Tag Archives: Hedge Funds

Jul 13 2025

Ep 3683b-D’s Took The Epstein Bait, Comey, Brennan, Multiple Agencies Investigating, It’s All Connected


Posted originally on Rumble By X 22 Report on: July 9, 2025 at 6:15 pm EST

Jul 13 2025

The Deep State Wins Again


Posted originally on Jul 13, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |  

Every single person who was on the January 6th Commission that was trying to call it an insurrection to use the 14th Amendment to prevent Trump from even running for office should be hauled out and put on trial under 18 U.S. Code § 595 – Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments. The objective of that entire committee was treasonous, and its members should be put on trial for the world to see. The judges who presided over the January 6th cases should also be disbarred. Until this is carried out, the Deep State will survive and prevail.

There can be no free society or equal protection of the law until every member of that committee is criminally charged and put on trial.

Deep State 1

Jul 11 2025

Natalie Winters: ‘Simple Sabotage’ The Latest Trump Resistance Efforts By The Deep State


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannon’s War Room on: July 10, 2025, at 2:00 pm EST

Jul 11 2025

IRS to Combine Church and State


Posted  originally on Jul 11, 2025 by Martin Armstrong

Politicial Corruption Ahead

The Internal Revenue Service has deemed it legal for tax-exempt places of worship to back political candidates. The Trump Administration pushed for this measure, repealing a 70-year tax code enacted in 1954 by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson known as the “Johnson B. Amendment.”

The Johnson Amendment deemed it necessary for religious organizations to maintain nonpartisan status to protect the Constitutional conditions of separation of church and state. The law forbids churches and other religious organizations from using funds to endorse political candidates. Organizations could vocally support a candidate, but by law, they were unable to financially enter politics as their tax-exempt status came with a nonpartisan clause. All of this is now changing.

“Communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted,” the IRS said in the joint filing Monday with the National Religious Broadcasters group in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

“When a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith, it neither ‘participate[s]” nor ‘intervene[s]’ in a ‘political campaign,’ within the ordinary meaning of those words,” the filing said.

Last year, the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) filed a lawsuit against the IRS, claiming that the Johnson Amendment violated their First Amendment rights. The organization believes that the First Amendment protects them from any restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of exercise of religion. Yet, these places of worship also enjoy tax code 501(c)(3) that prevents the government from collecting taxes. In Branch Ministries v. Rossotti (2000), a church attempted to sue after its tax-exempt status was revoked for financially backing a political candidate. The court once again ruled that the Johnson Amendment did not violate the First Amendment.

The court stated that the church was not prohibited from freedom of speech, as they could vocalize their support. However, the tax benefit comes with the condition of remaining nonpartisan. The ruling found the burden was not “substantial” enough to violate constitutional protections.

Repealing the Johnson Act would drastically alter political endorsements as these religious institutions not only have massive funds to spare but could turn them into tax-deductible super PACS. Dark money would certainly flow through these organizations to alter politics as any funds to the church or religious organization could be untraceable. Foreign citizens and nations could also anonymously funnel unlimited amounts of money through these tax-deductible super PACS and directly influence domestic elections.

Jewish temples would become the new AIPAC, the Catholic Church could install their candidate of choice, which would NOT have been Donald Trump, mosques would use donations as they deemed fit, the list goes on and on.

Churches and places of worship are tax-exempt because they maintain “benevolent neutrality,” which dates back to medieval England before it was brought over to colonial America. Political donations are not charitable work or philanthropy. The IRS is attempting to blur the lines between church and state. Conservatives may think that this measure could only benefit their cause, but that is far from the truth, as what constitutes a religious organization is quite vague in the United States. Then public trust of religious institutions would erode as they would be seen as political entities. The core mission of assisting those in need would be completely lost.

Jul 11 2025

June Minutes Report Decoded


Posted  originally on Jul 11, 2025 by Martin Armstrong 

Interest Rates Percent

The Minutes Report by the Federal Reserve indicates that the central bank is unlikely to cut rates at the next Federal Open Market Committee meeting on July 29-30. FOMC members unanimously maintained the borrowing range between 4.25%-4.5% where it has stood since December 2024. The central bank knows that it has limited power to control inflation through rate cuts, and stimulating demand is a moot point when the government is the largest borrower.

