Join Us at the 2023 World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida!

? Dates: November 17, 18, and 19 ? Location: Orlando, Florida, USA (or tune in from home with our virtual ticket options)

Are you ready to unlock the future of economics and finance? Prepare for an unforgettable World Economic Conference experience in sunny Orlando, Florida! This premier event is your gateway to insights, networking, and valuable resources that will supercharge your understanding of the global economy.

?️ What’s Included for In-Person Attendees:

1. Event Admission: Enjoy reserved seating assigned based on the order of ticket sales, ensuring you have a prime view of every presentation.
2. Presentation Slides: Gain access to the presentation slides from all speakers, allowing you to delve deeper into the topics discussed.
3. Video Recording: Can’t make it to a session? No worries! You’ll receive access to video recordings of all conference presentations, so you can catch up at your convenience.
4. WEC Event App: Connect with the conference on a whole new level. Access presentation slides, bonus reports, recordings, and more via the official WEC Event App.
5. Bonus Conference Materials: Get a package of bonus conference-related materials, including exclusive bonus reports and videos (as provided by Martin Armstrong).
6. Morning Information Sessions: Don’t miss out on important morning information sessions, screened on-site in the meeting room on Saturday and Sunday.
7. Networking Opportunities: Exclusive access to the Event App Networking Feature allows you to connect with fellow attendees, both in-person and virtual, fostering valuable professional relationships.
8. Culinary Delights: Savor delicious breakfast and lunch on Saturday and Sunday, prepared to keep you energized throughout the day.
9. Cocktail Reception: Kick off the conference in style at our Friday evening cocktail reception. Meet and mingle with fellow attendees while enjoying refreshing drinks.
10. Swag Bag: As a token of our appreciation, each in-person attendee will receive a swag bag filled with goodies, including an Armstrong Economics notebook, pen, and an event collector’s mug!

Unable to travel? We also have two different ticket options for those wishing to attend virtually! 

Don’t miss this opportunity to be part of a global gathering of economic and financial minds. Secure your spot at the World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida, and gain the knowledge, connections, and resources you need to thrive in the world of finance and economics.

Space is limited, so act now and reserve your seat! Visit our Events page to register and join us in sunny Orlando this November.

Now available at all major retailers!

The eBook will be available shortly.

The second edition of “The Plot to Seize Russia – The Untold History” is now available for purchase in paperback and hardcover on Amazon and Barnes and Noble. The ebook will be available shortly.

Book description:

“Take care of Russia,” Boris Yeltsin said as he departed his presidency in August 1999. These words were directed at current Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Yeltsin specifically picked Putin as his predecessor to prevent the takeover of Russia.

So, who was Yeltsin warning against? Newly declassified documents from the Clinton Administration prove that there was a plot to rig the Russian election of 2000. These never-before-seen documents confirm numerous attempts to implement pro-Western policies using the Russian oligarchy headed by Boris Berezovsky.

On the other side were the communists who desired a return to the glory days of the Soviet Union. As one of the largest international hedge fund managers, author Martin Armstrong found himself in the middle of perhaps the greatest espionage, or attempt at a regime change for Russia, in modern history.

The Plot to Seize Russia pulls back the curtain to expose the most extraordinary attempt to seize power in modern history, but with the pen rather than armies. These declassified documents reveal a plot that has altered our thinking about the relations between the United States and Russia. The thirst for power comes seething through every line of these papers that alter our perception of reality, change the course of history, and now threaten us with World War III.

COMMENT: Hello Martin,

Zelensky saying that – “To end this war without the participation of Europe is unfair and impossible.”

In other words, Europe doesn’t want to end the war, so by involving them in the “peace” talks he can guarantee that he will remain in power, no elections, continued money flowing and the war machine keeps rolling…

Kind regards,

P

REPLY: The EU needs an external enemy for they are under attack as member states are showing signs of resistance to their policies. Russia is the best enemy they can buy for the money.

Poland has already come out and said they do not care if Russia leaves Ukraine or not, they are keeping all the money they stole. Poland is strongly pushing the European Union to permanently seize and use frozen Russian central bank assets—valued at roughly €200 billion to €300 billion overall—to fund Ukraine rather than returning them to Moscow. It has always been about the money and Zelensky no doubt give the kick-backs on the side.

