Posted originally on Aug 20, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |
The headlines in Canada celebrate that inflation has fallen to 1.7% in July, but as in America, the people are not experiencing a notable downturn in prices. Politicians pat themselves on the back, claiming victory over inflation, yet the very reason CPI came down was because energy prices fell after the consumer carbon tax was suspended. This reflects a temporary change due to economic policy rather than a trend.
Take energy out of the mix and the real story becomes clear. Food prices continue to rise, up 2.8% from June, and that impacts every household. Every nation is experiencing a sharp uptick in food prices.
The real crisis, however, is in the labor market. Employment declined by 0.2% in July, meaning 41,000 Canadians lost their jobs. The official unemployment rate held steady at 6.9%, but the more telling figure is the employment rate, which fell to 60.7%. That reflects the true weakness beneath the surface.
Immigration policies have hurt Canadian youth. Unemployment among those aged 15 to 24 has surged to 14.6%, the highest level since September 2010. This is the lost generation Canada is creating with young people priced out of housing, burdened with debt, and now unable to secure employment. Historically, when youth unemployment spikes, we see social unrest and political upheaval follow. This is not simply an economic number but a warning sign of civil discontent that will only intensify.
Canada’s decline is systemic. The policies in Ottawa are driving investment out of the country. While they boast about “beating inflation,” the cost is economic stagnation and rising unemployment. We are watching the same cycle unfold in Canada that we’ve seen throughout Europe: governments destroying their own economies under the illusion that they can centrally plan prosperity.
Posted originally on Aug 19, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |
German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul has come under fire for stating that it would be unwise to send troops into Ukraine. “We are the only European troop contributor to station a combat-ready brigade in Lithuania. Doing that and also stationing troops in Ukraine would probably be too much for us,” Wadephul told the Table Today Podcast.
Sending troops to Ukraine is highly unpopular in Germany among the citizens, despite the government’s eagerness to support Ukraine with manpower. The foreign minister suggested that Germany could provide military and technical support without entering Ukraine. Critics claim he is simply attempting to appease the people and betraying Ukraine by not offering to send men into combat. He also voiced another unpopular opinion—working with the United States to potentially provide security guarantees.
“We are now hearing signals from Washington that they are prepared to do so [provide security guarantees], and this must then be worked out together with the Europeans, with Germany naturally having to play an important role,” Wadephul said in the interview, adding Berlin could provide military and technical help, among other things.
The Bundeswehr deployed 4,800 troops to Lithuania, and again, critics believe it is ridiculous to say that the military is stretched too thinly to deploy others directly to Ukraine. It will cost Germany an estimated 800 million euros annually to maintain their current presence in Lithuania. No one thinks of the cost involved with sending troops into Ukraine, which is of little importance compared to the broader implications of sending troops and then actively forcing the entire nation and the European Union to fight on behalf of Ukraine.
The neocons are waiting for that “push comes to shove” moment. The people are extremely vocal about their point of view on the matter. Those looking at the numbers and logic alone are warning against deployment. Anyone who understands history is keenly aware that German is on the brink of completely entering a war against Russia that it is unprepared to fight. The entire EU will become involved in the war if Germany sets foot into Ukraine, as Germany is the economic powerhouse supporting the bloc, and France, the second most powerful in terms of finance, has similar wartime ambitions. It appears that push will come to shove by next year on 2026.45 when our computer indicates a central turning point between the EU and Russia.
Posted originally on CTH on August 18, 2025 | Sundance
I have been asked to recap some of my research into cited formats of what I believe to be criminal conduct, with specific statutes against them. This is the fourth.
DNI Tulsi Gabbard is not a lawyer. While I may be wrong, I find Tulsi Gabbard to be a patriot. Mrs. Gabbard is focused on providing evidence to the DOJ that essentially forces action. I support Tulsi Gabbard’s efforts.
If there is one corrupt DC player who has escaped scrutiny for her corrupt endeavors, it would be Mary McCord.
More than any other Lawfare operative within Main Justice, Mary McCord sits at the center of every table in the manufacturing of cases against Donald Trump. {GO DEEP} Mary McCord’s husband is Sheldon Snook; he was the right hand to the legal counsel of Chief Justice John Roberts.
When the Carter Page FISA application was originally assembled by the FBI and DOJ, there was initial hesitancy from within the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) about submitting the application, because it did not have enough citations in evidence (the infamous ‘Woods File’). That’s why the Steele Dossier ultimately became important. It was the Steele Dossier that provided the push, the legal cover needed for the DOJ-NSD to submit the application for a Title-1 surveillance warrant against the campaign of Donald J. Trump.
When the application was finally assembled for submission to the FISA court, the head of the DOJ-NSD was John Carlin. Carlin quit working for the DOJ-NSD in late September 2016 just before the final application was submitted (October 21,2016). John Carlin was replaced by Deputy Asst. Attorney General, Mary McCord.
