Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Tariffs, Delivering Sharp Rebuke of Emergency Power Abuse

WASHINGTON — In a decisive 6–3 ruling, the United States Supreme Court struck down tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under emergency powers, concluding that the White House overstepped its constitutional authority by unilaterally levying taxes that the Constitution squarely assigns to Congress.

The Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize a president to impose tariffs, effectively dismantling a core pillar of Trump’s trade agenda and reinforcing long-standing limits on executive power.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, made clear that the issue was not policy preference but constitutional structure. The power to impose tariffs, the Court held, belongs to Congress and Congress alone. The opinion was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, forming a broad ideological coalition that underscored the seriousness of the violation.

Emergency Powers Used as a Workaround

The tariffs at issue were announced on what the Trump administration branded “Liberation Day” on April 2, along with earlier tariffs imposed in February targeting imports from Canada, China, and Mexico. The administration justified the measures by invoking emergency powers, sidestepping Congress entirely.

Lower federal courts had already rejected that legal theory. The Supreme Court’s ruling now cements those decisions, confirming that no declared emergency allows a president to rewrite the Constitution’s allocation of taxing authority.

Ahead of the ruling, Trump publicly attempted to pressure the Court, warning on social media that the country would be “screwed” if the justices ruled against him. The warning failed. The Court ruled anyway.

Billions Collected, Legality Rejected

Trump repeatedly claimed the tariffs were generating billions of dollars for the U.S. economy and suggested the revenue could be used to reduce the national debt or even fund direct payments to Americans. Those proposals never materialized.

Critics, economists, and consumer advocates argued the tariffs functioned as a hidden tax on Americans, a claim supported by numerous companies that said higher import costs forced price increases on consumers.

Studies showed U.S. households bore the overwhelming share of the burden, with estimates indicating Americans absorbed roughly 96 percent of the tariff costs.

According to economists at the Penn-Wharton Budget Model, more than $175 billion in tariff collections could now be at risk if the tariffs are fully unwound, raising serious questions about refunds, liability, and accountability.

Legal and Financial Fallout Ahead

The Court did not address whether businesses or consumers will be refunded for tariffs already paid. That omission leaves a looming legal battle in its wake.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined in dissent by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, warned that unraveling the tariffs could be a “mess,” though the majority made clear that administrative inconvenience does not justify constitutional violations.

Senator Elizabeth Warren cautioned that if refunds are issued, large corporations—not consumers—are most likely to benefit.

“The Court has struck down these destructive tariffs, but there is no legal mechanism for consumers and many small businesses to recoup the money they have already paid,” Warren said. “Instead, giant corporations with their armies of lawyers and lobbyists can sue for tariff refunds, then just pocket the money for themselves.”

A Constitutional Line Reasserted

At its core, the ruling serves as a stark reminder that emergency powers are not a blank check and that presidents cannot unilaterally impose taxes under the guise of national urgency.

Whether the tariffs were good or bad policy was not the question before the Court. The question was authority. On that point, the Supreme Court’s answer was unequivocal: the president did not have it.

Trump is scheduled to respond publicly to the ruling at a press briefing later today. The legal reality, however, is already settled. The tariffs are blocked, the emergency justification rejected, and the constitutional boundary firmly reasserted.

Iran Warns UN It Will Defend Itself if Attacked, Citing Right to Self-Defense

New York, February 20, 2026 — Iran issued a formal warning to the United Nations on Friday, reaffirming that it does not seek war but will defend itself if subjected to military aggression, citing its inherent right to self-defense under international law.

In a letter addressed to United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the president of the U.N. Security Council, Iran’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations stated that Tehran would respond “decisively and proportionately” if attacked. The letter emphasized that any hostile military bases, facilities, or assets used in an attack against Iran would be considered legitimate targets in a defensive response.

The warning comes amid escalating rhetoric and heightened military activity in the Middle East, including increased U.S. troop deployments and public statements from American officials suggesting possible military action if diplomatic negotiations fail.

