammoths ignited the Enlightenment era.

The discovery of frozen woolly mammoths with food still in their stomachs is one of the most fascinating pieces of evidence supporting the idea that a sudden, catastrophic climate shift in the past may be the norm, not the exception. Many mammoths (like the famous Beresovka mammoth) were found with undigested food in their stomachs and mouths, including grasses, buttercups, and other temperate plants. This suggests they died suddenly, with no time to digest their last meal. Some specimens were so well-preserved that their flesh was still edible when discovered.

baby mammoth

The traditional gradual ice-age theory cannot explain how mammoths froze so quickly that their stomach contents remained intact. A sudden, extreme drop in temperature possibly due to a cosmic impact, volcanic activity, or a geomagnetic shift. Some have suggested that there was massive flooding or mudslides from melting permafrost or glacial outbursts that buried them rapidly before scavengers could decompose them. A pole shift or rapid climate change could cause Arctic regions to freeze almost instantly. This is the catastrophic view of panic-like cycles in a sudden market crash versus the uniform belief that the government can control the economy. Mainstream science often favors slow climate change, but the frozen mammoths suggest a rapid, catastrophic event was the outcome. This Gradialism/Uniformity view vs  Catastrophism simply does not hold up with the evidence and is more like Marx and Keynes, who defy the business cycle and argued that government can control the economy and lead us to the land of utopian economics.

The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (around 12,800 years ago) suggests a comet impact triggered abrupt cooling, possibly explaining the mammoths’ sudden demise. But would a comet spark instant cold to freeze the mammoths before they swallowed their meal? The frozen mammoths with food in their stomachs indicate a near-instantaneous freezing event, challenging the idea of slow climate change. Whether due to a pole shift, cosmic impact, or another catastrophic event, these findings suggest that Earth’s past may have experienced abrupt, violent changes rather than gradual processes.

Consequently, the discovery of the frozen mammoth in 1787 following the woolly rhinoceros in 1772 sparked the imagination that truly contributed to the “Age of Enlightenment” where there was a burst of knowledge erupting in every field of inquisition. Such finds of frozen mammoths in Siberia continue to this day. This has challenged theories on both sides of the debate to explain how such catastrophic events can occur. These frozen animals in Siberia suggest strange events are possible. This is what sparked the entire consideration that perhaps cycles existed in nature, as well as in economies and societies.

Sunday Talks – OMB Director Russ Vought Discusses the FED and Spending Cuts


Posted originally on CTH on July 27, 2025 | Sundance

Office of Management and Budgets (OMB) Director Russ Vought appears on CNN to discuss the problems noted with the Federal Reserve (FED) as the organization viewed their ‘independent’ status as meaning beyond accountability.  The FED has been operating without any oversight until President Trump and Russ Vought began a baseline review of how they spend taxpayer funds.

As noted by Director Vought, the FED can have independence and yet they must be held accountable to the American people. President Trump is that accountability piece and the FED were not familiar with scrutiny. They are now.

.

Russ Vought also appeared on Face the Nation to receive questions from the insufferable and ever-pontificating Margaret Brennan.  Video and Transcript Below:

[Transcript]  – MARGARET BRENNAN: We begin today with the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, welcome to ‘Face The Nation.’

DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET RUSSELL VOUGHT: Thanks for having me.

MARGARET BRENNAN: There’s so much to get to with you. Let’s start on what’s going on with the Federal Reserve. If you take the president at his word, he does not intend to fire the Federal Reserve Chair, Jerome Powell- though he’s still criticizing him. What is the President seeking in a successor when his term ends in May 2026?

VOUGHT: Well, I think he’s looking for a chairman that’s not continually too late to the developments in the economic marketplace. And I think what we’ve seen with Chairman Powell, he was very late in the Biden administration to raise rates, to articulate the concern with regard to the Biden administration’s spending. We all knew on the outside- even Larry Summers knew that we were going to have an issue with regard to inflation. And we saw, you know, recent, historical inflationary levels that we hadn’t seen before. And now he is too late to lower inflation rates and so that is the kind of thing that we want to see in the next chairman of the Federal Reserve. And one of the reasons why is–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –More of a focus on inflation?

VOUGHT: –want an ability to recognize the developments in the economic marketplace. In this case, we want to be able to see lower rates and to have an ability to get the economy going. And one of the things we saw with Powell is that one of the reasons he was so late was because he didn’t understand that inflation is largely a monetary phenomenon. He kept saying that inflation was transitory. He didn’t tackle the problem, and now he’s, again, too late, and you marry that with fiscal mismanagement at the Fed. It’s a huge problem that we’re trying to raise the country’s awareness level with.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But as you know, the Fed is structured in a way where he doesn’t have unilateral control. There’s a governing board. Others weigh in. You did work on Project 2025, and we went back and looked at what they said in there about the Fed. As people may know, that’s a Heritage Foundation product that got a lot of scrutiny during the campaign. the chapter on the Fed called for Congress to overhaul the Fed’s focus and powers. Is that what you’re looking to do in 2026?