France has now officially accused Iran of carrying out the massive cyberattack that crippled refrigeration systems across hundreds of supermarkets in October. What began as a seemingly bizarre incident involving refrigerators has become a matter of national security. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot announced on November 9 that investigators had traced the sabotage to a cyber unit affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The attack affected approximately 700 supermarkets, destroyed enormous quantities of food, and caused tens of millions of euros in losses. Similar incidents have since appeared across Europe, including attempts to compromise refrigeration systems used to preserve blood supplies. The French government is now treating the original attack as an act of foreign sabotage, while European officials are preparing a coordinated response.

I have warned that cyberwarfare would eventually move beyond stealing passwords, financial records, and government secrets. We are now witnessing attacks on the infrastructure that keeps modern society functioning. The attackers did not need to destroy a supermarket or bomb a warehouse. They accessed computerized temperature controls and turned refrigeration equipment into a means of destroying the inventory it was supposed to protect. That is a significant development in the economic consequences of cyberwarfare.

During the October 11–12 attack, hackers remotely manipulated refrigeration controllers, pushing temperatures as high as 50°C (122°F), for approximately six hours. Major French supermarket chains, including Carrefour, Intermarché, Monoprix, and Coopérative U, were affected. At least 15 fires were reported in connection with the sabotage, and Intermarché alone reported losses running into tens of millions of euros.

French investigators identified the Shahid Kaveh cyber unit, also associated with the name CyberAv3ngers, as the suspected operator. Authorities cited Persian-language traces, internet addresses associated with Iran, and methods previously linked to the group. French prosecutors have sought international arrest warrants for the unit’s leadership and deputies. Barrot summoned Iran’s ambassador and announced that France would pursue European sanctions. Tehran has rejected the allegations as baseless and hostile.

The attacks did not remain confined to France. During the first days of November, refrigeration systems at supermarkets in Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Ireland, Sweden, Estonia, Finland, and other European countries experienced similar disruptions. Italian authorities also reported incidents involving food-distribution businesses, including a catering company in Tuscany and a frozen-food producer in Emilia-Romagna. Italy’s national cybersecurity agency issued urgent warnings to the food industry and called for immediate protective measures. The Italian cases and the broader European incidents have not all been conclusively attributed to the same perpetrators. Nevertheless, the geographical spread demonstrates how a vulnerability in widely used industrial equipment can become a problem for an entire continent.

The attacks on blood bank refrigeration systems should concern everyone. French blood storage facilities were targeted by attempts to manipulate temperatures, but the French Blood Establishment reported that the attacks were stopped before blood products were spoiled. The attempted sabotage reveals the potential consequences. Blood, plasma, medicines, and certain medical materials require carefully controlled storage conditions. A compromised refrigeration system can threaten supplies that hospitals depend upon for emergency treatment, surgery, and routine care. We are discussing the vulnerability of essential medical infrastructure.

Italy was among the first governments to recognize the broader implications. Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani specifically requested that the November 9–10 G7 meeting in Paris address the escalation of hybrid warfare targeting Europe. Italy’s Foreign Ministry identified attacks involving air traffic, supermarkets, and blood transfusion centers as threats intended to spread panic and disrupt daily life. Tajani called for a coordinated international response. This is a significant escalation from treating the incidents as isolated technical failures. Europe’s political leadership is now discussing them in the context of hostile operations against civilian infrastructure.

EU foreign policy chief and neocon darling Kaja Kallas has also indicated that cyberattacks will be discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council meeting on November 16. On November 10, the European Commission expressed solidarity with France and said it was prepared to coordinate a response with member states. However, the EU has not independently attributed every attack across Europe to Iran. France has formally blamed the IRGC for the October attacks on its territory, while investigations into the subsequent incidents continue. That distinction matters because the political consequences of blaming a foreign government are considerably greater than those of identifying a criminal hacking group.

We have also seen cyberattacks attributed to Iranian-linked groups targeting American water infrastructure and other industrial systems. The Shahid Kaveh group has previously been associated with attacks on internet-connected industrial controllers. These systems are attractive targets because they operate essential physical processes but are often connected to networks designed primarily for convenience and remote management. The danger is that an attacker does not need to gain control of an entire electrical grid or hospital network to inflict serious damage. Compromising a single category of equipment used across thousands of facilities may be sufficient to cause widespread disruption.