♦ When the FISA application was finally submitted (approved by Sally Yates and James Comey), it was Mary McCord who did the actual process of filing the application and gaining the Title-1 surveillance warrant.
A few months later, February 2017, with Donald Trump now in office as President, it was Mary McCord who went with Deputy AG Sally Yates to the White House to confront White House legal counsel Don McGahn over the Michael Flynn interview with FBI agents. The surveillance of Flynn’s calls was presumably done under the auspices and legal authority of the FISA application Mary McCord previously was in charge of submitting.
♦ At the time the Carter Page application was filed (October 21, 2016), Mary McCord’s chief legal counsel inside the office was a DOJ-NSD lawyer named Michael Atkinson. In his role as the legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD, it was Atkinson’s job to review and audit all FISA applications submitted from inside the DOJ. Essentially, Atkinson was the DOJ internal compliance officer in charge of making sure all FISA applications were correctly assembled and documented.
♦ When the anonymous CIA whistleblower complaint was filed against President Trump for the issues of the Ukraine call with President Zelensky, the Intelligence Community Inspector General had to change the rules for the complaint to allow an anonymous submission. Prior to this change, all intelligence whistleblowers had to put their name on the complaint. It was this 2019 IGIC who changed the rules. Who was the Intelligence Community Inspector General? Michael Atkinson.
Yes, after she left main justice, Mary McCord took the job of working for Chairman Jerry Nadler and Chairman Adam Schiff as the chief legal advisor inside the investigation that led to the construction of articles of impeachment. As a consequence, Mary McCord received the newly permitted anonymous whistleblower complaint from her old office colleague Michael Atkinson.
KEY: Michael Atkinson was forced to testify to the joint House impeachment committee about the CIA whistleblower rule change and the process he authorized and participated in as the Intelligence Community Inspector General. Adam Schiffsealed that deposition, and no one has ever discussed what Atkinson said when questioned.
House Speaker Mike Johnson can unseal that testimony, and Tulsi Gabbard can declassify his deposition.
Moving on…
♦ During his investigation of the Carter Page application, Inspector General Michael Horowitz discovered an intentional lie inside the Carter Page FISA application (directly related to the ‘Woods File’), which his team eventually tracked to FBI counterintelligence division lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith. Eventually Clinesmith was criminally charged with fabricating evidence (changed wording on an email) in order to intentionally falsify the underlying evidence in the FISA submission.
When John Durham took the Clinesmith indictment to court, the judge in the case was James Boasberg.
♦ In addition to being a DC criminal judge, James Boasberg is also a FISA court judge who signed-off on one of the renewals for the FISA application that was submitted using fraudulent evidence fabricated by Kevin Clinesmith. In essence, now the presiding judge over the FISA court, Boasberg was the FISC judge who was tricked by Clinesmith, and now the criminal court judge in charge of determining Clinesmith’s legal outcome. Judge Boasberg eventually sentenced Clinesmith to 6 months probation.
As an outcome of continued FISA application fraud and wrongdoing by the FBI, in their exploitation of searches of the NSA database, Presiding FISC Judge James Boasberg appointed an amici curiae advisor to the court who would monitor the DOJ-NSD submissions and ongoing FBI activities.
Who did James Boasberg select as a FISA court amicus? Mary McCord.
♦ SUMMARY: Mary McCord submitted the original false FISA application to the court using the demonstrably false Dossier. Mary McCord participated in the framing of Michael Flynn. Mary McCord worked with ICIG Michael Atkinson to create a fraudulent whistleblower complaint against President Trump; and Mary McCord used that manipulated complaint to assemble articles of impeachment on behalf of the joint House Intel and Judiciary Committee. Mary McCord then took up a defensive position inside the FISA court to protect the DOJ and FBI from sunlight upon all the aforementioned corrupt activity.
You can clearly see how Mary McCord would be a person of interest if anyone was going to start digging into corruption internally within the FBI, DOJ or DOJ-NSD.
What happened next….
November 3, 2021 – In Washington DC – “Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and the House Jan. 6 Select Committee has tapped Mary McCord, who once ran the Justice Department’s National Security Division, for representation in its fight to obtain former President Donald Trump’s White House records. (read more)
Yes, that is correct. After seeding and guiding all of the Lawfare attacks against candidate Donald Trump, then President-Elect Donald Trump, then President Donald Trump, Mary McCord took up a key legal position inside the J6 committee to continue the Lawfare against President Trump after he left office.
But wait,…. Remember the stories of the J6 investigative staff going to work for Jack Smith on the investigation of Donald Trump, that included the raid on Mar-a-Lago? Well, Mary McCord was a member of that team [citation]; all indications are that her efforts continued as a quiet member of the Special Counsel team
That’s the context; now I want to go back a little.
