US legislators are fighting to prevent America from becoming involved in the Israel-Iran conflict, but it is too late. The war cycle cannot be stopped, and the next cycle will peak in 2026/2027 on target. Our computer warned that there was an elevated risk for a confrontation beginning in 2025 on a global scale.
US senators on both sides of the political spectrum are attempting to introduce legislation that would prevent Donald Trump from declaring war on Iran. The Bipartisan House War Powers Resolution has received support from the Republican Senator Thomas Massie, who is perhaps the most outspoken against declaring war on Israel’s behalf. “This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution,” Massie stated. The bill is not an actual bipartisan bill, as Massie is the only Libertarian leaning Republican championing such a measure. Many are now questioning the GOP as everyone seems keen to attack Iran. Yet, Donald Trump repeatedly promised that the US would not enter into any foreign wars under his command. In fact, Trump accused Obama of attempting to attack Iran back in 2011, but Obama had other priorities in the Middle East.
Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the No War Against Iran Act, which would prohibit the use of federal funds for military action against Iran without approval from Congress. The only exception would be if war was declared through the War Powers Act, or War Powers Resolution of 1973, which grants the POTUS the ability to send American troops into battle if Congress receives a 48-hour notice. The stipulation here is that troops cannot remain in battle for over 60 days unless Congress authorizes a declaration of war. Congress could also remove US forces at any time by passing a resolution.
The War Powers Act was last enacted under Barack Obama in 2011 when he sent troops into Libya. The resolution had not been enforced since 1998 when President Bill Clinton sent armed forces into Kosovo. Yet, Obama was able to bypass the law and the military remained in Libya for over 60 days without Congressional approval, marking the first time in US history that a president defied the War Powers Act. House Republicans attempted to block any federal funding, but their efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Obama single-handedly dismantled the entire War Powers Act, as it did not matter what Congress did or did not do—the president had the sole authority to wage war.
There was a major ECM turning point on June 13, 2011. That marked the beginning of a new 8.6-year wave within the broader 51.6-year cycle. What happened right then? The Arab Spring, the destruction of Libya, and a sharp rise in geopolitical instability. That intervention was unauthorized and illegal by constitutional standards.
Senator Tim Kaine would also like to invoke the War Powers Act, but these people must understand that the act died in 2011 when the US entered Libya to overthrow Gaddafi. The government can say anything to propel a nation into war, and weapons of mass destruction are a tried and true premise. What makes this more dangerous is that we’ve since entered a cycle where unelected bureaucrats—Neocons, intelligence operatives, and shadow advisers—run foreign policy, not the American people or even Congress. Obama’s disregard for the War Powers Act helped solidify that shift.
Posted originally on Jun 12, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
Once upon a time, requiring noncitizens to return home was not controversial. The left is not protesting migration; rather, they are protesting Donald Trump. Former President Barack Obama broke records for deportations under his administration and received bipartisan support.
Forcible removals reached 400,000 in 2012 alone, a record-high number for deportations at the time. Obama became the president to oversee the highest number of migrant removals with over 3 million people forcibly or voluntarily leaving the United States between 2009 and 2017. Only far-left extremist groups complained, labeling Obama the “Deporter-in-Chief.”
In comparison, George W. Bush expelled 3 million migrants, with Bill Clinton only removing 900,000. Prior to Trump, immigration rules were common sense. I could not travel to [insert the name of any country here], overstay my visa or illegally enter, and then expect that nation to financially support me and my extended family indefinitely.
“If they committed a crime, DEPORT THEM, no questions asked,–they’re gone!” Hillary Clinton said on the campaign trail. She said that migrants who wished to become naturalized citizens should be required to learn English, pay a fine for illegally entering the US, pay back taxes, and wait in line for their turn to legally immigrate. The Democrats cheered her plan. Again, these were common-sense concepts.
