Posted originally on CTH on September 23, 2025 | Sundance
Sometimes it’s the things you don’t see that tell the story.
The United States Secret Service announced today [Press Release Here] they have intercepted a New York tristate telecommunications network that posed an imminent disruption threat. “The potential for disruption to our country’s telecommunications posed by this network of devices cannot be overstated,” said U.S. Secret Service Director Sean Curran. “The U.S. Secret Service’s protective mission is all about prevention, and this investigation makes it clear to potential bad actors that imminent threats to our protectees will be immediately investigated, tracked down and dismantled.”
Pay attention to what agency was not involved. WATCH:
NEW YORK – The U.S. Secret Service dismantled a network of electronic devices located throughout the New York tristate area that were used to conduct multiple telecommunications-related threats directed towards senior U.S. government officials, which represented an imminent threat to the agency’s protective operations.
This protective intelligence investigation led to the discovery of more than 300 co-located SIM servers and 100,000 SIM cards across multiple sites.
In addition to carrying out anonymous telephonic threats, these devices could be used to conduct a wide range of telecommunications attacks. This includes disabling cell phone towers, enabling denial of services attacks and facilitating anonymous, encrypted communication between potential threat actors and criminal enterprises.
While forensic examination of these devices is ongoing, early analysis indicates cellular communications between nation-state threat actors and individuals that are known to federal law enforcement.
“The potential for disruption to our country’s telecommunications posed by this network of devices cannot be overstated,” said U.S. Secret Service Director Sean Curran. “The U.S. Secret Service’s protective mission is all about prevention, and this investigation makes it clear to potential bad actors that imminent threats to our protectees will be immediately investigated, tracked down and dismantled.”
These devices were concentrated within 35 miles of the global meeting of the United Nations General Assembly now underway in New York City. Given the timing, location and potential for significant disruption to New York telecommunications posed by these devices, the agency moved quickly to disrupt this network. The U.S. Secret Service’s Advanced Threat Interdiction Unit, a new section of the agency dedicated to disrupting the most significant and imminent threats to our protectees, is conducting this investigation. This investigation is currently ongoing.
The Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security Investigations, the Department of Justice, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the NYPD, as well as other state and local law enforcement partners, provided valuable technical advice and assistance in support of this investigation.
I find it very interesting the USSS (Sean Curran), coordinated with the Dept of Homeland Security (Kristi Noem), the Dept of Justice (Pam Bondi) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (Tulsi Gabbard) and local law enforcement. However, the USSS operation did not involve the FBI?
That is not coincidental.
Under normal circumstances this operation would certainly have involved the FBI, they are the central law enforcement and investigative agency for domestic threats. However, in this operation the FBI were conspicuously kept in the dark.
Posted originally on CTH on September 22, 2025 | Sundance
During the memorial service for Charlie Kirk, billionaire Elon Musk and President Trump were reunited after several months of well publicized division.
Billionaire Elon Musk is in a very unusual political influence position. With on foot in the billionaire Larry Ellison camp (professional/traditional GOP system), and one foot in the billionaire Peter Thiel camp (new era represented by JD Vance). Musk stands between and within these two groups and will never directly conflict with either tribal assembly.
We will never see Elon Musk in an openly public position of conflict against Oracle or Google. Nor will we see Musk in an openly public position of conflict against Palantir or Alex Karp. This is the bigger technocrat tent.
Under current policy constructs, all of the technocratic group members are benefitting financially; there is no risk to the future of their financial priorities; all of their collective planets are aligned. Thus, the individual members within the group begin to comfortably focus on ¹specific subjects of their individual priority without worry about finance.
¹Both Ellisons’, Larry and David, have assembled expanded information control systems (CBS, potentially TikTok and CNN) and are now positioned for great influence in 2028. Ellison will back a candidate, unknown to us at this moment – but undoubtedly Ellison has the person already identified. Ellison’s candidate will be pro-Israel. Simultaneously, for 2028 Peter Thiel will support JD Vance. Elon Musk has one foot in each network.
There’s no need to get too deep in the weeds at the moment. For now, we just keep watching.
It will be interesting to discover who Larry Ellison has selected.
Posted originally on CTH on September 21, 2025 | Sundance
My analytical and historic opinion of Pam Bondi is well known {GO DEEP}. CTH previously faced anger and scorn from those who disagreed. However, from CTH long-term perspective, Bondi was/is a political animal lacking intellectual acumen and carrying outlooks subject to popular political perspectives. She was over her head from day one, but Susie Wiles liked her former colleague a lot.
