Tag Archives: Big Stupid 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

Brown University Received a Letter from 34 Human Rights Groups in August Requesting They Disable Their CCTV System


Posted originally on CTH on December 17, 2025 | Sundance

The question is: Did Brown University acquiesce under pressure from far-left human rights groups to disable their CCTV systems, in advance of the mass shooting on campus?

[SOURCE – AUGUST 19, 2025]

As originally reported in August 2025 {SOURCE}, a group of far-left human rights advocates sent a letter to 150 U.S. colleges and universities asking them to disable the CCTV systems to protect “free expression and academic freedom across the country,” because “the Trump administration has launched an aggressive campaign against US academic institutions.”

The motive for the request to disable CCTV systems as stated: “Right now these tools are facilitating the identification and punishment of student protesters, undermining activists’ right to anonymity––a right the Supreme Court has affirmed as vital to free expression and political participation.” {SOURCE}

The letter from ‘Fight For The Future‘ (August, 2025) came after an earlier campaign by the same group seeking to stop the use of facial recognition cameras on college campuses. {SOURCE}

The Brown University President and school officials have been giving ridiculous answers to questions about the 800 cameras on the campus and the fact that no current footage exists of the shooter walking around inside the campus or inside the buildings therein.

The question is really a simple one.  Did Brown University follow the requests of the hardline leftist groups who asked the school to disable the functioning of their surveillance network in order to protect the identity of the students on campus?

Obviously, this potential explanation would answer a lot of seemingly irreconcilable questions about the lack of surveillance footage available to local law enforcement, state police and FBI investigators.  The only current footage of the shooter is from privately owned doorbell cameras and CCTV systems from businesses near the campus.  No footage of the shooter on campus has been identified.

Against the factual evidence of Brown University receiving requests to disable their surveillance cameras, someone needs to ask the right question.

Everyone can see the potential ramifications here, along with the severity of the legal risk Brown University would be facing.  Perhaps that dynamic is what’s behind the twisted wording and explanations coming from university and local officials.

A targeted political assassination of a young, female conservative vice-chair of the Brown University Republican group takes place.  The ideological shooter benefits from the lack of school security and surveillance.  That lack of security was intentionally created by ideological school administrators and officials bowing to pressure from ideologically aligned leftist organizations.

If accurate, this is quite a scenario on many levels; including a considerable legal risk, intentional and willful negligence, and massive lawsuit exposure in the aftermath of two deaths and 9 injured students.  Brown University has an $8 billion endowment.

As everyone understands, a University like Brown creates a local economy unto itself. College towns like Providence, Rhode Island are college towns for a reason.  The college is a considerable foundation for the economic wealth of the community.  As an outcome, the local officials would be in full protection mode over their economic foundation.  In this case, there are billions at stake.

Perhaps this dynamic explains all the conflicts and seemingly bizarre statements by local and university officials.  WATCH:

.

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

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 15 2025

Brown University Shooting Suspect Released from Custody


Posted originally on CTH on December 15, 2025 | Sundance

Previously, overnight Saturday/Sunday police arrested a man named Benjamin Erickson (24) as the suspect {link} in the Brown University attack that left two people killed and nine injured.   At the time of the detainment Providence’s police chief, Col. Oscar Perez, told media, “Police are confident the man in custody is the suspected gunman.” {link] He added he wanted to ensure that all legal requirements are met before charges are brought.

According to media reports, “the man had a unique characteristic on his firearm, the officials said, and that firearm was found when he was taken into custody.” {link}

“We’re going to work with the attorney general’s office to make sure that we have the right legal requirements for the charges,” Perez said. “And this is, it’s just complex. There’s a lot of evidence, there’s a lot of witnesses, and so we have to make sure that we have it all tight. And to make sure we have a good case.” Perez said police cannot hold the person of interest beyond tomorrow (Sunday) if charges are not filed. He said he is hoping an arraignment will take place “sooner rather than later.” {link w/ video}

Shortly before midnight local authorities announced they were releasing the “person of interest”, aka Benjamin Jackson, but told the community not to worry as there is no alternative threat to the community. WATCH:

RHODE ISLAND – PROVIDENCE: A person of interest detained after a Brown University shooting that killed two students and injured nine will be released after an investigation took law enforcement authorities in a “different direction,” officials said Sunday night.

The disclosure, made at a hastily convened late night news conference, represents a stunning turn of events in an investigation into killings that rattled the Ivy League campus and came more than 12 hours after officials had announced that they had taken a person into custody in connection with the attack.

[…] The gunman opened fire inside a classroom in the engineering building, firing more than 40 rounds from a 9 mm handgun, a law enforcement official told AP. Two handguns were recovered when the person of interest was taken into custody and authorities also found two loaded 30-round magazines, the official said. One of the firearms was equipped with a laser sight that projects a dot to aid in targeting, said the official, who was not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly and spoke to AP on the condition of anonymity.