There is another implication that European leaders must consider. NATO has explicitly recognized that a sufficiently severe cyberattack could constitute an armed attack under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. The decision would be made by the alliance on a case-by-case basis, considering the scale and consequences of the incident. A cyberattack that caused widespread deaths, disabled hospitals, contaminated water supplies, or crippled a nation’s electrical infrastructure could raise the question of collective defense even if no conventional weapons were used. Article 5 would not automatically require every NATO member to launch a military attack, but it would obligate allies to provide assistance through measures they deemed necessary. The current refrigeration attacks have not triggered Article 5, and there is no indication NATO has determined that they meet that threshold. Nevertheless, France’s formal accusation against Iran raises an uncomfortable question. If a more destructive cyberattack occurs, will European governments treat it as criminal sabotage, an act of war, or grounds for invoking collective defense? The distinction could determine whether a cyber incident remains a diplomatic dispute or becomes another route toward a much larger military confrontation.

We are entering an era in which the boundary between economic warfare and military warfare is becoming increasingly difficult to define. A hostile government can inflict substantial economic damage without deploying troops or firing missiles. The attacks against Europe’s refrigeration systems demonstrate how ordinary commercial equipment can become an instrument of geopolitical confrontation. France has now identified what it believes to be a state-sponsored operation, Italy has pushed the issue onto the G7 agenda, and Brussels is considering a coordinated response. The next challenge will be determining how to defend civilian infrastructure without allowing every cyber incident to become another justification for military escalation. Europe is already confronting enormous economic and security pressures. A conflict that spreads into its food supply, medical systems, and essential utilities would make those problems considerably more difficult to contain.

The October CPI report came in hotter than Wall Street expected, with consumer prices rising 0.4% against expectations of 0.3%. Core inflation, excluding food and energy, increased 0.3% rather than the anticipated 0.2%. September had already produced a 0.6% increase in headline prices, and now October has added another increase on top of that. The financial press will point out that inflation slowed from the previous month. That is technically correct, but the underlying problem is that price pressures are continuing to spread through the economy while Washington remains convinced that adjusting interest rates will somehow resolve the consequences of its own policies.

The government cannot even provide the normal annual inflation comparison this month. The 2025 government shutdown prevented the Bureau of Labor Statistics from collecting the October data needed to calculate a reliable year-over-year figure. September’s annual CPI was 3.7%, but October must be judged primarily through the monthly figures and other available indicators. We have a Federal Reserve preparing to raise rates, a government running enormous deficits, and an economy absorbing the consequences of war, tariffs, and expensive energy. Yet the political establishment continues treating each monthly inflation report as though it were an isolated event.

Core inflation failed to moderate. Energy prices have been extremely volatile because of the war with Iran, and gasoline prices have recently retreated from their highs. If inflation were simply an oil problem, we should be seeing much clearer relief elsewhere. Instead, core prices increased at the same 0.3% monthly pace recorded in September. The costs of operating a business have already been affected by transportation, insurance, imported materials, and financing. Those expenses do not disappear the moment crude oil declines. Businesses must recover their costs, and those increases work their way through the economy over time.

Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller has now warned that a 50-basis-point rate increase should be considered in December if core inflation remains elevated. He also acknowledged that the enormous expansion of artificial intelligence infrastructure and higher energy prices may continue generating inflationary pressure. The Fed is confronting an economy in which demand for electricity, equipment, construction, and capital is being driven by enormous investment in data centers, while the war has raised the cost of transporting energy and goods. Raising interest rates cannot manufacture electricity, repair damaged oil infrastructure, or reopen a shipping route threatened by military conflict.

The war with Iran has exposed the limitations of monetary policy. Higher oil prices do not remain confined to gasoline stations. Diesel affects trucking, agriculture, construction, and distribution. Shipping insurance increases when tankers face military threats, and those costs eventually reach businesses and consumers. Waller cited reports that insurance and additional precautions surrounding oil shipments were adding between $20 and $30 per barrel to transportation costs. Even if oil retreats, companies have already paid those expenses. There is a considerable difference between a temporary decline in a commodity price and the reversal of costs that have become embedded throughout the economy.