Iran stressed that it does not intend to initiate hostilities, but will not tolerate violations of its sovereignty. The letter referenced Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which affirms the inherent right of all nations to defend themselves if an armed attack occurs.

Under international law, the right to self-defense is universally recognized and applies equally to all sovereign states. Legal experts note that this principle does not permit the initiation of conflict but affirms a nation’s right to protect its territorial integrity, population, and national security in the event of invasion or external aggression.

Iran’s communication warned that the United States would bear full responsibility for any “unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences” resulting from a military confrontation. The letter framed this language as deterrence rather than escalation, asserting that defensive retaliation would be limited to legitimate military objectives.

Diplomatic efforts continue behind the scenes, with indirect negotiations ongoing over Iran’s nuclear program and regional security concerns. However, tensions remain high, and analysts warn that miscalculations on either side could rapidly escalate into a broader conflict.

Energy markets and regional governments are closely monitoring developments, particularly given Iran’s strategic position near the Strait of Hormuz, a vital corridor for global oil shipments.

As the situation unfolds, Iran’s message to the United Nations underscores a central principle of international law: every nation has the same right to defend itself from invasion or outside aggression, just as any sovereign state would under similar circumstances.

Turning the Other Cheek Does Not Mean Surrendering to Evil

In modern religious discourse, one of the most misunderstood teachings of Jesus Christ is the command to turn the other cheek. Too often, this phrase is reduced to a call for passivity, submission, or moral retreat in the face of oppression. That interpretation is not only shallow, it is historically and theologically incorrect.

Jesus did not teach His followers to bow down to tyrants, enable injustice, or allow the innocent to be crushed. He taught moral discipline, not moral surrender.

When Jesus said to turn the other cheek, He was addressing personal insult, not systemic evil. In the first century Jewish context, a slap on the cheek was an act of humiliation, not a directive to accept abuse, violence, or domination. Christ was teaching restraint of ego, not abandonment of responsibility.

The same is true of the phrase the meek shall inherit the earth. The word meek does not mean weak. In its original Greek meaning, it describes strength under control. It refers to disciplined power, not passivity. A meek person is capable of force but chooses righteousness. This is not cowardice. It is moral courage.

Throughout His ministry, Jesus consistently confronted oppression. He overturned the tables of corrupt money changers who exploited the poor. He publicly rebuked religious leaders who abused their authority. He defended the vulnerable, including women, children, and the outcast. He condemned those who enriched themselves by harming widows and the defenseless. These were not symbolic gestures. They were acts of resistance.

Jesus never instructed the innocent to accept their chains. He called His followers to stand in the gap between evil and the vulnerable.

Scripture reinforces this responsibility. Believers are commanded to rescue the weak and the needy, to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, and to defend the innocent. Faith is not proven by silence in the face of injustice. It is proven by action grounded in righteousness.

A Jesus follower is not called to seek revenge or respond to evil with evil. But neither are they called to allow evil to flourish unchecked. The distinction matters. Turning the other cheek applies to personal offense. Standing up applies to oppression.

To protect the meek is not a contradiction of Christ’s teaching. It is a fulfillment of it.

Christian faith does not demand submission to injustice. It demands courage, moral clarity, and a willingness to confront darkness without becoming it. That is the balance Jesus taught. That is the responsibility of those who claim to follow Him.

Texas Congressman Tony Gonzales Faces Intensifying Backlash as Public Grows Angry and Disgusted Over Alleged Affair With Staffer Who Later Died by Suicide

WASHINGTON / UVALDE, TEXAS — Rep. Tony Gonzales, a Republican representing Texas’ 23rd Congressional District, is facing mounting public outrage and political backlash as voters, colleagues, and observers grow angry and disgusted over revelations surrounding an alleged romantic relationship with a subordinate staff member who later died by suicide under deeply disturbing circumstances.

