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.

For years, I have warned that analysts have been looking in the wrong direction. Everyone obsesses over Russia, China, Iran, or even North Korea, while ignoring one nation that has quietly been positioning itself to become the dominant regional power. That nation is Turkey.

You cannot understand today’s geopolitical landscape unless you understand that the Ottoman Empire ruled much of the Middle East, North Africa, and southeastern Europe for centuries. Those ambitions never simply vanished.

Turkey possesses one of NATO’s largest armed forces and controls perhaps the single most strategic piece of geography on earth, the Bosporus and Dardanelles. Every major power has sought influence over that region for centuries because whoever controls the gateway between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean possesses leverage that cannot be replicated elsewhere.

What is becoming increasingly obvious is that Ankara no longer views Israel as merely another country in the region. The rhetoric has become increasingly direct, and European politicians are beginning to acknowledge that the conflict extends far beyond Gaza.

According to the report from Pars Today, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan declared after the NATO summit that “The policies of Netanyahu’s government are not only our problem; they are also a burden on Tel Aviv, the region, and international security, and they constitute a threat to all of them.” He added that European leaders are “increasingly recognizing the threat posed by Israel, but have not yet found a way to confront it.”

Fidan went even further regarding Syria, stating, “We are not sure that Israel wants to see a stable, strong, transformed, and prosperous Syria.” When asked whether Israel seeks to destabilize Syria, his response was blunt: “When you look at the past and present behavior patterns of the Israeli cabinet toward the countries of the region, the answer is yes.” In another speaking engagement, Fidan warned that Israel is a security problem for the whole world.

These are extraordinary statements coming from the foreign minister of a NATO member. Even within Europe, criticism of Netanyahu has become far more common than it was only a few years ago. Governments that once hesitated to publicly challenge Israeli policy are increasingly voicing concern over the regional consequences of continued military escalation. Whether they act upon those concerns remains another question entirely, but politically the conversation has unquestionably shifted.

This is why I have repeatedly warned that Turkey must never be underestimated. The mainstream press still views Turkey as simply another NATO member. That is a serious mistake. Turkey has its own agenda. It is building influence throughout Central Asia, strengthening ties across the Muslim world, expanding its military-industrial base, and positioning itself as the indispensable bridge between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Nations that once lived under Ottoman rule are once again becoming areas where Ankara seeks influence.

The Neocons continue to believe they can micromanage the Middle East indefinitely. They fail to appreciate that every military intervention rearranges the regional balance of power. Remove one rival, and another immediately rises to fill the vacuum. That has been the lesson of history from Rome to the British Empire. It never changes.

The computer has consistently shown that the War Cycle is not confined to Ukraine or Russia. The entire region stretching from Eastern Europe through the Middle East is becoming increasingly interconnected. Israel’s confrontation with its neighbors, Europe’s growing internal divisions, the instability in Syria, and Turkey’s expanding regional ambitions are all pieces of the same geopolitical puzzle.

Those who continue to analyze each crisis in isolation will never understand what is unfolding. The world is entering a period where old empires, old rivalries, and old borders once thought settled are returning to the forefront. Turkey has been preparing for that reality for years. The rest of the world is only beginning to notice.

Maxine Waters is 87 years old and is once again seeking another term in Congress. This is not about her age. There are people in their eighties who are far more capable than those decades younger. The real issue is that Washington has transformed public office into a lifetime career. Politicians are no longer expected to serve for a period and return home. They stay for decades, accumulating power, influence, and connections until they begin to believe the office belongs to them rather than the people who elected them.

The Founding Fathers never intended Congress to become a country club where politicians collected paychecks for half a century. Public office was supposed to be service, not a career. They feared concentrated power, which is why the president is restricted by term limits. Yet members of Congress can remain in office indefinitely, building political machines that become almost impossible to defeat. There is something fundamentally wrong with that.

Once politicians realize they never have to leave, their priorities change. They stop worrying about the country and begin worrying about protecting their seat. Every vote becomes political. Every crisis becomes another excuse to spend money that does not exist. Every campaign is financed by the same lobbyists who expect something in return. Washington has become an industry whose product is legislation.

