Posted originally on CTH on January 23, 2026 | Sundance
Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) Director Dr. Mehmet Oz and Deputy Director for Health and Human Services, Jim O’Neill, just released a stunning video from Minnesota. They discuss a former linen factory that was transformed into 400 Medicaid businesses that generated almost $380 million in billing to CMS.
It doesn’t make sense. One industrial building housing almost 400 individual Medicaid businesses that cost taxpayers $380 million in payments for services that are now under investigation. It is almost guaranteed these complex houses fraudulent fake businesses. Director Oz dropped the video on his X account.
You’d never believe the kinds of fraud schemes happening in Minnesota. @HHS_Jim and I were taken aback to say the least.
“Why did no one in the state figure out this was a concern? Perplexingly to me, in a place of this nature, an industrial complex that people would not come to for child care or autism care or transportation support, how is it possible this could come up like an abscess in the heart of Minneapolis and nobody was watching?!”
“They generated about $380 million of billing that you, the taxpayer, were putting up. That means roughly each business had a million dollars of billing.” … “It’s an industrial area. There’s no reason that you have a mother bring her child.”
“You can’t imagine getting extra business support. An autistic child probably wouldn’t want to come here. You hear the noise. It’s just not a hospitable place.”
“The question is, how is it possible 400 businesses billing almost $400 million were able to thrive here?!”
“I think it’s because they weren’t looking. They didn’t want to know that this problem was happening here.”
“We’re here to figure out why these folks are being defrauded. Why the people who live in Minnesota aren’t getting access to the care they deserve because it’s been stolen.”
Posted originally on CTH on January 23, 2026 | Sundance
Many of you may remember back in 2024 I strongly urged President Trump to consider appointing Harriet Hageman as CIA Director for very specific reasons and intents. Watch this video below and you will see why she was my preferred choice.
Representative Hageman has just found an important trail to discover the missing documents, recordings and transcripts that were destroyed by the January 6 Committee. WATCH:
Keep in mind that former AAG Mary McCord was working for the J6 Committee at the time period being discussed. When the J6 Committee closed, McCord went to work directly with Jack Smith.
McCord was inside the J6 Committee feeding information to the DOJ and Jack Smith. McCord then went to work for Jack Smith.
Always scheming, organizing and planning in the background of Washington DC, Mary McCord was conducting surveillance of an Oathkeeper chat room and sending information to the FBI following the November 2020 election, and in the runup to the January 6, 2021, protest.
This is interesting on a variety of levels, because we have documented Mary McCord working on the Trump-Russia fabrication [FISA warrant], the CIA [Ukraine] impeachment fabrication [as key staff], the January 6th Committee fabrication [again staff], and the Jack Smith fabrication. Now we see Mary McCord actively setting up the “insurrection narrative” ahead of the J6 protests.
It appears Mrs. McCord then forwarded the email to someone [REDACTED], likely within the J6 Committee or Jack Smith investigation on Sept 24, 2021.
There’s a reason why the J6 Committee deleted the records of their activity, an angle missed by most. When you understand what they hid, and why they did it, you then understand why current Speaker of The House Mike Johnson will not go near the subject.
The J6 targets were identified through a collaboration between the legislative research group and the FBI. [That’s unlawful by the way – but that’s another matter]. The FBI contracted Palantir to identify the targets using facial recognition software and private sector databases.
Once identified, the targets were then searched in the NSA database for a fulsome context of identity. All subsequent electronic metadata of the targets was retrieved and utilized in prosecution; however, no one ever discovered this was the collaborative method. That has not come out yet.
Ultimately, the J6 Committee hiding and deleting their files and operational techniques was due to several issues. They really didn’t have a choice, given the unknowns of an incoming Republican majority.
First, the collaboration with the FBI is unconstitutional. Legislative officers are not law enforcement officers. There is a separation of powers issue.
Second, ultimately – and most consequentially – all of the participants did not want the American public aware of the mass surveillance techniques that were carried out as part of the ’round up.’ That’s where FBI operation Arctic Frost appears in the conversation.
The House Subcommittee on Oversight released a report, [SEE HERE] and overview [SEE HERE], highlighting just how political the J6 Committee was. The report outlines how Nancy Pelosi structured the J6 Committee for political intents, and the longer report showcases the evidence of how Liz Cheney assisted.
WASHINGTON– Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) released his “Initial Findings Report” on the events of January 6, 2021 as well as his investigation into the politicization of the January 6th Select Committee. (more)
The last bullet point has a name. The “Select Committee staff”, who met with Fani Willis, was likely Mary McCord.
If there is one corrupt DC player who has escaped scrutiny for her corrupt endeavors, it would be Mary McCord.
More than any other Lawfare operative, within Main Justice, Mary McCord sits at the center of every table in the manufacturing of cases against Donald Trump. {GO DEEP} Mary McCord’s husband is Sheldon Snook; he was the right hand to the legal counsel of Chief Justice John Roberts.