The controversy has ignited anger and disgust across party lines—not only because of the nature of the alleged relationship, but because of how it was handled, denied, and disclosed only after a death, raising serious questions about ethics, power dynamics, and accountability inside a congressional office.

The Staffer at the Center of the Allegations

The woman at the center of the controversy, Regina Ann “Regi” Santos-Aviles, served as Gonzales’ regional director in Uvalde, a role that placed her directly under his authority. By all public accounts, she was a trusted aide, deeply involved in district operations, constituent services, and political outreach.

According to reporting and statements from individuals familiar with the situation, Santos-Aviles struggled emotionally in the months leading up to her death, and her mental health deterioration is now being examined in light of the alleged relationship.

In September 2025, Santos-Aviles died by self-immolation at her home, a death later ruled a suicide by authorities. The shocking nature of her death immediately drew attention, but the most explosive details emerged later.

Alleged Affair and Text Messages

After her death, text messages attributed to Santos-Aviles surfaced, allegedly sent to another individual, in which she claimed she was involved in a romantic relationship with Rep. Gonzales.

These messages, which have been described in press reports, allegedly include:

• Admissions of an ongoing romantic or intimate relationship

• Expressions of emotional distress tied to the relationship

• Language suggesting conflict, secrecy, and strain

• Statements implying she felt trapped, overwhelmed, or emotionally destabilized

The reported messages indicate the relationship was not a brief or isolated encounter, but one that extended over a significant period of time, potentially months or longer, during which Santos-Aviles remained employed under Gonzales’ supervision.

While the exact start date has not been definitively established publicly, the reporting suggests the alleged relationship occurred well before her death, and during her tenure as a senior staffer.

Power Imbalance and Ethical Concerns

What has fueled much of the public anger and disgust is not only the alleged affair itself, but the power imbalance inherent in the situation.

Members of Congress are bound by strict ethical guidelines regarding relationships with staff, particularly subordinates. Even consensual relationships can raise serious concerns when:

• One party holds direct authority over employment, pay, or advancement

• The relationship is hidden or undisclosed

• The staffer later experiences emotional distress or professional consequences

Critics argue that if the relationship occurred as alleged, it would represent a severe lapse in judgment and a potential violation of congressional workplace standards, leaving many observers angry and disgusted at the apparent disregard for professional boundaries.

Denials, Silence, and Changing Explanations

Rep. Gonzales has denied having an affair, and his office has characterized aspects of the reporting as false or misleading. However, critics point out that questions linger, particularly because:

• The alleged messages were not immediately addressed

• The congressman did not publicly clarify the nature of his relationship with Santos-Aviles until after intense media scrutiny

• His office initially framed concerns as rumors or political attacks

At various points, Gonzales has suggested he was the target of blackmail or extortion attempts, a claim that itself has drawn skepticism and further questions about what information existed and who possessed it.

The shifting explanations and delayed responses have left constituents increasingly angry and disgusted, with many saying the situation has been mishandled from the start.

Why Everybody Is Angry and Disgusted

The backlash has been swift and severe for several reasons:

1. A staffer died in an extraordinarily tragic and violent way, and the public is demanding transparency

2. The alleged relationship involved a member of Congress and a subordinate, raising serious ethical concerns

3. Details emerged only after the death, creating the appearance of concealment

4. Constituents feel misled by prior denials and limited disclosures

5. The situation unfolded during a politically sensitive period, amplifying scrutiny and distrust

Opponents within Gonzales’ own party have seized on the issue, arguing it reflects poor judgment, ethical blindness, and a failure of leadership. Some have openly called for him to step aside or face a serious ethics investigation.

Political and Institutional Fallout

The controversy now shadows Gonzales’ political future. What began as a personal matter has escalated into a public ethics crisis, one that raises broader questions about how Congress polices itself and protects staff from exploitation or harm.

