Tag Archives: Big Government

Dec 18 2025

Providence-area Radio Host Asks Brown University About Their Intentional Disabling of CCTV Systems


Posted originally on CTH on December 18, 2025 | Sundance

During a press conference on Wednesday, a Providence-area radio host, Chas Calenda, directly confronted Brown University officials and law enforcement with information he has received about the school intentionally disabling surveillance systems due to DEI concerns.

The response from university officials and the Providence Mayor indicate Mr. Chas Calenda’s informed accusation and question is directly on target.  WATCH:

In addition to information we previously shared {GO DEEP} reflecting requests from various “civil rights” and “humanitarian” groups who demanded Brown University disable their surveillance system, additional information about the issue comes via the Rhode Island ACLU making the same demand in October of this year [SEE HERE].

Brown University was under pressure from far-left groups as an outcome of concern the CCTV and school security system would be used by federal authorities to (a) identify radical leftists expressing antisemitic sentiments, and (b) identify the immigration status of persons on campus.  It is not just isolated to Brown University.

Multiple municipal governments, private and municipal agencies have received the same demand in an ongoing effort to block Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.  The mass shooting on Brown University is leading to a larger public awareness of an issue that has been spreading rapidly in the last several months.

The claim by Chas Calenda is that his local sources within law enforcement are confirming the university cowed to the concerns of the civil rights groups, including the removal of cameras.  This is why there is no recorded CCTV footage, and the university is talking gibberish in their efforts to avoid admitting what has taken place.

Brown University and Providence police have $8 billion liability reasons to be less than honest with the alarmed public. The political ramifications of the story are also complicating the issue for Brown University, as well as local and national figures.

Here is the full press conference.  The key question comes at the very end of the video 49:20.

Dec 18 2025

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino Confirms His Resignation – Will Be Leaving FBI in January


Posted originally on CTH on December 17, 2025 | Sundance 

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino confirms via his X account, that he will be leaving the FBI in January.

[SOURCE]

This announcement does not come as a surprise to those follow the details of corrupt systems closely and who have watched the scale of the problems surface through the years.

The problems within the FBI as an institution are systemic.  Both Kash Patel and Dan Bongino faced a monumental challenge in trying to get their arms around the scale of the problem within the institution.  There is no apple, only worms.

Any type of institutional confrontation at this scale can only succeed if the problems are first admitted. Bongino faced a big challenge with Director Patel refusing to accept institutional corruption was the biggest issue.  You cannot correct problems of great consequence until you admit the core of the problem.  No admission was made. The problems remain.

Inasmuch as we all wanted Dan Bongino to succeed, we must also admit to ourselves he did not possess sufficient skills that neuter the attack vectors that would be exploited against him.  Training that skillset first starts with an inward conversation.

Easily identified attack vectors are mechanisms deployed by those who retain corrupt activity within the institution.

We knew from the outset the corrupt FBI actors would seek to remain in control by manipulating the leadership Trump dispatched to confront them.

Kash Patel’s primary attack vector comes as an outcome of his ego, desire for affluence and delusions of grandeur.

Dan Bongino’s attack vector was/is his emotional need to be liked and appreciated by his audience.  As a broadcast personality an internal codependency heading is good for business.  However, in an institutional leadership position that same a codependency mindset is the opposite of the skillset needed to confront a corrupt audience.

Emotional dependency, definitions of self-worth determined by an external audience, creates vulnerability.  Corrupt FBI actors know how to exploit a personality that needs to be liked (Bongino), and corrupt FBI actors know how to exploit a personality that assigns value to the indulgences of position (Patel).  This was the non-pretending baseline for easy to predict failure.

Former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz held a worldview that was counter to the perspective of President Trump. He did possess the skillset; he just held the wrong mindset.  For Dan Bongino it was the opposite. Bongino holds the same mindset as President Trump, he just didn’t have the skillset.

Misaligned outlook or misaligned skillsets, when combined with easily identifiable attack vectors, creates manipulative opportunities for those who intend to continue corrupt endeavors within big institutional systems.

We wish Dan Bongino all the best as he returns to private life.

We will continue praying for Mr Bongino’s physical and emotional health, and we sincerely thank him for his efforts.

Dec 18 2025

Russian President Vladimir Putin Responds to Zelenskyy and EU During Remarks to Defense Ministry


Posted originally on CTH on December 17, 2025 | Sundance 

During a speech to the Russian Defense Ministry, Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin responded to the generally-public-outline of the Zelenskyy-EU plan to end combat operations against Russia.

Remarkably, President Putin began his statement by thanking North Korean Chairman Kim Jong-un for sending supportive troops to assist the Russian army in the Donbas region.  Putin held a moment of silence for the fallen soldiers from the DPRK.

The entire speech transcript IS HERE.  Below I am pulling out the excerpt that specifically pertains to the current line of conflict in Ukraine and the position of Russia as it pertains to a cessation of hostilities.

VLADIMIR PUTIN – […] “Today, we can see that the geopolitical situation remains tense throughout the world, and even critical in some regions. NATO countries are actively building up and modernizing their offensive forces, and creating and deploying new types of weapons, including in outer space.

Meanwhile, people in Europe are being indoctrinated with fears of an inevitable confrontation with Russia, with claims that preparations must be made for a major war. Various figures who have held or continue to hold positions of responsibility appear to have simply forgotten what that responsibility entails.