One student of the nine wounded students had been released from the hospital, said Paxson. Seven others were in critical but stable condition, and one was in critical condition. (READ MORE)

Occam’s Razor.  The suspect, Benjamin Jackson, could only be held for 24 hours without charges.  [Detained overnight Sat, clock ticks to overnight Sun] The attorney general would have needed to file charges on Sunday evening to avoid detainment issue.  The AG office doesn’t work full staff on Sunday, and the police detainment was too fast for them.  RESULT: Benjamin Jackson is released.

This is Providence, Rhode Island. One of the most Moonbat communities in a sea of Moonbat politics. DEI, not competency, is their operational language.  It’s just how the far-left rolls in combination with a police arrest of an individual who holds the same ideological alignment as the local officials in charge.

Ultimately, as suspected and rumored within the discussion of this story, the shooter (leftist) and the victims (conservatives) are on opposite sides of the political dynamic.  A college republican group on this campus would be a very small segment of the overall student/faculty population.

“The shooting happened during a final exam review session in a Principles of Economics class, according to the class’s professor, Rachel Friedberg. She did not immediately respond to a message seeking more information.” (Source)

As the mayor said, there is no “risk” to the larger Providence community in releasing the suspect, because the motives of the shooting indicate only a very narrow segment of the Providence population would be targeted.

Dec 13 2025

DNI Tulsi Gabbard Discusses Ongoing Efforts to Find and Remove 18,000 Known Terrorists Who Entered U.S. Under Biden


Posted originally on CTH on December 13, 2025

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard appears on Fox News to discuss the Trump administrations’ effort to track down, capture and remove a reported 18,000 known and documented terrorists who crossed the southern border and entered the U.S. during the Biden administration.

There are several elements to this issue, and unfortunately the aspect that pertains to identifying them and locating them works to enhance the argument of those who support govt surveillance. In fact, both the use of Palantir track and trace technology in combination with the FISA-702 reauthorization come into play here.

I would argue, as I have since 2022, that one of the reasons the DC administrative state allowed the Biden regime to create this national security threat, was specifically so they could justify the creation and use of a national identity surveillance net.

Washington DC supported the creation of the borderless crisis, in part to ensure the need for their surveillance solution. This puts the efforts of DNI Gabbard into a catch-22 scenario as witnessed in the questioning before congress of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. WATCH:

.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem are trying to remove thousands of national security threats and deport millions of illegal aliens.  The tools they need to track and identify those threats are the tools DC wants to retain against everyone, not just the threats.

In order to keep the pitchforks away, Washington DC has filled the haystack with needles. Gabbard (DNI), Noem (DHS) and Homan (ICE) are using metal detectors while the DC UniParty keeps operating the needle-making machinery.

Dec 13 2025

CIA Outlet Concerned About Kash Patel and Dan Bongino Meeting with Top Zelenskyy Officials


Posted originally on CTH on December 12, 2025 | Sundance 

Generally, the Washington Post is the outlet for interests and concerns of the CIA or international elements of the U.S. intelligence community.  Narratives from the Washington Post usually shape storylines against scrutiny of the Intelligence Community.

It has been widely reported that the FBI has been working closely with the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) in detecting and discovering corruption amid Ukraine officials who have skimmed money from various international aid programs.  However, the Washington Post is suddenly concerned that FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino have held “secret meetings” with lead Ukraine peace negotiator Rustem Umerov.

This becomes interesting if you have followed along and noted that during negotiations the reports of Rustem Umerov indicated his concurrence with the peace agreements structured by Marco Rubio, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.  Indeed, based on feedback during these meetings President Trump has said the Ukraine delegation appeared “quite happy” with the terms of the Witkoff/Kushner proposals, while Ukraine President Zelenskyy was less accepting.

Between the lines of statements following the consultations, it is easy to get the sense that Rustem Umerov is in alignment with the U.S. proposals, but Volodymyr Zelenskyy is not.  Hence, Zelenskyy keeps returning to his U.K, France, Germany and EU support network for counterproposals despite his officials like Umerov working with the U.S. team directly.

This paragraph from within the WaPo (CIA) framework seems to tell a background story:

[…] “The meetings have caused alarm among Western officials who remain in the dark about their intent and purpose. Some said they believe Umerov and other Ukrainian officials sought out Patel and Bongino in the hopes of obtaining amnesty from any corruption allegations the Ukrainians could face. Others worry the newly established channel could be used to exert pressure on Zelensky’s government to accept a peace deal, proposed by the Trump administration, containing steep concessions for Kyiv.” (more)

The FBI working with NABU to uncover Ukraine corruption.  The FBI is meeting with Ukraine lead negotiator, Rustem Umerov.  A massive corruption scandal has just taken down Zelenskyy’s main aide, Andriy Yermak.