When the Carter Page FISA application was originally assembled by the FBI and DOJ, there was initial hesitancy from within the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) about submitting the application, because it did not have enough citations in evidence (the infamous ‘Woods File’). That’s why the Steele Dossier ultimately became important. It was the Steele Dossier that provided the push, the legal cover needed for the DOJ-NSD to submit the application for a Title-1 surveillance warrant against the campaign of Donald J. Trump.
When the application was finally assembled for submission to the FISA court, the head of the DOJ-NSD was John Carlin. Carlin quit working for the DOJ-NSD in late September 2016, just before the final application was submitted (October 21,2016). John Carlin was replaced by Deputy Asst. Attorney General, Mary McCord.
♦ When the FISA application was finally submitted (approved by Sally Yates and James Comey), it was Mary McCord who did the actual process of filing the application and gaining the Title-1 surveillance warrant.
A few months later, February 2017, with Donald Trump now in office as President, it was Mary McCord who went with Deputy AG Sally Yates to the White House to confront White House legal counsel Don McGahn over the Michael Flynn interview with FBI agents. The surveillance of Flynn’s calls was presumably done under the auspices and legal authority of the FISA application Mary McCord previously was in charge of submitting.
♦ At the time the Carter Page application was filed (October 21, 2016), Mary McCord’s chief legal counsel inside the office was a DOJ-NSD lawyer named Michael Atkinson. In his role as the legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD, it was Atkinson’s job to review and audit all FISA applications submitted from inside the DOJ. Essentially, Atkinson was the DOJ internal compliance officer in charge of making sure all FISA applications were correctly assembled and documented.
♦ When the anonymous CIA whistleblower complaint was filed against President Trump, for the issues of the Ukraine call with President Zelensky, the Intelligence Community Inspector General had to change the rules for the complaint to allow an anonymous submission. Prior to this change, all intelligence whistleblowers had to put their name on the complaint. It was this 2019 IGIC who changed the rules. Who was the Intelligence Community Inspector General? Michael Atkinson.
Yes, after she left main justice, Mary McCord took the job of working for Chairman Jerry Nadler and Chairman Adam Schiff as the chief legal advisor inside the investigation that led to the construction of articles of impeachment. As a consequence, Mary McCord received the newly permitted anonymous whistleblower complaint from her old office colleague Michael Atkinson.
KEY: Michael Atkinson was forced to testify to the joint House impeachment committee about the CIA whistleblower rule change and the process he authorized and participated in as the Intelligence Community Inspector General. Adam Schiffsealed that deposition, and no one has ever discussed what Atkinson said when questioned.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (Legislative Branch) can unseal and release that testimony to the CIA or ODNI (Executive Branch), and Tulsi Gabbard who is in charge of the ICIG can declassify Michael Atkinson’s deposition. However, Speaker Mike Johnson has to transfer it from the legislative to the executive, and unfortunately it does not appear that Speaker Johnson wants to open that can-of-worms – at least, not willingly.
Moving on…
♦ During his investigation of the Carter Page application, Inspector General Michael Horowitz discovered an intentional lie inside the Carter Page FISA application (directly related to the ‘Woods File’), which his team eventually tracked to FBI counterintelligence division lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith. Eventually Clinesmith was criminally charged with fabricating evidence (changed wording on an email) in order to intentionally falsify the underlying evidence in the FISA submission.
When John Durham took the Clinesmith indictment to court, the judge in the case was James Boasberg.
♦ In addition to being a DC criminal judge, James Boasberg is also a FISA court judge who signed-off on one of the renewals for the FISA application that was submitted using fraudulent evidence fabricated by Kevin Clinesmith. In essence, now the presiding judge over the FISA court, Boasberg was the FISC judge who was tricked by Clinesmith, and now the criminal court judge in charge of determining Clinesmith’s legal outcome. Judge Boasberg eventually sentenced Clinesmith to 6 months probation.
As an outcome of continued FISA application fraud and wrongdoing by the FBI, in their exploitation of searches of the NSA database, Presiding FISC Judge James Boasberg appointed an amici curiae advisor to the court who would monitor the DOJ-NSD submissions and ongoing FBI activities.
Who did James Boasberg select as a FISA court amicus? Mary McCord.
♦ SUMMARY: Mary McCord submitted the original false FISA application to the court using the demonstrably false Dossier. Mary McCord participated in the framing of Michael Flynn. Mary McCord worked with ICIG Michael Atkinson to create a fraudulent whistleblower complaint against President Trump; and Mary McCord used that manipulated complaint to assemble articles of impeachment on behalf of the joint House Intel and Judiciary Committee. Mary McCord then took up a defensive position inside the FISA court to protect the DOJ and FBI from sunlight upon all the aforementioned corrupt activity.
You can clearly see how Mary McCord would be a person of interest if anyone was going to start digging into corruption internally within the FBI, DOJ or DOJ-NSD.
What happened next….
