Events in 2027 and 2028 are likely to be very confusing.  As a consequence, CTH needs to establish datapoints in real time that can later be referenced and reviewed to make sense of things when CTH starts to put the data into a very difficult to accept storyline.

This process is similar to setting the 2012 election “splitter strategy” as a reference; that leads to the 2014 RNC winter meeting and rules changes; that led to the 2015 lineup of RNC candidates; that led to our ability to show how the ‘splitter strategy’ was being deployed for the 2016 GOP nomination.

The defeat of Jeb didn’t happen in New Hampshire 2016; his defeat was an outcome of assembling years of previous datapoints which proved the illicit roadmap and made the RNC scheme very clear from the outset.

Elon Musk purchased Twitter for $44 billion ¹($54.20/share) [April through October ’22].  He sold Tesla shares, leveraged more and assembled a $25 billion investment group to cover the remainder.   When the financing dust settled Musk controlled Twitter and investors were in for around $25 billion.

Musk later created the ancillary company xAI and when the deadline terms of the Twitter investment were due, he essentially repaid the $25 billion debt by transferring the investors into $25 billion worth of xAI holdings.

[Key Point – the originating $25 billion investment was not repaid, just modified]

In 2026, Musk then did an IPO on SpaceX. This culminated in stock sales, valuations and generating $100 billion in cash on hand.  A few weeks later Musk then sold 7 tranches of SpaceX bonds worth $25 billion to generate liquidity.  He then used the $25 billion offering as the financial mechanism to repay the $25 billion remaining in investor debt.

Summary: Twitter’s $25 billion debt transferred to $25 billion xAI stock, then transferred to $25 billion in payout or bond holdings; the option is for the original Twitter investment group to take (cash out or hold SpaceX bond paying 5% annually).

[Key point – the originating $25 billion to purchase Twitter is now inside the SpaceX bonds]

This was a smart financial gameplay over the past roughly 5 years.  This is how it developed and this is the reality in June of 2026.  The originating $25 billion borrowed to purchase Twitter is now either: (a) fully repaid, or (b) sitting in long term SpaceX bonds (depending on investor choice).

(more…)

Multiple countries have proposed ‘digital service taxes’ which are taxes on the domestic use of American tech platforms like META, Twitter, Amazon etc.  EU countries are planning to tax U.S. based tech platforms for the revenues generated by operations within EU countries.

President Trump announces retaliatory action via reciprocity taxes, in essence leveraging the entirety of the U.S. consumer market, if the EU proceed with this new tax revenue scheme against U.S. companies.   Canada was on the cusp of a digital services tax last year when Trump made a similar announcement forcing Canada to abandon the plan.

[SOURCE]

WASHINGTON DC – […] Trump’s promise to raise tariffs threatens to complicate trade talks with the European Union. Trump’s threat comes one day after EU member states approved an agreement that would slash tariffs on U.S. industrial goods and some agricultural products. In return, the U.S. would cap most tariffs on the European Union at 15 percent.

(more…)

It is not coincidental that we have seen Australia, New Zealand, the U.K, and now Canada trigger online ‘age verification’ laws; simultaneous with a political push inside the USA to maintain FISA (702) legislation.

Separating the USA for a moment. The intelligence services of Australia, New Zealand, U.K and Canada make up four of the intelligence services 5-eyes. In essence, the British Commonwealth is the IC commonality. [Yes, there is some validity to the Lyndon LaRouche perspective (Promethean Action PAC)] Additionally, I would also posit a reminder of the international assembly who structured the originating financial sanctions against Russia; again, a commonality.

Focusing on the most recent political creation in Canada, there are three bills currently being rushed through the Canadian House of Parliament, C-34: keep kids safe on social media; C-36: stronger privacy rules, and C-22: modern tools for police.

Not surprisingly, it is difficult to find non-govt-approved information about this legislative construct online.

Canadian media must remain compliant with approved government narratives in order to maintain their business model. However, putting together some various information found on non-controlled information sources, it is possible to begin discussion of the situation.

The two issues that merge with the greatest impact are Bill C-22: The Surveillance Bill, and Bill C-34: The Children’s Safety Bill.

Bill C-22 requires that all information transmission providers, every telecom and internet company, retain metadata on all Canadian users for up to one year.  This is electronic metadata which we all know encompasses a lot more than just content.

Signal app, NordVPN, Windscribe, DuckDuckGo, Apple, and Meta have all formally opposed it. Signal app has threatened to leave Canada entirely rather than comply.  This is a government mandated metadata storage library on all electronic communication and activity by Canadian users. 

Then there’s Bill C-34: The Children’s Safety Bill, as noted by Lucy Hargreaves, a bill that ‘Applies to Everyone’, not just kids.   “The government’s social media ban for under-16s is genuinely popular, with 75% of Canadians supporting it in polling. The problem is what it requires in practice. To stop anyone under 16 from creating an account, platforms need to know how old everyone is. There is no way to identify who is under 16 without identifying everyone who isn’t. This means every Canadian adult would need to submit government ID or a face scan to a third-party verification company before posting a photo, using cloud storage, or playing an online game. The bill also creates a new Digital Safety Commission with sweeping powers to set the rules, decide which platforms must comply, and approve or deny exemptions — with almost no criteria written into the law itself.”

(more…)

Telegram founder Pavel Durov is one voice who has been consistent in his message about how western countries have become increasingly authoritarian in their efforts to retain power and control.  Durov is the real deal; the John Galt within the mechanisms of digital communication.

The principle under attack is freedom, and the recent examples of internet and social media control via age verification are steps within this process.  Durov notes these moments are like the early stages of the Titanic after hitting the iceberg, where people aboard the ship did not quite realize the scope of the danger around them.