Tariffs introduce another complication. Washington imposes duties on imported goods and then acts surprised when importers, manufacturers, and retailers face higher costs. Some businesses absorb part of those expenses through reduced profit margins, while others pass them along to customers. The extent varies by industry and competitive conditions, but tariffs are not a mechanism for reducing consumer prices. The Fed cannot offset every cost increase caused by trade policy without imposing additional pressure on borrowing and investment.

The greater contradiction is that Washington remains the largest structural borrower in the economy. The federal government continues issuing debt to finance expenditures that tax revenues cannot cover, including growing interest obligations. When the Fed raises interest rates to restrain private-sector demand, it also increases the cost of refinancing government debt over time. Treasury yields are determined in the bond market, where investors evaluate inflation, fiscal risk, liquidity, and the availability of capital. The Fed can influence short-term rates, but it cannot dictate what investors must accept to lend Washington money for ten or thirty years.

This creates a serious problem for the real estate market. Higher Treasury yields can push mortgage rates upward even when housing demand is weakening. Homeowners who refinanced during the pandemic are reluctant to surrender mortgages carrying exceptionally low rates, while prospective buyers face higher financing costs and home prices that remain far above their pre-pandemic levels. The result is a market where transactions can stagnate without producing the broad price declines buyers expect. A household that needs financing experiences a very different housing economy from someone purchasing with cash.

The labor market is another reason the Fed should be cautious about assuming it can fine-tune the economy. Waller described a labor market characterized by limited hiring and limited firing. Employers may be retaining existing workers while delaying new recruitment, particularly as businesses reassess costs and investment in artificial intelligence. Unemployment can remain relatively stable even while opportunities for people seeking new jobs deteriorate. Raising rates into that environment risks weakening business investment and employment without addressing the supply-side forces responsible for much of the inflation.

There is also a growing divergence between the financial markets and the domestic economy. Large technology companies are spending enormous sums constructing data centers and acquiring specialized equipment. That investment can support economic growth while placing additional demand on electricity, construction materials, and skilled labor. Meanwhile, smaller businesses face higher borrowing costs, and households continue struggling with the cost of necessities. GDP may expand, but that does not mean the benefits are being distributed evenly across the economy. Capital is concentrating in sectors capable of financing enormous projects while businesses dependent upon affordable credit face increasing pressure.

The October report reinforces the danger of treating inflation as something that can be managed through a single interest-rate decision. The Fed left its benchmark rate at 3.75% to 4.00% in October, and markets are now anticipating another increase in December. The question is whether higher rates will actually resolve the forces driving prices upward or simply add to the financial strain on borrowers. Inflation caused by excessive demand is one problem. Inflation aggravated by war, energy disruptions, tariffs, and government borrowing is another.

We have entered a period where the traditional assumptions behind monetary policy are being tested. The government borrows heavily, geopolitical conflict disrupts supply chains, and enormous capital expenditures place pressure on energy and industrial capacity. The Fed responds by adjusting the price of short-term money, but it has no authority over the political decisions creating these conditions. The bond market will ultimately determine how much confidence investors place in the government’s ability to finance its obligations.

Palantir has hired former Democratic Senator Jon Tester of Montana, who spent 18 years in Washington and was once an outspoken critic of government surveillance. Tester lost his reelection campaign in 2024 and is now advising one of the most controversial government technology contractors in America. He insists that his role is advisory rather than lobbying, but politically the arrangement is unmistakable. Palantir is preparing for a Democratic Congress that has already raised serious questions about its government contracts, particularly those involving immigration enforcement and the collection and analysis of personal information.

The company is valued at more than $350 billion and holds approximately $2 billion in federal contracts, according to NPR. Its customers include the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, State, Agriculture, Veterans Affairs, and Health and Human Services. This is an extraordinary position for a company associated with a billionaire who built much of his political reputation around libertarian ideas and skepticism toward government power. Palantir’s business depends heavily upon government agencies purchasing sophisticated systems to analyze information. It does not need to collect the underlying data itself to become an essential part of the government’s surveillance and intelligence infrastructure.