As U.S. Attorney General, Bondi does not have the ability to independently strategize against the Lawfare system that has corrupted Main Justice and U.S. politics. That said, from the position of protecting President Trump from attacks, Bondi is effective, and thus criticism of her inabilities should be tempered.
Last night, President Trump posted on Truth Social that the clock was ticking, and no accountability has yet been delivered against those who weaponized government power structures against himself and the American people [SEE HERE]. Shortly thereafter, President Trump was asked about his criticisms of Bondi. WATCH:
President Trump’s social media post: “Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, “same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam “Shifty” Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.” Then we almost put in a Democrat supported U.S. Attorney, in Virginia, with a really bad Republican past. A Woke RINO, who was never going to do his job. That’s why two of the worst Dem Senators PUSHED him so hard. He even lied to the media and said he quit, and that we had no case. No, I fired him, and there is a GREAT CASE, and many lawyers, and legal pundits, say so. Lindsey Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you, a lot. We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!! President DJT“
As noted in the original post, “nothing is being done” because, well, nothing is being done.
Apparently, President Trump is receiving information from those in/around his orbit who are increasingly hearing the frustrated voices of his supporters. However, simultaneously the value of AG Pam Bondi lies in her primary skillset of keeping President Trump protected from political and lawfare attacks.
As previously noted by The Associated Press: […] Bondi worked as a lobbyist for Ballard Partners, the powerful Florida-based firm where Trump’s campaign chief and incoming chief of staff Susie Wiles was a partner. Her U.S. clients have included General Motors, the commissioner of Major League Baseball and a Christian anti-human-trafficking advocacy group.
As long as Chief of Staff Susie Wiles is safe and in solid position, Pam Bondi is safe and in solid position.
Susie Wiles is the filter that controls information that reaches President Trump. Susie Wiles controls the people, subjects, inputs and information who reach the Oval Office.
If President Trump is unaware of an issue, it’s entirely because Susie Wiles keeps that issue away from President Trump. If President Trump is advocating a specific position with strong determination, it’s because that position is very important to Susie Wiles. That’s the reality of the dynamic.
According to Susie Wiles she was “asked by a mutual friend” to travel to New York and meet with candidate Trump in “late December 2015.” That timeline would be post-Fox Debate (Megyn Kelly attempted hit – Aug ’15), when President Trump was leading every Republican primary poll and became the enemy of the professional Republican establishment.
That mutual friend was likely well-known lobbyist and friend of President Trump, Brian Ballard {GO DEEP}. Susie Wiles was a “partner” at Ballard Partners. Both Susie Wiles and Pam Bondi connect to President Trump personally and professionally through Brian Ballard.
2018 – “Ballard, like most of Florida’s Republican establishment, backed Jeb Bush in the primary, but when Trump called he offered to do what he could for his client. In September, as it became clear that Trump’s lead in the polls wasn’t going away, Ballard dispatched Wiles to New York to meet with Trump. Wiles was named the Trump campaign’s Florida co-chairwoman a few weeks later.” {SOURCE}
Susie Wiles was also the advocate behind Mike Waltz being selected as the first National Security Advisor. We said at the time of the announcement that NSA Waltz would fail and likely be the first to exit; he did and was.
For those critical of AG Pam Bondi’s performance, the issue doesn’t resolve until the issue of Susie Wiles is addressed. That’s a very long shot. Read the Ballard Partner contract carefully:
Posted originally on CTH on September 16, 2025 | Sundance
We see things for what they are, not what media try to have us believe.
Unlike the first term playbook, the Lawfare operation against President Trump is facing a more affirmed attack posture. Instead of Trump (T1) being on constant defense, Trump (T2) is strategically willing to be more confrontational and direct against the use of Lawfare and corrupt courts against Trump’s intended policy changes.
T2 Main Justice is still not going to the mattresses as many of us would like, and factually the DOJ and FBI operations are still a weakness in the overall war against the radical left; however, they do appear to recognize that direct aggressive confrontation is needed – despite the shortcomings in their capabilities.
In the fight between the executive authority and Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook, the embattled fed governor is being represented by Norm Eisen. Eisen, together with Mary McCord and other ideological travelers represent Lisa Cook and are using the issue as a point of attack against executive power.