They are whipping up hysteria, guided by momentary, personal or group political interests rather than the interests of their people. I have said many times that this is a lie and an irrational narrative about an imaginary Russian threat to European countries. But they are doing this deliberately.

The truth is that Russia has always, until the last possible moment tried, even in the most complicated circumstances, to find diplomatic solutions to differences and conflicts. Responsibility for the failure to use these chances lies squarely with those who believe that they can use the language of force with us.

We continue to call for developing mutually beneficial and equal cooperation with the United States and European countries, and for creating a joint security system in the Eurasian region. We welcome nascent progress in our dialogue with the new US administration, which cannot be said of the current leaders of the majority of European countries.

At the same time, we realize that our Armed Forces remain the key guarantor of Russia’s sovereignty and independence in any international situation. As I have stated, we must work consistently to strengthen them.

What I would like to emphasize here are the objectives to be set in the area of military development, taking into account the dynamics of the situation along the line of contact, among other factors.

First. The goals of the special military operation will undoubtedly be achieved. We would prefer to accomplish this and address the root causes of the conflict through diplomatic means. However, if the opposing side and its foreign patrons refuse to engage in substantive dialogue, Russia will achieve the liberation of its historical lands by military means. The task of creating and expanding a security buffer zone will also be carried out consistently.

Second. Work on modernizing the Armed Forces must continue at a rapid pace and to a high standard, primarily within the framework of the new State Armament Programme for 2027˗2036, which is currently under development.

As I have repeatedly emphasized, the experience gained during the special military operation, emerging trends in combat tactics, and rapidly developing military technologies must be fully taken into account.

Key areas of the state programme include air and missile defense systems, command and control systems, electronic warfare capabilities, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) operating in all environments.

Of course, improving our strategic nuclear forces remains a priority. As before, they will play a decisive role in deterring aggression and maintaining the global balance of power.” (READ MORE)

Dec 17 2025

JD Vance Gives Strong Defense of Susie Wiles


Posted originally on CTH on December 16, 2025 | Sundance

Vice President JD Vance was questioned about White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles calling Vance a conspiracy theorist.

Vance embraces the conspiracy label, defines how accurate it is, then delivers a strong set of remarks in defense of Susie Wiles.  WATCH: 

The overall remarks themselves are not terribly toxic to the White House, but the question of why a chief of staff would sit down for eleven interviews over 11 months with Vanity Fair remains rather curious.

What exactly did Susie Wiles expect was going to happen with all those recorded interviews?

Dec 17 2025

Bannon 2.0 – Another Trump Chief of Staff Creates Another Hot Mess


Posted originally on CTH on December 16, 2025 | Sundance 

Last time it was Steve Bannon who held multiple interviews with Michael Wolff for his book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.  This time it is White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles who sat down for a series of recorded ‘on the record’ interviews with Vanity Fair author Chris Whipple. [Article w/ Paywall]

The interviews with Susie Wiles have been taking place all year, with recordings of her statements made to ensure she could not retract the divisive content now deployed by Vanity Fair at a critical moment in the Trump administration.

The intent of the Vanity Fair outline is to paint the most negative light possible, and it appears Susie Wiles gave Chris Whipple all the ammunition to do so.

TIMING: This anti-Trump narrative, supported by the toxic statements by Wiles, is dropped at a key moment when European leadership is purposefully pushing a narrative against President Trump. This series of articles and documented interviews hits at a moment of merging interests against the administration.  The coordination is noted.

SUBSTANCE: The New York Times outlines some of the statements by Susie Wiles that are going to grab attention.

[…] “Over the course of 11 interviews, Ms. Wiles offered pungent assessments of the president and his team: Mr. Trump “has an alcoholic’s personality.” Vice President JD Vance has “been a conspiracy theorist for a decade” and his conversion from Trump critic to ally was based not on principle but was “sort of political” because he was running for Senate. Elon Musk is “an avowed ketamine” user and “an odd, odd duck,” whose actions were not always “rational” and left her “aghast.” Russell T. Vought, the budget director, is “a right-wing absolute zealot.” And Attorney General Pam Bondi “completely whiffed” in handling the Epstein files.”

[…] She said she urged Mr. Trump not to pardon the most violent rioters from Jan. 6, 2021, which he did anyway. She unsuccessfully tried to get him to delay his major tariffs because of a “huge disagreement” among his advisers. And she said the administration needed to “look harder” at deportations to prevent mistakes.

[…] She attributes her ability to work for Mr. Trump to growing up with an alcoholic father, the sportscaster Pat Summerall. “High-functioning alcoholics or alcoholics in general, their personalities are exaggerated when they drink,” she said. “And so I’m a little bit of an expert in big personalities.” While Mr. Trump does not drink, she said he has “an alcoholic’s personality” and operates with “a view that there’s nothing he can’t do. Nothing, zero, nothing.”

[…] Ms. Wiles confided in Mr. Whipple in March that she had told Mr. Trump that his presidency was not supposed to be a retribution tour. “We have a loose agreement that the score settling will end before the first 90 days are over,” she said then. When that did not happen by August, she told Mr. Whipple that “I don’t think he’s on a retribution tour” but said that he was aiming at people who did “bad things” in coming after him. “In some cases, it may look like retribution,” she said. “And there may be an element of that from time to time. Who would blame him? Not me.”

[…] In the interviews published by Vanity Fair, Ms. Wiles faulted Ms. Bondi, one of her closest friends in the administration, for her early handling of the Epstein files, an issue that has been a cause célèbre for Mr. Trump’s right-wing base.