Tester is an especially interesting choice because he opposed the PATRIOT Act’s expansion of surveillance powers. Now he is defending Palantir’s privacy practices, telling NPR that he believes the company shares his concerns about government intrusion. Yet Senator Ron Wyden and 30 other Democratic lawmakers have demanded answers about whether Palantir’s technology facilitates mass surveillance. Palantir denies conducting or enabling mass surveillance of American citizens. Wyden’s office has indicated that compulsory congressional inquiries could follow if the company does not adequately answer its questions. Hiring someone with Tester’s background gives Palantir an advocate who can speak to those concerns from inside the Democratic establishment.

Now that Democrats have gained control of Congress and are threatening investigations, the company has brought in a former Democratic senator who once opposed the expansion of government surveillance. What an interesting reversal. Washington has become a revolving door where politicians leave office only to find themselves advising the corporations they were once responsible for overseeing. The American people have every right to know how much surveillance their own tax dollars are financing and who ultimately controls the information being collected about them.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is now threatening to block the European Union’s entire seven-year budget unless every member state agrees to finance Ukraine. This is the state of European politics today. The governments of 27 nations are supposed to negotiate a budget that addresses their own economic needs, infrastructure, agriculture, regional development, and public services. Instead, Merz has decided the future of the entire European Union must be conditional on another financial commitment to a nation that is not even an EU member. The war has been dragging on since February 2022, European economies are deteriorating, and the political establishment continues to behave as though there is an unlimited supply of money that can be extracted from the taxpayers.

Ukraine is facing a €70 billion financing shortfall in 2027. Brussels has already promised to cover approximately two-thirds of that amount, or €45 billion, despite having no agreed mechanism to finance the commitment. The European Commission is considering another round of joint borrowing, which would place additional obligations upon European taxpayers. This comes on top of the €90 billion loan approved last December. The existing loan was supposed to provide Ukraine with financing over two years, yet Kyiv is already demanding another enormous injection of capital. At what point does anyone in Brussels acknowledge that this is becoming a permanent financial obligation rather than temporary emergency assistance?

Merz has written to European Council President António Costa demanding that all member states contribute to Ukraine’s financing. He declared, “A collective commitment that all of us, without exception, will contribute fairly to closing this gap is an essential prerequisite for resolving this issue and for discussing any further matters, particularly those with financial implications.” Germany is threatening to withhold approval of the EU’s 2028–2034 budget unless countries that have already expressed opposition to additional Ukraine financing agree to participate.

Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Bulgaria have indicated that they do not intend to participate in another financial package for Kyiv. Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic previously negotiated exemptions from interest obligations on the €90 billion loan. Their governments have different political positions, but they share a concern about being compelled to assume additional financial liabilities. Merz is now attempting to punish their resistance.

What exactly is the purpose of having sovereign member states if they cannot determine how much debt their own taxpayers should assume? These governments were elected to represent their citizens. They have obligations to maintain roads, hospitals, schools, pensions, and public services. Yet the European political establishment increasingly treats those responsibilities as secondary to financing Ukraine. A government that questions another multibillion-euro commitment is accused of undermining European security. A government that attempts to protect its domestic budget is portrayed as obstructing solidarity. This is how the language of collective responsibility becomes a means of exerting political pressure.

The hypocrisy is particularly apparent in the budget negotiations themselves. Germany, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, and Sweden belong to the group of countries seeking restraint in the next EU budget. They want reductions in proposed spending and greater fiscal discipline, yet they simultaneously demand that all member states participate in additional financing for Ukraine. The countries defending agricultural and regional development expenditures are being told that money is limited and difficult choices must be made.

The EU’s cohesion funds are particularly important to poorer member states. They finance transportation networks, water systems, infrastructure, and regional development projects intended to narrow economic disparities within the bloc. Agricultural spending supports farmers who already face rising production costs, regulatory burdens, and international competition. These are not abstract accounting entries. They affect employment, investment, and the economic viability of communities throughout Europe. Yet the political establishment is prepared to jeopardize negotiations over these programs to secure another financing commitment to Ukraine.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has warned that linking the two issues would be “very dangerous.” Poland’s deputy minister for European affairs, Ignacy Niemczycki, has also cautioned that combining Ukraine financing with the EU budget could backfire and make an agreement harder to reach. Everyone has long realized that the EU will not prioritize its members over Ukraine. Fall in line or be banished like Orban.

