Posted originally on Jul 28, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: Marty, they call you the legend since you have been calling markets and trends for decades. It is not hard to see that you are perhaps the greatest trader of all time. You are famous for not calling the 1987 Crash, but the very day of the low, you called the low and said that the market would make new highs by 1989. You did the same in 2009 even Barrons reported that call that the market would make new highs when everyone else was calling for a depression.
Others claiming to be analysts hate you because they do not have the trading skills you display, in addition to Socrates. When you said the low would be April 7, I spoke to many people who laughed and said No way. When I talked to others I met at your Conference, they said never be on the opposite side of a call like that.
Was this your Scheme Frequency Model that you refuse to publish because governments could abuse it to topple governments? Or was this your cyclical stochastic that I notice with hindsight went to zero the day before?
Care to give us a hint?
Jef
ANSWER: These calls to the day have been the Scheme Frequency, not the Stochastic. Nonetheless, you can use the Cycle-Infused Stochastic, which differs for each market as the computer determines the frequency mix. The short-term Blue in the Stochastic hit ZERO the day before. With hindsight at the end of the day, the Blue turned up confirming the forecast was correct. But the April 7th forecast was made well before.
The Array was published on the Private Blog on April 7th, along with a Directional Change and a Panic Cycle the very next day, which should have been to the upside. There are 72 separate models in this Array. Neither the Scheme nor the Economic Confidence Model is included. Three computers are analyzing every market, from trading patterns to various definitions of volatility, including intraday and overnight. The top line represents the aggregate meaning, which is the sum of 72 models. The accuracy is (1) no human opinion or emotion, and (2) it is a correlation of analysis rather than a single model or one that requires human opinion, like Elliot Wave, where two people using the same theory reach different conclusions.
Look, I am sorry, what should have been a discovery for the betterment of humanity was a target for power. What I discovered will die with me. I cannot allow them to get their hands on it. When the CIA asked me to build the model for them, I offered to run whatever study they wanted. Their response was – They had to own it.
Crossfire Hurricane was the code name for the counterintelligence investigation undertaken by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from July 31, 2016, to May 17, 2017. It was when FBI director James Comey raised suspicions of obstruction of justice, which triggered the Mueller investigation. James Comey was the head of the DOJ in NYC, who was keeping me in contempt indefinitely until the Supreme Court ordered the government to explain what the hell was going on. Then they had to release me. My case centered around the attempted regime change they were orchestrating to seize control of Russia, which I refused to participate in. Then Comey even “interviewed” Hillary and took no notes, so she could never be prosecuted. The FBI always takes notes in a proffer session. Then, was Comey involved in Crossfire Hurricane? I believe Comey was well aware of what was going on in NYC.
I was kept in prison without even a description of a crime. Ask any lawyer if this was legal. There is no rule of law in the United States. Justice is spelled “JUST US” and you are a fool if you think they give a shit about anything other than their own power. They circumvent Congress, and most judges do whatever the government tells them to order. They tortured me. They throw you in a cell that is so hot, underwear is too much. Then they throw you in a cell that is so cold you can see your breath with nothing to keep you warm. Because the courts claim that torture is defined as leaving a mark on your body, so anything they do, like waterboarding, is not torture.
Torture is defined under U.S. law (18 U.S.C. § 2340) and the UN Convention Against Torture as severe physical/mental pain or suffering intentionally inflicted. Waterboarding (simulated drowning) has been prosecuted as torture by the U.S. itself (e.g., post-WWII trials of Japanese soldiers). However, when the Neocons employed it under the Bush administration, OLC memos argued waterboarding was not torture if “properly limited.” These were withdrawn in 2009 and deemed “legally flawed” by the DOJ.
In Padilla v. Yoo (9th Cir. 2012), which was a case regarding legal immunity for John Yoo (author of OLC memos), the court avoided ruling on waterboarding’s legality. Still, it included a footnote (dicta) stating:
“We have no occasion here to decide whether waterboarding constitutes torture… even if it could be torture in some circumstances, it was not torture as applied to Padilla.”
When Judge Lawrence M. McKenna attempted to protect me, the DOJ then went to the Chief Judge to have my case taken away from him, as he had refused to recuse himself at the government’s request. The court sealed the docket, and they refused to explain how they could remove a judge in violation of Due Process of Law, with no information revealed as to how. I believe it is sealed because this was all about national security. Under US law, this is supposed to be illegal. They do not care about the rule of law when the government wants something. They could not deny Free Speech, so they call on YouTube, Facebook, etc., and have people removed or have their accounts shut down by banks.