Look at the Mitch McConnell situation. People requested proof of life. No one requested that he stand down or step aside, despite his inability to fulfill his duties. “Oh, well, it’s fine because he won’t seek re-election.” Really? Has public office become a charity of sorts? If someone is no longer capable of serving today, then the question is not what happens after the next election. The question is why they are still making decisions that affect the lives of millions of Americans. Public office is a responsibility, not a lifetime entitlement that ends only when the politician decides it is time to leave.

Lindsey Graham was in politics for roughly 36 years, spending about 31 of those years in Congress. Yet every favorable news story claims he had a long career ahead of him. Only in America do we expect politicians to remain in their positions indefinitely, as if they were actually dedicating their lives to public service rather than self-interest.

History is very clear on this. Republics do not collapse because of one bad leader. They collapse when the political class becomes permanent. Rome reached that stage long before the empire officially fell. The government existed to preserve itself. Politicians fought over power while the people paid the price. Every empire eventually reaches the point where those in office believe they are entitled to remain there forever. That is always a warning sign that the system is in decline.

Term limits would not solve every problem, but they would be a start. Fresh blood matters. New ideas matter. More importantly, politicians would know there is an end to their time in office. They would have to return home and live under the very laws they passed instead of spending a lifetime insulated inside the Washington bubble.

This has never been about Maxine Waters alone. There are Republicans who have been in Congress for decades as well. The disease infects both parties equally. Washington has become a closed club where incumbents enjoy every advantage imaginable, taxpayer-funded staffs, massive fundraising operations, media attention, committee power, and connections that ordinary challengers simply cannot match. We tell ourselves elections are enough, but incumbency has become one of the strongest advantages in politics.

There comes a point when experience becomes an excuse for preserving power. Public office should never become a lifetime entitlement. No one should spend forty or fifty years writing laws for everyone else while never having to live in the real economy they created. If Congress had the courage to impose term limits on itself, it would probably be the first genuine reform Washington has enacted in decades. The fact that it never will tells you everything you need to know about the state of our republic.

Senator Adam Schiff says he will force Republicans to vote again on ending the war with Iran following the collapse of the ceasefire. That may be politically inconvenient for Republicans, but the constitutional question is not complicated. Congress never authorized this war in the first place.

The Hill reports that Schiff is introducing another War Powers Resolution intended to terminate American involvement in the conflict. He stated that the war has increased costs for Americans and described it as an unlawful “war of choice.” This comes after the United States resumed major strikes against Iran when the temporary ceasefire collapsed.

Let us stop pretending that this is some technical disagreement between lawyers. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war. The president is commander in chief of the armed forces, but that does not grant him the power to initiate an open-ended war wherever Washington’s foreign-policy establishment chooses.

There was no congressional declaration of war against Iran. There was no specific Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iran. Congress did not vote beforehand to send the United States into another Middle Eastern conflict. The war began first and Congress was consulted later.

This has become standard procedure in Washington. Presidents from both parties launch military operations, announce that they are defending national security, and then dare Congress to stop them. Congress holds hearings, introduces resolutions, gives speeches, and eventually votes on whether the president should end a war that Congress never approved.

That turns the Constitution completely upside down. The burden should never be on Congress to gather enough votes to stop an unauthorized war. The president should be required to obtain congressional approval before beginning one, except when an immediate attack requires defensive action. Iran did not invade the continental United States on February 28. The administration made a deliberate decision to enter hostilities alongside Israel after negotiations failed. Lawmakers from both parties immediately challenged those strikes as unauthorized acts of war.

The War Powers Resolution was supposed to restrain precisely this type of abuse. It requires the president to report the introduction of American forces into hostilities and generally provides a 60-day period for Congress to authorize continued involvement. Yet Washington has treated the 60-day limitation not as a restriction, but almost as a complimentary trial period for presidential war.

The Senate initially rejected an effort to require congressional permission for the Iran campaign by a vote of 52 to 47. Rand Paul was the only Republican supporting that particular resolution, while John Fetterman was the only Democrat opposing it. The proposal would have ended unauthorized hostilities while preserving the ability of the United States and Israel to defend themselves against an Iranian attack.

That vote exposed the hypocrisy in Washington. Many senators claim to defend the Constitution until constitutional limits interfere with the foreign-policy agenda of their own party.