First, when did Mary McCord become “amicus” to the FISA court? ANSWER: When the court (Boasberg) discovered IG Michael Horowitz was investigating the fraudulent FISA application. In essence, the FISA Court appointed the person who submitted the fraudulent filing, to advise on any ramifications from the fraudulent filing. See how that works?
Now, let’s go deeper….
When Mary McCord went to the White House with Sally Yates to talk to white house counsel Don McGhan about the Flynn call with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, and the subsequent CBS interview with VP Pence, where Pence’s denial of any wrongdoing took place, the background narrative in the attack against Flynn was the Logan Act.
The construct of the Logan Act narrative was pure Lawfare, and DAG Sally Yates with Acting NSD AAG Mary McCord were the architects.
Why was the DOJ National Security Division concerned with a conflict between what Pence said on CBS and what Flynn said about his conversations with Kislyak?
This is where a big mental reset is needed.
Flynn did nothing wrong. The incoming National Security Advisor can say anything he wants with the Russian ambassador, short of giving away classified details of any national security issue. In December of 2016, if Michael Flynn wanted to say Obama was an a**hole, and the Trump administration disagreed with everything he ever did, the incoming NSA was free to do so. There was simply nothing wrong with that conversation – regardless of content.
So, why were McCord and Yates so determined to make an issue in media and in confrontation with the White House?
Why did the DOJ-NSD even care? This is the part that people overlooked when the media narrative was driving the news cycle. People got too stuck in the weeds and didn’t ask the right questions.
Some entity, we discover later was the FBI counterintelligence division, was monitoring Flynn’s calls. They transcribed a copy of the call between Flynn and Kislyak, and that became known as the “Flynn Cuts” as described within internal documents, and later statements.
After the Flynn/Kislyak conversation was leaked to the media, Obama asked ODNI Clapper how that call got leaked. Clapper went to the FBI on 1/4/17 and asked FBI Director James Comey. Comey gave Clapper a copy of the Flynn Cuts which Clapper then took back to the White House to explain to Obama.
Obama’s White House counsel went bananas, because Clapper had just walked directly into the Oval Office with proof the Obama administration was monitoring the incoming National Security Advisor. Obama’s plausible deniability of the surveillance was lost as soon as Clapper walked in with the written transcript.
That was the motive for the 1/5/17 Susan Rice memo, and the reason for Obama to emphasize “buy the book” three times.
It wasn’t that Obama didn’t know already; it was that a document trail now existed (likely a CYA from Comey) that took away Obama’s plausible deniability of knowledge. The entire January 5th meeting was organized to mitigate this issue.
Knowing the Flynn Cuts were created simultaneously with the phone call, and knowing how it was quickly decided to use the Logan Act as a narrative against Flynn and Trump, we can be very sure both McCord and Yates had read that transcript before they went to the White House. [Again, this is the entire purpose of them going to the White House to confront McGhan with their manufactured concerns.]
So, when it comes to ‘who leaked’ the reality of the Flynn/Kislyak call to the media, the entire predicate for the Logan Act violation – in hindsight – I would bet a donut it was Mary McCord.
But wait, there’s more….
Now we go back to McCord’s husband, Sheldon Snook.
Sheldon was working for the counsel to John Roberts. The counsel to the Chief Justice has one job, to review the legal implications of issues before the court and advise Justice John Roberts. The counsel to the Chief Justice knows everything happening in the court and is the sounding board for any legal issues impacting the Supreme Court.
In his position as the right hand of the counsel to the chief justice, Sheldon Snook would know everything happening inside the court.
At the time, there was nothing bigger inside the court than the Alito opinion known as the Dobb’s Decision – the returning of abortion law to the states. Without any doubt, the counsel to Chief Justice Roberts would have that decision at the forefront of his advice and counsel. By extension, this puts the actual written Alito opinion in the orbit of Sheldon Snook.
After the Supreme Court launched a heavily publicized internal investigation into the leaking of the Dobbs decision (Alito opinion), something interesting happened. Sheldon Snook left his position. If you look at the timing of the leak, the investigation and the Sheldon Snook exit, the circumstantial evidence looms large.
Of course, given the extremely high stakes, the institutional crisis with the public discovering the office of the legal counsel to the Chief Justice likely leaked the decision, such an outcome would be catastrophic for the institutional credibility. In essence, it would be Robert’s office who leaked the opinion to the media.
If you were Chief Justice John Roberts and desperately needed to protect the integrity of the court, making sure such a thermonuclear discovery was never identified would be paramount. Under the auspices of motive, Sheldon Snook would exit quietly. Which is exactly what happened.
The timeline holds the key.
BACK TO MARY in 2025 – During the question session for Attorney General Pam Bondi’s nomination, Adam Schiff asked Mary McCord about whether AG Bondi should recuse herself from investigating Adam Schiff and Mary McCord. It’s a little funny if you understand the background.