The media now remembers Obama for providing an easier path for citizenship and pandering to groups who repeated the “don’t separate families” line. Yet, Obama campaigned on the promise of removing illegal migrants because it was a danger to national security and a burden to taxpayers.
The pandemonium we see today has absolutely nothing to do with migration. Migration is the excuse to attack Donald Trump, the most hated man in politics, to cause and blame him for nationwide chaos. The Democratic Party once had values, but they no longer stand for anything other than violence and opposition without proposed solutions.
Posted originally on Jun 10, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
Traditional Catholics were deemed domestic terrorists under the Biden Administration. Newly released Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) records reveal the true extent of the surveillance measures.
In 2023, a whistleblower notified the public that the government was spying on Catholic Churches and patrons who held pro-life views. The whistleblower provided an internal document now known as the Richmond memo, officially titled “Interest of Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremists in Radical-Traditionalist Catholic Ideology Almost Certainly Presents New Mitigation Opportunities.” The internal memo that was distributed to 1,000 FBI agents across the nation deemed “radical-traditionalist Catholics” (RTCs) racially or ethnically motivated extremists.
Then-Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray attempted to retract the memo. Wray claimed that the slander was limited to one memo. As Wray said under oath: The only involvement of the two other field offices was the Richmond authors of the product included two sentences or something thereabouts referencing each of these other offices’ cases, and they sent those sentences about the other offices’ cases to them, not the whole product, and asked them, ‘hey, did we describe your case right?’ That’s all the other offices had. So it was a single field office’s product, and I stand by that. The Department of Justice’s Inspector General reviewed the letter when it was first leaked and determined that there was no religious bias or malicious intent.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-IA, continued to look into the matter. On June 2, 2025, he sent a seven-page letter to FBI Director Kash Patel to say that his letters to former FBI Director Wray went unanswered and new findings warranted reopening the investigation. Furthermore, Grassley found that intelligence agencies “produced at least 13 additional documents and five attachments that used anti-Catholic terminology and relied on information from the radical far-left Southern Poverty Law Center.” The extent of spying and internal dialogue regarding Catholics as extremists was far deeper than “two sentences” in one memo. The second of 13 memos was released to the entire FBI department, urging them to continue monitoring Catholics.
Vi
00:00
03:00
The FBI tracked increases and decreases in mass attendance at traditionalist Catholic churches. They were instructed to monitor the social media accounts of Catholics as a form of “threat mitigation.” The parishioner sitting beside you in the pew could have been a Biden FBI agent in disguise. This was an agency-wide effort that the past administration attempted to hide. The FBI interviewed parishioners and clergy members to instill suspicion and fear in the community.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution grants Americans the right to exercise their religious beliefs. It is hard to believe that the Department of Justice’s Inspector General failed to find evidence of malicious intent when a specific religious group was clearly discriminated against and targeted for their faith. Wray lied under oath and Biden turned on his own faux faith to target anyone who could potentially stand in the way of his pro-abortion stance.
Posted originally on CTH on June 9, 2025 | Sundance
Tucker Carlson traveled to France in order to interview Telegram Founder and CEO Pavel Durov who remains in French detention as he awaits the judicial system to release him. Telegram is used as a messaging ap by over a billion users worldwide. Pavel Durov was accused of noncompliance with EU judicial demands and arrested during a holiday last year. He remains under quasi-detention confinement.
Many people have increasingly expressed annoyance at the change in Tucker Carlson’s interview style. The increased interruptions, wandering rambling that takes the point off subject, inappropriate -borderline annoying- laughter at the wrong moments, and increasing Hannityesque behavior has been a sidebar topic of conversation. However, this is the first interview in which I can say these distracting interview traits have become unbearable.
I really wanted to hear from Durov, but I could not survive the inappropriate timing of the interruptions, and increasingly odd mannerisms from Mr Carlson. From a mental strength, stability and intellectual perspective, Carlson is way over his head trying to interview Durov. Perhaps that explains the performative and seemingly odd behavior of Tucker in this interview. It gets worse as it progresses. See for yourself. WATCH:
.