Take the time to listen to what Durov shares with specific examples and citations to back up his warning.  Well worth the time. Pavel Durov shares how Telegram emerged from a commitment to free expression and why defending digital freedom is central to protecting human rights today.

.

(more…)

As a result of irreconcilable intransigence surrounding Bill Pulte as Acting DNI, President Trump is now moving to attach the FISA reauthorization to the Save America Act.

[SOURCE]

Additionally, the intransigence is giving President Trump pause to ask exactly why the Senate is so concerned about a seemingly innocuous and very temporary DNI position as previously outlined:

(more…)

Ironically, I find myself with a grin on my face as I read the recent media reports about how the data processing demand behind AI is beyond the scope of financial sustainability.

For several years I have asserted, accurately, the business model for social media was never feasible because the data processing demand needed for the scale of simultaneous users was beyond the capabilities of the revenue side of the equation.  I have been told by all the high-horse experts on the matter how wrong I am.  However, each story they write about the prohibitive cost of AI proves I was not wrong.

CTH watches the tokenization and subscription fees for various AI model use with the same perspective CTH viewed over a decade of false claims within the financial market that told lies about social media viability and data processing costs.

Now, we watch the seemingly exponential growth of AI capabilities and associated costs with the same pragmatic perspective.

Robotic pool cleaners were introduced two generations ago.  Did the pool cleaner business dry up? No, it expanded.  Robotic vacuums broke into the popular household appliance market five years ago, you probably have one, did it eliminate maid services?  No, still growing.

AI can now write its own code to generate outputs. Are software developers getting fired?  No, demand for software designers and engineers is up 15% in the past year.

The mainframe approach, the one AI brain to run all systems, will never work – it is cost prohibitive (see first paragraph – wash, rinse, repeat).  Deny this reality at your own investment risk. If needed, politely absorb the ridicule – for it matters not.

CTH predicts AI will become a localized and optimized sub-set for each sector of the economy, requiring each major organization and corporation to adopt specific cost/benefit data libraries and networks for use and functionality.

At scale, a thousand coders each working on Gemini, ChatGPT, Anthropic, Grok, etc. will become 100,000+ software designers working inside companies to create personalized, targeted, bespoke AI data systems and networks; each system specifically tailored to the industry or sector of business.  The intranet of internets will happen again.

Creating and selling AI system networks and integration functions that are personally tailored to highly specific company functions, creates an entirely new sector of the technology industry that has not even begun yet. [There’s an investment opportunity there]

(more…)

**Bumped by Request**

A few weeks ago, I was having a politics conversation with a tech insider. The issue of datacenters became a focus of the conversation. The first response from him was “this is the issue that might decide 2026 and will certainly decide 2028.”

The tech side of the issue is essentially: As 5G wifi was to mobile connectivity, so too are the datacenters the cornerstone of nationwide AI rollout.  Eventually, all of the datacenters will interconnect and become part of a massive information system that houses all knowledge, a great digital brain.  From that point, engagement with Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems will become like a public utility.

The datacenters themselves can be a hot button issue as their proximity to people creates friction.  Battles against datacenters are taking place in rural and non-rural areas alike. With deep pockets and strong national security arguments involving the “AI race,” the technocrats are currently winning the argument. However, as with all special interest issues, the opportunity for political benefit now determines DC advocacy.  WATCH:

What are your thoughts on this issue?

Is opposition to datacenters strong enough to tilt the outcome of the 2026 midterms?  And do you believe 2028 will be determined with this issue at the forefront?

(more…)

Apparently, former Attorney General Pam Bondi has been battling thyroid cancer since her departure from Main Justice.  Axios is reporting today that President Trump has appointed Bondi to an advisory committee role on artificial intelligence.

[Axios via MSM] – President Trump has appointed former Attorney General Pam Bondi to an advisory committee focused on AI policy, Axios has learned.

Driving the news: Bondi, whom Trump ousted as AG last month, will be on the Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).

The panel is chaired by former White House AI adviser David Sacks and White House science adviser Michael Kratsios. It also includes more than a dozen tech executives, including Nvidia co-founder Jensen Huang, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison.

(more…)

There is an increased public discussion about the race to build datacenters in the USA that are part of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) race for superiority.  There are multiple facets within the discussion and some things to consider that might not be at the forefront, yet.

Overall, there is a global race to build the best AI system that is not dissimilar to the nuclear arms race.  Arguably the use of AI as a weapon is one possibility; while the second aspect surrounds strategic economic power.

The USA is poised very favorably in this AI race due to the advanced tech industry in America and recent national security moves made by President Trump in the tech sector surrounding strategic critical minerals and domestic chip production.  However, no one is quite sure where China is in their AI development and last year’s explosive revelation around China’s “Deepseek” model shocked the U.S. tech industry due to its advanced intelligence prowess.

With China and the USA both in this AI race, and the need for massive investment in datacenters to do the processing needed for an artificial intelligence brain of such significant capacity, there is a sense of urgency in the tech industry that is surfacing around the country.  Simultaneously, with datacenters becoming more controversial, suddenly the geopolitical intelligence operations enter the picture.

Currently, it is well accepted inside the tech industry that part of China’s strategy against the USA in this AI race is to slow down American system development.  As a consequence, it is beginning to surface that Beijing may be funding voices inside the USA to rally against the building of datacenters. Essentially, China funding voices, real or artificially boosted influence operations, to amplify domestic opposition to the datacenters.

Anytime the intelligence operations become part of a domestic issue that has national security implications, things get opaque, cloudy and muddy pretty quick.  Is datacenter opposition organic – actual citizens and communities pushing back against the development in their towns and/or cities or is the opposition to the datacenters a form of foreign influence operation?

(more…)