November 3, 2021 – In Washington DC – “Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and the House Jan. 6 Select Committee has tapped Mary McCord, who once ran the Justice Department’s National Security Division, for representation in its fight to obtain former President Donald Trump’s White House records. (read more)
Yes, that is correct. After seeding and guiding all of the Lawfare attacks against candidate Donald Trump, then President-Elect Donald Trump, then President Donald Trump, Mary McCord took up a key legal position inside the J6 Committee to continue the Lawfare against President Trump after he left office.
But wait…. remember the stories of the J6 investigative staff going to work for Jack Smith on the investigation of Donald Trump, that included the raid on Mar-a-Lago? Well, Mary McCord was a member of that team [citation]; all indications are that her efforts continued as a quiet member of the Special Counsel team
That’s the context; now I want to go back a little.
First, when did Mary McCord become “amicus” to the FISA court? ANSWER: When the court (Boasberg) discovered IG Michael Horowitz was investigating the fraudulent FISA application. In essence, the FISA Court appointed the person who submitted the fraudulent filing, to advise on any ramifications from the fraudulent filing. See how that works?
Now, let’s go deeper….
When Mary McCord went to the White House, with Sally Yates, to talk to White House Counsel Don McGhan, about the Flynn call with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, and the subsequent CBS interview with VP Pence, where Pence’s denial of any wrongdoing took place, the background narrative in the attack against Flynn was the Logan Act.
The construct of the Logan Act narrative was pure Lawfare, and DAG Sally Yates with Acting NSD AAG Mary McCord were the architects.
Why was the DOJ National Security Division concerned with a conflict between what Pence said on CBS and what Flynn said about his conversations with Kislyak?
This is where a big mental reset is needed.
Flynn did nothing wrong. The incoming National Security Advisor can say anything he wants with the Russian ambassador, short of giving away classified details of any national security issue. In December of 2016, if Michael Flynn wanted to say Obama was an a**hole, and the Trump administration disagreed with everything he ever did, the incoming NSA was free to do so. There was simply nothing wrong with that conversation – regardless of content.
So, why were McCord and Yates so determined to make an issue in media and in confrontation with the White House?
Why did the DOJ-NSD even care? This is the part that people overlooked when the media narrative was driving the news cycle. People got too stuck in the weeds and didn’t ask the right questions.
Some entity, we discover later was the FBI counterintelligence division, was monitoring Flynn’s calls. They transcribed a copy of the call between Flynn and Kislyak, and that became known as the “Flynn Cuts”, as described within internal documents and later statements.
After the Flynn/Kislyak conversation was leaked to the media, Obama asked ODNI Clapper how that call got leaked. Clapper went to the FBI on 1/4/17 and asked FBI Director James Comey. Comey gave Clapper a copy of the Flynn Cuts which Clapper then took back to the White House to explain to Obama.
Obama’s White House counsel went bananas, because Clapper had just walked directly into the Oval Office with proof the Obama administration was monitoring the incoming National Security Advisor. Obama’s plausible deniability of the surveillance was lost as soon as Clapper walked in with the written transcript.
That was the motive for the 1/5/17 Susan Rice memo, and the reason for Obama to emphasize “by the book” three times.
It wasn’t that Obama didn’t know already; it was that a document trail now existed (likely a CYA from Comey) that took away Obama’s plausible deniability of knowledge. The entire January 5th meeting was organized to mitigate this issue.
Knowing the Flynn Cuts were created simultaneously with the phone call, and knowing how it was quickly decided to use the Logan Act as a narrative against Flynn and Trump, we can be very sure both McCord and Yates had read that transcript before they went to the White House. [Again, this is the entire purpose of them going to the White House to confront McGhan with their manufactured concerns.]
So, when it comes to ‘who leaked’ the reality of the Flynn/Kislyak call to the media, the entire predicate for the Logan Act violation – in hindsight – I would bet a donut it was Mary McCord.
But wait, there’s more….
Now we go back to McCord’s husband, Sheldon Snook.
Sheldon was working for the counsel to John Roberts. The counsel to the Chief Justice has one job – to review the legal implications of issues before the court and advise Justice John Roberts. The counsel to the Chief Justice knows everything happening in the court, and is the sounding board for any legal issues impacting the Supreme Court.
In his position as the right hand of the counsel to the chief justice, Sheldon Snook would know everything happening inside the court.
At the time, there was nothing bigger inside the court than the Alito opinion known as the Dobb’s Decision – the returning of abortion law to the states. Without any doubt, the counsel to Chief Justice Roberts would have that decision at the forefront of his advice and counsel. By extension, this puts the actual written Alito opinion in the orbit of Sheldon Snook.
After the Supreme Court launched a heavily publicized internal investigation into the leaking of the Dobbs decision (Alito opinion), something interesting happened. Sheldon Snook left his position. If you look at the timing of the leak, the investigation and the Sheldon Snook exit, the circumstantial evidence looms large.