The Senate later approved a war-powers measure directing the removal of American forces from unauthorized hostilities against Iran. The official Senate description was explicit: these were hostilities “that have not been authorized by Congress.” One such recorded vote passed 50 to 47, and a later Senate resolution reportedly passed 50 to 48 with support from several Republicans.

But even those votes did not retroactively authorize the war. They confirmed the opposite. Congress was attempting to terminate military action for which the president had never received permission.

The administration later asked Congress for $87.6 billion in supplemental funding, including approximately $67.1 billion connected to the Iran conflict and $21 billion for munitions and the defense-industrial base. So Washington once again placed the American people in the familiar position of being ordered to finance a war their elected representatives never approved before the bombing began.

Once the first bomb falls, the political establishment argues that it is too late to debate whether the bomb should have fallen at all. Schiff is correct on the narrow constitutional issue, regardless of what anyone thinks of him politically. Republicans would have been screaming about executive tyranny had a Democratic president launched the same war without authorization. Democrats have also ignored congressional war powers when presidents from their own party were bombing foreign countries.

The Founders placed the war power in Congress because they understood that executives throughout history have used foreign conflict to expand domestic power, suppress opposition, increase taxation, and bury their own failures.

If Congress cannot decide whether America goes to war, then Congress has surrendered one of its most important constitutional functions. At that point, elections become little more than a ceremony. The United States was established as a republic precisely to prevent this.

The political mood across Europe is beginning to shift, and even governments that have strongly backed Ukraine are discovering that public opinion has its limits. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has reportedly argued that Rome must place the soaring cost of living, particularly energy and fuel bills, ahead of expanding military commitments before next year’s elections. According to the Kyiv Post, Meloni has also resisted the idea of writing endless checks for Ukraine through Brussels while Italian households continue struggling with inflation and rising utility costs.

Europe’s leadership has spent years insisting there is no limit to what taxpayers should sacrifice for the war. People do not pay their electricity bills with speeches about democracy. They pay with shrinking paychecks, higher fuel costs, and businesses forced to absorb ever-rising energy prices. Elections have a way of exposing the difference between political slogans and economic reality. Meloni understands that if governments cannot keep the lights on or make life affordable, voters eventually remove them regardless of how many standing ovations they receive in Brussels.

“The government must prioritize easing the cost of living, particularly energy and fuel bills,” Meloni declared, later adding, “If we invest in defense, that money must remain in Italy, in our factories, in our research, in our territories.” Italy has already agreed to numerous defense spending increases through its union with both Brussels and NATO–it’s never enough. “After six summits in three and a half weeks, I’ll pass,” the Italian president said. “There is no disengagement from Ukraine. But neither can I afford to disengage from Italy.”

The sovereign debt crisis and the war cycle are converging. Brussels continues to behave as though every crisis can be solved with another spending package financed by debt. That is precisely how governments eventually destroy themselves. The bureaucrats believe taxpayers exist to fund whatever grand geopolitical project they devise next. Meanwhile, families are asking why they are paying more for electricity, heating, transportation, and food while billions continue flowing abroad. Governments ignore that question at their own peril.

The cracks are becoming impossible to hide. Hungary has challenged Brussels repeatedly over Ukraine funding, and while there is a new man at the helm, nationalist sentiment has not dissolved. Slovakia has openly linked its support for new aid packages to its own national energy security after suffering through the Druzhba pipeline dispute. Now Italy is placing domestic economic concerns ahead of the demands coming from Brussels.

Brussels insists that all EU members must abide by their terms and conditions. It is not possible to cater to the needs of Europe as a whole. Elected leaders have lost their ability to prioritize their constituents who are grappling with a major cost of living crisis. The people do not want to continually fuel an endless war; the people merely want to afford a home and the basic necessities of life without struggling to survive financially.

Meloni’s comments are another reminder that domestic survival ultimately outweighs ideological commitments. Politicians may speak of European solidarity in Brussels, but they win or lose elections at home.

Every government eventually reaches the point where people stop asking whether the law exists and begin asking whether anyone intends to enforce it. That is where we are today. Reports surfaced showing Mission Regional Medical Center in South Texas advertising maternity packages in Mexico through Spanish-language billboards and a website encouraging expectant mothers to travel to Texas to give birth.