They then gave my case to Judge John F. Kennan, who then denied all discovery despite a court-appointed accountant stating the government refused to turn over evidence for 7 years. They were using my accounts for money laundering post trades that were not mine and then backing them out to different accounts the next day. Judge Kennan, along with Judge Peter Kevin Castel, ensured that I had no rights, not even human rights, let alone constitutional rights. The court-appointed lawyer, David Cooper, refused to file an appeal, I believe, to protect the government that had instructed him not to do so. Court-appointed lawyers lose 99% of the time because they should never be trusted – they are pawns in all cases. Even General Flynn discovered how a hired lawyer will not defend you, as shown in his documentary. Even Trump could not remove a judge. Absolutely nobody will dare investigate my case because they know what it would expose.
To make the movie “The Forecaster,” they must have insurance against slander and libel. They had to prove that the government was after the model, and they slipped up by putting it in writing. When they torture you, their way to survive is to take their power away. You must lose all fear of death. People think that imposing the death penalty for a crime is the worst punishment. They understand nothing. There are things far worse than death – being tortured for the rest of your life every day, but never enough to kill you or leave a mark on your body so they can pretend to be honorable and respect human rights.
I have seen the true colors of the real beast. I said before, I will die with the Schema Model. They will abuse it and use it to achieve regime change, which I was in the middle of as they tried to take control of Russia in 2000. That is why Hillary created the RussiaGate Affair, and I question if Attorney General Pam Bondi or anyone in the Trump Administration would dare to investigate my case, for it would expose the Neocons and that they were trying to seize control of Russia, installing their puppet Boris Berezovsky, whose own bodyguard said he never committed suicide – he was killed by MI6. I believe the truth has its limits.
BTW, the company they wanted me to invest $10 billion for this regime change was Hermitage Capital Management owned by Edmond Safra, who I believe the CIA killed in Monaco, and Bill Browder who just so happened to have been the right-hand man of RobertMaxwell (1923-1991) – the father of GhislaineMaxwell the girlfriend of Jeffrey Epstein who ran the biggest blackmail operation perhaps in history for who? People think it is a list of pedophiles. RIGHT!. It is a list of victims, and the real question is what they did on the orders of Epstein and for whom?
Robert Maxwell was linked to Mossad, and his death in 1991 also coincided with the fall of the USSR. I believe he was part of the manipulation club and lost a few hundred million pounds trading with the pension funds of the employees. He magically fell off his yacht before having to testify. Robert Maxwell died under mysterious circumstances just before he was due to testify about missing funds from his companies’ pension schemes. On November 5, 1991, his body was found floating in the Atlantic Ocean near the Canary Islands, where his luxury yacht, the Lady Ghislaine, had been anchored. He was reportedly facing serious legal consequences, including possible fraud charges, and was due to testify before UK regulators. Whenever I was asked to join the “club,” I said, “I do know how to swim.”
Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell reportedly met in early 1991 in New York before her father died. There is so much more to the Epstein affair, but they keep everyone focused on pedophiles rather than on the blackmail and real motives and who was truly pulling the strings.
Jeffrey Epstein attended Robert Maxwell’s funeral in 1991. Epstein had financial and social ties to Maxwell and his family. Epstein’s presence at the funeral is documented, and it underscores his early connections to powerful figures. Robert Maxwell died under mysterious circumstances after falling from his yacht, Lady Ghislaine (named after his daughter). Robert Maxwell had long been the subject of speculation regarding possible connections to intelligence agencies, including Israel’s Mossad. While no definitive proof has been made public, several credible reports and investigations suggest that Maxwell had significant ties to Israeli intelligence. I covered my investigation of this in the Plot to Seize Russia.
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.
Posted originally on Jul 23, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
Senators Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and John Fetterman (D-PA) have introduced bipartisan legislation, the Payment Choice Act, which would require businesses to accept cash payments. Money is merely the medium of exchange that someone is willing to accept for goods or services. Businesses across America have inadvertently contributed to the push toward a cashless society by refusing to accept cash as a form of payment.
“Any person engaged in the business of selling or offering goods or services at retail to the public who accepts in-person payments at a physical location … shall accept cash as a form of payment for sales made at such physical location in amounts up to and including $500 per transaction,” the measure stipulates, in part.
The war on cash is part of the broader agenda to eliminate all financial privacy and control every transaction. Refusing to accept cash is not merely a business decision but a step toward a totalitarian digital monetary system. Why bother with cash if you cannot use hard currency to pay for goods and/or services? Governments and central banks are pushing digital currencies to track, tax, and control every penny in circulation. If businesses start denying cash, they’re doing the state’s dirty work for them unintentionally.