The €90 billion loan was backed by common European borrowing, with repayment linked to the possibility of Russia eventually paying reparations. But Russia has not agreed to pay those reparations and likely never will. The EU has discussed using immobilized Russian sovereign assets as a potential means of recovery, but that raises serious legal, financial, and geopolitical questions. In the meantime, interest obligations are real. Brussels initially estimated approximately €3 billion annually in interest costs, but higher borrowing costs have complicated those calculations.

I have warned repeatedly that governments treat borrowing as though it were income. They issue debt, spend the proceeds, and leave the consequences to future taxpayers. Now the European Union is contemplating another round of joint borrowing to finance a country that is not even an EU member. The interest must be paid, the debt must be serviced, and the borrowing capacity being used for Ukraine cannot simultaneously be used for domestic investment. Every euro has an opportunity cost, regardless of how Brussels attempts to disguise it through financial mechanisms and political declarations.

The European Parliament’s own research has acknowledged that many member states are already struggling with high public debt and rising defense expenditures. These conditions restrict their ability to finance additional commitments. France is confronting serious fiscal pressures, Germany has endured years of industrial weakness, and governments throughout the continent are dealing with the consequences of higher energy costs and deteriorating competitiveness. European businesses must compete internationally while absorbing expensive energy, taxes, and regulations. Yet their political leaders continue adding long-term financial obligations without establishing how the underlying economies will generate sufficient growth to sustain them.

The European Union has already provided enormous financial, military, and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine. By mid-2025, European institutions and member states had made available approximately $162 billion in support, according to an analysis by the Center for European Policy Analysis. No amount is ever enough for Zelensky or those who believe they’ll one day have access to Russia’s riches.

Merz may succeed in extracting another financial commitment from reluctant member states. Germany’s economic position within the EU gives it considerable negotiating power. But forcing an agreement is not the same as creating genuine political consent. Every additional financial obligation imposed through pressure increases resentment toward the institutions responsible. That resentment does not disappear when the budget is approved.

The European Union cannot maintain political unity indefinitely through financial threats. If the only way to secure another Ukraine package is to threaten the budget of all 27 member states, then the disagreement is far more serious than Brussels is prepared to admit.

Why on earth does a company that supposedly sells license plate readers need to contribute to politicians’ campaigns? The Chicago Sun-Times has exposed how Flock Safety has been contributing to the campaigns of local officials whose jurisdictions purchase its technology. We are told these cameras are necessary to protect the public from crime. Yet the company collecting information on the movements of millions of Americans is now financially supporting politicians connected to its government customers. At what point do we begin questioning why a surveillance contractor needs political influence in the first place?

Illinois election records show that Flock contributed $6,000 between 2021 and 2025 to the political organization supporting Cicero Town President Larry Dominick. Cicero began working with Flock around 2020 and now operates 31 of its cameras. Flock also contributed $1,000 to Lake County Sheriff John Idleburg’s campaign in 2025 after the county approved the purchase of 15 cameras the previous year. Another $500 went to Dan Jungles, an unsuccessful candidate for Will County sheriff, whose department operates 25 Flock readers. These contributions are documented, although there is no evidence that contracts were awarded in exchange for campaign money. The officials involved insist the donations had no influence over their decisions. Fine. Then why is a surveillance company contributing to their political campaigns at all?

Flock also maintains a lobbying operation in Illinois, employing firms including Cozen O’Connor Public Strategies and National Strategies LLC. Cozen O’Connor reported approximately $485,000 in political contributions since early 2024, although that spending covers numerous clients and cannot be attributed entirely to Flock. The company’s CEO, Garrett Langley, has also made political contributions personally. Flock is not simply selling cameras and waiting for police departments to place orders. It is participating in the political system that determines how surveillance technology is purchased and regulated.

The company now serves more than 7,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide, including over 500 in Illinois. Its cameras photograph passing vehicles, record license plates, and attach timestamps and locations to those observations. Police can search the information and receive alerts when a vehicle matches an investigative database. Police can also search ANYONE and track their whereabouts with the click of a button. The cameras do not distinguish between criminals and law-abiding citizens when collecting information. Everyone passing the camera is recorded.