Of course, given the extremely high stakes, the institutional crisis with the public discovering the office of the legal counsel to the Chief Justice likely leaked the decision, such an outcome would be catastrophic for the institutional credibility. In essence, it would be Robert’s office who leaked the opinion to the media.
If you were Chief Justice John Roberts, and desperately needed to protect the integrity of the court, making sure such a thermonuclear discovery was never identified would be paramount. Under the auspices of motive, Sheldon Snook would exit quietly. Which is exactly what happened.
The timeline holds the key.
BACK TO MARY in 2025 – During the question session for Attorney General Pam Bondi’s nomination, Adam Schiff asked Mary McCord about whether AG Bondi should recuse herself from investigating Adam Schiff and Mary McCord. It’s a little funny if you understand the background.
I prompted the video to the part at 01:36:14 when Schiff asks McCord, and Mrs. McCord responds with “yes, Pam Bondi should recuse.” WATCH:
Mary McCord says Pam Bondi must recuse herself from any investigative outcome related to the first impeachment effort.
Who was the lead staff working for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler on the first impeachment effort?
Mary McCord.
Now, triggering that first impeachment effort… Who worked with ICIG Michael Atkinson to change the CIA whistleblower regulations permitting an anonymous complaint?
Yep, that would be the same Mary McCord.
In essence, the woman who organized, structured, led and coordinated the first impeachment effort, says Pam Bondi must recuse herself from investigating the organization, structure, leadership and coordination of the first impeachment effort.
If all that seems overwhelming, here’s a short recap:
♦ McCord submitted the fraudulent FISA application to spy on Trump campaign.
♦ McCord helped create the “Logan Act” claim used against Michael Flynn and then went with Sally Yates to confront the White House.
♦ McCord then left the DOJ and went to work for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler on Impeachment Committee.
♦ McCord organized the CIA rule changes with Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson.
♦ McCord led and organized the impeachment effort, in the background, using the evidence she helped create.
♦ McCord joined the FISA Court to protect against DOJ IG Michael Horowitz newly gained NSD oversight and FISA review.
♦ McCord joined the J6 Committee helping to create all the lawfare angles they deployed.
♦ McCord then coordinated with DA Fani Willis in Georgia.
♦ McCord was working with Special Counsel Jack Smith to prosecute Trump.
♦ McCord is now coordinating outside Lawfare attacks against Donald Trump in term #2
♦ McCord also testified that AG Pam Bondi must recuse herself from investigating McCord.
Now, if you’re wondering why I spend so much time and attention on the Mary McCord issue, the information today about her sending the FBI information about the Oathkeepers chat group might clarify things.
When I look at that activity by Mary McCord, and I consider the duplicity of the FBI in conducting the Arctic Frost investigation, I also consider that I was personally targeted by the J6 team of McCord and the FBI.
It all tracks, and Mary McCord is in the very center of all of it.
Posted originally on CTH on January 22, 2026 | Sundance
The predicate for Jack Smith to prosecute President Trump for his efforts to “interfere in the 2020 election”, and thereby “challenge all democratic norms”, essentially boiled down to Jack Smith accusing President Trump of participating in a fraud when he challenged the outcome of the 2020 election.
To get beyond President Trump’s first amendment right to free speech, Jack Smith previously claimed to congress that Trump knowingly understood, “believed” that Joe Biden had won the election. That President Trump was told by senior Republican advisors that Biden had legitimately won the 2020 election, and that President Trump rejected the reality of the “truthful information” presented to him; instead choosing to launch a psychological operation against the American people, i.e. “fraud.”
However, in sworn testimony in the House today, Jack Smith admitted that President Trump “was believing anything that would keep him in office.” The key word here is “believe.” Within that statement, Smith revealed he had no case against Trump because President Trump believed he won the 2020 election. WATCH:
BUSTED! This is the Moment where Jack Smith REVEALS he NEVER had a Case against Trump. The President BELIEVED he WON (lots of ppl agree btw) —-POTUS believed, therefore NOT “falsity” or False Claims. The “criminal intent” is NOT there. Excellent Job by the @judiciaryGOP!!!! pic.twitter.com/INhYJ9ogva
If President Trump believed he won the election, he could not commit fraud by expressing his belief. Jack Smith’s entire predicate for the criminal investigation of President Trump was the charge of “fraud,” or intentional deception.
It is the charge of “fraud” which underpins the entirety of the case against Donald Trump, as pursued by Jack Smith. The charge itself is predicated on definitions of what constitutes truthful information, and within that subset of predicate you begin to realize just how important it is to professional leftists that they control information.
The case was dropped after the results of the November 2024 election, won by President Trump. However, if President Trump had not won that election, the prosecution would have continued.
Jack Smith notes in his testimony, in the most Machiavellian way, that his primary prosecution approach was to present “Republican” witnesses like Mike Pence, who Smith cunningly said he could not discuss as he was restricted from revealing grand jury testimony.
