Tag Archives: Big Government

Feb 24 2026

Judge Aileen Cannon Permanently Blocks Jack Smith Report II from Release


Posted originally on CTH on February 23, 2026 | Sundance 

After Special Counsel Jack Smith was dispatched by Judge Aileen Cannon, his team continued to organize materials to frame the hit against an incoming Trump administration.  Judge Cannon calls out this wrongdoing as part of her ruling to keep all the records sealed.  [Ruling pdf Here]

[SOURCE]

“While it is true that former special counsels have released final reports at the conclusion of their work,” Cannon wrote, “it appears they have done so either after electing not to bring charges at all or after adjudications of guilt by plea or trial. The Court strains to find a situation in which a former special counsel has released a report after initiating criminal charges that did not result in a finding of guilt.”

Feb 24 2026

Violence in Mexico Continues in Aftermath of Cartel Leader El Mencho Killed


Posted originally on CTH on February 23, 2026 | Sundance 

The surprise operation to kill Nemesio ‘El Mencho’ Oseguera Cervantes, leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, caught everyone off-guard.  According to most media reports, El Mencho’ was killed in a Mexican military operation supported and backed by U.S. intelligence.

His death has now unleashed violent retaliation across several Mexican states, with roadblocks, arson, attacks on government infrastructure and transport systems.  Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, a woman who previously refused to confront the cartels directly, is now attempting to manage the aftermath.

CJNG is essentially a cartel armed with the same weapons systems as the military itself.  Shoulder missiles, armored vehicles, helicopters, mines, high caliber automatic weapons and more are reportedly part of the arsenal within the CJNG cartel. These assets are now being deployed by the cartel against police and the Mexican military.

Feb 24 2026

President Trump Participates in Angel Families Remembrance Ceremony – Livestream


Posted originally on CTH on February 23, 2026 | Sundance

President Trump holds an Angel Families remembrance ceremony to honor those who lost loved ones due to illegal aliens.

.

.

.

Feb 22 2026

The FBI Mission and the “Library on Congress”


Posted originally on CTH on February 21, 2026 | Sundance

In roughly the past fifty years, the term “continuity of government” has been used with increased frequency describing how the United States of America, a constitutional republican system of government, contains internal mechanisms to protect the executive branch in the event of crisis, attack or disruption of leadership by adversaries.

The term ‘continuity of government‘ became much more common in the aftermath of 9-11-01 and the thunder shock of an al-Qaeda inspired terrorist attack in New York and Washington DC.

Within the very brief discussion period that led up to the 10-26-01 Patriot Act [pdf here], literally a structural reform of the entire domestic terrorist apparatus that created the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA), a bill only debated for a few weeks, the baseline was the enhanced ‘continuity of government‘ in the event of an emergency.

As we have exhaustively outlined on these pages, the outcome of the Patriot Act was to create a system where every American was now viewed by our federal government through the prism of the citizen being a potential terrorist threat.

The federal government aligned all of our institutions and national security systems accordingly.

DHS was created to monitor American behavior, the TSA was created to scan American travelers, and the FBI was enhanced with resources to conduct surveillance despite our Fourth Amendment protections within our Constitution.  Instead of the U.S. Govt protecting U.S. citizens from foreign threats, the Patriot Act changed the mission of government to protect itself from potential citizen threats.

In essence, We the People became the suspects, and all of the constitutional viewpoints within the FBI and Dept of Justice were modified to create monitoring systems.

The legislative branch was considered part of a this newly protected elite class of Americans, and the judicial branch deferred all scrutiny to the executive as long as they claimed, ‘national security.’  The secret FISA court system would grant the agents surveillance power over U.S. citizens.

As the foundation of this new surveillance state was just being finalized, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Eric Holder then entered government via the 2008 election and weaponized this system to target their domestic political opposition.

However, there is also a second element to this ‘continuity of government’ that flows with the first premise.

The continuity of a very specific outlook by government.

The continuity of a very specific construct of government.

The continuity of a view within government of how government should operate. This is part of the continuity of government not discussed.