The hospital has since removed the advertisements, claiming they were misunderstood, while Texas Governor Greg Abbott ordered an investigation into whether any laws or contractual obligations were violated. If the investigation concludes that the purpose was to market travel for birthright citizenship, then this is not simply a public relations problem. It is a legal problem, and the legal system must finally decide whether the law means what it says or whether it has become entirely optional.

Everyone knows birth tourism has existed for years. Entire businesses have been built around helping foreign nationals travel to countries that offer broad birthright citizenship. Yet governments have largely looked the other way, hoping the issue would remain politically untouchable.

Other developed nations that once had broad birthright citizenship changed course years ago. Ireland amended its constitution in 2004. Numerous European countries require that at least one parent be a citizen or lawful long-term resident before automatic citizenship is granted. They confronted the legal question instead of pretending it did not exist. Meanwhile, leftist American judges claim that foreigners have a right to enjoy protections intended for taxpaying citizens. Hospitals are businesses, and unfortunately, this hospital is merely profiting on a provision that is too blatant to be considered a loophole.

View this post on Instagram

The Common Law Doctrine of Jus Soli under English common law protected “right of the soil,” which deemed anyone born on a country’s soil to be a citizen. The US Constitution never clearly defined citizenship until the Naturalization Act of 1790, which granted citizenship to “free white persons” born on US soil. The advent of the Civil War left dire uncertainty for slaves who had no homeland to return to after the war came to an end and slavery was abolished. The 1844 case Lynch v Clarke in New York reaffirmed that anyone born to non-citizen parents would be considered an American. The Reconstruction Amendments remained vague, and Dred Scott was expanded in 1868 to include:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The law remained open to interpretation. Native Americans, for example, were not seen as Americans since they did not pledge their allegiance to the federal government. It was not until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 that Native Americans were considered full citizens.

America’s complicated past with citizenship has led to today’s debacle. Nowhere along the way did the Supreme Court or any other entity grant citizenship to parents of children born in the US. However, the system often looks the other way to prevent separating families. American-born children may sponsor their parents for a green card when they turn 21. Then, the parents must wait five years before applying for naturalization. Parents often must leave the US for a decade before applying for citizenship.

The framers of the 14th Amendment were not looking to grant citizenship to illegal aliens. The whole illegal alien status really began to emerge with socialism. People came to America previously for the land of opportunity – not a free ride. The 14th Amendment was primarily to secure the rights of the slaves who had been freed and to overturn Dred Scott, making them citizens regardless of race.

The amendment to the constitution, ratified in 1868, developed after the Civil War to ensure that slaves could become American citizens. Today, the law is abused by those who illegally migrate into the country. The grey area surrounding this issue is the basic “intent” behind any law. All laws are to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the legislative intent for which they were originally enacted, as revealed in the Congressional Record prior to the passage. The passage of no amount of time can change the original legislative intent of a law. Courts should construe laws in harmony with the legislative intent and seek to carry out our legislative purpose. Foster v. United States, 303 U.S. 118, 120 (1938). Judges are supposed to be bound to interpret the  Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted. Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 244, 15 S. Ct. 337, 39 L. Ed. 409 (1895).

This failure of judges to rule in this manner is commonplace, and it has led to a lot of legal persecution in which prosecutors twist the word to fit their objective. I recommend reading the work On Liberty of John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). You will get a sense of how bad our legal system has become. We have witnessed the abuse of cases against Trump desperately trying to fit the words to anything he had done.

The 14th Amendment no longer holds true for its original intent. America is broke — we cannot afford to sustain our own citizens or infrastructure, and the migrant crisis has become a massive burden on taxpayers. What is the answer? Shall we hold the 14th Amendment to its original intent or allow prosecutors to manipulate the words to score victories?

Existing home sales in the US unexpectedly fell 2.4% in June to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.09 million units, missing expectations for a summer increase. At the very same time, the median existing home price reached another all-time record of $440,600, marking the 36th consecutive month of year-over-year price gains. Sales are falling because buyers cannot afford today’s prices, yet prices refuse to break because governments and central banks spent years distorting the market with artificially low interest rates and endless liquidity.