Smith was prepared to present witness testimony from Pence and other political “Republicans” who told President Trump that Joe Biden had legitimately won the election, and Trump needed to concede. This testimony then forms the baseline for the definition of “truthful information” that Trump rejected out of a malice mindset to continue clinging to power.
In essence, Smith defines what is “truth” (Biden won), then outlines how that truthful information was delivered and how President Trump dismissed it. Therefore, President Trump’s “mens-rea”, or state of mind, was one of promoting an intentional falsehood. According to the Lawfare approach selected by Smith, this mindset is the predicate that blocks President Trump from using his First Amendment right to speech as a defense.
Intentional fraud is not allowed under the protections of “free speech.” Jack Smith wanted to prove that President Trump was engaged in intentional fraud and wanted to prove his mindset therein through the use of Republican political voices who delivered information to President Trump.
Jack Smith sought to define “truth” and then counter the free speech defense by mob agreement on what constitutes the “truth.” Under this predicate, President Trump was being prosecuted for a thought crime, and Jack Smith sought to legally prove he knew his thoughts.
The only way Jack Smith could prove fraud would be to prove that President Trump believed the information about Joe Biden winning the election. Smith sought to prove Trump’s belief by presenting Republican voices who told President Trump he lost.
Whether you like or dislike President Trump, the issue here is alarming when contemplated.
A man tells you a chicken is a frog, you laugh. The man then brings 15 of your family members to tell you a chicken is a frog. You reject the absurdity of the premise, but the man brings forth hundreds more people to tell you the chicken is a frog, and if you do not accept that Chickens are Frogs, you will be defined as mentally impaired, institutionalized and become a ward of the state.
[Insert any similar metaphor needed, including “what is a woman.”]
When we consider the current state of sociological, societal or government manipulation of information, and/or the need for government to control information (mis-dis-mal-information) as an overlay, you can quickly see where this type of legal predicate can take us. Bizarro world becomes a dystopian nightmare.
Yes, it is also clear that Leftists, inside that closed-door committee hearing, are intending to impeach President Trump on these grounds if they successfully win the 2026 midterm election. However, that is not the critical takeaway from this deposition. Instead, the critical takeaway is how the Lawfare construct can be twisted and manipulated to create the legal means to the leftist ends.
Stop the Division!
We cannot allow these communist, Marxist and leftist-minded control agents get back into power.
Posted originally on CTH on January 22, 2026 | Sundance
It’s around lunchtime and I’ve spent so much time deep in the weeds of an issue that I need a break. So, here’s a little funny story from my real-world travels in the past few years that given the current Davos meeting topics you might find interesting.
I went to Russia in 2024, because what I was hearing in western media about the sanctions did not align with what I was seeing from reports inside Russia. Before I went into Russia, I spent several weeks in Northern and Eastern Europe visiting various institutions, reading material and checking to see how systems in Europe were engaging with commerce given the Russian sanctions. It wasn’t very exciting work, and sometimes I literally just sat in the lobbies of banks listening to conversations.
When I went into Russia (April, May, June and July ’24) I noticed many of the “Uber cars” were BYD brand, Chinese electric vehicles. It made sense given two years of existing sanctions and few cars from Europe or America available except under costly brokerage fees for acquisition. They like the Geely brand better, but BYDs are much cheaper. A brand new BYD costs around $5,000 to $10,000 USD, in some places even less.
Then later I noticed even more of these BYD cars in Europe. I started to pay attention to them and saw them everywhere.
When I went back into Russia a year later in 2025, there was a very noticeable increase in BYD cars. It was crazy, they were everywhere.
My travels also took me to southeast Asia and again those damned BYD’s were all over the place. In Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, these BYD’s were everywhere, maybe even 30% of total vehicle traffic at times – most certainly well over 50% of all EVs – and there are digital billboards for “Build Your Dream” (BYD) all over the place throughout Asia.
Australia is stocked full of those things, and the middle east, yup, even there too. It became increasingly weird to notice. So many were visible I was wondering how the heck China can mass produce and ship this many cheap EVs so fast.
Then as serendipity would have it, I ran into a Chinese guy, professionally an actuary, in a hotel restaurant. He explained to me that China produces the BYD not to make money from the automobile, but rather to sell the carbon credits the automobile generates within the auto industry.
The actual value to Beijing is in selling the carbon credit worthiness to various automakers who are fined or penalized by their government for producing gasoline powered vehicles.
BYD is, in essence, not a car per se’, but a mechanism to generate a carbon credit certificate that can be sold to other car companies. It’s the carbon credit certificate that generates the revenue, not the sale of the vehicle. As my dinner guest explained, the auto insurance industry was having fits about this because the actuaries couldn’t accurately put a correct figure on the cost of the insurance warrantee within the industry (that’s another story).
The bottom line is that China is manufacturing a product to create a carbon credit certificate in response to the demand for carbon credits from all the world auto-makers. Any nation that has a penalty or fine attached to their climate goals is a customer. Those are nations with fines or quotas associated with the production of gasoline powered engines if the auto company doesn’t hit the legislated target for sales of electric vehicles.