You can argue it was the viewpoint of a very specific type of government “continuity” that led to the opposition against Donald Trump by Democrats and Republicans.

Trump would be a disruptive influence if introduced into a continuation mission that did not like change.  This ‘continuity’ mindset then established the justification for every institution and element of the bureaucracy, including almost all layers of the people who run them, to oppose Donald Trump.

By the time the 2016 election arrived, We the People had already been defined by the Patriot Act outcome as a threat to government.  If we the people did not select the right kind of candidate who would be approved by the continuity system, then our selection would be rejected by all of the operators of that administrative system.   That’s what happened.

Every move by the U.S. federal government, from 2016 to now, has been contrast against the backdrop of a new awakening and visible understanding.

We the People are the threat, and those who control the DC power centers that determine the continuity of government, will not accept any modification or diminishment of their mission.  This is how they justify their conduct in very real terms, including through application of law.  This is also why the people who operate these systems are very visible with their conduct and do not have any reservations about showing their omnipotent mindset.

From their perspective, they are doing what they do, running government how they run government, maintaining the continuity the system was designed to protect, and we are what they consider futile and irrelevant voices.

Both the Republican and Democrat leadership hold this same view.  This “continuity of government” is the core of their UniParty alignment.

Here is where this understanding gets really interesting.

In order to maintain this system, there has to be an internal monitoring system, a surveillance system to protect itself against any adversary.  A domestic surveillance state has to exist as an outcome of the logical sequence.

Within this total surveillance state, the FBI is the federal agency – a national police force with a mission to run monitoring operations.

Everyone is monitored, and in case anyone would raise objection to being monitored, the corporate media provide protection against criticism by saying the agencies doing the monitoring need to be independent.

As we plunge deeper and deeper into this weaponized surveillance state, if you engage in any conduct to avoid monitoring, you run the risk of being caught in the DHS surveillance sweep.  You run the risk of becoming a DHS subject of interest, just like candidate Donald Trump – only smaller.  If you choose to fight against accepting the weaponized surveillance state, you will be considered a DHS subject of interest – just like the J6 detainees.

When the FBI was fighting against the release of the FD-1023 report, outlining the Confidential Human Source (CHS) that gave evidence to the FBI against Joe Biden, people missed something.

The DOJ/FBI reluctance to admit the FD-1023 report existed was not just about Joe Biden, it was also about a surveillance process this reporting would reveal.

The confidential human source (CHS) was a person giving information to the FBI for their files.  This is the library on congress.  There are hundreds of thousands of these FD-1023 forms created, as CHS’s undercover agent employees (UAE’s) and a myriad of resources, are deployed in this surveillance system.

It’s the breadth of this surveillance system that leads to the FBI saying, “The safeguards the FBI placed on the production of this information are necessary to protect the safety of confidential sources and the integrity of sensitive investigations. Today’s release of the 1023 [form] – at a minimum – unnecessarily risks the safety of a confidential source.”

As noted by the Federalist Margot Cleveland, “During Wednesday’s hours-long hearing, IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler both told lawmakers they had never seen the FD-1023. Significantly, Ziegler then stated: “There’s things that are contained on that document that could further corroborate other information that we might be having an issue corroborating because it could be regarding a foreign official. So, if we have information regarding that in a document or a witness, we can further corroborate later evidence.”

The reason the IRS agents were not aware of the CHS reports to the FBI, is because keeping the FD-1023 report hidden did not have as much to do with protecting Biden as it does with protecting this surveillance apparatus.

Who are all of these CHS’s and UAEs like Igor Danchenko, Patrick Byrne, Azra Turk, Carter Page, Joseph Mifsud, Ray Epps, 1% Watchdog, etc. etc. etc?  There is a massive surveillance apparatus underway monitoring everyone, including an assembly of files against sitting members of congress and political leadership.

Keep in mind, the FD-1023 reports are not blackmail, they are reports of conduct and action.

Blackmail and/or leverage is an outcome of knowing information.  The massive assembly of FD-1023 reports are the source information.

