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

.

(more…)

A repost from 2023 by request.

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.

(more…)

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.

💶 If the war ends, funding ends. Ukraine’s plan: make sure the war doesn’t stop.

🇭🇺🇨🇿🇸🇰 Thankfully, common sense still prevails in Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. We will not risk our families’ future by sending € billions to fund someone else’s war.

The time for… pic.twitter.com/JXsd5bt43i

— Orbán Viktor (@PM_ViktorOrban) February 21, 2026

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.”

(more…)

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.

(more…)

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.

.

(more…)

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}

(more…)

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:

.

(more…)

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.

(more…)

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…

.

(more…)

President Trump travels to Rome Georgia today to deliver remarks on the economy from Coosa Steel Corporation. The anticipated start time is 4:00pm ET. Livestream Links Below.

.

(more…)