“I think she completely whiffed on appreciating that that was the very targeted group that cared about this,” Ms. Wiles said. “First, she gave them binders full of nothingness. And then she said that the witness list, or the client list, was on her desk. There is no client list, and it sure as hell wasn’t on her desk.” Mr. Vance, by contrast, understood the sensitivity because he himself was “a conspiracy theorist,” she said.

Ms. Wiles said she has read the Epstein documents and acknowledged that Mr. Trump’s name is in them. “We know he’s in the file,” she said. “And he’s not in the file doing anything awful.”

[…] Ms. Wiles described frustration with Mr. Musk, the billionaire who early in the year was empowered to eviscerate federal agencies and fire employees en masse with almost no process. “He’s an odd, odd duck, as I think geniuses are. You know, it’s not helpful, but he is his own person.” When he shared a post saying that Stalin, Mao and Hitler didn’t murder millions, their public sector workers did, Ms. Wiles said, “I think that’s when he’s microdosing.” Asked what she meant, she said, “he’s an avowed ketamine” user.

[…] In the interview with The Times on Monday, Ms. Wiles took issue with the quote attributed to her about his drug use. “That’s ridiculous,” she said. “I wouldn’t have said it and I wouldn’t know.” But Mr. Whipple played a tape for The Times in which she could be heard saying it.

[…] She acknowledged sharp internal divisions over Mr. Trump’s announcement of major tariffs last spring. “There was a huge disagreement over whether” tariffs were “a good idea,” she said. “We told Donald Trump, ‘Hey, let’s not talk about tariffs today. Let’s wait until we have the team in complete unity and then we’ll do it.’” But he announced them anyway and “it’s been more painful than I expected.”

[…] As for the potential successors, Mr. Vance and Mr. Rubio, she distinguished how each of them came around to supporting Mr. Trump after initially opposing him. “Marco was not the sort of person that would violate his principles,” she said. “He just won’t. And so he had to get there.” As for Mr. Vance, “his conversion came when he was running for the Senate. And I think his conversion was a little bit more, sort of political.”

Mr. Rubio told Mr. Whipple what he has said publicly, that “if JD Vance runs for president, he’s going to be our nominee and I’ll be one of the first people to support him.” (read more)

Immediately after publication of the Vanity Fair story, Mrs. Wiles took to Twitter to explain her position:

[SOURCE]

Mrs. Wiles never explains why, for all that is reasonable and holy, she would even sit down with Vanity Fair for eleven interviews over the course of the year.

If you find yourself looking at this narrative engineering and saying, “WTF, why would she be so stupid?”  You are not alone.

Perhaps it’s the old axiom that sooner or later the senior staff always convince themselves that they are the star of the show.  Or perhaps Mrs. Wiles just never heard the Snake Poem:

On her way to work one morning
Down the path ‘longside the lake
A tender-hearted woman saw a poor half-frozen snake
His pretty colored skin had been all frosted with the dew
“Oh well,” she cried, “I’ll take you in and I’ll take care of you”
“Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman,” sighed the snake

She wrapped him up all cozy in a comforter of silk
And laid him by thе fireside with some honеy and some milk
She hurried home from work that night, and soon as she arrived
She found that pretty snake she’d taken in had been revived
“Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman,” sighed the snake

She clutched him to her bosom, “You’re so beautiful,” she cried
“But if I hadn’t brought you in, by now you might have died”
She stroked his pretty skin again and kissed and held him tight
Instead of saying thanks, that snake gave her a vicious bite
“Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman,” sighed the snake

“I saved you,” cried the woman
“And you’ve bitten me, but why?
And you know your bite is poisonous and now I’m gonna die”
“Oh shut up, silly woman,” said the reptile with a grin
“You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in”

~ Oscar Brown Jr

Dec 17 2025

Brown University Shooter Still at Large – Open Discussion Thread


Posted originally on CTH on December 16, 2025 | Sundance

Everything about the Brown University shooting doesn’t make sense through the ordinary prism.

However, if political ramifications in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s targeted assassination are overlaid against the Brown University murders, then a certain context might reconcile some of the issues. {GO DEEP}  Was Ella Cook targeted in a similarly motivated fashion to the murder of Charlie Kirk?

There are a reported 800 cameras on the Brown University campus, including facial recognition capable cameras, yet school and local police officials claim they do not have any footage of the suspect entering or exiting the building or walking on the campus itself.

Given the nature of the extreme left Brown U ideology, were the cameras turned off or non-recording as part of an ICE resistance effort?

Journalist Mark Halprin received information that College Republican Vice President Ella Cook was the primary target of the shooter.  This is relayed as information to Ms. Cook’s family as stated by FBI investigators. Other victims who were with her in the room were shot as an outcome of their association with the primary target.  WATCH:

There are a lot of odd contradictions and missing information within the statements by the Providence Mayor, school officials and local law enforcement. The suspect has still not been identified, and the local police are trying to avoid specific questions.

Obviously, if Ella Cook, a conservative Christian student and vice-president of the campus Republican group was the specific target, then Brown University would have a motive to try and avoid admitting that Ella Cook a young, female, Christian conservative student was a victim of a targeted political assassination on campus.

Fox News host Jesse Waters has actually put together a strong monologue drawing attention to some of the issues; however, Waters only alludes to the issues raised within the background, he does not draw attention to the specifics. WATCH:

Dec 17 2025

Zelenskyy and EU Leaders Release Official Position and Joint Statement Following Berlin Negotiations – USA Did Not Sign


Posted originally on CTH on December 16, 2025 | Sundance

Before getting to the details as released for media consumption, three facets deserve emphasis.