Certain businesses prefer the convenience of credit cards and not all payment systems are equipped to accept cash. Yet, as Senator Cramer stated in his argument when proposing the bill, physical cash is legal tender, and businesses are limiting consumer choice by forcing the use of debit and credit cards for transactions. Then you have businesses that pass on the 3% transaction fee to consumers, adding to inflationary pressures. “Do you accept cash?” has become a common courtesy, as consumers are aware of the need to travel with a card to ensure purchases. Naturally, governments have cracked down on businesses that only accept cash, as they assume these businesses are attempting to avoid taxation. This is the first piece of legislation that actually supports the consumer over the government it is refreshing to see it gain bipartisan support.
The bill makes exceptions for businesses that have “a sale system failure” or those that do not have enough cash available to provide change. In fact, companies would not be required to accept $50 or $100 bills under this legislation to prevent the latter. It is quite disappointing to see the freedoms many are willing to relinquish in the name of convenience.
Once cash is gone, you’ll have no ability to opt out. So yes, we need to protect cash, and that may require legal guarantees that it remains a valid and accepted form of payment.
Posted originally on Jul 22, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
Investors continue to snap up residential properties, as real estate has evolved into an investment class of its own. New reports show that between 2020 and 2023, investors were responsible for 18.5% of home purchases. In the first three months of 2025, investors composed 27% of all residential properties, marking the highest share in half a decade, according to BatchData.
High mortgage rates, coupled with high property values, have caused many would-be buyers to reconsider their purchases. Investors have fewer constraints, leading to the purchase of 265,000 residential properties during Q1, or a 1.2% YoY rise. However, we are seeing a decrease in institutional investments in real estate. The big money is not looking at real estate in this environment. Although investors accounted for 1.2 million homes in 2024, only 20% of the 86 million single-family homes in America are investor-owned.
Mom-and-pop investors who own between one and five homes purchased 85% of all investor-owned residential properties, with those owning between six and ten properties securing 5% of the market. Institutions owning 1,000 or more properties account for only 2.2% of investor-owned homes.
Purchasing real estate amid record-low rates was a no-brainer for investors, and institutions in particular, who had the liquidity to outbid competitors with cash offers. As interest rates rise, the cost of financing becomes prohibitive even for institutions. Institutions rely on leverage to enhance returns, and when borrowing costs rise, the math simply doesn’t work anymore. Real estate is an illiquid asset. In a world moving toward capital controls and rising geopolitical tensions, institutions are reallocating toward assets with more mobility. Capital is no longer looking at real estate as a long-term store of value. It’s moving into tangible assets that are more liquid—commodities, energy, gold, and equities.
The available real estate inventory is at its highest level since the pandemic, but the sector has become stagnant as homes sit on the market for far longer. So while institutions have the capital, interest rates aside, they are not looking at mere rental or flipping income. People investing in real estate in this environment are seeking a modest additional income.
Institutions are not interested in buying and holding tangible assets in a volatile environment where returns are not guaranteed. Look at New York City, for example—people are fleeing ahead of an incoming socialist local government that has promised to raise taxes on top earners. Real estate is no longer the safe bet it once was due to a lack of confidence in future regulation.
Posted originally on Jul 21, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
The era of stablecoin issuance in the United States and U.S. Senator Bill Hagerty’s GENIUS Act (Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins) may have the BITCOIN world cheering that this is somehow a validation of Cryptocurrency. The GENIUS Act has been passing with bipartisan support, and people should ask WHY? It is a serious, detailed, and targeted law that understands what stablecoins are and what they offer to the perpetual debt machine, enabling the debt to continue rolling forward in this modern debt-based economy. Many see this as a backdoor for the creation of central bank digital currency and the elimination of paper money, which will enable the government to surveil every transaction for the sake of taxation.\
At its very heart, the GENIUS Act establishes that only licensed and supervised entities can issue payment stablecoins in the United States. These are digital assets redeemable for U.S. dollars at par value, intended for payments and settlements. Therein lies the motive. Under this law, only three types of issuers are permitted:
(1) subsidiaries of insured banks and credit unions,
(2) specially chartered nonbank firms approved at the federal level, and
(3) entities regulated by states whose regimes are certified by the U.S. Treasury as substantially similar to federal standards.
On one level, this is the same scheme as COVID. The First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering in free speech – not YouTube, Facebook, or anyone else the government can call to tell them to restrict your speech. Here, the Fed is not issuing the stablecoins; instead, they are issued privately, but backed by US Treasury securities.