Families who bought before 2022 are sitting on mortgages below 3% and have little incentive to sell. The result is a frozen market where supply remains constrained, buyers cannot qualify, and prices remain historically elevated despite weakening demand.

Governments created this crisis through decades of intervention. They subsidized mortgages, manipulated interest rates, expanded sovereign debt, and encouraged speculation. Now everyone acts surprised that a young family earning a middle-class income cannot purchase the average American home.

Notice where the market is actually functioning. According to the National Association of Realtors, sales of homes priced above $1 million continue to outperform the lower end of the market, while first-time buyers remain historically underrepresented despite a modest improvement to 33% of June purchases. A healthy market normally sees about 40% of transactions coming from first-time buyers. When the entry level disappears, the entire housing ladder begins to fail because existing owners have fewer buyers to sell to.

Real estate moves in long cycles of confidence. Markets never travel in straight lines forever. The frenzy created after the pandemic was fueled by cheap money, not by sustainable economic growth. Now we are living through the adjustment phase. That does not necessarily mean a dramatic nationwide collapse in prices, because inventory remains constrained, but it does mean transactions will continue to suffer as long as governments refuse to allow markets to clear naturally.

The broader danger extends well beyond housing. When an entire generation cannot afford to buy a home, confidence in the economic system begins to erode. That is why support for wealth redistribution, rent controls, and socialism continues to grow. Governments created the housing crisis through intervention, and their answer is predictably more intervention.

Zelensky is put on screen at the 2026 Berlinale Festival, which started on July 12th and runs to the 22nd, and receives a standing ovation. The Berlinale is a major film festival (like Cannes or Venice) that screens new films and gives out its own awards (Golden and Silver Bears). The mere fact that they put Zelensky on the screen is to promote war in Europe. This confirms the rising support for World War III. At the NATO Summit, Zelensky pushed to join NATO despite the fact that no one can join in wartime, since that would automatically trigger World War III.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz holds the record for the MOST unpopular chancellor in Germany’s history, with his approval rating hitting 16%! French President Emmanuel Macron is either tied with former President François Hollande as the MOST unpopular French president of the past half century, or surpasses him in unpopularity, depending on the poll used. Outgoing United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer made history as the island nation’s MOST unpopular premier before his resignation, with an Ipsos poll finding just 13% of voters were satisfied with him, compared to 79% who were unsatisfied. The three of them have been pushing for war as a means to retain power, and they tell us we live in a democracy with no right to vote for them directly or for war.

This trio of idiots think that sustained pressure will eventually force Moscow to moderate its behavior, or that the system is heading towards collapse. Both assumptions misunderstand the nature of the pressures building inside Russia. Putin is the MOST restrained, but is being pushed to the limit. He either gets far more aggressive, or the risk will be that he is overthrown by a Russian version of John Bolton. They need this distraction because the EU crisis is building. I have reported that Italy’s GDP growth is down to 0.5% but Germany, nearly 25% of the EU by itself, has a GDP growth rate of just 0.8%. Our ECM has been warning of a MAJOR economic decline into 2028. With Ukraine bombing the Nordstrom Pipeline, then the sanctions imposed on Russia, these declines combine with climate change has ensured the EU economy cannot survive long-term and war is not going to help. They assume creating a new currency and funding the reconstruction of the EU will save the day.

I have spoken even with US military. If such a scheme were targeting the USA, they would push the button. What the hell, if you are going to see your country destroyed, might as well take as many with you as possible. I cannot express the sheer stupidity in allowing Ukraine to carry out this war. The Minsk Agreement was to allow the ethnic Russians in the Donbas to vote. Since Ukraine is the motherland of ethnic cleansing, the EU and the US are deliberately denying the human rights of those in the Donbas to live free of the tyranny of Zelensky who is a Neo-nazi and has outlawed their language and religion. Even the Pope has condemned Zelensky for outlawing Orthodox Christianity. Europe seems to have a death wish. This time, we are on the side of Hitler.

PRIVATE BLOG – ENERGY Into Year End

Private blog posts are exclusively available to Socrates subscribers. To sign-up for Socrates or to learn more, please visit Ask-Socrates.com.

https://ask-socrates.com/