(1) The primary objective of Ukraine/EU has been a publicity campaign to retain influence and support. (2) U.S. Emissaries Witkoff and Kushner are silent on the announced negotiated result. (3) Ukraine’s lead negotiator Rustem Umerov notes, “There is a lot of noise and anonymous speculation in the media right now. Please don’t fall for rumors and provocations. The American team led by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are working extremely constructively to help Ukraine find a way to a peace agreement that lasts.”

I would overlay that within the weeks of discussions it is easy to spot distance between Umerov and Zelenskyy, specifically as it pertains to the influence of the EU Leadership group.  Meaning, Zelenskyy is a puppet for the EU team, whereas Umerov appears more pragmatic and seemingly more focused on the interests of Ukraine.

Additionally, despite the violence and death in the war, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy continues to say he is in no hurry to end the bloodshed.  This becomes more important to recognize when you look at the post-Berlin comments from Zelenskyy himself.

First, to the outcome of the negotiations as expressed by the EU Leadership team.

This is their official joint statement on their position within the framework.  Again, not signed or accepted by the U.S delegation. [SOURCE]

The Leaders welcomed significant progress on President Trump’s efforts to secure a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. They also welcomed the close work between President Zelenskyy’s and President Trump’s teams as well as European teams over the recent days and weeks. They agreed to work together with President Trump and President Zelenskyy to get to a lasting peace which preserves Ukrainian sovereignty and European security. Leaders appreciated the strong convergence between the United States, Ukraine and Europe.

Leaders agreed that ensuring the security, sovereignty, and prosperity of Ukraine was integral for wider Euro-Atlantic security. They were clear that Ukraine and its people deserved a prosperous, independent, and sovereign future, free from fear of future Russian aggression.

Both the US and European leaders committed to work together to provide robust security guarantees and economic recovery support measures for Ukraine in the context of an agreement on ending the war. This would include commitments to:

♦ Provide sustained and significant support to Ukraine to build its armed forces, which should remain at a peacetime level of 800,000 to be able to deter conflict and defend Ukraine’s territory.

♦ A European-led ‘multinational force Ukraine’ made up from contributions from willing nations within the framework of the Coalition of the Willing and supported by the US. It will assist in the regeneration of Ukraine’s forces, in securing Ukraine’s skies, and in supporting safer seas, including through operating inside Ukraine.

♦ A US led ceasefire monitoring and verification mechanism with international participation to provide early warning of any future attack and attribute and respond to any breaches along with a deconfliction mechanism to work on mutual deescalatory actions that can be taken to benefit all parties.

♦ A legally binding commitment, subject to national procedures, to take measures to restore peace and security in the case of a future armed attack. These measures may include armed force, intelligence and logistical assistance, economic and diplomatic actions.

♦ Invest in the future prosperity of Ukraine, including making major resources available for recovery and reconstruction, mutually beneficial trade agreements, and taking into account the need for Russia to compensate Ukraine for the damage caused. In this vein, Russian sovereign assets in the European Union have been immobilised.

♦ Strongly support Ukraine’s accession to the European Union.

The leaders expressed their support for President Zelenskyy and agreed to support whatever decisions he ultimately makes on specific Ukrainian issues. They reaffirmed that international borders must not be changed by force. Decisions on territory are for the people of Ukraine, once robust security guarantees are effectively in place. They agreed that some issues would need to be resolved in the final stages of negotiations. They underlined that they would support President Zelenskyy to consult his people if needed.

They were clear that as in any deal, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and that all parties must work intensively towards a solution that could assure a lasting end to the fighting.

They were also clear that any deal should protect the long-term security and unity of the Euro-Atlantic and the role of NATO in providing robust deterrence. They stated that any elements affecting the EU and NATO will be discussed among EU and NATO members respectively.

It is now incumbent upon Russia to show willingness to work towards a lasting peace by agreeing to President Trump’s peace plan and to demonstrate their commitment to end the fighting by agreeing to a ceasefire. Leaders agreed to continue to increase pressure on Russia to bring Moscow to negotiate in earnest.

They all committed to work on rapid further progress in the coming days and weeks to jointly conclude and endorse an agreement for a lasting peace. They reaffirmed their strong support for President Zelenskyy and the people of Ukraine in their fight against Russia’s illegal invasion and in delivering a just and lasting peace.

This statement remains open for other countries to join. [SOURCE LINK]

As noted in the position of the “EU Leadership,” under their plan the Russian sovereign wealth fund will be permanently confiscated by the EU and distributed according to their stakeholder interests.   Ukraine President Zelenskyy later stated he expects to receive $40 to $45 billion euros per year from these confiscated assets.

There are two scenarios: 1 – if the war ends, the funds will go toward rebuilding the country; 2 – if aggression continues, Ukraine expects €40–45 billion annually for defense and security.

Here, in his words to the media after the Berlin conference, is where you need to read between the lines for Zelenskyy’s mindset.  Notice he is already positioning a continuance of the conflict, “if aggression continues….”

To the issue of permanent confiscation of a captured sovereign wealth fund.  Think about the ramifications here, not just to Russia but to the international monetary system.  The Russian sovereign wealth fund is not the money of Vladimir Putin; it is the investment fund belonging to the people of Russia.

