Posted originally on CTH on February 23, 2026 | Sundance
British Member of Parliament (MP) Mr. Rupert Lowe shared a statement on the X platform, written by the Rape Gang Inquiry within the U.K. What is written about the abuse is horrific.
[…] ‘This inquiry is about action. We have gathered evidence, we will listen carefully over the coming two weeks, and we will then act. Our ultimate objective is justice – including the pursuit of private prosecutions where appropriate. Justice for the girls who were abused. Justice for the families who were ignored.
And justice for a country that was repeatedly misled about what was happening in its towns and cities.’ (more)
If the U.K cannot or will not address this level of sick, criminal activity that exploits vulnerable British girls, then the U.K. has completely fallen.
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.
Posted originally on CTH on February 21, 2026 | Sundance
This is a little surprising to hear in someone’s outside voice. According to Jeffrey Epstein’s former lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, if his client had told him he worked for Israeli intelligence or the CIA Dershowitz could have gotten him off the charges with no jail time.
Essentially, Dershowitz is saying any sex criminals or pedophiles that work for intelligence agencies would never receive any prison sentences. WATCH (prompted):
As remarkable as it sounds, Alan Dershowitz is actually confirming what many people suspect. If a U.S. or Israeli intelligence asset commits a crime, they can leverage their position to get out of any criminal accountability.
Good grief. I’m not sure Dershowitz realizes we can hear what he is saying.
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.
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.
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 canblock 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)
Posted originally on CTH on February 19, 2026 | Sundance
Apparently when President Barack H Obama said that Aliens were real, his opinion was party based on classified “classified intelligence material.” As noted by President Trump earlier today, he may have to declassify material related to the statements of Obama in order to protect him from prosecution…
Posted originally on CTH on February 17, 2026 | Sundance
There is an awful lot to unpack in this seemingly obscure article talking about Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and a new trade approach he is pitching to Pacific/Asia and Atlantic/European nations. [Story Here]
Before getting to the substance of the outline, something important needs to be shared for context.
Do you remember the 2014, 2015 and 2016 top story conversations and debates over the Transpacific Partnership trade deal known as TPP?
You might also remember the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership trade deal known as TTIP.
The TPP (Pacific) and TTIP (Atlantic) were two major multinational trade deals negotiated between 2013 and 2016. While both sparked plenty of debate, most of the spotlight was on the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Hillary Clinton was in favor of TPP as were most of the traditional republican field of candidates in ’15/’16. However, Donald Trump was strongly against TPP and pledged to exit out of any negotiations and scrap the U.S. participation if he was to win the 2016 election. Some of you may begin to remember this.
Donald Trump agreed with our position, that TPP was being falsely sold as a beneficial 12-nation massive trade agreement between the USA and pacific rim countries including Australia and Southeast Asia nations.
With the history of NAFTA behind us, we could see two major issues with TPP: #1: It was structured with a back door to let China into the deal. And #2) it was created to ensure the USA remained a “service driven economy.”
Supporters of TPP and TTIP claimed this multinational trade deals would create smooth supply chains and align on ‘rules of origin.’ They believed TPP would benefit companies and lead to cheaper products. Critics, however, argued that the agreements were designed to exploit the U.S. consumer market and prevent the country from ever regaining a strong manufacturing base.
I share those reminders to set up the big 800-lb gorilla question.
If the TPP was such a great trade deal for all parties involved, why didn’t the group finalize it after the USA withdrew? It’s been a decade, so why haven’t the TPP nations completed their trade agreement?
The honest answer reveals the undiscussed lie.
Both TPP and TTIP were constructed and designed to keep exploiting the U.S. consumer market. That’s it. That was the entire purpose of TPP (Asia) and TTIP (Europe). Corporations and lobbyists like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote the TPP language to maximize corporate profits. That was the purpose of it.
Take the U.S.A. out of the TPP trade agreement and the purpose/benefit no longer exists. Without the host, there is no need for a feeding agreement between parasites. That’s why a decade has passed and TPP/TTIP went nowhere.