In essence, EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN car companies buy Chinese car company carbon credits, to avoid the EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN fines. The Chinese then use the carbon credit revenue to subsidize even lower priced Chinese EVs to the EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN car markets, thereby undercutting the EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN car companies that also produce EVs.
Big Panda brilliantly exploits the ridiculous pontificating climate scam and has an interest in perpetuating -even emphasizing- the need for the EU/AU/RU/ASEAN countries to keep pushing their climate agenda. China even goes so far as to fund alarmism research about climate change because they are making money selling carbon credit certificates on the back end of the scam to the western fear mongers. This is friggin’ brilliant.
My dinner buddy was in the business of identifying the cost/benefit equation between the climate change fines and the prices Big Panda could charge for the carbon credit certificates. If, as an example, Brussels dropped the quotas for EVs, China would need to lower the price for the carbon credit certificates. So, Beijing wants Brussels to make sure they don’t drop the quotas. See how that works?
The climate change alarmists are helping China’s economy by pushing ever escalating fear of climate change. You just cannot make this stuff up.
What does the outcome look like?
Well, in this example we see thousands of unsold BYDs piling up in countries that emphasize climate regulations with no restrictions on the import of EVs (which most don’t even manufacture), which is almost every country. Big Panda doesn’t care about the car itself; they care about generating the carbon credit certificate to sell in the various carbon exchanges.
Put this context to the recent announcement by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney about his new trade deal with China to accept 49,000 EVs this year.
Prime Minister Carney bragged about getting the Chinese to agree to only super low prices for the Canadian market. Mark Carney was very proud of his accomplishment to get much lower priced vehicles for Canadian EV purchasers. No doubt Big Panda left the room laughing as soon as Carney made his grand announcement.
1. China sells EV’s in Canada, creating credits available on the carbon exchange scheme. Europe et al will purchase the carbon credits because Bussels has fines against EU car companies.
2. With a foothold already established in Europe, China will then take the money generated by the carbon credit purchases and lower the prices of the Chinese EV cars sold in Canada.
It’s gets funnier.
3. Carney bragged about forcing China to only sell low price EV’s as part of the trade agreement. The low price of the EV’s in Canada will be subsidized by Europe. China doesn’t pay or lose a dime.
But wait….
4. Carney can’t do anything about the scheme he has just enmeshed Canada into, because Canada has a Carbon Credit exchange in law. Big Panda wins again.
[…] In a statement published Thursday, BYD said sales of its battery-powered cars rose nearly 28% to 2.26 million units.
Musk openly laughed at the mention of BYD while being interviewed on Bloomberg TV in October 2011. He said he did not see the company as a competitor to Tesla, adding: “I don’t think they have a great product.” Meanwhile, Tesla said Friday it delivered 1.64 million vehicles in 2025. [SOURCE]
Posted originally on CTH on January 22, 2026 | Sundance
Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on her X account that federal arrests are underway for those who participated in the church terrorism in Minneapolis, Minnesota. {Background Here}
The participants in the unlawful activity included former CNN Anchor Don Lemon, lawyer and former law professor Nekima Levy Armstrong, professional extremist and activist William Kelly, along with St. Paul school board member Chauntyll Allen, Black Lives Matter activists Monique Cullars Doty & Satara Strong-Allen and many more.
The leftists were not protestors or ICE agitators; the crew who entered the church coordinated and organized an aggressive assault on a religious assembly. They are domestic political terrorists.
“Protesting” is petitioning a government or organization for a redress of grievances. The word for traumatizing parishioners and children attending a church service to effect political ends is “terrorism.”
Remember, back in August of 2025, just 5 months ago, a leftist transexual murderer shot and killed two children while wounding 30 others in a church in Minneapolis.
The nation may have forgotten the prior Church attack, but the Christian residents of Minneapolis have not.
Posted originally on CTH on January 21, 2026 | Sundance
President Donald Trump holds a bilateral agreement with NATO General Secretary Mark Rutte and one of the main topics was Greenland. During the media questions, President Trump noted the questioner was not telling the truth. It was funny.
At the conclusion of their bilateral meeting, President Trump announced that an agreement on the security and territorial control of Greenland had been achieved. WATCH:
Posted originally on CTH on January 20, 2026 | Sundance
Border Patrol Commander at Large Greg Bovino and ICE Executive Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations Marcos Charles hold a press briefing to discuss and answer questions about ongoing operations in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The questions begin at 16:18 of the video below.
Greg Bovino notes the difference in Minneapolis, Minnesota is that the leftist groups are more organized and in direct communication with the state and local government. If you read between the lines what Bovino is saying is that anarchists, professional leftists and radical groups are in control of the government within the region. There is no distinction between the political officials in Minnesota and the leadership of the activists. WATCH:
Posted originally on CTH on January 20, 2026 | Sundance
Dept of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem discusses the current status of the DOJ review into Minneapolis, Minnesota. The content of the interview was later shared on Noem’s X account with the message, “arrests are coming.”