This precedent, if carried out, means all nations with sovereign wealth funds (Japan, Asia countries, Saudi Arabia, et al) will now look upon those funds as “at risk” investments forever.  If the U.S/EU assembly can simply confiscate the EU/USD-based wealth of a sovereign nation, then all nations are at risk of a similar outcome based on the ideological alignment of the control group.  Western asset holdings will forever be viewed through this political prism.

Next, Zelenskyy expects to receive all the Russian funds, or €40 to 45 billion annually from the Russian account holders in the EU if the fight continues.

Presumably this Russian money would be used to continue the Ukraine graft and conflict if the USA refuses to send more money.  This is a core element behind what Zelenskyy then said to reporters.

Here are Zelenskyy’s words as quoted and summarized (I have verified by reviewing 3 sources from the media team). The emphasis is mine:

– The U.S. wants a quick end to the war; for us, quality matters. If speed and quality coincide, we’re fully on board, Zelenskyy said.

– Neither de jure nor de facto will we recognize Donbas as Russian.

– Zelensky confirmed talks with Trump and European leaders. According to him, the unity of Ukraine, the U.S., and Europe was demonstrated.

– Today or tomorrow we will finalize the documents. Then, in the coming days, the U.S. will hold consultations with the Russians, followed by consultations with the U.S. President. After that, our teams will meet in the U.S. soon—possibly even over the weekend.

– “I believe we are very close to strong security guarantees. Where there is a Fifth Amendment, as in NATO—meaning a mirror of Article 5 for all Alliance members.

– Ukraine supports the idea of a Christmas truce.

– A reparations loan or other use of frozen Russian assets is a financial guarantee of Ukraine’s security. There are two scenarios: 1 – if the war ends, the funds will go toward rebuilding the country; 2 – if aggression continues, Ukraine expects €40–45 billion annually for defense and security.

– In the first version of the peace plan there were certain points I don’t want to comment on, but importantly, they are no longer there.

– The U.S. is seeking compromise approaches and proposes a free economic zone format, but this does not mean Russian control. At the same time, the President acknowledged that the issue of territories remains one of the key questions, and there is still no consensus.

– “I am ready for elections. If we reach certain sensitive issues and decide elections are needed—if there is a ceasefire, there will be elections.” {SOURCE}

The second point by Zelenskyy is factually stunning. “Neither de jure nor de facto will we recognize Donbas as Russian.” Not within law, nor within a matter of fact, will Zelenskyy recognize the Donbas region as Russian territory.

If accurate and not just PR, Ukraine will not concede the Donbas region to Russia.  This is the context behind all other points on regional geography or territories.  Zelenskyy will not give Putin the Eastern Ukraine region which Russia currently occupies.

In a very real and pragmatic way this position can make all of the negotiated ceasefire talks, entirely moot.  This is also why this appears to be the emphasis: “U.S. officials said that territorial questions — including Donbas — will ultimately be resolved directly between Ukraine and Russia, at the highest political level, essentially leaving the territorial question for the final stage of discussions. {Source}

I’m not sure how the Ukraine-U.S-EU-Russia negotiations can frame all other aspects while simultaneously leaving out the part of territorial concessions until later.

As noted by the official statement from EU Leadership, “as in any deal, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”  Perhaps this is how they are structuring momentum; keep focused on the small things for agreement, until you hit the wall of major disagreement at the end.  This would not be beginning with the end in mind.

I’m not sure who the U.S. officials are in these points being relayed by (pro-Ukraine) media, so take this stuff with a grain of salt, because, well… World War Reddit:

“STRATEGY ON RUSSIA: U.S. officials say President Trump is focused on reaching a conclusion to this conflict that truly stops Russia from moving west: “Under President Bush – Russia moved West, under President Obama – Russia moved West, under President Biden – Russia moved West. President Trump really wants to see this seeded as an agreement that ends that for good. That’s really what we’re trying to find a way to bring there.” {Source}

American officials say that President Trump’s focus is on robust security guarantees for Ukraine and Europe, while also rebuilding economic and political relations with Russia: “President Trump’s focus on this deal has been, number one, we need to make sure that there’s very, very robust security so that the war really ends and this will not happen again. Number two, how we make sure we deal with all the economic issues for Ukraine, so they have a bright and prosperous future. But also that Russia gets back into the global economy, so that they have incentive not to go back to war in the future, and hopefully they get focused on a different project, which is really the economy and being part of the global world, which is possible.” {SOURCE}

U.S. officials say the parties plan to meet again this weekend, likely somewhere in the United States—possibly Miami—where working groups, including military representatives, will review maps and outstanding issues. They believe roughly 90 percent of the issues between Ukraine and Russia have already been resolved, with a few remaining points still to be worked out. As additional information is gathered, the sides will compare remaining positions, including European views on territorial issues.

U.S. officials say there has been clear and acknowledged progress in narrowing the gaps between Ukraine and Russia. “We’ve identified multiple possible solutions to help bridge those gaps, which we’re proposing to the parties. We broke into a working group today focused specifically on this issue, and within about an hour we produced a three-page draft outlining the key points. As we worked through it, we realized that on roughly 90 percent of the issues there was consensus and unanimity of opinion. That reflects a real good-faith effort”, – Americans said {SOURCE}

Zelenskyy’s public statements seem to change based on his audience.

As you can see below, Zelenskky’s wording is fraught with passive-aggressive context and manipulative structure.   “If these meetings had taken place earlier”…. blah blah blah.  The U.S. team has literally been immersed in discussions with the Ukraine delegation for months.