Pavel Durov is a very deliberate man with an exceptionally stable disposition. He is one of the most important people in the world of information, communication and the free exchange of ideas. Yeah, I’m a little frustrated with this missed opportunity to go into important considerations in the world of information sharing.
Chapters: 0:00 Being Arrested in France 10:57 France’s Attempt to Humiliate and Tarnish Durov 15:54 Did the Russian Government Ever Try to Arrest Durov? 17:21 How Telegram Makes Money 20:04 Are They Attacking Durov Because He’s Russian? 21:19 Did Anyone Defend Durov? 24:23 What Did Durov Do in Jail? 25:17 Is Durov Allowed to Leave France? 30:37 The Real Reason They’re Attacking Durov 31:56 Europe’s Mission to Make Privacy Illegal 39:20 France’s Confiscation of Durov’s Phone 40:47 The Investigation Into Durov 56:52 How Telegram Stays Neutral in Global Politics 58:44 The Advancements of Encryption Technology 1:00:47 Is There Anything That Can Prevent a Government From Spying on You? 1:02:42 The Importance of Disconnecting 1:04:40 Durov’s Thoughts on Ross Ulbricht 1:06:54 Will Durov Stay in France After the Investigation?
Posted originally on Jun 4, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
Holding a 400 oz Gold Bar – Central Bank Standard
QUESTION: Hello Martin – Here in Canada, we have a vexing question – why no Gold Reserves at BofC? USA has a date with destiny aka Ft Knox Audit that Trump and Bessent seemed engaged on this file but are preoccupied lately with a litany of distractions, I’m 74 with health issues surfacing, which rearrange one’s priorities – many millions of Boomers in same boat – but that’s the price you knew was coming
jw
ANSWER: Canada’s lack of significant gold reserves is the result of a deliberate policy decision spanning several decades, primarily driven by the following reasons:
Opportunity Cost: Gold pays no interest or dividends. The Bank of Canada (BoC) decided it could achieve better returns by holding interest-bearing assets like foreign government bonds (US Treasuries, German Bunds, etc.) and deposits.
The Shift to More Liquid Assets: The BoC prioritized holding foreign exchange reserves (primarily US dollars, euros, yen, etc.), which are highly liquid and easily used for direct intervention in currency markets to stabilize the Canadian dollar (CAD).
Canada began the process of gradually selling off its gold in the 1980s, when gold rallied to $875 on January 21, 1980, and then began a 19-year decline to $250. Canada significantly accelerated its gold sales during the 1990s and early 2000s under the leadership of Finance Minister Paul Martin and Governor Gordon Thiessen, aiming to optimize reserve asset management. By 2016, Canada sold its last significant holdings. As of today, Canada’s official gold reserves are reported as zero tonnes (or negligible amounts – e.g., 77 ounces reported in 2022, worth a trivial sum relative to total reserves). In essence, Canada decided that the costs and lack of yield associated with holding large gold reserves outweighed the traditional benefits. They opted instead to hold foreign currencies and bonds that are easier to use for market intervention and generate income, relying on the strength of the Canadian economy itself to support the value of its currency.
Gordon Brown, as Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer (1997-2007), authorized the sale of a very significant portion (roughly half) of the UK’s gold reserves. He was a member of the Labour Party, which viewed gold as a rich man’s toy. He sold approximately 395 tonnes of gold. The sales took place between July 1999 and March 2002. This represented about 58% of the UK’s total gold reserves at the time (which were around 715 tonnes before the sales). After the sales, the UK’s reserves stood at about 310 tonnes, where they remain today. The sales occurred during a period when the gold price was near a 20-year low, averaging around $275 per ounce. Shortly after the sales concluded, the gold price began a historic bull run, rising dramatically over the next decade to peak over $1,900 per ounce in 2011. This timing led to massive criticism that the UK sold at the absolute bottom of the market, potentially losing billions of pounds in potential value. The period is often referred to as the “Brown Bottom” in financial circles. Brown was ignorant of how markets function. He announced in advance the strategy to sell its gold reserves, so the market held back, anticipating a greater supply. The proceeds were invested in foreign currency and government bonds. While these assets generated interest income, the capital appreciation of gold vastly outstripped the returns on those bonds over the following years.