The entire segment with Greta Van Susteren is worth watching, but I’ve prompted it to the section that matters. WATCH:
Posted originally on CTH on January 19, 2026 | Sundance
On Sunday a group of anti-ICE leftists led by former CNN anchor Don Lemon stormed the Cities Church in Minneapolis/St Paul and terrorized the assembled congregation. The federal dept of justice is now conducting an investigation that will lead to the indictments of all those who organized and participated in the event.
The leftists were not protestors or ICE agitators; the crew who entered the church coordinated and organized an aggressive assault on a religious assembly. They are domestic political terrorists.
“Protesting” is petitioning a government or organization for a redress of grievances. The word for traumatizing parishioners and children attending a church service to effect political ends is “terrorism.”
Remember, back in August of 2025, just 5 months ago, a leftist transexual murderer shot and killed two children while wounding 30 others in a church in Minneapolis. The nation may have forgotten the prior Church attack, but the Christian residents of Minneapolis have not.
The terror experienced on Sunday was very real.
The participants in the unlawful activity included former CNN Anchor Don Lemon, lawyer and former law professor Nekima Levy Armstrong, professional extremist and activist William Kelly, along with St. Paul school board member Chauntyll Allen, Black Lives Matter activists Monique Cullars Doty & Satara Strong-Allen and many more.
Asst Attorney General for the civil rights division of the DOJ, Harmeet Dhillon said earlier today, “Make no mistake: AG Pam Bondi & The Justice Dept will pursue federal charges in this case.” The local police and/or state police could have arrested the terrorist group on the spot. However, the federal dept of justice needs to get a federal judge to sign off on the pending arrest warrants.
The federal process is slower, but it will happen.
Notice I am not saying the arrests and indictments ‘may‘ happen. I am saying the arrests and indictments ‘will‘ happen.
I didn’t really want to watch this video but finally viewed it all just now. We really need to require our liberal friends and relatives to view it. It’s so terrible.
INTENT: The opening to Don Lemon’s insane livestream is an admission of foreknowledge that the group he was in contact with was going to storm a church, based on his prior communications with its leader. pic.twitter.com/g0GVHB4871
Posted originally on CTH on January 18, 2026 | Sundance
Last week President Donald Trump officially announced the members of the Gaza Board of Peace; an organization headed by President Trump and tasked to oversee the second phase of his plan to end the Israeli conflict in Gaza, specifically the reconstruction and disarmament of Gaza and Hamas respectively. [SEE HERE]
The members of the “Board of Peace,” chaired by Trump himself, includes Secretary of State Marco Rubio; Emissary Steve Witkoff; Jared Kushner; former British Prime Minister Tony Blair; an American-Jewish billionaire named Mark Rowan; World Bank President Ajay Banga; and Deputy National Security Advisor of the United States, Robert Gabriel. President/Chairman Donald Trump has also appointed Aryeh Lightstone and Josh Gruenbaum as senior advisors to the Board of Peace.
At the same time, President Trump announced another executive body that would operate under the Peace Council to assist with the facilitation of a new Palestinian government, the “Gaza Executive Board.” This structure is intended to manage day to day events on the ground instead of a Hamas loyalist govt. The appointees to the executive board have upset the Netanyahu government of Israel.
According to the White House announcement, the Gaza Executive Board will include: Witkoff; Kushner; Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan; senior Qatari official Ali al-Thawadi; Egyptian intelligence chief Hassan Rashad; Tony Blair; billionaire Mark Rowan; UAE Minister Reem Al Hashimi; former Bulgarian Foreign and Defense Minister Nickolay Mladenov, who also served as the UN envoy for the Middle East peace process; U.N Representative Sigrid Kagg, and Israeli-Cypriot businessman Yakir Gabbay, who specializes in real estate, technology and international investments.
Additionally, to establish security, preserve peace, and establish a durable terror-free environment, Major General Jasper Jeffers has been appointed Commander of the International Stabilization Force (ISF), where he will lead security operations, support comprehensive demilitarization, and enable the safe delivery of humanitarian aid and reconstruction materials. [link]
According to Israeli media Netanyahu is not happy, and planning to protest the Turkish, Qatari and UAE appointments to Marco Rubio (not Trump):
“A very unusual statement by the prime minister against the US president, following the publication of the members of the “Executive Committee for Gaza” – which includes, among other things, the Turkish foreign minister and a senior Qatari official. “The announcement of the panel was not coordinated with Israel and is contrary to its policy,” the Prime Minister’s Office said.