If there was anything missing in the U.S-Ukraine discussions before, it was/is not an issue of availability from the U.S. side.  The only thing that recently changed substantively is Zelenskyy hiding behind the skirt of Merz, Starmer, Macron and Von der Leyen (EU Leaders) to frame his talking points, AND this newly expressed zero-sum position that none of the Donbas will be conceded.

Just as a reminder: Zelensky and David Arakhamia, Ukraine’s initial negotiator, refused to sign the Istanbul ceasefire and peace agreement because, as they said, “we would have to give up NATO, and that requires changing the Constitution, which is impossible.” This was after Zelenskyy received direct pressure from British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to stop negotiating with Russia.

Now, as it turns out, what they said was “impossible” is entirely possible – just as it has always been possible to hold elections during a war.  Zelensky’s decisions in 2022/2023 had nothing to do with a genuine position of the state, or best interests for Ukraine.  Zelenskyy’s position was driven by a desire for control, power and profit at the cost of the lives and fate of millions of Ukrainians.

Now, Zelenskyy wants a structural security guarantee that creates a de facto NATO alignment.  Essentially, all of the NATO security benefits, NATO recognition, NATO protection, NATO tools, and yet not officially a NATO member.

In addition, Zelenskyy demands full expedited entry into the European Union.

So, to summarize the position of Zelenskyy that is supported by the EU Leaders.  (1) No concession on Donbas. (2) De facto NATO protection and membership. (3) EU membership and (4) Ukraine control of the Russian sovereign wealth fund.

To the folks in the administration who read here:  Please accept that ¹Zelenskyy (et al) is manipulating you into a very narrow gauntlet in order to use the USA clout to achieve an objective that is not part of the administration goal.

Begin with the end in mind and now modify the approach.  Tackle the issue of territorial concessions and watch all of these endless discussions collapse upon their own weight because they are missing the foundational block.  Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin is not going to retreat from Eastern Ukraine; any more than President Trump would give Texas to Mexico.

[¹There’s also a better than average likelihood, Zelenskyy is in alignment with a genuine EU/Nazi mindset. Which, of course, was the reason Obama/DoS selected him in the first place.]

Dec 17 2025

British Intelligence Head Says Prepare for War Against Russia


Posted originally on CTH on December 16, 2025 | Sundance 

The newly appointed head of MI6, Blaise Metreweli, formerly known by her position as “Q”, is literally the granddaughter of factual Ukraine Nazi, Constantine Dobrowolski.  Now, as head of MI6 Metreweli wants war with Russia.

In a rather remarkable speech to the British people, Blaise Metreweli proclaimed Europe is in “the space between peace and war,” with a direct military conflict with Russia looming as the biggest threat.  Metreweli declared, “Our world is being actively remade, with profound implications for national and international security.”

Seemingly targeting a shift in U.S. position toward Europe, Metreweli said, “Institutions which were designed in the ashes of the Second World War are being challenged. New blocs and identities forming and alliances reshaping. Multipolar competition in tension with multilateral cooperation.” 

She went on to imply the risk evident in Elon Musk by saying, “Power itself is becoming more diffuse, more unpredictable as control over these technologies is shifting from states to corporations, and sometimes to individuals.”

The once Great Britain is a collapsing society, completely incapable of controlling the Islamic extremist population within the nation.  Heck, they cannot even stop rubber boats filled with illegal aliens who are crossing the British channel daily, while gangs of rapists run unchecked through the streets of the U.K.

Metreweli’s remarks about preparing for war against Russia would be laughable, were it not for the top intelligence position she occupies which makes her statement alarming.  An expanded segment of her remarks is transcribed below:

[Transcript] … “I’m going to break with tradition and won’t give you a global threat tour, but will focus here on Putin’s Russia. We all continue to face the menace of an aggressive, expansionist and revisionist Russia, seeking to subjugate Ukraine and harass NATO. I find it harrowing that hundreds of thousands have died, with the toll mounting every day, because of Putin’s historical distortions and his compromised desire for respect. He is dragging out negotiations and shifting the cost of war onto his own population.

But Putin should be in no doubt, our support is enduring. The pressure we apply on Ukraine’s behalf will be sustained. Because it is fundamental not just to European sovereignty and security but to global stability.

Alongside the grinding war, Russia is testing us in the grey zone with tactics that are just below the threshold of war. It’s important to understand their attempts to bully, fearmonger and manipulate, because it affects us all.

I am talking about:

Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure.

Drones buzzing airports and bases.

Aggressive activity in our seas, above and below the waves.

State-sponsored arson and sabotage.

Propaganda and influence operations that crack open and exploit fractures within societies.

Countering this activity is the work of intelligence and security services across Europe and the globe. And as the Foreign Secretary made clear in a speech last week, the UK is defending itself against this Russian information warfare – sanctioning Russian media outlets pushing Kremlin narratives.

The export of chaos is a feature not a bug in this Russian approach to international engagement; and we should be ready for this to continue until Putin is forced to change his calculus.

So, how should we respond?

It’s not enough now just to understand the world. We must shape it too.

MI6 is well-positioned to respond to these threats and wider global instability. And we will continue to evolve, just as we have throughout our long history.

The UK government has invested in our intelligence agencies and we are all using our unique powers to keep the British people safe.

Our ‘open and connected’ partnerships across the UK Intelligence Community, with HMGCC, NSSIF and the wider tech ecosystem in the UK will become even more important – because in the digital battleground, no single organisation can prevail alone.