I prompted the video to the part at 01:36:14 when Schiff asks McCord, and Mrs. McCord responds with “yes, Pam Bondi should recuse.” WATCH:
Mary McCord says Pam Bondi must recuse herself from any investigative outcome related to the first impeachment effort.
Who was the lead staff working for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler on the first impeachment effort?
Mary McCord.
Now, triggering that first impeachment effort… Who worked with ICIG Michael Atkinson to change the CIA whistleblower regulations permitting an anonymous complaint?
Yep, that would be the same Mary McCord.
In essence, the woman who organized, structured, led and coordinated the first impeachment effort, says Pam Bondi must recuse herself from investigating the organization, structure, leadership and coordination of the first impeachment effort.
If all that seems overwhelming, here’s a short recap:
♦ McCord submitted the fraudulent FISA application to spy on Trump campaign.
♦ McCord helped create the “Logan Act” claim used against Michael Flynn and then went with Sally Yates to confront the White House.
♦ McCord then left the DOJ and went to work for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler on Impeachment Committee.
♦ McCord organized the CIA rule changes with Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson.
♦ McCord led and organized the impeachment effort, in the background, using the evidence she helped create.
♦ McCord joined the FISA Court to protect against DOJ IG Michael Horowitz newly gained NSD oversight and FISA review.
♦ McCord joined the J6 Committee helping to create all the lawfare angles they deployed.
♦ McCord then coordinated with DA Fani Willis in Georgia.
♦ McCord was working with Special Counsel Jack Smith to prosecute Trump.
♦ McCord is now coordinating outside Lawfare attacks against Donald Trump in term #2
♦ McCord also testified that AG Pam Bondi must recuse herself from investigating McCord.
Posted originally on Aug 15, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |
Entering the forest has become illegal in three Canadian provinces—Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Entering woodlands can result in massive fines or even jail time. Why? The Canadian government believes it must ban the public from accessing nature to prevent forest fires.
Air Force veteran Jeff Evely committed a crime by participating in an outlawed act of civil disobedience by walking into a woodland area in Nova Scotia. The veteran was issued a C$28,872.50 fine for simply entering public lands.
“This law views people as the problem – not dangerous activities. This law is anti-human, and should someone find themselves on the wrong end of a charge – a massive charge, $25,000 dollar fine, for going into the woods, you can expect a constitutional challenge and a judicial review of this order,” Constitutional lawyer Marty Moore of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms stated regarding the ban.
Humans are responsible for climate change, the climate zealots insist. The dry climate and natural cyclical pattern of fires is to be ignored. Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau authorized the Canadian Armed Forces to respond to wildfires raging in Alberta earlier in the year, and sent troops to help assist during the wildfires that raged throughout California. Trudeau blamed climate change for the ongoing fires—and what luck as a carbon tax could assist in quelling climate change.
“The federal carbon tax will help deal with weather disasters such as fires in northern Alberta. Extreme weather events are extraordinarily expensive for Canadians, our communities and our economy. We need to be taking real action to prevent climate change. That’s why we’re moving forward on a price on pollution right across the country, despite the fact that Conservative politicians are trying to push back against that,” Trudeau commented.
The World Economic Forum published an article in 2018, detailing how its young leader, Trudeau, would implement a “carbon tax on those unwilling to tackle climate change.” The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (GHGPPA) carbon tax began at C$20 per tonne of CO2 in 2019 and increased by C$10 per year, reaching C$50 per tonne by 2022. The government then stated it needed to increase the tax by an additional C$15 per tonne per year beginning in 2023 until 2030 when the total cost will reach C$170 per tonne.
Canadian households have been burdened with the carbon tax as this is not merely for massive corporations or polluters. The people are always the target of climate laws as the entire premise of climate change regulation is control. The carbon tax for Canadian households started in 2019 at C$20 per tonne and increased steadily to C$80 per tonne by 2024. The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) estimated that the carbon tax will cost the average Canadian household between C$377 and C$911 in the fiscal year 2024-25 after rebates. By 2030, Canadian families can expect the tax burden to soar to C$2,773 in certain provinces like Alberta.
Politicians are not to question the carbon tax or the climate change agenda. “His ideology is so strong, he would rather watch the country burn and Canadians suffer than continue to fight against climate change and put the Canada carbon rebate in their pockets,” Trudeau said of Poilievre, who opposed the carbon tax.
It began with lockdowns for COVID-19, and now the government has the power to lock down public lands to protect “national security.” Simply walking into the woods could cost someone tens of thousands of dollars if not jail time, and are people to accept this fate? Similar to how the carbon tax continues to increase, the authoritarian power granted to government under the premise of climate change will continue to build if left unchecked.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 