Several people have inquired about a Paul Sperry article [SEE HERE] and if CTH had any insight.  While I generally refrain from discussion based on speculation, perhaps enough time has passed where my preferred lack of attention on the matter provides room for a quick outline.

Within the Sperry article, this fragment surfaces:

…”These well-placed sources also say that diGenova has cultivated several new witnesses, including whistleblowers from the intelligence community and the FBI, and that his team has also uncovered significant new evidence, including a massive FBI document spanning several hundred pages that reportedly exposes new malfeasance in the bureau’s probe of Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, codenamed Crossfire Hurricane, which was begun before the 2016 election.”…

“New malfeasance” is not exactly how I would characterize the likely described material.

What Sperry’s sources seem to be outlining based on description, likely pertains to the FBI contractor issue from 2015 and 2016 where access to the NSA database was defensively investigated after the NSA compliance officer raised flags about unauthorized use.

You may remember that somewhere between 1,000 and 9,999 illegal searches were conducted repeatedly using the same identifiers, between November 2015 and April 2016.  The source of those searches was attributed to “FBI contractors.”

(more…)

President Trump delivers remarks to the assembled press pool before departing Joint Base Andrews en route to the Theodore Roosevelt Museum dedication ceremony.  This is President Trump’s first flight aboard the new Airforce One.

President Trump makes note of the inaugural flight and discusses the airplane, then begins to answer questions on current events.  At 10:00 of the video, President Trump is asked about Acting DNI Bill Pulte and his ability to review and declassify further intelligence information of material interest to the American people. 😉 President Trump says “We’re gonna declassify almost everything … I told [Bill Pulte], ‘You can declassify whatever you want.'”  WATCH:

.

(more…)

The Canadian dollar is starting to feel the effects of long-term uncertainty. It will get worse.

...”Since the start of June, the currency has weakened 2.9%, which would be its steepest monthly decline since October 2024, as Canadian bond yields fell further below U.S. yields.”… {source}

Now, this is where you really need to pay attention to details.  Remember, the U.K and EU have a vested interest in protecting Canada from economic collapse.

President Trump doesn’t want immediate collapse either -because Xi will move in fast- but Trump is not going to provide the same financial and economic lifelines that the other four-eyes will trigger.

Reuters is reporting that tomorrow the U.S. will formally declare a “non-extension” of the USMCA trade agreement {ARTICLE} and that triggers a 10-year period to decoupling.  It is very important to understand there is a difference between announcing a “non-extension” and announcing a “withdrawal“.  The Canadians are completely confused about what is about to happen.

In a non-extension announcement, the USA is saying they do not want to extend or renew the terms of the agreement beyond the current trade agreement terms.  Yes, this is a 10-year exit.  However, that’s not the part that matters.  Announcing a decision to exit the USMCA (CUSMA), a full withdrawal from the trilateral deal, triggers a six-month countdown to exit.

The deadline to announce the decision to extend is tomorrow, July 1st.  There is no deadline on the timeline to announce an exit or withdrawal from the USMCA. That announcement can happen at any time.

Put simply, announcing a non-renewal is a 10-year exit.  Announcing a withdrawal is a 6-month exit.  The announcement to withdraw can come at any time after the statement of non-renewal.

(more…)

What is proposed below is regulatory, lawful and entirely intended to create hardships and burdens.  Thus, a new era in State Department visa requirements respond to newly established guidelines by the Supreme Court.

As a pragmatic and patriotic American I respectfully suggest and recommend the U.S. State Department immediately institute the “Roberts Requirement” following similar visa entry protocols previously used for COVID-19 tests prior to U.S. admittance.

The Roberts Requirement: Each female visa applicant must present a valid negative pregnancy test taken no longer than 10 days prior to travel to the United States.

The certified document, negative pregnancy test, together with all related visa approvals must be presented to Customs and Border Patrol at each port of entry. Failure disqualifies the traveler.

This is the same protocol as COVID-19, only using pregnancy status as the disqualifying health issue. It is a lawful regulation, born from a new standard established by the Supreme Court, that does not need congressional approval.

(more…)

Like many of you I am profoundly angered by the Supreme Court decision that fractures our nation and conveys citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born in the United States.  [PDF HERE] In fact, I was so angered to my core, I went for a long walk before doing any further commenting on the matter.

U.S. Citizenship is now determined by how good at violating our nation’s borders, by conniving, by scheming and by deception to create a qualified child where no adult qualification exists.  This is the most detrimental decision by the Supreme Court in generations and will profoundly impact our nation.

There is no longer an apple, it’s all worms.

Today, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship – the guarantee of citizenship status to everyone born in the United States.

In a decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, five supreme court justices agreed with the challengers saying Trump’s order cannot be reconciled with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which confers citizenship on anyone “born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

(6-3) Writing for the majority, Roberts emphasized that the “children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” “satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause.” “Under the Constitution,” he concluded, “they are citizens at birth.”