This was a big part of the reason why FBI Director Christopher Wray initially denied there was an FD-1023 report.

In the bigger of the big pictures, this Joe/Hunter Biden story was the tip of an iceberg showing how the FBI is a domestic surveillance operation assembling files on everyone; that includes members of Congress and key political leadership that could advance to power.  Why is all of this surveillance taking place?…

….Because it is a very specific type of Continuity of Government that must be maintained.

Don’t look at the Potemkin village we call Washington DC.

Look for the people behind the construct.

Look for the people who are using these files.

Feb 22 2026

German Court Rules X Platform Must Turn Over Data on Hungarian Govt Support


Posted originally on CTH on February 21, 2026 | Sundance

The European Union has a major targeting effort against Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, an ally of President Trump who does not support giving additional funding to the Ukraine war effort.  Hungary is having national elections in April.

Previously, USAID Administrator Samantha Power spent considerable time in Hungary organizing activist groups to conduct operations against the government {2023 – Go Deep}.  Last week a German based NGO called Democracy Reporting International, won a ruling from a Berlin judge to force the X platform to turn over data related to support for Viktor Orban and the government of Hungary.

All of this opposition to Prime Minister Orban seems to be coordinated by quasi government agencies on behalf of Brussels and their interventionist intentions.  We may remember it was also information from German intelligence, that was behind the nullification of the Romanian first-round election {GO DEEP}.

However, Viktor Orban is fighting back and refusing to approve the funding of the Ukraine war despite the massive pressure campaign from inside the European Union.

As noted by Hungarian Minister Zoltan Kovacs, “Many have asked how Hungary can block the €90 billion Ukrainian war loan if we are not participating in it. clarified that the loan does not affect Hungary and does not entail any financial commitment for us. As Hungary is not part of the cooperation, in most of the decision-making procedures we do not even vote.  However, he pointed out that for the scheme to function, the EU’s seven-year budget guarantee rules must be amended – and this requires the approval of all 27 member states, not only the financing member states. We are now blocking this decision, without which the war loan cannot be disbursed.”

(Via Politico) – A court in Germany on Tuesday ordered Elon Musk’s social media site X to hand over data related to the upcoming election in Hungary to researchers for scrutiny.

The court in Berlin ruled in favor of rights group Democracy Reporting International in its bid to access data to research influence campaigns and disinformation in the election. The group took its case to court after X in November refused its data access requests.

The European Union’s rules for social media platforms, the Digital Services Act, obliges big online platforms like X to grant external researchers access to data to scrutinize how platforms handle risks, including election interference. The European Commission in December fined X €40 million for breaching that obligation, as part of a €120 million levy. (read more)

This effort against PM Orban by the European Union is part of the reason why Secretary of State Marco Rubio was so strong in his words of appreciation and support for Orban during his recent visit to Budapest.

RUBIO: “The President has an extraordinarily close relationship to the prime minister. He does. And it has had tangible benefits in our relationship. I’m not going to speculate about the future. What happens in this country is up to the voters of this country to determine and decide, and we love the people of Hungary. But I’m not – but there’s no reason to sugarcoat it. I’m going to be very blunt with you. The prime minister and the President have a very, very close personal relationship and working relationship, and I think it has been incredibly beneficial to the relationship between our two countries.” {Source – Transcript}

Feb 22 2026

Europe Retreats from Climate Change During International Energy Agency Global Meeting


Posted originally on CTH on February 21, 2026 | Sundance 

According to the Washington DC spin, the various EU energy ministers changed clean energy justification of ‘climate change’ during the International Energy Agency (IEA) summit because they were concerned the U.S. would pull out of the IEA group.  The IEA shifted to green energy as a security priority, no longer concerned with climate change.

However, given the situation with European energy costs and the severe problems they are having within their collective and individual economies, what they consider “national security” appears to be their need to control public outrage at the green energy consequences.