VOUGHT: I don’t even know what that chapter says. All I know, in terms of the President, the President has run on an agenda. He’s been very clear about that. All that we’re doing is- in this administration is running on- is implementing his agenda.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You don’t want to overhaul the Fed?

VOUGHT: We want an economic system that works for the American people, that includes the Fed. And the President has been very clear that all he’s asking from the Fed is lower interest rates, because he thinks it’s important. When you look at across the across the globe, and you have countries lowering rates, and yet we don’t see that in this country, given all of the positive economic indicators that we’re seeing. And then we have fiscal mismanagement at the Fed with regard to this building renovation that I’m sure you will ask me about. Those are the kinds of things that we want to see from the Fed. This is not part of an existential issue with regard to the Federal Reserve.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the Fed is indicating that they are trending towards a rate cut, though probably not as soon as this week. We mentioned those renovations at the top of the program, but I do want to ask about spending, or lack thereof, that the Trump administration is trying to direct. The White House said they will actually release the remaining $5 billion in education, funds that had been withheld from public schools until recently. There were 10 Republican senators very worried about this, and came out and said, your claim that the money goes to radical left wing programs was wrong. What changed your mind? What made you release this money?

VOUGHT: Well, we had been going through a programmatic review with these funds. These are programs that, as an administration, we don’t support. We’ve called for the elimination of them in the President’s budget for precisely the reasons of which they flow to often left wing organizations. Thankfully, the President came into office, put an executive order that said it can’t- these funds can’t go to these types of initiatives. I’ll just give you one example, English language acquisition was flowing to the New York school public education system to go into illegal immigration advocacy organizations. Preschool development grants doesn’t actually go to preschoolers. It goes to the curriculum for putting CRT into the school system for people as young- children as young as four years old.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, these senators said it goes to adult learners working to gain employment skills and after school programs.

VOUGHT: And what we–

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you deemed it is necessary?

VOUGHT: We believe that it’s important to get the money out right now, but we have taken an extended time frame to be able to make sure it doesn’t go to the types of things that we saw under the Biden administration.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Because, you know, Senator Lindsey Graham told the Washington Post, the administration is looking at considering clawbacks from the Department of Education. This, you know, rescissions process. Is that the plan? Are you seeking to claw back education funds in a rescissions package? And if so, when are you sending that up?

VOUGHT: We may be, we’re always looking at potential rescission options. This is an- this is a set of funding that we wanted to make sure it got out. We did our programmatic review. We wanted to make sure it got out before the school year, even though it’s multi-year funding. This is not funding that would expire at the end of this year. We are looking to do rescissions package. We’re always gauging the extent to which the Congress is willing to participate in that process, and we’re- be looking at a lot of different options along those lines, but certainly have nothing to announce here today. But we’re thrilled that we had the first rescissions package in decades, and we’ve got the process moving again.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So no rescissions package before September?

VOUGHT: Not here to say that. We’re looking at all of our options, we will look at it and assess where the Hill is, what are the particular funding opportunities that we have, but nothing that we’re going to announce today,

MARGARET BRENNAN: Because some of the funds that do expire in September have also been held up on the health front. Senator Katie Britt of Alabama, 13 other Republicans, came out with a letter saying that you’ve been slow in releasing funds for the National Institute of Health for research into cardiovascular disease, cancer. Are those funds going to be released?

VOUGHT: Again, we’re going through the same process with the NIH that we did with the education. I mean–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But there’s a time cost here.

VOUGHT: –$2 million for injecting dogs with cocaine that the NIH spent money on, $75,000 for Harvard to study blowing lizards off of trees with leaf blowers. That’s the kind of waste that we’ve seen at the NIH. And that’s not even getting to the extent to which the NIH was weaponized against the American people over the last several years, with regard to funding gain of function research that caused the pandemic. We have a- we have an agency that needs dramatic overhaul. Thankfully, we have a great new head of it, but we’re going to have to go line by line to make sure the NIH is funded properly.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Are you going to release the cancer funding research? And the cardiovascular disease research funding?

VOUGHT: We’re going to continue- we’re going to continue to go to the same process that we have gone through with regard to the Department of Education, that every one of these agencies–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Before September, that money will be released?

VOUGHT: –and we will release that funding when we are done with that review.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Because, as you know, there’s concern that you’re withholding the money, hoping it just won’t be spent. I mean, if you look at the White House budget, it does call for a 26% cut to HHS, $18 billion cut to NIH. Is this just a backdoor way to make those cuts happen?

VOUGHT: Well, I don’t want to speak to any specific program with regard to what we might do with regard to rescissions throughout the end of this fiscal year, but we certainly recognize that we have the ability and the executive tools to fund less than what Congress appropriated, and to use the tools that the Impoundment Control Act, a bill we’re not- a law that we’re not entirely thrilled with, gives us to- to send up rescissions towards the end of the fiscal year.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So just for our viewers, the Impoundment Control Act is the legal mechanism for the President to use to delay or avoid spending funds appropriated by Congress. You seem to want to have an argument, or Democrats think you want to have an argument, over the power of the purse and who holds it. Do you want that to go to the Supreme Court?