While no criminal charges have been filed and no formal ethics ruling has yet been announced, the episode has become a defining issue in Gonzales’ public image—one that many voters say cannot be dismissed as rumor or partisan maneuvering.

The Unresolved Question

At the heart of the outrage is a single unresolved issue—one that continues to leave the public angry and disgusted:

Did a powerful elected official engage in a secret relationship with a vulnerable subordinate, and did that relationship contribute—directly or indirectly—to her emotional collapse and death?

Until that question is fully addressed, the anger and disgust surrounding Tony Gonzales are unlikely to fade.

Former Royal Arrested on Suspicion of Misconduct in Public Office as Epstein Fallout Escalates

LONDON — Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, the former Duke of York and brother of the King, has been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office, according to UK police, marking one of the most serious criminal developments ever involving a senior figure once embedded in Britains governing establishment.

Thames Valley Police confirmed Thursday that officers arrested a man in his sixties from Norfolk and conducted searches at properties in Berkshire and Norfolk. The individual remains in police custody. While police declined to formally name the suspect, citing national guidance and the active nature of the case, the arrest follows years of scrutiny surrounding Mountbatten Windsors association with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Allegations Linked to Official Duties

The investigation intensified after U.S. authorities released more than three million pages of Epstein related documents, which raised questions about Mountbatten Windsors conduct while serving in official roles on behalf of the United Kingdom.

According to those records, while acting as a UK trade envoy in 2010, Mountbatten Windsor allegedly shared information from official overseas trips with Epstein, including material related to Vietnam and Singapore. One confidential memo reportedly sought Epsteins views on investment opportunities in Afghanistans Helmand province, prompting renewed focus on whether public office was improperly leveraged.

Assistant Chief Constable Oliver Wright said police opened a formal investigation following a detailed assessment of the allegations, emphasizing the seriousness of the inquiry given the intense public interest surrounding the case and the subjects proximity to the monarchy.

Palace and Government Response

King Charles issued a brief statement following the arrest, saying the law must take its course. The comment underscored the gravity of the situation involving the monarchs immediate family and the unprecedented nature of the investigation into the brother of the King.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated that Mountbatten Windsor should cooperate fully with U.S. authorities and stressed that no one is above the law. The royal family has confirmed it will cooperate with police as the investigation proceeds.

Survivors and Public Reaction

The family of Virginia Giuffre, one of Epsteins most prominent accusers, welcomed news of the arrest, calling it long overdue accountability.

At last, today, our broken hearts have been lifted at the news that no one is above the law, not even royalty, Giuffres siblings said in a statement. Giuffre had alleged she was trafficked by Epstein to have sex with Mountbatten Windsor on three occasions, including twice when she was 17. Mountbatten Windsor has consistently denied the allegations.

In 2022, he paid a multi million pound settlement to Giuffre without admitting wrongdoing. Giuffre died by suicide last year at age 41.

A Fall From Power

Public outrage over the Epstein revelations ultimately led to Mountbatten Windsor being stripped of his military titles and royal patronages and removed from public duties. He was later ordered to vacate his residence on the Windsor estate.

Commentators say the arrest represents a significant moment not only for accountability but for the monarchys public standing.

This is an unprecedented move involving someone who once stood at the center of Britains power structure, said Al Jazeera correspondent Milena Veselinovic, describing the case as another reputational blow to the institution.

Political commentator Michael Walker said the developments expose long standing failures to impose consequences early, rather than responding only after sustained public pressure.

Denials Continue as Case Proceeds

Mountbatten Windsor, the brother of the King, continues to deny any wrongdoing. Police stressed that the investigation remains active and warned media outlets to exercise caution to avoid contempt of court.

As the case moves forward, the arrest raises broader questions about privilege, accountability, and whether proximity to power delayed scrutiny that might otherwise have come sooner.