The head of the Bank of Canada during the main phase of Canada’s gold reserve sell-off (mid-to-late 1990s) was Gordon Thiessen (born 1938). He served as Governor from February 1, 1994, to January 31, 2001. Thiessen spent his entire career within the Bank of Canada, joining in 1963. However, it was his predecessor, John Crow (1987-1994), who began reducing its gold reserves significantly in the 1980s. While the Bank of Canada managed the sales operationally, the ultimate decision to sell the gold rested with the Government of Canada (specifically, the Minister of Finance and the Department of Finance). The Bank acted as the government’s agent in this matter.
Posted originally on CTH on June 2, 2025 | Sundance
JDetails about the terrorist attack by Egyptian illegal alien Mohamed Sabry Soliman are surfacing.
[…] 45-year-old Mohamed Soliman, told investigators “he researched on YouTube how to make Molotov Cocktails, purchased the ingredients to do so and constructed them.” … Soliman allegedly told police “he wanted to kill all Zionist people and wished they were all dead,” the document said. “SOLIMAN stated he would do it (conduct an attack) again.”
“Throughout the interview, SOLIMAN stated that he hated the Zionist group … and needed to stop them from taking over ‘our land,’ which he explained to be Palestine,” the documents said. … At the scene, police recovered “at least fourteen unlit Molotov cocktails, comprised of glass wine carafe bottles or Ball jars containing clear liquid and red rags hanging out of the bottles,” documents said. They also found a “backpack weed sprayer, potentially containing a flammable substance. The clear liquid in the glass bottles and weed sprayer were determined to be 87 octane gasoline, which was determined to contain xylene.” (Source) Investigators held a press conference.
Posted originally on CTH on May 29, 2025 | Sundance
The current Canadian Prime Minister is genuinely a walking meme of a Canadian Prime Minister parody.
During his remarks to parliament today, Prime Minister Carney waxed gleefully about the U.S. federal trade court ruling against President Trump’s tariffs, just moments before the federal appeals court stayed the opinion of the lower court. It’s a little funny.
PM Carney doesn’t seem to recognize the reality of the economic landscape before him. He complains about blocked access to the U.S. consumer base with a level of entitlement that’s genuinely humorous. Meanwhile, the Canadian economy around him is collapsing. WATCH:
♦ BACKGROUND – Following the 2024 presidential election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau traveled to Mar-a-Lago and said if President Trump was to make the Canadian government face reciprocal tariffs, open the USMCA trade agreements to force reciprocity, and/or balance economic relations on non-tariff issues, then Canada would collapse upon itself economically and cease to exist. In essence, in addition to the NATO defense shortfall, Canada cannot survive as a free and independent north American nation, without receiving all the one-way benefits from the U.S. economy.
To wit, President Trump then said, if Canada cannot survive in a balanced rules environment, including putting together their own military and defenses and meeting their NATO obligations, then Canada should become the 51st U.S state. It was following this meeting that President Trump started emphasizing this point and shocking everyone in the process. However, in the emotional reaction to Trump’s statements, no-one looked at the core issues outlined by Trudeau that framed President Trump’s opinion.
Representing Canada, Justin Trudeau was not expressing an unwillingness to comply with fairness and reciprocity in trade with the USA, what Trudeau was expressing was an inability to comply.
Quite simply, after decades of shifting priorities, Canada no longer has the internal economic capability to comply with a fair-trade agreement (FTA). Trudeau was not lying, and President Trump understood the argument; hence his 51st state remarks.
