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…)

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.

(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…)

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…)

The high court has indicated it will be releasing opinions on one or more of the previously argued cases on Friday February 20, Tuesday Feb 24, or Wednesday Feb 25.  The decision over tariffs triggered by President Trump using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is one of the decisions now considered highly likely to surface.

If the decision doesn’t come this Friday, a rather interesting situation unfolds.  The following week falls into the Tuesday Feb 24 State of the Union address.

Typically, several Supreme Court justices sit in front row of the House floor during the speech.  The decision could be released on the morning of the speech, or justices could actually sit in the audience – knowing the outcome and the morning after the State of the Union address, the ruling could be released.

Now, there is a possibility the ruling will not come out in this cycle, but that is diminishing possibility considering the length of time the Supreme Court has sat on this opinion.

The court knows the importance of this decision, and they obviously know the State of the Union speech is scheduled to be delivered on Tuesday the 24th.  This will be an interesting dynamic to watch unfold.

(more…)

Former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino is helping to spearhead a coordinated message campaign for President Trump as he returns to podcasting.  Bongino is hoping to fill the void for voices who speak positively about ongoing DOJ and FBI efforts and share information about ongoing Justice Department efforts.

Today, Dan Bongino interviews FBI Director Kash Patel.  At 01:08:36 of the video below, Kash Patel outlines some pending information that is likely to reach the headlines about the funding mechanisms behind Antifa.  I have prompted the video to the entire interview between Bongino and Patel. {Direct Rumble Link} – WATCH:

(more…)

A good catch by Chuck Ross at WFB drawing attention to the latest Amici curiae appointed to the FISA Court.

Adding to a string of leftist ‘advisors to the court’ Jennifer Daskal has been appointed by FISA Court Presiding Judge Anthony Trenga.

Daskal was the Biden administration principal deputy general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security who launched the Disinformation Governance Board (Ministry of Truth) ultimately led by Nina Jankowicz.

Jennifer Daskal’s career has centers around controlling information from a leftist perspective and was one of the core officials who used the term dis-mis-mal-information to censor speech on social media platforms around COVID-19 and the vaccination protocol.

Daskal’s reach and control into big tech and social media is well documented. Appointing her as an advisor to the FISA court is troubling as she has joined Amy Jeffress, appointed amicus curiae in 2015 (Biden’s personal attorney), David Kris, a 2016 amicus curiae selection (denied Carter Page FISA application contained fabrications), and the infamous Mary McCord appointed amicus curiae in 2021 (sits at the center of every stop-Trump operation).

Washington Free Beacon – A Biden administration official who launched the Disinformation Governance Board and served as co-chair of the so-called Ministry of Truth has been appointed to advise the powerful Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, prompting concerns from some Republican lawmakers.

The presiding judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review appointed Jennifer Daskal on Feb. 1 to serve as amicus curiae for the court. Amici curiae, known as “friends of the court,” advise judges on legal issues related to foreign surveillance warrants in national security cases. Daskal served as acting principal deputy general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security under Biden. In that role, she drafted the charter for the Disinformation Governance Board, according to a Jan. 31, 2022 memo. (read more)

(more…)

An interesting thing happened last weekend, President Trump went golfing with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. {SOURCE} Simultaneously, President Trump released the following statement from his Truth Social account.

(Via Truth Social) – “The Board of Peace has unlimited potential. Last October, I released a Plan for the permanent end to the Conflict in Gaza, and our Vision was unanimously adopted by the United Nations Security Council. Shortly thereafter, we facilitated Humanitarian Aid at record speed and secured the release of every living and deceased Hostage.

Just last month, two dozen distinguished Founding Members joined me in Davos, Switzerland, to celebrate its official formation, and present a bold Vision for the Civilians in Gaza, and then, ultimately, far beyond Gaza — WORLD PEACE!

On February 19th, 2026, I will again be joined by Board of Peace Members at the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace in Washington, D.C., where we will announce that Member States have pledged more than $5 BILLION DOLLARS toward the Gaza Humanitarian and Reconstruction efforts and have committed thousands of personnel to the International Stabilization Force and Local Police to maintain Security and Peace for Gazans.

Very importantly, Hamas must uphold its commitment to Full and Immediate Demilitarization. The Board of Peace will prove to be the most consequential International Body in History, and it is my honor to serve as its Chairman.” PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

I said a few weeks ago that I would not be surprised to see President Trump announce the appointment of Ron DeSantis to be the Chief Executive Officer of the Board of Peace.  DeSantis’ executive experience in combination with his relationship with Israel functionally makes him a good fit.  Just a guess.

(more…)

Through the years I didn’t really have much of an opinion of Steve Bannon, I approached any story of interest that surrounded him by simply looking at the factual details of the current event in question.

CTH well understood that Bannon, and subsequently his expressed opinion and objective, was simply an outcome of his position – downstream from the billionaire of the moment who paid him.

In essence, Steve Bannon always seemed to be, much like Kellyanne Conway, an advocate for whoever was financing him. From Robert/Rebekah Mercer at Breitbart forward to any endeavor thereafter, it always just appeared the same.

That said, with the release of the Epstein files, the relationship between Steve Bannon and Jeffrey Epstein is something CTH did not expect. {HERE} Bannon and Epstein were very close and talked to each other about seemingly everything.

I can never unsee what I have read.  Nor will CTH ever entertain the possibility that Bannon was ever a good element within the MAGA effort.  There is a solid argument to be made that the Bannon War Room was funded, or organized in the funding mechanisms, by Jeffrey Epstein. {HERE}

The files of messages between them contain some shocking stuff happening in the background while Steve Bannon was in very close proximity to candidate and President Trump.  The level of disdain Bannon had for Donald Trump’s family and for Donald Trump himself is really something CTH did not expect to see. {examples: HERE and HERE}

I am left to wonder now how much of the vitriol against Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, ie. “Javanka hatred”, actually originated from the Braintrust behind Bannon and the assembly of people in his immediate orbit. {HERE}

Initially, I saw some Twitter accounts attempt to defend Steve Bannon by saying Epstein did all the talking in their text exchanges and Bannon was less communicative. However, that only applied to the first batches of files reviewed.  As a few days went along and people started citing files, reading them gives a much more fulsome picture of the relationship.

Steve Bannon may have been focused on the financial gains and perhaps networks of people in his association with Epstein; but he certainly got deep into it and expressed extreme praise for Epstein, even going so far as to call him a god. {LINK} These were two men in a very close friendship. There is no political or ideological distance between Bannon and Epstein.

(more…)

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.

(more…)