As a global agency, MI6’s inbuilt strength is our partners and our people. The risks I have set out require us to work ever more closely with our colleagues in MI5, GCHQ and in defence and diplomacy. But also with our Five Eyes partners, with the E3, the EU, NATO, those across the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific and beyond. And with many valued partners whose identity needs to remain secret. Together, we integrate our diverse talent, data and tools to meet the threat.

AI is a domain in which we will excel, using the technology to augment, not replace, our human skills. Every digital trace, every byte of data, every algorithmic decision has implications for the safety of the lives of the courageous people who work with us as officers and agents, and for the UK’s strategic advantage.” (read more)

Why does everyone in Europe seemingly want war against Russia?

Dec 16 2025

Fox News: FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino May Depart Office in Next Few Weeks


Posted originally on CTH on December 16, 2025 | Sundance

It seems like every other month there is another report of Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino departing the FBI.  However, this time the internal sources are double-dog-sure of the likelihood.

Multiple media outlets now report an anticipated exit by Dan Bongino over the next few weeks.  It would not come as a surprise if he did leave.  The institutional corruption within the FBI is a very difficult situation to manage, especially if FBI leadership are not willing to admit the institutional corruption exists.

We do not want to see him fail, and the FBI has delivered some good results.  Depending on which report you read, Andrew Bailey, who until recently was Missouri’s attorney general, is favored to take over the role of FBI director “probably around the first of the year.”

(VIA FOX NEWS) – Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino will make a decision about his future at the bureau within the next few weeks, two sources familiar with his considerations tell Fox News.

The sources deny recent reports that Bongino’s office at the FBI is empty, but they say that his departure is a possibility in the near future.

A source familiar with the situation told Fox News Digital that Bongino has not made any decisions about his future.

Bongino’s tenure at the FBI has come under fire in recent weeks, alongside FBI director Kash Patel. Earlier this month, a blistering report from an alliance of active-duty and retired FBI personnel portrayed the bureau as directionless under its new leadership.

Bongino and Patel pushed back on the report, however, defending sweeping reforms they say have delivered major gains in accountability and public safety. (read more)

Jimmy Paul, Bongino’s chief of staff for the past nine months, has reportedly already left Washington for a new post as special agent in charge of the Baltimore field office.

Dec 16 2025

JD Vance Points Out the Consequence of the Senate “Blue Slip” Veto of Judicial Nominees


Posted originally on CTH on December 15, 2025 | Sundance 

The blue slip process has been a part of the Senate’s judicial nomination procedure since at least 1917. When a President nominates an individual for a U.S. circuit or district court judgeship, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee sends a blue slip —a form colored blue— to the two Senators representing the nominee’s home state. This form allows the Senators to express their opinions about the nominee.

Positive Response: If a home-state Senator has no objections, they return the blue slip with a positive response, indicating support for the nominee. Negative Response or Withholding: If a Senator objects, they may either return the slip with a negative response or choose not to return it at all. In both cases, this is treated as a lack of support for the nominee, which halts the nomination process.

JD Vance notes this process is being used to manipulate the appointments of Judges in leftist states.  This creates a dual justice system; one of the core issues within our extremely divided nation.

[SOURCE]

JD Vance is not wrong.  However, as with all things corrupted within the state of our Republic, if the blue slip process is removed the next leftist President can corrupt the judiciary within Republican states.

Of course, all of this is an outcome of the 17th Amendment, which stopped the state legislatures from having control over their senators.  Under the original constitutional framework, the Senate was designed to represent the interests of the state, as the Senators were appointed by state legislature, not popular votes.  The Sea Island assembly destroyed this cornerstone when they triggered the 17th Amendment.

Repeal the 17th Amendment, and just about everything in federal government changes.

Machiavelli said, “It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.”  A prescient and oft repeated quote that is pertinent to the situation.

When our founders created the system of government for our constitutional republic, they built in layers of protection from federal control over the lives of people in the states.  Over time, those protections have been eroded as the federal bureaucracy has seized power.  One of the biggest changes that led to the creation of the permanent political class was the 17th Amendment.

Our founders created a system where Senators were appointed by the state legislatures.  In this original system, the Senate was bound by obligation to look out for the best interests of their specific states.  Under the ‘advise and consent‘ rules of Senate confirmation for executive branch appointments, the intent was to ensure the presidential appointee -who would now carry out regulatory activity- would not undermine the independent position of the states.

The nucleus of corruption amid every element of the federal institutions of government is the United States Senate.   The U.S. Senate, also known as the “upper chamber,” is the single most powerful elected element in modern federal government.

The Intelligence Branch is the most powerful branch of government.  However, the U.S. Senate is the most powerful assembly of federally elected officials.  We pretend the IC branch doesn’t exist; that’s part of our problem.  At least we admit the Senate exists.

All other elected federal corruption is dependent on a corrupt and ineffective Senate.  If we correct the problems with the Senate, and reconnect the representation within the chamber to the state-level legislative bodies, we will then see immediate change.  However, there would be ZERO institutional allies in this effort.

When the 17th Amendment (direct voting for Senators) took the place of state appointments, the perspective of ‘advise and consent’ changed.  The Senate was now in the position of ensuring the presidential appointee did not undermine the power of the permanent bureaucracy, which is the root of power for the upper-chamber.