All of that said, suddenly with President Trump positioning to eliminate the USMCA trade agreement, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney wants to go back to the TPP/TTIP “Rules of Origin” trade framework in order to create an insurance policy against the end of the trilateral USMCA trade agreement.
Now, here is where it gets really interesting. There is no way for Canada to remain in the USMCA and simultaneously commit to a trade agreement with different rules of origin. This means that for Carney to accomplish what he’s reportedly aiming for, the dissolution of the UMCA would already need to be in the works.
“A Party intending to negotiate a free trade agreement with a non-market country shall inform the other Parties at least three months prior to commencing negotiations and, upon request, provide information regarding the objectives of those negotiations.
A Party that enters into a free trade agreement with a non-market country shall provide the other Parties with the full text of the agreement prior to signing.
If a Party enters into a free trade agreement with a non-market country, the other Parties may terminate this Agreement on six months’ notice and replace it with a bilateral agreement.” [SOURCE]
The Canadian proposal violates the central tenet of the USMCA. Carney’s proposal can only move forward if the Canadian government has already accepted that the USMCA trade agreement will come to an end.
WASHINGTON – The European Union and a 12-nation Indo-Pacific bloc are opening talks to explore proposals to form one of the largest global economic alliances, multiple people with knowledge of the talks told POLITICO.
Canada is spearheading the discussions after Prime Minister Mark Carney called on middle powers to buck trade war coercion last month, days after Trump threatened to raise tariffs on Denmark’s European allies if it didn’t cede Greenland.
Ottawa is “championing efforts to build a bridge between the Trans-Pacific Partnership [CPTPP] and the European Union, which would create a new trading bloc of 1.5 billion people,” Carney told world leaders and the global business elite in Davos.
The middle powers are taking action. The EU and CPTPP are starting talks this year to strike an agreement to intertwine the supply chains of members like Canada, Singapore, Mexico, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Australia with Europe.
It would bring nearly 40 nations on opposite sides of the globe closer together with the aim of reaching a deal on so-called rules of origin.
These rules determine the economic nationality of a product. A deal would allow manufacturers throughout the two blocs to trade goods and their parts more seamlessly in a low-tariff process known as cumulation. (read more)
In practice, a multilateral trade agreement with “Rules of Origin” involving many countries doesn’t really matter to the USA since our trade deals are bilateral. Other parties can set whatever terms they like, but if they want access to the U.S. market, that’s where we lay out our own specific terms on a one-to-one basis.
The same thing cannot be said for Canada, who is intentionally planning to remain a deindustrialized economy. Canada will import component goods for assembly in Canada, but they will not fabricate much.
Prime Minister Mark Carney is strategically planning to keep Canada dependent on cheap foreign imports.
Posted originally on CTH on February 17, 2026 | Sundance
While the government of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has inked a trade agreement with China to accept cheap imported vehicles in exchange for Beijing purchasing some agricultural products, President Trump has promised those cheap Chinese EVs will never cross the border into the USA.
The Canadian polling on the issue has done a remarkable chang in the past few years. Now, the majority of Canadians are willing to purchase cheap Chinese EVs. As outlined by Bloomberg, “More than half of Canadians, or 53%, say that knowing an EV was made in China would have no effect on their purchasing decision, according to a new poll by Nanos Research Group for Bloomberg News.”
Approximately 50,000 Chinese electric vehicles will enter the Canadian market in the first year. “The pact with China includes a provision that part of the quota will be reserved for electric vehicles priced at C$35,000 ($25,700) or less, the government has said.” {SOURCE}
The Canadian government wants a Chinese auto manufacturer, any Chinese auto manufacturer, to build factories in Canada to produce these electric vehicles. Canada wants the jobs and economic activity because Canada is currently bleeding jobs and economic activity due to the trade conflict with the U.S.
