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.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller Discusses the Consequences of Sedition


Posted originally on CTH on November 21, 2025 | Sundance 

Senator Elissa Slotkin (Mich), a former CIA analyst who worked in the State Department and Pentagon during the Obama administration, organized a viral video with Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Rep. Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, and Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado.

The six congressional representatives directed their coordinated communication to members of the military and intelligence community. “Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders … you must refuse illegal orders,” they asserted.

However, when questioned about what “illegal orders” President Trump has created, the six members are suddenly very quiet.  White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller responds:

.

Ultimately, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi could easily assign an FBI agent and U.S attorney to question the six members about the “illegal orders” they are telling the military and intelligence community to defy.

If Slotkin, Kelly and the rest cannot present evidence of an illegal order they are referring to, that would be a qualification that should presumably invoke a First Amendment defense claim, then charge them with simple sedition as defined in statute.

FBI Leadership Stakes a Position in Opposition to Expanded Authority of Director of National Intelligence


Posted originally on CTH on October 29, 2025 | Sundance 

It has often been said that a person cannot serve two masters.  Throughout years of reviewing the activity of the FBI, one larger picture is clear; the primary mission of the FBI is to protect the interests of Washington, DC – not to protect the interests of truth.

There are two recent sub-contexts for an internal conflict taking place between the Director of the FBI, Kash Patel, and the Director of the Office of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.

♦ The first issue surfaces from the ODNI’s office investigating the potential for foreign intelligence to have participated in the background of the Charlie Kirk assassination.  The director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), Joe Kent, has been reviewing the potential for Charlie Kirk’s assassin to have received influence or support from foreign interests, specifically foreign intelligence.

FBI Director Kash Patel is not happy that NCTC Director Joe Kent reviewed the investigative case file of Tyler Robinson as part of the NCTC review.  Presumably, Patel is worried that any investigation of potential support for the assassination may create reasonable doubt for a jury in the case against Robinson. {STORY HERE}

On one-hand the issue is somewhat territorial, with the FBI guarding their investigation in order to ensure a successful prosecution.  However, on the other hand, if the investigation is to find the truth of the issues behind the murder, then why would the FBI be concerned about the NCTC checking to see if associations in/around Tyler Robinson may have contributed to the assassination?  The truth should have no agenda.

♦ The second issue is even more concerning.  Congress is currently debating the final version of an intelligence policy bill, known as the 2026 Intelligence Authorization Act, and possible amendments to the structure of the counterintelligence systems and processes as carried out.  [Legislative Link Here] At issue is whether to put intelligence and counterintelligence operations under the purview of the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. {STORY HERE}

Currently, the counterintelligence operations of the U.S. Intelligence Community are carried out by the sub-silo within the FBI, the FBI counterintelligence division.  However, as documented in the weaponized use of the FBI counterintelligence organization against President Donald Trump, there is a push to change the system to create oversight, insurance the FBI cannot politically weaponize this agency again.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard has said her goal is to chase down the exact origin of the FBI’s weaponized authority in the Crossfire Hurricane targeting operation and take measures to ensure such gross abuses of power do not happen again.  Many in Congress have been alarmed at how the FBI used the counterintelligence agency as an isolation silo to stop oversight, even their own leadership, from knowing what they were doing as they weaponized their authority.  Gabbard is seeking structural changes to make sure it can never happen again.  Kash Patel is against this change.

♦ Readers and online researchers who have used the CTH research library on these issues will note our continued position, proven by decades of evidence, that shows the FBI as a structural agency is compromised from top to bottom with “institutional corruption,” as confirmed by Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley.

Decades of examples of FBI political motivation, including the recently discussed “Arctic Frost” operation, simply prove the FBI is a political agency akin to the Soviet era FSB.  The FBI targets any individual, group or entity, who would represent a threat to Washington, DC.  This is their primary mission and the reason why so many domestic terror threats were unnoticed.

The FBI is primarily focused on threats to the U.S. system of government, not to threats against the citizens of the nation.  At this point in our history, with hundreds of specific examples for citation, this outlook, opinion or view is no longer arguable.

Despite FBI Director Kash Patel continuing to deny the ‘institutional corruption’ of his agency, the corruption exists.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was also accurate in saying from her experience with the FBI tipping off drug cartels, money launderers and human trafficking operations targeted by CBP/ICE officials, the FBI is corrupt.

We are approaching an inflection point.

President Trump is demanding the institutions of Law and Order must be purged of corrupt actors and the institutions themselves must be cleaned up.  DNI Tulsi Gabbard is working through the process of identifying how the various govt silos were weaponized, who weaponized them, what role the intelligence community played in the targeting, and she is taking direct action to change the systems in place in order to take away their capability of doing harm.

FBI Director Kash Patel stands with one foot in agreement with the goals of DNI Gabbard, but also with one foot to maintain institutional power of the FBI while underneath him remains an entire operational system against the goals of Gabbard.  Again, in short, Director Kash Patel is trying to serve two masters.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is not beholden to the retention of any silo agency, even her own office.  So far, she has been a steward on a mission for the truth regardless of how ugly that truth might appear.  This puts a big DC target on the back of Mrs. Gabbard, as the entire DC system is dependent on retention of a very corrupt intelligence information control and operational targeting system.

In examples we have already documented, the CIA (Directorate of Analysis), the DoD (Defense Intelligence Agency), and the Lawfare operatives within the DOJ have all targeted Tulsi Gabbard using DC schemes and manipulative leaks to media in an effort to undermine her and get her removed – they failed.  However, now the FBI is participating in the same risk avoidance measures.

DNI Gabbard represents a threat to the operational mission of an institutionally corrupt Federal Bureau of Investigation.

It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things; for the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order; this lukewarmness arising partly from the incredulity of mankind who does not truly believe in anything new until they actually have experience of it.

― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

[SOURCE]