This is where it becomes important to understand the core reason why Trump, Ross and Lighthizer (2017) did not structurally want to replace the NAFTA agreement with another trilateral trade deal. Mexico and Canada are completely different as it pertains to trade with the USA. President Trump would rather have two separate bilateral agreements; one for Mexico and one for Canada.
♦ Firstly, Canada is a NATO partner, Mexico is not. As President Trump affirmed to Justin Trudeau during the meeting, it would be unfair of President Trump to discuss NATO funding with the European Union, while Canada is one of the worst offenders. Trump is leveraging favorable trade terms and tariff relief with the EU member states, as a carrot to get them into compliance with the 2.0 to 2.5% spending requirement for their military.
If the NATO member states contribute more to their own defense, the U.S. can pull back spending and save Americans money. However, Canada is currently 26th in NATO funding, spending only 1.37% of their GDP on defense (link).
Canada would have to spend at least another $15 billion/yr on their defense programs in order to reach 2.0%. Justin Trudeau told President Trump that was an impossible goal given the nature of the Canadian political system, and the current size of their economy ($2.25 trillion).
♦ Secondly, over the last 40 years Canada has deindustrialized their economy, Mexico has not. As the progressive political ideology of their politicians took control of Canada policy, the ‘climate change’ agenda and ‘green’ economy became their focus. The dirty industrialized systems were not compliant with the goals of the Canadian policy makers.
The dirty mining sector (coal, coking coal, ore) no longer exists at scale to support self-sufficient manufacturing. The dirty oil refineries do not exist to refine the crude oil they extract. Large industrial heavy industry no longer exists at a scale needed to be self-sufficient. Instead, Canada purchases forged and rolled steel component parts from overseas (mostly China). Making the issue more challenging, Canada doesn’t even have enough people skilled to do the dirty jobs within the heavy manufacturing; they would need a national apprenticeship program. Again, all points raised by Trudeau to explain why bilateral trade compliance was impossible.
♦ Thirdly, the trade between Canada/U. S and Mexico/U. S is entirely different. The main imports from Canada are energy, lumber and raw materials. The main imports from Mexico are agriculture, cars and finished industrial goods. Mexico refines its own oil; Canada ships their oil to the USA for refining. There are obviously some similar products from Mexico and Canada, but for the most part there is a big difference.
♦ Forth, USA banks are allowed to operate in Mexico, but USA banks are not allowed to operate in Canada. USA media organizations are allowed to broadcast in Mexico, but USA media organizations are regulated and not permitted to broadcast in Canada. The Canadian government has strong regulations and restrictions on information and Intellectual Property.
All of these points of difference highlight why a trilateral trade agreement like NAFTA and the USMCA just don’t work out for the USA.
Additionally, if President Trump levies a tariff on Chinese imports, it hits Canada much harder than Mexico because Canada has deindustrialized and now imports from China to assemble into finished goods destined to the USA. In a very direct way Canada is a passthrough for Chinese products. Canada is now more of an assembly economy, not a dirty job manufacturing economy.
When Trudeau outlines the inability of Canada to agree to trade terms, simply because his country no longer has the capability of adhering to those trade terms, a frustrated President Trump says, “then become a state.”
There is no option to remain taking advantage of the USA on this level, and things are only getting worse. Thus, the point of irreconcilable conflict is identified.
Because the Canadian government became so dependent on their role as an assembly economy, they enmeshed with China in a way that made them dependent. The political issues of Chinese influence within Canada are a direct result of this dynamic. In fact, China was the big winner from the outcome of the recent election because all of their investments into Canada are grounded on retaining Liberal government dependency.
If Trump targets China with punitive tariffs, the Canadian economy will be collaterally damaged. Canada will end up paying a tariff rate because they use cheap Chinese component parts in their finished goods. Canada has structurally designed their economy to do this over multiple years.