Alex Karp, Palantir, and the Casual Language of Killing

---

DENVER — When Alex Karp, CEO of Palantir Technologies, told investors that “sometimes we kill people” and added “hopefully you enjoy it,” the remark was more than a tasteless provocation. It was an unusually candid admission of how deeply embedded Western technology firms have become in systems of surveillance, warfare, and death — and how casually those consequences are discussed in elite corporate spaces.

The statement, delivered to shareholders and potential investors, stripped away years of euphemisms surrounding “defense analytics” and “national security solutions.” In plain language, Karp acknowledged what critics have long argued: Palantir’s business model is inseparable from lethal state power, and human death is treated as an expected — even marketable — outcome.

Palantir’s Role: From Data to Death

Palantir does not pull triggers or drop bombs. But its platforms aggregate intelligence, identify targets, map networks, and accelerate decision-making in military and law-enforcement operations across the Western world.

Those decisions often end lives.

The company’s software has been deployed by:

• U.S. and allied militaries in active combat zones

• Intelligence agencies conducting targeted killings

• Border enforcement and surveillance operations affecting civilian populations

To pretend these are abstract or neutral tools is disingenuous. Palantir exists precisely to make coercive power more efficient.

Karp did not deny this. He embraced it.

“Hopefully You Enjoy It”: A Moral Tell

The most revealing part of Karp’s comment was not the admission that people are killed, but the framing. The remark was made in the context of selling Palantir stock — a pitch to investors about what their capital enables.

In that moment, human lives were reduced to outcomes on a balance sheet, and death was folded into the language of returns, alignment, and ideological commitment.

This is not an accident. It reflects a broader Western posture in which:

• Civilian casualties are rebranded as “collateral damage”

• Algorithmic targeting creates distance from responsibility

• Corporate leaders speak of violence as inevitability, not tragedy

Karp’s honesty was brutal — but it was not courageous. It was revealing.

Western Power, Without Apology

Karp has long positioned Palantir as a defender of Western dominance, openly hostile to neutrality or restraint. He has criticized other tech companies for refusing defense contracts, accusing them of moral cowardice while quietly benefiting from the stability enforced by military power.

But there is a difference between acknowledging reality and celebrating alignment with killing.

By telling investors to “enjoy it,” Karp crossed from realism into moral nihilism, signaling that the ethical debate is over — and that the only remaining question is whether shareholders are comfortable profiting from bloodshed.

The Broader Indictment

This controversy is not just about one CEO’s words. It is an indictment of a system where:

• War is privatized

• Surveillance is normalized

• Death is abstracted into metrics

• And accountability dissolves behind software interfaces

Palantir is a creature of the post-9/11 Western order — one that monetizes fear, permanent conflict, and technological dominance while claiming moral clarity.

Karp did not misspeak. He said out loud what is usually hidden.

The Question Investors and the Public Must Answer

The issue is no longer whether Palantir’s tools contribute to killing. That has been conceded.

The question now is whether Western societies are willing to accept a future where:

• Executives joke about death in investor meetings

• Shareholders are asked to “enjoy” the consequences

• And moral responsibility is outsourced to algorithms and patriotism

Alex Karp’s comment was not a slip. It was a confession.

And it demands an answer — not just from investors, but from the societies that allow corporations to profit from permanent war while calling it security.

The Names of God Across the World One Divine Reality Many Languages

Across civilizations and cultures and centuries humanity has used different words to speak of the Divine. Languages change empires rise and fall and cultures diverge but the impulse to name God remains universal. Whether whispered in prayer carved into stone or written in sacred texts the names of God reveal not only how people understand the divine but how they relate to mystery power mercy and creation itself.

While religions differ in theology the names used for God often share common roots meanings and attributes. In many cases they point to the same concept of a singular supreme Creator understood through different linguistic and cultural lenses.

Semitic Languages The Roots of Monotheism

Some of the oldest surviving names for God come from the Semitic language family which includes Hebrew Arabic and Aramaic.