“The discussions [between the FBI and Umerov] are happening at a critical moment for Ukraine. It is under pressure by the Trump administration to agree to an end-of-war proposal with huge implications for the country’s borders and territorial integrity.

It is also facing its most far-reaching corruption scandal since Zelensky took office in 2019. Ukrainian investigators alleged last month that $100 million had been stolen from the country’s energy sector through graft and kickbacks.

Eight people, including Zelensky’s former business partner, are accused of embezzlement, money laundering and illicit self-dealing. Zelensky’s top aide, Andriy Yermak, the second most powerful person in Ukraine, resigned in late November after his house was raided. Another close former ally of Zelensky, Oleksiy Chernyshov, who served as deputy prime minister, is accused by Ukrainian authorities of receiving $1.3 million in kickbacks.” {link}

Perhaps Zelenskyy’s primary negotiator for the USA team, Rustem Umerov, has specific knowledge of corruption connected to the generous financial support the USA has provided Ukraine.  Watching Yermak get taken down within the FBI/NABU investigation, might have triggered Umerov to cooperate on several levels.

Umerov reported as happy with the negotiated U.S. terms. Volodymyr Zelenskyy openly not happy with the negotiated terms.

This is worth watching.

Dec 13 2025

U.S. Govt Agency Verifies that Nine Large U.S. Banks Conducted Ideological Debanking Operations


Posted originally on CTH on December 12, 2025 | Sundance 

The United States Office of the Comptroller for the Currency (OCC) has delivered the preliminary results of an investigation into large U.S. banks and the practice of “debanking” customers based on ideology. [PDF HERE]

Between 2020 and 2023, the OCC found that JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., U.S. Bancorp, Capital One Financial Corp., PNC Financial Services Group Inc., Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Bank of Montreal, all maintained policies that restricted legal companies from access to banking based on the “values” of the bank.

According to the OCC report, “these nine banks made inappropriate distinctions among customers in the provision of financial services on the basis of their lawful business activities by maintaining policies restricting access to banking services or requiring escalated reviews and approvals before providing certain customers access to financial services.”

Press Release – […] The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today released preliminary findings from its supervisory review of debanking activities at the nine largest national banks it supervises: JPMorgan Chase Bank, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo Bank, U.S. Bank, Capital One, PNC Bank, TD Bank, and BMO Bank.

The OCC conducted its supervisory review in accordance with the President’s Executive Order “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans” to determine whether these institutions debanked or discriminated against any customers or potential customers on the basis of their political or religious beliefs or lawful business activities.

“The OCC is committed to ending efforts – whether instigated by regulators or banks – that would weaponize finance,” said Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan V. Gould. “Although our work continues, the OCC is today providing visibility into the debanking actions against customers and lawful businesses taken by the nation’s largest banks to ensure public awareness, and to halt these harmful and unfair practices.”

The OCC’s preliminary findings show that, between 2020 and 2023, these nine banks made inappropriate distinctions among customers in the provision of financial services on the basis of their lawful business activities by maintaining policies restricting access to banking services or requiring escalated reviews and approvals before providing certain customers access to financial services. For example, the OCC identified instances where at least one bank imposed restrictions on certain industry sectors because they engaged in “activities that, while not illegal, are contrary to [the bank’s] values.” Sectors subjected to restricted access included oil and gas exploration, coal mining, firearms, private prisons, tobacco and e-cigarette manufacturers, adult entertainment, and digital assets.

The OCC’s findings confirm that these or similar policies and practices were in place at each of the banks reviewed. In a reaction to the observations Comptroller Gould stated, “It is unfortunate that the nation’s largest banks thought these harmful debanking policies were an appropriate use of their government-granted charter and market power. While many of these policies were undertaken in plain sight and even announced publicly, certain banks have continued to insist that they did not engage in debanking. Going forward, the OCC will hold banks accountable for these actions and ensure unlawful debanking does not continue.”

This review was first announced by the OCC in September 2025. While the OCC is releasing preliminary findings, its work continues to better understand the full extent and effect of these actions and their impact on affected industries and the American economy. The OCC is also still reviewing thousands of complaints to identify instances of political and religious debanking, which it will report on in due course and as appropriate. (LINK)

The six-page report identifies several industries that faced uphill climbs securing banking services, including oil and gas companies, cryptocurrency firms, tobacco and e-cigarette manufacturers, and firearm companies. The OCC said that many of these banks had publicly disclosed relevant policies, often tied to environmental, social and governance goals.

The report also found some banks adopted heightened reviews for potential customers based on negative coverage in the media.

The OCC will complete their investigation and could send recommendations to the DOJ requesting prosecution.