Instead of noting that the government simply borrows in perpetuity, Fed members focused on uncertainty surrounding tariffs and a potentially weakening labor market. Chairman Jerome Powell stated that cutting rates was a “closer call” as the 2% inflation target as been out of reach for several years. “With regard to the outlook for inflation, participants expected that inflation would continue to move toward 2 percent, although they noted that recent higher-than-expected readings on inflation, and the effects of potential changes in trade and immigration policy, suggested that the process could take longer than previously anticipated,” the FOMC minutes said. The last CPI reading was 2.7% with the PCE coming in at 2.4%.

The ongoing Trump v Powell feud is potentially spilling over into policy. Despite non-foreign-born citizens picking up over 2 million jobs as a direct result of deportation efforts, the Fed believes that the weakening labor market could be the result of deporting cheap labor. “Almost all participants judged that upside risks to the inflation outlook had increased. As reasons for this judgment, participants cited recent stronger-than-expected readings on inflation and the likely effects of potential changes in trade and immigration policy,” the minutes said. Unemployment fell to 4.1% with June posting an increase of 147,000 jobs.

The Fed is also blaming Trump’s tariff policies for inflation. “Ultimately, the cost of the tariff has to be paid, and some of it will fall on the end consumer,” the Fed Chair told reporters in June. “We do expect to see more of that over the course of the summer.”  Powell is confusing a one-time price adjustment with a monetary-driven inflationary wave that began in 2015 and soared after the pandemic. As previously noted, “almost all” participants saw trade policy as an upside risk to inflation. “Many participants noted that the eventual effect of tariffs on inflation could be more limited if trade deals are reached soon, if firms are able to quickly adjust their supply chains, or if firms can use other margins of adjustment to reduce their exposure to the effects of tariffs,” the Minutes stated.

A ”couple” of members stated rate cuts could happen at the next meeting, with Fed Governors Michelle Bowman and Christopher Waller going on record to say that they believe rate cuts are appropriate this month. “Several” officials said the overnight rate “may not be far” from target, believing a bit of adjustment could bring inflation to target. The “dot plot” of individual officials indicates a divide on the outlook of cuts.

The Minutes Report noted that two rate cuts could potentially happen in 2025, followed by additional cuts over the next few years. Powell has less than a year left in office, and the president is certain to appoint someone who will abide by his policy that he sees through the eyes of a borrower and not a lender.

Jul 10 2025

Steve Bannon: “This Is Nothing But The Francis And The Deep State Of The Church Rolling With The Happy Face Of Prevost”


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannon’s War Room on: July 9, 2025, at 9:00 pm EST

Jul 10 2025

Former UK Prime Minister Returns to Goldman


Posted originally on Jul 10, 2025 by Martin Armstrong 

Sunak Rishi

The door continues to revolve at Goldman Sachs as former UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced he is returning to the firm as a senior advisor. Goldman Sachs has successfully penetrated governments globally. The revolving door is deep, systemic, and a clear conflict of interest that will never be addressed.

“I am excited to welcome Rishi back to Goldman Sachs in his new capacity as a Senior Advisor,” David Solomon, chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, said in a statement. “In his role, he will work with leaders across the firm to advise our clients globally on a range of important topics, sharing his unique perspectives and insights on the macroeconomic and geopolitical landscape,” he added. Rishi formerly worked for Goldman before entering the UK parliament in 2015. He then went on to hold numerous positions of power, including acting as the nation’s finance minister. In fact, Rishi is STILL a member of the UK parliament even though he stepped down from his role as the leader of the Conservative Party.

Rishi attempted to return to Goldman this past May but a government watchdog agency insisted he wait a year as his advise could “overlap” with his political obligations and his “appointment could be seen to offer unfair access and influence within the UK government.”

That is how Goldman operates. The Revolving Door Project created an Independent Federal Agencies Leadership Tracker to show how often government employees swing back and forth between their positions at Goldman and the government. This is a global issue that spans across party lines.

GoldmanSachs

There has NEVER been any investigation of former Goldman Sachs people who take strategic government positions and alter policy only to leave. Robert Rubin ushered through the repeal of Glass-Steagall and resigned. Hank Paulson saved AIG, whose default would have taken down Goldman, while he eliminated two top Goldman competitors over who had the authority to bailout Lehman and Bear. There was no authority to bail out an insurance company operating in London, no less, to skirt US regulation. Even the seizure of our former company, Princeton Economics, was run by a court-appointed receiver who was a full-time board member of Goldman Sachs – Alan Cohen.

Yet, the burning question is simple. Is Goldman or its people going just too far? Their “former” people seem to be controlling the world financial system. Why is that so many people come from the same firm? Nobody will investigate because Goldman is simply one of the too big to jail and otherwise known as the Untouchable.