In Hebrew the most sacred name of God is the Tetragrammaton written as YHWH. Because of its holiness it is traditionally not spoken aloud. Instead Jews use titles such as Adonai meaning Lord or HaShem meaning The Name. Another common Hebrew name is Elohim a grammatically plural word often used with singular verbs emphasizing Gods majesty rather than multiple deities.

In Aramaic the language spoken by Jesus and widely used in the ancient Near East God is called Alaha or Elah closely related to the Hebrew El. These terms appear in early Jewish and Christian writings.

In Arabic God is called Allah meaning The God. Linguistically Allah shares the same root as El and Eloah and is used by Arabic speaking Christians and Jews as well as Muslims. In Islam God is also described through the 99 Names of Allah attributes such as Ar Rahman The Most Merciful and Al Hakim The All Wise each emphasizing a divine characteristic.

Indo European Languages God as Supreme Being

As languages spread across Europe and parts of Asia the names for God adapted to local tongues while retaining the concept of a supreme authority.

In Greek the word Theos is used for God appearing throughout the New Testament. It conveyed divinity broadly but became closely associated with the God of Israel in Christian theology.

In Latin God is called Deus a term derived from an Indo European root meaning shining or heavenly. This word became foundational for many Western languages.

From Latin and related Germanic roots come the modern European names for God. In English God. In German Gott. In Dutch God. In French Dieu. In Spanish Dios. In Italian Dio. In Portuguese Deus. In Polish Bog.

The Polish word Bog comes from Slavic roots and is used across Polish prayers Scripture and liturgy to refer exclusively to the one supreme God.

In Irish Gaelic God is called Dia derived from Old Irish Dia. The word is woven into everyday language most famously in the greeting Dia duit meaning God be with you reflecting how deeply faith shaped Irish culture and speech.

Despite differences in spelling and sound these terms overwhelmingly point not to multiple gods but to a singular all powerful Creator.

South Asian Languages God as Ultimate Reality

In South Asia names for God often emphasize transcendence unity and ultimate truth.

In Sanskrit several names describe the divine. Brahman the ultimate unchanging reality behind all existence. Ishvara meaning supreme ruler or lord. Bhagavan emphasizing divine majesty and blessedness.

In Hindi and related languages God may be called Bhagwan Parameshwar or Ishwar.

In Sikhism God is referred to as Waheguru meaning Wonderful Lord and Ik Onkar meaning One Supreme Reality explicitly affirming monotheism.

East Asian Languages Heaven and the Supreme Lord

In East Asia the divine is often expressed through concepts of heaven order and moral authority.

In Chinese God may be called Shangdi meaning Supreme Emperor or Tianzhu meaning Lord of Heaven. Christian texts also use Shen as a general term for God.

In Japanese Christians use Kami in a monotheistic sense while carefully distinguishing it from the broader Shinto understanding of spiritual beings.

In Korean God is commonly called Hananim or Haneunim meaning The One in Heaven.

African Languages Creator and Source of Life

Across Africas many languages God is often named as Creator Sustainer or Source of Life.

Examples include Swahili Mungu. Yoruba Olodumare or Olorun. Zulu Nkulunkulu. Amharic Egziabher meaning Lord of the Universe.

These names emphasize Gods role as the origin and moral foundation of existence.

Indigenous Languages God as Creator and Great Spirit

Among Indigenous peoples of the Americas names for God often express relational and natural imagery.

Many Native North American traditions refer to God as the Great Spirit translated from names such as Wakan Tanka in Lakota or Gitche Manitou in Anishinaabe. These names emphasize divine power presence and interconnectedness with creation.

One Meaning Many Names

Across languages and cultures the names of God differ in sound but converge in meaning Creator Lord The One The Eternal The Merciful The Source of Being.

These names are not merely labels. They are expressions of awe reverence hope and humanitys enduring search for meaning. Whether spoken as YHWH Allah Dia Bog or Dios they point beyond language itself toward a reality believed to transcend all human words.

Different tongues. Different cultures. One enduring search for the Divine.