Affordable or ‘cheap’ energy production is directly linked to the underlying economy.  If energy production costs more, heating, electricity, fuel, transportation, just about everything costs more.  Energy prices drive consumer prices and that has become a serious problem for the U.K and EU who have chased the “Build Back Better” global energy reset.

With President Trump targeting reciprocity in a global trade balance, suddenly the economies of Europe, Canada and parts of Asia are feeling the impact.  Industrial manufacturing in Europe continues dropping and various sectors like the automotive manufacturing showcase the contraction.  The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or economic output within each of the contracting nations is putting hard data behind the problem.

Suddenly, with their economies now quivering, the IEA meeting in Europe drops the climate change objective as justification for their ‘renewable’ energy programs.  They blame the USA, but in reality, they appear to be trying to save themselves from feeling the full consequences of their action.

(POLITICO) – […] Ministers, senior officials and ministerial advisers told POLITICO that the event had cemented a long-running rebranding of the green transition that emphasizes the security benefits of renewables rather than their climate-saving potential. It’s a change that has been slowly building since U.S. President Donald Trump returned to office 13 months ago, and that was turbocharged by Wright’s threats on Tuesday to quit the IEA and fears Washington might stop funding the body. The U.S. provides around 14 percent of the IEA’s funding.

“With diplomacy it’s about looking for those places where you can work together,” said one European energy ministry official present at the closed-door discussions. “If the word ‘climate change’ is a red drape for a bull then don’t use it.”

The emphasis on security — not climate change — was everywhere.

“Renewable energy is not about tackling climate change, it’s about economic growth and affordable and low energy prices,” Austrian State Secretary of Energy Elizabeth Zehetner told POLITICO on the sidelines of the event. Zehetner stressed however that Europeans wouldn’t be “blackmailed” by the U.S.

Her comments reflect that independently of the U.S., Europe has itself moved away from the climate fervor that dominated Brussels policymaking in the first part of this decade. Still, despite some backsliding on green rules, the EU remains fundamentally in favor of strong policies to tackle climate change. (read more)

People tend to forget, coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic era, the Build Back Better agenda to radically change energy policy throughout the west was the primary cause of massive jumps in consumer prices.

Feb 21 2026

Tucker Carlson Interviews U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee


Posted originally on CTH on February 21, 2026 | Sundance 

Tucker Carlson interviews U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee against the background of a potential U.S. military operation against Iran. Apparently, Carlson and Huckabee had some public disagreements on the subject of Israel, and this interview came about as Ambassador Huckabee invited Carlson for an interview.

The interview is filled with uncomfortable friction as Carlson asks many questions that come from ongoing reviews of the files of Jeffrey Epstein. Mr Carlson confronts Ambassador Huckabee with his personal opinion that the U.S. Ambassador works for Israel and not the best interests of the United States.

.

Feb 21 2026

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent Outlines “Multiple Tools” Now Deployed in Tariff Policy – Sec. 232, 301 and 122 Explained


Posted originally on CTH on February 20, 2026 | Sundance 

Speaking to the Economic Club of Dallas, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent outlines what technical procedures the Trump administration will trigger now to retain tariff authority.  As anticipated Bessent outlines section 232 tariffs, section 301 tariffs, and Section 122 tariffs.  WATCH (prompted):

Section 232 [Steel and Aluminum examples] of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. §1862, as amended) authorizes the President to impose trade restrictions—such as a tariff or quota—if the Secretary of Commerce determines, following an investigation, that imports of a good “threaten to impair” U.S. national security. {SOURCE}

Section 301 tariffs are a trade enforcement mechanism established under the Trade Act of 1974. They allow the U.S. government to impose tariffs on imports from countries that are found to be engaging in unfair trade practices. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) conducts investigations to determine if a country is violating trade agreements, and if so, it can impose tariffs as a corrective measure {SOURCE}

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the U.S. president to impose tariffs of up to 15% to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits. This authority can be exercised without prior congressional approval for a limited duration of 150 days. After this period, any tariffs must be extended by Congress. {SOURCE}

Feb 21 2026

President Trump Holds a Press Availability on the Issue of Tariffs 


Posted originally on CTH on February 20, 2026 | Sundance | 113 Comments

President Donald Trump delivers remarks and holds a media availability following the Supreme Court 6-3 decision on the meaning of the word “regulate.”  WATCH:

.