Thanks to the Biden Administration that the Neocons ran, they destroyed the world economy by imposing sanctions on Russia for defending Russians in the Donbas that were supposed to have a right to vote on separation under the Minish Agreement that former Chancellor Merkel of Germany later admitted they were buying time for Ukraine to build a NATO trained army to start World War III with Russia.
The Neocons removed Russia from Swift, coming to the aid of the Donbas, after Victoria Nuland installed an unelected government in Ukraine and instructed them to start the civil war and kill all the Russians in the Donbas.
So what does this have to do with the GENIUS ACT? Imposing the sanction on Russia created BRICS, which then threatened to do the same to China if they helped defend Russia. More and more countries realized that they were being dictated to by the Neocons running the Biden Administration. China had held 10% of US debt and began dumping. They would have to be really stupid to hold any US debt when the Neocons only want war and do not consider what they are doing to the world economy.
The GENIUS ACT = Stablecoins and private organizations will issue them and must back them with US Treasuries, as the Neocons, in their quest for World War III, are destroying the global debt markets. The GENIUS ACT aims to replace China et al., who used to buy US debt, all because these Neocons want World War III.
Funny How History Repeats!
The very same concept of how to sell US debt was the solution in 1863. U.S.-issued National Bank Notes began issuing in 1863 as part of the National Banking Act. Banks could issue currency against their purchases of US debt to fund the Civil War. These National Bank Notes were backed by government bonds. Here’s why and how it worked:
To Finance the Civil War
The U.S. government needed a stable way to fund the Union’s war efforts. By requiring banks to purchase government bonds to back their currency, the Treasury raised money for the war.
To Create a Uniform National Currency
Before 1863, banks issued their own notes (state banknotes), leading to widespread counterfeiting and instability.
The National Banking Acts (1863 & 1864) aimed to replace these with standardized National Bank Notes issued by federally chartered banks.
To Strengthen Government Credit
By tying banknote issuance to U.S. bonds, the government ensured demand for its debt, stabilizing its finances.
Rob Nelson, co-founder of the Bitcoin Policy Institute, argued that Bitcoin’s distinct position was as a valuable store and, increasingly, a functional currency for several countries. He raised a compelling argument that sucked in a lot of people:
“We have a true store of value and for many countries, it’s becoming a currency, a usable currency. We have something different, we have something special.”
As I have said, BITCOIN is no more a store of wealth than the dollar, euro, gold, or silver. Everything has a cycle, and everything rises in price and then falls. It does not matter what century we look at, if you do not understand that all tangible assets are on one side of the scale and whatever money is has always been on the opposite side.
When gold is money, it falls in purchasing power just like paper dollars during waves of inflation. Even under a gold standard, there were periods of inflation and deflation. Read the history of the California Gold Rush. During the 1849 Gold Rush in California, the journalist for the New York Tribune, Bayard Taylor (1825-1878), arrived in San Francisco by ship during the summer of 1849. He was shocked at what he encountered and did not think that anyone would even believe what he was going to write. His dispatches about the gold rush economy in California stunned many and helped to create the 1849 Gold Rush.
The average wage for a laborer in New York was about one or two dollars a day. In California, individual hotel rooms were rented to professional gamblers for upwards of $10,000 a month, which is the equivalent of about $300,000 today. The degree of inflation in terms of gold was astounding and lacks comparison in modern times. There was so much gold that the value of goods rose even though they did not in New York. The inflation phenomenon was local – akin to the Tulip Bubble.
Gold became so common; they were even striking $50 gold coins in California when $20 was the highest denomination elsewhere and $1-dollar coins down to 25 cents all in gold. Eventually, there were $1 gold coins minted in the United States for general circulation throughout the USA. Indeed, Taylor wrote:
“[One] citizen of San Francisco died insolvent to the amount of forty-one thousand dollars the previous autumn. His administrators were delayed in settling his affairs and his real estate advanced so rapidly in value meantime that after his debts were paid, his heirs had a yearly income of $40,000 [$1.2 million today].
“These facts were indubitably attested; everyone believed them, yet hearing them talked of daily, as matters of course, one at first could not help feeling as if he had been eating ‘of the insane root.’”
It does NOT matter what is money. It will always rise and fall as measured against tangible assets as it has done since Babylonian times. In fact, the very first attempt to control inflation, as the central banks are doing right now, was the wage and price controls put in place by the legal codes of the Assyrians and Babylonians. The first money was no different than paper dollars – it was representative.
The coinage of the dominant economy was always the international medium of exchange. Ancient Egypt never issued coins. They imitated Athenian Owls in order to participate in international trade. The Athenian Owls were like the dollar today – the effective reserve currency.