Understanding the unique nature of the Canadian economic conundrum, the only way to address the issue is to break out the USMCA into two separate bilateral trade agreements. One set of trade terms for Mexico that leverages border security, and one set of trade terms for Canada that leverages NATO security and border security. The only substantive similarity between them will be in the auto and agriculture sector.
If you think the multinational corporations, political leftists and UniParty Republicans in the USA are strongly opposing Trump now, just wait until later this year when the Trump administration proposes the elimination of the trilateral North American trade agreement, USMCA.
According to the World Bank, the USA economy is $27.3 trillion. Canada is $2.1 trillion.
Do the math!
[…] The expectation, according to two people close to the White House, is that negotiations to permanently remove the threat of painful 25 percent tariffs on Canada — which Trump mostly rolled back earlier this month — and other sector-specific tariffs are likely to be folded into the upcoming review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. That review is due in 2026, but the Trump administration wants to accelerate to this calendar year.
“It makes sense to separate out Canada and Mexico from the rest because they are going to want to redo the USMCA,” said one of the people close to the White House, who were granted anonymity to discuss ongoing deliberations. “They’re going to have separate tariffs that focus specifically on Mexico and Canada, and they’re going to take some actions to squeeze them a little bit.” [LINK]
Posted originally on May 29, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
Mark Carney’s call for aligning with the EU in a war against Russia reveals more about his ideological alignment than any strategic necessity. As a former central banker turned World Economic Forum alumnus, Carney has long abandoned the notion of free markets in favor of globalist control. He is keen to support the EU’s Marxist-style top-down approach, which has economically gutted Europe and driven capital flight, and is extremely eager to distance Canada from the United States in every possible way.
“Seventy-five cents of every dollar of capital spending for defence goes to the United States. That’s not smart,” Carney stated about his nation’s former top ally. He does not want the United States to remain the world’s superpower, per WEF protocol, as this sentiment was felt long before Trump. Carney would like to spend at least $1.25 trillion on defense over the next five years. “We’re making great progress on that, and by Canada Day, we’d like to see something concrete there,” Carney said, noting that Canada will be penning a deal with the European Union in the coming weeks.
Meanwhile, US President Trump has offered Canada protection under his proposed “golden dome.” As he continues to pressure Canada to become a state, Canada runs further into the arms of the EU. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is also keen to find a way to support his plans for war without the support of the United States. Rutte is expected to ask the 32-member alliance to up current spending to around 3.5% of GDP.
Canada currently spends 1.37% of its GDP on defense, below the current 2% NATO target. Carney believes Canada can meet NATO standards by 2030, but NATO is increasingly requesting more. “We are going to have to spend more, sooner,” the prime minister said. “That’s one of the reasons why we will have a fall budget, not a budget tomorrow, because we’re part of deeper discussions on the defence side.”
Canada has already stationed troops in the Arctic on a near-permanent basis. Operation Nanook in the Far North has expanded as Canada attempts to secure its place in the Arctic region. Canada and Greenland are both in strong opposition of the current US administration as Trump continues to pressure both to abandon sovereignty. But the true nature of Arctic operations is to intimidate Russia.
“We want to be in the Arctic on a near permanent basis,” Lt.-Gen. Steve Boivin stated. “The current approach to Operation Nanook puts us in the Arctic for five to six months a year. We’re looking at being there 10 plus months per year.” The federal government has already spent an additional C$420 million on the operation.
In a way, Trump is receiving everything he once requester,d from increased NATO spending to forcing nations to defend their own lands without the support of the US. On the other hand, nations are now eager to begin offloading their increased defense budgets outside the US. The capital expended on war would funnel back into the US. NATO was not entirely a charity case for the US as it did receive those funds recycled back into the US economy.
It is clear that Carney is eager to join the alliance of nations taking their arms up against Russia. Russia poses no threat to Canada. Carney’s eagerness to join EU efforts has nothing to do with Ukraine and everything to do with consolidating power by forcing the West into a global war.
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 