“The announcement of the composition of Gaza’s Executive Committee, which is subordinate to the peace conference, was not coordinated with Israel and is contrary to its policy,” the Prime Minister’s Office said, adding that “the prime minister has instructed Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar to contact US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on this matter.” (more)
Within the appointments for the executive board, the use of Turkey, Qatar and UAE officials for the governance and reconstruction of Gaza explains the recent parsing of the Muslim Brotherhood chapters as terrorist enablers. When Secretary Rubio made the terrorist designation announcement, the Turkish and Qatari Muslim Brotherhood chapters were notably absent. With the Gaza initiative ongoing, now we see coordinated pragmatism at work.
Rubio chose to focus on Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon to target the Muslim Brotherhood. As we noted, “The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood were chased out of the country by President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi over a decade ago. The Jordanian chapter is similarly aligned and was previously targeted by King Abdullah. The Lebanese faction is not as well known, but their support for Hamas is well understood.” {Go Deep}
A few things are obvious.
First, President Trump and Secretary Rubio knew in advance they were going to need the strong influences of Qatar and Turkey if they were going to stabilize the interim Gaza reconstruction governing system. Secondly, both Trump and Rubio knew Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wouldn’t like that; however, pragmatically Trump and Rubio are doing what is in the best interest of the region as a whole, not being narrowly focused on Israel. Additionally, these appointments have upset the Israel-first influencer group in the U.S.
President Trump is restructuring mid-east stability without the need for direct U.S. intervention. Instead, under President Trump’s approach conflict resolution is the responsibility of the regional stakeholders with strong support from President Trump. It is a similar outlook conveyed to Europe about needing to be responsible for their own defense and security solutions while the USA role is supportive in nature.
In this approach the sharp tendrils of U.S. influence start to be untangled, and the national security focus returns to the USA domestically. Mutually beneficial national sovereignty replaces toxic and unending globalist intervention. This is a similar worldview that President Trump also takes toward trade agreements.
Multilateral trade agreements like the Transpacific Trade Partnership (TPP) or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), or even the NAFTA/USMCA trade agreement are rejected in favor of direct bilateral free trade agreements with individual nations.
In Trump’s trade policy the multilateral deals are dissolved, while the bilateral deals are affirmed. The same outlook holds true for massive institutional agreements that end up with large entanglements often carrying disproportionate costs and disparate benefits. Like NATO, the USA usually ends up with the largest price tag and least benefit from the agreement.
Is NATO/Europe going to fight China over Taiwan? Of course not. If they were, Canada wouldn’t be making deals with Beijing, and Europe would not be allowing China to purchase stakeholder interests in the European car market. The same pragmatic and reasonable outlook applies right now toward how the EU has responded to the Russia/Ukraine conflict; only “willing” if the USA puts our blood and treasure on the line.
This nationalistic outlook is honestly encapsulated in this recent soundbite from President Trump when asked about Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney making a trade agreement with China. President Trump genuinely doesn’t care. WATCH:
Canada can make whatever deal they want with China; however, that doesn’t mean it will work out well for Canada when the USMCA is dissolved and a new bilateral trade deal between the USA and Canada is renegotiated. Factually, it means Canada will end up in a worse economic place, just look at the history of countries that hugged Big Panda. It is their own independent right to be blind to the risk.
Despite all the warnings from President Trump, Europe became dependent on Russia for low-cost energy; how’d that work out for them? Germany now seriously regrets their green energy approach, but there’s nothing President Trump can do to stop multinational assemblies from being collectively stupid; the only thing he can do is mitigate any collateral damage to the USA.
Instead of European leaders calling President Trump every time Turkish President Recep Erdogan does something against their interests, eventually the group will learn how to engage him individually. In a world of bilateral respect, the lessons from Trump could even have the downstream effect of training the EU to drop their obsession with Russia-bad everything.
The Ukraine conflict could end when Europe finally realizes it’s much easier to turn on a Nordstream gas valve than it is to rebuild 30 German nuclear power plants. President Trump’s refusal to commit U.S. troops to Zelenskyy’s security guarantee will hopefully hasten that conversation.
The same pragmatic realism applies to Greenland. Europe will never respond to any increase in strategic threat presented by China or Russia in the Arctic, and the U.S. will shoulder all the costs if that risk were to materialize. Strategic pragmatism combined with economic realism is why President Trump is focused on the security of the North American continent.
Lastly, there is a segment of MAGA that is angered by President Trump’s interim and necessary approach to removing our foreign policy entanglements in both the European and Mideast continents. Those who are short-sighted don’t see how President Trump is strategically and factually withdrawing U.S. policy from a world of enmeshed dependencies, because in reality charity –along with security– begins at home.
Thankfully, the former Lyndon LaRouche assembly from Promethean Action have begun to recalibrate their British-centric focus, and they’ve started to look at Trump policy beyond the ramifications to London and through the more accurate prism of Trump’s global pragmatism. President Donald Trump isn’t trying to unilaterally destroy British imperialism, not directly. Instead, that old, stuffy and elitist collapse is a consequence of reestablishing independent sovereignty.
Smile, live your very best life and watch it all unfold. After all, Davos is going to be a must-watch event next week.
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 