VOUGHT: Well, look, for 200 years, presidents have the ability to spend less than the congressional appropriations. No one would ever dispute, and our founders didn’t dispute that Congress has the ability to set the appropriation ceiling. But 200 years of presidents, up until the 1970s had the ability to spend less, if they could find efficiencies, or if they could find waste that an agency was doing.

MARGARET BRENNAN: — That sounds like a yes?–

VOUGHT:– We lost that ability in the 1970s. The president ran on restoring that funding authority to the presidency, and it’s vital. If you look at when we started to lose control fiscally, it was right around the time of the 1970s.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, many senators, Republican senators, are very uncomfortable with the tactics that you are using. Senator Murkowski, Senator Collins, that chair of the appropriations committee that is really running this- this funding process. And Senator Collins said you’re pushing the limits of what the executive can do without the consent of the- of the legislative branch. You need to work with her to get your budget through. And in fact, you need to also be able to get Democrats on board to get to that 60-vote threshold to pass any kind of government funding to avoid a government shutdown at the end of September.

VOUGHT: I have a great relationship with Senator Collins. I appreciate the work she does. She is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, so obviously we’re going to have differences of opinion as to the extent to which these tools should be used. I mean, she had concerns with the rescissions package. The rescissions package was a vote that Congress had to make these cuts permanent–

MARGARET BRENNAN: — Under- on a party line vote, she says, you want to go do these clawbacks. You do it through regular order, and you can put- you can put rescissions into an appropriations bill–

VOUGHT: –But that was in fact, under regular order. That’s the challenge, is the appropriators want to use all the rescissions, they want to put them in their bills, and then they want to spend higher on other programs. We act- we’re $37 trillion in debt, Margaret. We actually need to reduce the deficit and have a dollar of cut go to $1 a deficit reduction. That’s not what the appropriators want, and it’s not news that the Trump administration is going to bring a paradigm shift to this town in terms of the business of spending.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You would acknowledge that you just added to the debt and to the deficit with this–

VOUGHT: — No, I would not acknowledge that. We reduced–

MARGARET BRENNAN: — The spending and tax bill that just passed?

VOUGHT: Correct.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Where you lifted the debt ceiling.

VOUGHT: The debt ceiling is an extension of the cap on what’s needed to pay your previous bills. In terms of the bill itself, it is $400 billion in deficit reduction, $1.5 trillion in mandatory savings reforms, the biggest we’ve seen in history.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I want to make sure I get to the rest of this before I let you go here, because we’re running out of time. You said, a few weeks ago, that the appropriations process needs to be less bipartisan. You only have 53 Republicans. You do need Democrats to get on board, here. Is saying something like that intended to undermine negotiations? Do you actually want a government shutdown?

VOUGHT: No, of course not. We want to extend the funding at the end of this fiscal year. We understand, from a math perspective, we’re going to need Democrats to do that–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, what does less bipartisan mean?

VOUGHT: Well, Margaret, the whole week, the Democrats were making the argument that if you pass the rescission bill, that you were undermining the bipartisan appropriations process. So, if Brian Schatz and every other appropriator is making that argument for a week–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –The chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee is who said that–

VOUGHT: –you have to be able to respond and say, if you’re going to call a rescissions package that you told us during the month of January and February that we should use to do less spending, if you’re going to say that is undermining the bipartisan appropriations process, then maybe we should have a conversation about that. That is all it was meant to convey.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But, the alternative to this process is another continuing resolution, these stop-gap measures. Are you open to that, because that would lock in Biden-era funding? What is your alternative here? If you want a less bipartisan process, how do you solve for this? Because it sounds like you’re laying the predicate for a shutdown.

VOUGHT: We are not laying the predicate for a shutdown. We are laying the predicate for the fact that the only thing that has worked in this town- the bipartisan appropriations process is broken. It leads to omnibus bills. We want to prevent an omnibus bill, and all options are on the table to be able to do that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: All options are on the table?

VOUGHT: We need an appropriations process that functions. We’re going to go through the process. We’re going to work with them, and we’re going to do everything we possibly can to use that process to have cheaper results for the American taxpayer.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m told we’re out of time. Russell Vought, thank you for your time today.

[END TRANSCRIPT]

DAVID MALPASS: “To Finish The Job We Need A Total Fed Overhaul.”


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannon’s War Room on: July 25, 2025

Phillip Patrick: “There Is A Standoff Happening Between The Fed And The Administration.”


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannon’s War Room on: July 25, 2025

“The Secretary Does Not Have The Technical Oversight To Second Guess FDA Decisions.” Dr. Malone On Moderna Spike Vaccine


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannon’s War Room on: July 23, 2025