The scale of automated surveillance is extraordinary. Illinois State Police reported that a separate license plate reader system operated by Motorola scanned more than three billion vehicles in a year, with fewer than 3% of scans producing flagged matches. Those figures do not describe Flock’s network, but they demonstrate the volume of information these systems can collect. Billions of observations are gathered while only a small fraction produce investigative alerts. We have moved far beyond an officer observing a license plate on a public road. Technology now allows the government to assemble searchable records showing where vehicles have traveled over time.

The constitutional questions are serious. The Fourth Amendment was intended to protect Americans against unreasonable government searches. A license plate may be publicly visible, but there is an enormous difference between a police officer seeing a vehicle drive past and a government agency being able to reconstruct a person’s movements through a network of cameras. Technology has created surveillance capabilities that previous generations could scarcely have imagined, and the law is still struggling to determine where the boundaries should be drawn.

Flock’s contributions were relatively small compared with the enormous sums spent in national elections. That does not make them irrelevant. The public should be able to examine those relationships without being told that questioning them is somehow unreasonable. The real issue is how much power the government should possess over the daily movements of its citizens. Americans are already living in an environment where their financial transactions, communications, and online activities generate enormous quantities of information. Automated license plate readers add physical movement to that expanding collection of data. The government does not need to follow someone in a patrol car when a network of cameras can record where that person’s vehicle appears.

I have warned repeatedly that governments never willingly surrender power once they acquire it. Surveillance technology is particularly attractive because it can be expanded quietly, justified through public safety, and operated with limited public visibility. The companies supplying these systems have every incentive to encourage further adoption. The politicians overseeing them have a responsibility to ensure that the public’s constitutional protections are not sacrificed in the process.

Flock’s documented campaign contributions expose another connection between government surveillance contracts and political financing. Americans have every right to question why a company collecting information about their movements is financially supporting officials associated with its customers.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its affiliated political organizations spent $84.1 million attempting to influence the 2026 midterm elections. According to an analysis by Responsible Statecraft, approximately $55.3 million, nearly two-thirds of that spending, went into races where AIPAC’s preferred candidates lost.

AIPAC does not register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which requires certain organizations acting under foreign direction or control to disclose those relationships. AIPAC maintains that it is an American organization funded by Americans, and its activities are conducted under domestic lobbying and campaign-finance laws.

The 2026 midterms revealed just how much AIPAC was prepared to spend. Its super PAC, United Democracy Project (UDP), poured approximately $31.5 million into efforts to prevent Abdul El-Sayed from winning Michigan’s Senate seat. The spending began during the Democratic primary and continued into the general election, when groups associated with AIPAC supported Republican Mike Rogers. El-Sayed defeated both opponents. In his victory speech, he directly addressed AIPAC, declaring, “Thank you for giving me the opportunity to beat you twice.”

The organization spent another $6.3 million attempting to defeat Daniel Biss in Illinois’s 9th Congressional District. Biss won his primary and ultimately secured approximately 75% of the general election vote. In California, pro-Israel political groups directed more than $6 million toward Melissa Hernandez, who lost to Aisha Wahab. In Maine, AIPAC-linked organizations spent more than $4.8 million supporting Susan Collins, who was defeated by Democrat Troy Jackson. These were not insignificant expenditures. Millions of dollars were concentrated in individual congressional races because the organization considered the candidates’ positions on Israel important enough to justify substantial financial intervention.

AIPAC also supported numerous winning candidates. The organization reported more than 234 successful candidates it supported during the election cycle. In 26 Senate races where affiliated groups spent more than $100,000, 21 of their preferred candidates won. Its influence therefore remains substantial, even after the expensive defeats. The more important development is that candidates increasingly appear willing to reject its support publicly. James Talarico, who won the Texas Senate election, openly refused AIPAC funding. He explained that his opposition was connected to Israel’s military operations in Gaza. His victory demonstrated that refusing the organization’s support need not prevent a candidate from winning a major statewide election.

The financial results also represent a substantial deterioration from AIPAC’s previous electoral performance. Responsible Statecraft calculated that approximately 34% of the organization’s 2026 spending went into races producing its preferred outcome. Comparable figures were 69% in 2022 and 87% in 2024. These percentages measure the allocation of spending across successful and unsuccessful races, not the percentage of candidates who won. Nevertheless, they indicate that the organization’s largest expenditures were increasingly concentrated in unsuccessful campaigns. AIPAC spent heavily attempting to defeat candidates critical of Israel, yet voters in several prominent races rejected those efforts.