Building cheap Chinese EVs in Canada might help offset a few thousand job losses, but building Chinese EVs in Canada only further ensures there will not be a substantive trade agreement between the USA and Canada once the USMCA (CUSMA) is dissolved. [More on that coming]
Meanwhile, Chinese EV company Build Your Dream (BYD) has announced they sold 4.6 million vehicles worldwide last year, far surpassing Tesla and even surpassing all of the Ford global auto manufacturing. BYD is now the sixth largest auto manufacturing company in the world.
[Auto News] […] The 2025 sales figures place BYD at sixth largest among global automakers, meaning Ford slipped to seventh in total global deliveries. Toyota remains the dominant global seller with sales exceeding 10 million units followed by Volkswagen Group, Hyundai Motor (including Kia and Genesis), General Motors, and Stellantis.
BYD’s sixth position in the global automotive sales index is particularly notable for an auto maker that focuses almost exclusively on new energy vehicles (NEVs) — a category that includes battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs). (more)
CTH previously outlined the specific explosion in BYD auto sales HERE. Europe, Russia, Asia and Australia are flooded with cheap Chinese EVs particularly from the BYD brand. Canada is now opening themselves to face the same issue.
Posted originally on CTH on February 15, 2026 | Sundance
Kentucky congressman Thomas Massie appears on ABC This Week with Martha Raddatz to assert his position as our nation’s ultimate judge of morality and righteousness and pass judgement upon any individual that does not meet his expectation or standard.
Against the backdrop of billionaire leftist Reid Hoffman who has financed most of the claims promoted by Epstein victims for use by Representative Massie, the congressman pledges to remain on task. Hoffman never called as a witness. Video and Transcript below.
[TRANSCRIPT] – RADDATZ: I’m joined now by Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who helped lead the efforts to release the Epstein files.
Good morning to you, Congressman.
I would like your overall reaction to the hearing this week and Pam Bondi’s performance, combativeness.
REP. THOMAS MASSIE, (R) KENTUCKY & JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBER: I don’t think she did very well. She came with a book full of insults, one for each congressperson. She obviously had one for me.
And, you know, I’ve been there when Merrick Garland was there. Obviously, politically, I don’t agree with him, but he performed much better in terms of at least not looking bad. And, unfortunately, we didn’t get the answers we wanted about the Epstein Files Transparency Act from her.
RADDATZ: You — did you get any of the answers you wanted?
MASSIE: No, but she did come off her script and engage with me about this production of documents where she admitted that 40 minutes after I pointed out to the DOJ that they had over-redacted some of the documents, they did unredacted documents. So, it’s clear they’ve made mistakes in the document production. At least she acknowledges that tacitly. And it’s clear that their work is not done here yet.
RADDATZ: And I want to go to those — some of those unredacted files. Congressman Ro Khanna said names of some of the men who were redacted shouldn’t have been redacted. They then sent that back to you, and two of them were not redacted. But on Friday, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche accused you and Congressman Khanna of unmasking those people, saying they had nothing to do with Epstein or Maxwell. They were from an FBI line-up years ago.
What’s your response to that?
MASSIE: Well, three hours before Todd Blanche himself unredacted those names, I told him in an X post, which I know he read because he reposted it, that those may be men in a line-up. And then I went on TV and said, those may be men in a line-up. And it was actually the DOJ who released those names, which is fine, but they omitted the context that I provided, which is these may be in a line-up.
Now, there were two men who needed to be named, one of whom has already resigned, the Emirate, a sultan, resigned for — as a CEO of a very large company because we released his name.
And there’s another man, Leslie Wexner, I’ll add him to the list with Jes Staley and Leon Black, who need to be investigated right now. They’ve appeared in these files.
Leslie Wexner is the one who — you know, Pam Bondi said, oh, he’s appeared thousands of times in these documents. We’re not covering up anything. But I pointed out to her, they redacted his name from the one document that says “child sex trafficking co-conspirator.”
And my question is, who is the person at DOJ who redacted Leslie Wexner’s name from a document titled “child sex trafficking” with “co-conspirator” next to this name?