Senate committees, Homeland Security, Judiciary, Intelligence, Armed Services, Foreign Relations, etc. now consists of members who carry an imbalanced level of power within government.  The Senate now controls who will be in charge of executive branch agencies like the DOJ, DHS, FBI, CIA, ODNI, DoD, State Dept and NSA, from the position of their own power and control in Washington DC.

In essence, the 17th Amendment flipped the intent of the constitution from protecting the individual states to protecting the federal government.

Almost every source of federal issue: ex. spending, intervention and foreign assistance, conflict with the states, burdensome regulation, surveillance and spying on American citizens, the two-tiered justice system and the erosion of liberty & individual rights (see COVID examples), can be sourced back to the problem created by the 17th Amendment.

Because of the scale of their power, the Senate will not give up control easily; and every institution of society and government will actively work to block/stop We The People from taking back control of the upper chamber.  Every entity from Wall Street to multinational corporations, big tech, banks, foreign governments and world organizations would align against us.   When you truly understand the epicenter of the corruption, then you are able to see the tentacles extending from it.

It would be easy to say “repeal the 17th Amendment;“ it is ‘another kettle of fish’ entirely to walk through the process to make that happen.  Yes, ultimately, we do need a full repeal of the 17th Amendment and return the selection of the senators from each state with a nomination and appointment process within the state legislature.  [Common Explainer Here]

Seventeenth Amendment- “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.” (link)

Prior to the 17th Amendment, there was significant state level corruption as business interests, and Senate candidates worked in power groups with party officials to attain the position.  Politicians seeking Senate seats began campaigning for state legislative candidates in order to assemble support.

The state legislative races then became a process of influence amid powerful interests seeking to support their Senate candidate.   Get the right people in the State legislature, and you can get the Senator appointed.

Those state-level entities, bankers, wealthy people of influence, later became the permanent K-Street lobbying groups once the 17th Amendment was ratified. In essence, they just shifted the location of their influence operation from the state to an office in Washington DC.   [Those same power groups, albeit much larger, now write the physical legislation we see in congress.]  Additionally, prior to the 17th Amendment, there were issues of vacancies in federal senate seats as state legislatures could not agree on an individual Senator.

The biggest issue following the passage of the 17th Amendment became Senators who were no longer representing the interests of their state.  Instead, they were representing the interests of the power elite groups who were helping them fund the mechanisms of their re-election efforts.

A Senator only needs to run for re-election every six years.  The 17th Amendment is the only amendment that changed the structure of the Congress, as it was written by the founders.

Over time, the Senate chamber itself began using their advice and consent authority to control the executive and judicial branch.  The origination of a nomination now holds the question: “Can this person pass the Senate confirmation process?”

The Senate now abuses this power to ensure no one challenges them.  Additionally, the Senate began using their oversight capacity to control elements within the executive branch and judicial branch.   The full scope of that issue in modern form is OUTLINED HERE – which is the cornerstone of the Intelligence Branch of Government.

If we could repeal the 17th Amendment and return the selection to the state legislature, you can see where the background work of Tactical Civics and Extreme Federalism begin to take on importance.   [NOTE: Within the repeal effort, we would need to include a recall process for states to reach out and yank back their Senator if they go astray; the ability to recall was missing in the original construct of the framers; it would need to be added.]

◊ PATH ONE is the primary platform of the presidential candidate…. a visible and emphasized mandate that includes: “vote me into office and you are voting to repeal the 17th Amendment “.  This specific election issue would need to be the #1 priority of the candidate and spoken at every event.

This approach gives a presidential candidate the mandate to demand congress to act if he won the 2024 election.  We need a warrior of epic strength, resolve and fortitude.

◊ PATH TWO is the parallel path built along with the election platform path and put into place in the event that Congress refused to accept the mandate.

Obviously, this would be an ugly battle.   The second path is a convention of states. 

The ‘convention of states‘ would need to be detailed, strategically planned, and the future schedule determined during the GOP convention preceding the November election (assuming the right candidate wins).   That way, if Congress refuses to act on their own, within say the first 100 days of the new administration, the state legislatures will then assemble a convention for the singular and limited purpose of one action item: “repeal the 17th Amendment “.  That’s it. Full Stop.  Nothing more. Nothing else entertained.

There is a lot more to this, and a lot more to cover in discussion of this.  However, this is the path that can resolve most of the issues we face with an out-of-control federal government.   The shift in power would kneecap the Intelligence Branch of Government by re-instituting genuine oversight and control. A repeal of the 17th Amendment stops Senators from campaigning, needing to raise money and puts them directly into the accountability position as a steward for the interests of their state.

The people within each state would then have a mechanism to address any negative federal action by contacting their state legislative representative.  In a worst-case scenario, a rogue Senator could be removed within days if they support any federal legislative activity that is not in alignment with the state interest.  This approach also wipes out most of the power amid the Senate Majority Leader, as he/she could also be recalled by the state and would be less likely to work against the interests of the majority in the chamber.

The House of Representatives was created to be the voice of the people, ie, “The Peoples’ House.”  However, the U.S. Senate was structurally created to be the place where state government had representation in the federal government decision-making.  The 17th Amendment completely removed state representation, and we have been in an escalating battle over state’s rights ever since.

Overlay that DC structural issue with the fact that almost all of the bureaucracy created by this skewed DC system is now in place to defend itself from any outside effort to change it, and you get this UniParty problem that Donald Trump fully exposed.

Repeal the 17th Amendment, and we would see the most significant restoration of freedom, liberty and social balance in our lifetime.