AIPAC announced in October that it would discontinue direct candidate endorsements and contributions after the election cycle, while its affiliated political organizations would continue operating. The organization has long maintained that its members are American citizens exercising their constitutional rights to participate in politics. Its super PAC operates under federal campaign-finance rules permitting unlimited independent expenditures, provided those expenditures are not coordinated with candidates. Such arrangements are legal under the current system, but legality does not eliminate legitimate questions about transparency, accountability, and the concentration of political influence.

The political establishment still cannot grasp that the people are fed up with career politicians who answer to everyone except the voters who put them in office. They do not want another Washington insider, and they certainly do not want one whose campaign is being bankrolled by a powerful lobbying organization devoted to the interests of a foreign nation. AIPAC poured millions into these races, apparently believing that enough money could buy the outcome. What they failed to understand is that the money itself became part of the problem. Americans are watching their standard of living decline, their national debt spiral out of control, and their government borrow endlessly to finance wars overseas. Then along comes another establishment candidate with millions in outside funding, telling the public why the interests of another country must remain a priority. How much more obvious can it get? This is precisely the sort of resentment that helped defeat several AIPAC-backed candidates. The people are losing confidence in the political establishment, and throwing more money at candidates who represent that establishment is not going to restore it. Washington has become so accustomed to buying political influence that it has forgotten the voters still have the final say.

The United States has been involved in a costly war with Iran since February, and public opposition to that conflict contributed to the Republican defeat in November. President Trump himself acknowledged that dissatisfaction with the war, higher gasoline prices, and growing opposition to Israel were factors in the election results. Vice President JD Vance similarly identified the war as a major source of Republican losses. Yet AIPAC had supported the military campaign and spent heavily against candidates who called for restrictions on American assistance to Israel. The organization was therefore attempting to influence elections at the very moment when the administration’s Middle Eastern policies had become a major source of public dissatisfaction.

Ultimately, the issue is larger than any single lobbying organization or foreign country. The United States faces enormous debt obligations, rising military expenditures, and growing public dissatisfaction with foreign interventions. Americans have a legitimate interest in ensuring that decisions involving war, taxation, and international commitments are made through accountable institutions rather than being insulated from scrutiny by concentrated political spending. The 2026 midterms demonstrated that even tens of millions of dollars cannot guarantee the outcome of an election. Whether that produces lasting changes in Washington’s foreign-policy debate will depend upon what the newly elected Congress actually does.

I watched the 60 minute interview of Trump and there too they said Russia invaded unprovoked. Here is Politico saying the same shit. Either these journalists are just on the take to put out constant fake news, or they are absolutely stupid and have no right working in media.

Even the Ukrainian press reported that Boris Johnson flew to Kiev to make sure he did not sign a peace deal. Boris got £1 million to introduce the British Military Industrial Complex to Zelensky.

They ignore the Minsk Agreement that the EU signed that was to allow the Donbas to vote on separation. Merkel told the press they never intended to honor that. They were buying toime for Ukraine to build an army to start this war.

Zelensky knew when Russia would invade and he made sure they would for the day before he proclaimed Ukraine would rearm with nuclear weapons. If I recall, we went after Russia and the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 for the same reason.

The Washington Post reported that Zelensky did not warn his people and knew when Russia would cross the border. He told the press if he warned his people it would have cost him $7 billion.

In this instance, it is NATO and the Neocons who have provoked this war with Russia out of vengeance for once being communist. They installed the interim UNELECTED president Oleksandr Turchynov (born 1964) and ordered him to attack the Donbas instantly, beginning the war. He called them terrorists because they wanted separation after Ukrainians massacred Russians in Odessa in 2014. There will NEVER be a genuine peace with Ukraine because NATO controls their leadership, and Trump has to come to grips with this.

It was the American Neocons who instructed the UNELECTED Kiev government to attack the Russians in the Donbas and call them terrorists because they, too, wanted to separate from the Ukrainians who hate Russians and were killing them on the streets of Odesa.

Just as it is coming out that White House staff were not informing Trump of things they did not want him to know, the Neocons have full control of the press and any news outlet that says Russia invade “unprovoked” is being fed by the Neocon press intent on creating World War III.