Roberts was joined in the majority by Justice SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, BARRETT, JACKSON and KAVANAUGH.

Justice THOMAS filed a dissenting opinion with GORSUCH and ALITO.

(more…)

During an oval office event to highlight President Trump signing three executive orders informing all agencies of government that federal officials will not be enforcing any rule that blocks citizens from repairing or modifying their own vehicles, President Trump took questions from the media on today’s Supreme Court rulings.  WATCH (prompted):

.

(more…)

Now the good news. As noted by Justice Thomas, this decision when contrast against the Lisa Cook decision does not find alignment.

By a vote of 6-3, the justices struck down a federal law that bars the president from firing members of the Federal Trade Commission except in cases of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” [PDF Ruling Here] That law, a majority of the justices ruled, violates the constitutional separation of powers between the three branches of government.

This lengthy 108-page decision supports the Unitary Theory of government in that the President can remove any agency head within the Executive Branch through plenary power, and the Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch cannot interfere.  This is a major win for President Trump and beyond.

(6-3) Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH and BARRETT joined, and in which THOMAS joined as to all but Part III–B. [GORSUCH filed a concurring opinion.] Justice SOTOMAYOR filed a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN and JACKSON joined.

SCOTUS Blog – […] “Monday’s decision was a major victory for proponents of the “unitary executive” theory – the idea that the president should have complete control over the executive branch. Under this theory, the president should be able to fire any member of the executive branch, and laws – like the one that the court struck down – that restrict his ability to do so violate the separation of powers. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts contended that “the President must have the assistance of officers he can trust. Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.” (more)

(more…)

At issue in Trump v Cook is not whether Lisa Cook can appeal her removal, but rather where her position rests while the appeal is underway.  Does she work for the govt? Or is she technically removed from govt, pending appeal?

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lisa Cook remaining in her position as a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors whom President Donald Trump had attempted to fire. By a vote of 5-4 [PDF HERE] [the court says Cook can continue to remain in her job while her challenge to Trump’s removal moves forward.

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH and JACKSON concurred.

Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. ALITO filed a dissenting opinion, in which GORSUCH joined, and BARRETT also filed a dissenting opinion.

This is a rather goofball decision when you consider the previous issues with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the high court prior ruling that President Trump can remove the head of the agency.

Additionally, if Lisa Cook does not work for the President of the United States, meaning if she doesn’t work for the Executive Branch, then who exactly is she working for?  She doesn’t work for the legislative branch, and she doesn’t work for the judicial branch. Therefore, a de facto mysterious 4th branch of government is created.

(more…)

The Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 in favor of Mississippi -vs- RNC that state legislature can decide how long after election day that qualified election ballots cast may be received.  [PDF HERE] Essentially, federal election day is election day, but ballots can be received after election day for the length of time determined by state law.

Justice Barrett delivered the majority opinion, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson.

Justice Alito dissented along with Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

The Hight Court outlined that congress could change the ability of the states by changing the statutory language of the federal election law to require ballots be received by election day.  As long as federal law does not outline the deadline for ballot reception, states can extend that process at their legislative discretion.  THIS IS A HOT MESS FUBAR!

[5-4 Ruling Here]

“The federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days thereafter; nothing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by election day.”

(more…)

You might remember recent reports outlining how the economy of Canada has slipped into a recession, posting two consecutive quarters with a negative GDP outcome.  There are multiple reasons for this shrinkage, but the dominant factor is, well, quite frankly, Canadian politics and economic policy.

Meanwhile, in Mexico the opposite is happening.  Mexico’s economic activity grew 1.2% in April from the prior month, the national statistics agency said, compared with a revised increase of 0.6% in March and beating a forecast of a 0.9% increase in a Reuters poll of analysts. {source}

It is not coincidental to see the Mexican economy performing well, while the Canadian economy is contracting.  Despite their identical proximity to The United States, each nation is currently executing a fundamentally different set of economic policies.

The Canadian government has been exceptionally combative with the U.S.A, leading to friction, tariffs and economic back-and-forth measures between the two nations.

The Mexican government has expressly understood the nature of their dependency, admitted it, taken no action to diminish it, and purposefully set out to align itself with the interests of America.

Canada is combative. Mexico is collaborating.

It seems unlikely that the three nations can agree on major economic policies, as a trilateral partnership would need alignment in core areas like energy policy. Canada’s energy policy is fundamentally separate from those of the U.S. and Mexico, and this is an issue that can’t be resolved through a trade agreement alone.

A large part of Mexico’s economy relies on remittances from Mexican workers in the U.S. sending money back to their families. As long as the U.S. job market stays strong—and it’s only getting stronger in the industries where many Mexicans work—Mexico will continue to benefit from America’s economic growth.

(more…)