Goldman traded against clients

It would be very nice if someone simply conducted an investigation to see what perks these people collect after they leave government service. But why should anyone do that? Everyone in Washington and the Department of Just Us dreams of getting a job at Goldman. Every charge filed against Goldman has been dropped or paid off. They not only control the politicians but also every regulatory agency.

Again, Goldman has infiltrated every single government. It helped in structuring the euro, for example, and was accused of hiding the debt of Greece to permit it to enter the EU. Luckily Petros Christodoulou worked for the nation’s public debt management agency and led the National Bank of Greece after working for Goldman Sachs.

Mario Draghi, former PM of Italy, President of the European Central Bank, and Governor of the Bank of Italy worked as the Vice Chairman at Goldman Sachs International. Former Prime Minister of Italy and EU Commissioner Mario Monti was an international adviser at Goldman. Again, another former Italian Prime Minister, Romando Prodi, worked for Goldman and later became the President of the European Commission.

Revolving Door

Former European Union leader José Manuel Barroso went back and forth from Goldman to politics. Canada’s Mark Carney is a former employee. In the US, you have Robert Rubin, Gary Gohn, Steve Mnuchin, Jon Corzine, Jim Himes, Steve Bannon – the list goes on.

Germany’s Alice Weidel is called far-left and anti-establishment for being the head of the AfD but she too is a former Goldman employee. Malcolm Turnbull, who previously headed Goldman Sachs Australia, later became the Prime Minister of Australia and Minister for the Environment. Montenegro’s PM Milojko Spaijic is Goldman, as is Sweden’s Minister of Finance Erik Asbrink and Nigeria’s Minister of Finance Olusegun Agana. The head of international affairs at Goldman, Robert Zoellick, even went on to become the President of the World Bank and US Trade Representative, Deputy Secretary of State.

The revolving door is never-ending. It seems like it’s only a matter of time before the conspiracy theories finally give up on bashing the Rothschilds and open their eyes to who really has the power to be a mover and shaker.

Jul 7 2025

The Better Investment — ETFs or Mutual Funds?


Posted originally on Jul 7, 2025 by Martin Armstrong 

ETF Tax

The primary difference between mutual funds and ETFs (exchange-traded funds) is that while an open-end mutual fund is priced once based on the market closing, ETFs, as well as closed-end mutual funds, trade all day. This actually goes back to the Panic of 1966 when mutual funds were open-ended but traded on the exchange and were bid up and down based on emotion rather than net asset value. The crash took place because mutual funds were, at times, selling well above net asset value.

If we look at the reforms post-1966, investors in mutual funds buy or sell them directly from the mutual fund companies themselves. That creates a different tax structure than an ETF in which purchases go to the market and the ETF is simply created by purchasing the underlying basket.

Mutual funds and most ETFs are governed by the Investment Company Act of 1940. Therefore, this legislation treats them like a pass-through company. When a mutual-fund investor wants to sell, the fund sells shares of appreciated stock to generate cash, which creates a taxable capital gain. Since most funds operate as simple pass-through vehicles, those tax liabilities from the gains accrue to all investors in the fund, including those who have not sold any holdings.

ETFs actually do avoid that type of tax issue. ETFs are not direct buyers or sellers of shares as a mutual fund. The ETF is created by a market maker with a special contract with the ETF provider. The investor has the newly created ETF share, which is created by purchasing all of the holdings in the underlying ETF. This basket of shares is given to the ETF issuer, thereby creating the ETF shares.

Because an ETF is not a direct buyer of the underlying shares as in a mutual fund, the ETF itself is not a buyer or seller. The basket of shares is swapped and is therefore an in-kind transaction; thus, there is no pass-through capital-gains tax bill. This is the tax advantage of an ETF over a mutual fund.

Jul 6 2025

Deep State vs World


Posted originally on Jul 6, 2025 by Martin Armstrong 

I have stated that I know Bill Kristol. His father, Irving Kristol, founded the Neocons. I had direct conversations, and I can confirm that this has been an agenda dealing with Iran that has always been about regime change. I was told that removing the dictators and overthrowing Iran would somehow bring peace to the Middle East. We drew their borders, and they see themselves more as tribes than as citizens of a state. I agree with Jeffrey Sachs. Our Neocons swear that whoever they oppose at this instant, intends to attack the USA, so they always propose to attack them first, and they act dishonestly and claim their hated opponent wants to do the same. This is no different than if I punch you in the face because I know who really wanted to hit me first, and I call it self-defense.