(CROSSTALK)
RADDATZ: And I want to say right now that Wexner denies and they say he was not a co-conspirator. Wexner has a statement: The assistant U.S. attorney told Mr. Wexner’s legal counsel in 2019 that Mr. Wexner was neither co-conspirator nor target in any respect. Mr. Wexner cooperated full by providing background information on Epstein and was never contacted again.
But I’d like to move on, if we can.
MASSIE: Yeah.
RADDATZ: Yesterday, the DOJ sent Congress a letter explaining the reason for all these reactions. So, you are not satisfied with that?
MASSIE: No, they’re citing deliberative process privilege in order not to release some of the documents. The problem with that is the bill that Ro Khanna and I wrote says that they must release internal memos and notes and emails about their decisions on whether to prosecute or not prosecute, whether to investigate or not investigate.
It’s important they follow that because then we could find why they didn’t prosecute Leslie Wexner. What was the decision tree there? And also, why, in 2008 they gave Jeffrey Epstein such a light sentence?
And finally, I know the DOJ wants to say they’re done with this document production. The problem is they’ve taken down documents before we were able to go over to the DOJ and look at the unredacted versions. They took down some of the most significant documents. Two of them involving Virginia Giuffre’s case and other things, the picture of Epstein at — in a room where it’s — got CIA written on the boxes. That’s been taken down.
We want to be able to look at all these files. They can’t keep those documents down after they’ve already produced them.
RADDATZ: I want to talk to you about one of the moments in this hearing, and that is the attorney general would not look at the Epstein survivors behind her. Did that surprise you?
MASSIE: I think that was kind of cold on her part. I think she was afraid to.
And look, these survivors would love to have a meeting. It’s not about Bill Clinton, and it’s not about Donald Trump. This Epstein Files Transparency Act was about getting these survivors justice.
We’ve got some degree of transparency, but it’s called the Department of Justice, not the department of transparency.
And so, what these survivors need, they need to see some of their own 302 forms, which haven’t been released, and they also need to see some of the men that they’ve implicated prosecuted.
RADDATZ: Do you still have confidence in Pam Bondi as Attorney General?
MASSIE: I don’t think Pam Bondi has confidence in Pam Bondi. She wasn’t confident enough to engage in anything, but name calling in a hearing. And so, no, I don’t have confidence in her. She hasn’t got any sort of accountability there at the DOJ.
When I asked her specifically, who redacted Leslie Wexner’s name from the one document that mattered, she couldn’t give me an answer, she wouldn’t give me an answer. But ultimately, it’s her who is responsible for the document production according to our law, the attorney general.
It’s not Todd Blanche. It’s not the people below them. You can assign tasks to people but you can’t assign your responsibility.
RADDATZ: And just very quickly, if you will. You’ve supported most of what Donald Trump has done during his presidency. Because of your actions with these files, he is supporting your primary opponent and has waged very personal attacks on you.
I know we just have a few seconds here. But just your reaction to that.
MASSIE: Look, this is about the Epstein class, the people who are funding the attacks against me. They may or may not be implicated in these files, but they were certainly rubbing shoulders with the people who are in these files. They’re billionaires who are friends with these people. And that’s what I’m up against in Washington, D.C.
Donald Trump told us that even though, you know, he had dinner with these kinds of people in New York City and West Palm Beach, that he would be transparent. But he’s not. He’s still in with the Epstein class. This is the Epstein administration, and they’re attacking me for trying to get these files released.
RADDATZ: And again, I’m going to say, President Trump has not been accused of anything criminal here.
Thank you very much for joining us this morning, Congressman. We appreciate it.
MASSIE: Thank you. Thank you, Martha.
[End Transcript]
It is rather curious that congress has no interest in calling any of the state or federal officials, including the FBI, to give testimony as to the outcomes of their prior investigations. Show us what was actually done instead of theater. But no, theater seemingly has a greater value.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 