The US had two silver dollars of different weights, which facilitated trade with China, as China had a different silver standard than the West.
Roman coins have been discovered even in Japan. Trade with India for spices was extensive in the ancient world. Here is an imitation of a Roman gold aureus issued in India, and note that the weight was even heavier than the official Roman standard.
The notion that simply because coins were made of gold or silver meant they were a store of wealth is laughable when you understand monetary history. The Bronze Age was based on the intrinsic value of bronze for its utility value, where it could be fashioned into a sword or a plow. The first ingots of the Minoans were shaped as sheppskil, for they were relaying that they too were at first representative of the previous medium of exchange. When precious metal became a medium of exchange, silver was more valuable than gold (I will do a report on that).
When the Persians captured Valerian I (253-260AD) and Rome could not rescue him, the confidence in the Empire began to collapse. Banks were even suddenly skeptical about accepting Roman coins. Would they still be worth anything, considering they were valued above their actual metal content?
A document from Egypt has survived illustrating the financial crisis that was unleashed. It is from Aurelius Ptolemaeus who is the strategus of the Oxyrhynchitenome. The public officials gathered and accused the bankers of closing their doors on account of their unwillingness to accept the divine coins of the Emperors. It became necessary that an order had to be issued to all the owners of the banks directing them to open and accept and exchange all coins except the absolutely spurious and counterfeit. It was also directed that all who engaged in business transactions who refused to comply would be penalized. (POxy 1411 260AD, cited by Burnett 1987: p104)
In China, money was cowrie shells. In Africa, money was cattle, which was even the case at first in other parts of the West. The first emergence of silver was typically in the form of wire, and even the Bible discusses weighing silver to pay for a transaction.
MONEY Has always been Representative
It Has Never Been a Store of Wealth, for it has fluctuated
With the Business Cycle.
GENIUS Stablecoins will be representative of US Debt
A New Market thanks to the Neocons Destroying the Global Economy
Posted originally on CTH on July 18, 2025 | Sundance
White House Trade and Economic Advisor Peter Navarro takes a well deserved victory lap on the latest U.S. consumer sales news. The Census Bureau report, yesterday, highlighted that consumer sales remain strong at +0.6% – significantly higher than all economists forecast [DATA HERE].
Retail sales growth is important, because approximately two-thirds of the U.S. GDP growth is driven by consumer sales. With inflation low, retail sales high, and with a previously reported drop in U.S. imports, the ¹second quarter GDP is likely to be much stronger than anyone previously predicted. Thus, Peter Navarro is leaning forward against the naysayers.
This is essentially a repeat of the 2017/2018 economic outcome from President Trump’s first term in office. The tariffs, which are applied to the ‘cost’ side of the dynamic, are mostly being absorbed by major producing nations who are reliant upon export to the U.S. market. Simultaneously, the tariffs are generating income – essentially exfiltrating foreign wealth and returning those funds to the USA; a complete reversal of the rust-belt dynamic. WATCH:
What Peter Navarro outlines is the core of MAGAnomics. This is also the baseline for our CTH assembly in support of economic nationalism, which is why we ended up in conflict with the Chamber of Commerce Republicans.
Tariffs are a tool to leverage reciprocal trade, and as long as nations like China continue taking measures to subsidize their exports, the tariffs simultaneously take wealth (those subsidies) from Beijing and return it to the USA.
This reality has always been the model we predicted would be successful for Americans, and I will remind everyone that ONLY DONALD TRUMP could deliver this MAGAnomic program. Everything else, Epstein, Musk, etc. is chaff and countermeasures deployed by both Democrats and Republicans in an effort to take back control of the money flow.
Remember, Democrats want power – Republicans want money. Democrats use money to get power, while Republicans use power to get money. This is how the two wings of the DC UniParty vulture maintain status.
You can see that if you take away the money, Democrats lose power. Simultaneously if you take away control of the money, the Republicans go bananas. This dual reality forms the baseline of the elite club opposition against President Trump.
At the core of the opposition you find money, control of the USA treasury as a weapon. When you understand that aspect, you understand the motives of Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.
FED Chair Powell’s refusal to lower interest rates is an attempt to assist both wings of DC by trying -and failing- to influence the money flows. Democrats support Powell’s approach because they want power. Republicans are willfully blind to Powell’s approach because they want to get back in control of the money.
Pro-America economic policy, MAGAnomics, is like kryptonite to Washington DC.
¹The second quarter GDP (April, May, June) will be reported on the last Friday in July.
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 