Feb 21 2026

Supreme Court Rule 6-3 Against President Trump’s IEEPA Tariff Authority – The “Regulate” Opinion


Posted originally on CTH on February 20, 2026 | Sundance

The frustrating issue with the Supreme Court ruling [SEE HERE] is not simply the legal logic applied, which essentially boils down to actionable definitions surrounding the word “regulate,” but also the high court’s seeming blindness to the “emergency” part of the reason IEEPA was used.

Economic security is national security, and the hollowing out of our ability to independently sustain our national economic system posed a real and substantive threat to our nation.  The court never evaluated the ‘urgency’ behind the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as used by President Donald Trump.

Instead, the court began their legal analysis by seeking to define the word “regulate” as it applies to IEEPA.  Part II–B, concluding: (a) IEEPA authorizes the President to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit . . . importation or exportation.” §1702(a)(1)(B) under the Act.

The majority of the court decided presidential ability to levy countervailing duties is not part of the ability to “regulate” importation.

In the opinion of the court, the President can block imports, nullify imports and prohibit imports, but the president cannot “regulate” imports through the use of tariffs.  This is the representative logic of a John Roberts court, the voice of Bush Inc.

It is what it is – and many of us saw this nonsense as a likely outcome, but it is still frustrating to see such a detached parseltongue approach to legal opinions when the national security of our nation is at stake.  These are the judicial minds who will watch the nation burn to the ground, just so they can remain in power ruling over the ashes.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch joined the court’s three liberals in the majority.  Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

(Via Politico) – […] “The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,” Roberts wrote, declaring that the 1977 law Trump cited to justify the import duties “falls short” of the Congressional approval that would be needed.

The ruling wipes out the 10 percent tariff Trump imposed on nearly every country in the world, as well as specific, higher tariffs on some of the top U.S. trading partners, including Canada, Mexico, China, the European Union, Japan and South Korea.

Several of those countries have entered trade agreements with the U.S. — and before the ruling indicated that they would continue to honor those agreements.

That is because the victory for the 12 Democratic-run states and small businesses that challenged Trump’s tariffs is expected to be short lived. The White House has signaled it will attempt to use other authorities to keep similar duties in place.

“We’ve been thinking about this plan for five years or longer,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told POLITICO in December. “You can be sure that when we came to the president the beginning of the term, we had a lot of different options”

“My message is tariffs are going to be a part of the policy landscape going forward,” Greer said. (read more)

Justice Thomas agrees with CTH prior position on the issue.  IEEPA grants the president the authority to regulate imports, and tariffs are a tool for regulation.

Despite this decision the tariffs will remain in place, perhaps using various authorities which have not been challenged as noted in the Kavanaugh dissent:

That said, with respect to tariffs in particular, the Court’s decision might not prevent Presidents from imposing most if not all of these same sorts of tariffs under other statutory authorities. For example, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 permits the President to impose a “temporary import surcharge” to “deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits.” 19 U. S. C. §2132(a). Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 provides that, if the International Trade Commission determines an article is being imported in such quantities that it is “a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported article,” the President may take “appropriate and feasible action,” including imposing a “duty.” §§2251(a), 2253(a)(3)(A). Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the President through a subordinate officer to “impose duties” if he determines that “an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country” is “unjustifiable and burdens or restricts United States commerce.” §§2411(a)(c). Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 permits the President to impose tariffs when he finds that “any foreign country places any burden or disadvantage upon the commerce of the United States.” §1338(d). And Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 authorizes the President to, after receiving a report from the Secretary of Commerce, “adjust the imports of [an] article and its derivatives so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security.” §1862(c)(1)(a).

So the Court’s decision is not likely to greatly restrict Presidential tariff authority going forward. (pg, 63 dissent)