In the latest development, in a 2-1 decision [SOURCE HERE], a federal appeals court has rejected President Donald Trump’s bid to quickly fire Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook. The two justices who decided to block Trump were appointed by Joe Biden. The justice who sided with the executive authority was appointed by President Trump.
Ultimately, this issue is going to the Supreme Court where hopefully the highest court will rule that President Trump can remove Lisa Cook for cause, because Cook falsified federal mortgage loan documents. But in the bigger picture, the issue around Cook is not as much about her unlawful conduct, as it is the value of what Cook represents in the fight against President Trump.
WASHINGTON DC – […] Judges J, Michelle Childs and Bradley Garcia, both Biden appointees, voted to leave Cook in her post, while Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, dissented. The Department of Justice declined comment.
Last week, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb rejected Trump’s bid to remove Cook just three years into her 14-year term, saying the president’s justification for the firing — mortgage fraud allegations that have not been adjudicated in any forum — did not meet the legal requirements to overcome laws protecting the independence of the Federal Reserve.
While the Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed Trump’s efforts to remove executive branch officials Congress has sought to insulate from politics, the justices have signaled they view the Federal Reserve as a unique “quasi-private” institution that may put it in a different legal category.
Federal law gives Trump the power to fire members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors “for cause,” which typically means misconduct or malfeasance on the job. Trump said he had cause to fire Cook due to allegations that she claimed in separate mortgage applications that two different homes were her primary residence, which can entitle a homeowner to lower rates. Cook has denied the allegations.
The D.C. Circuit’s majority said there was “no need” at this stage of the case for the appeals court to address whether the allegations against Cook meet the “for cause” standard to fire a Fed member or what that standard would require. Childs and Garcia agreed with Cobb’s finding that Cook’s due process rights appeared to have been violated because she wasn’t properly notified of the accusations against her and given a chance to dispute them.
In his dissent, Katsas grappled directly with the definition of “for cause” firing protections for Federal Reserve board members, concluding that the law gives the president broad power to define the “cause.”
“The Board of Governors no doubt is important, but that only heightens the government’s interest in ensuring that its Governors are competent and capable of projecting confidence into markets,” Katsas wrote. “And in empowering the President to remove Governors for cause, Congress has specifically assigned that task to the President.”
Delving into the president’s determination of cause, Katsas wrote, “would enable a potentially compromised Governor to engage in significant governmental action — such as voting on whether to adjust interest rates, which Cook says she must do tomorrow.”
The Trump administration’s expected emergency appeal will go to Chief Justice John Roberts, who oversees such appeals out of the D.C. Circuit. He’s all but certain to escalate the issue to the full court, but could issue a temporary order blocking Cook from remaining in her post while the litigation plays out. (more)
Norm Eisen left, Abbe Lowell right. Both lawyers for Lisa Cook
Norm Eisen is a well-known Lawfare operative, second only to Mary McCord in his high visibility and connections to all of the anti-Trump efforts. Eisen, like McCord, is at the center of the leftist effort to stop the Trump agenda through the manipulation of the courts, ie. ‘Lawfare.’
Posted originally on Sep 16, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |
Keith Kellogg’s stupid statement that Russia’s war in Ukraine would end very quickly if Beijing withdrew its support for Moscow. He made the comments at a security conference in Kiev. He called Russia the “junior partner” to China and said it is losing the war in Ukraine. Such a statement is just insane. Like Iraq, nobody ever asked, if Ukraine defeats Russia, what would happen in Russia? This would be like saying What if Mexico invaded the USA and won?
After Germany lost World War I, there was a revolution that overthrew the monarchy, and the Weimar Republic was born, which then ended in hyperinflation. Even the Russian Revolution of 1917 was enabled by Russia’s disastrous performance in WWI, including massive casualties and economic collapse, which sparked widespread strikes and mutinies. The Tsar abdicated in March 1917, ending 300 years of Romanov rule; the Bolsheviks then seized power in November, leading to civil war and the Soviet Union.
Austria collapsed in 1918 after losing World War I. The empire’s multi-ethnic collapse after defeat led to ethnic revolts and declarations of independence in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and elsewhere. The monarchy ended in November 1918, fragmenting into nation-states amid famine and military desertions.
The collapse of the Ottoman Empire also took place after World War I. The Turkish War of Independence and the abolition of the sultanate (1919–1923) unfolded. Allied occupation post-armistice fueled nationalist resistance led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. The sultanate was abolished in 1922, and the caliphate in 1924, birthing the Republic of Turkey after revolutionary reforms.
Xinhai Revolution (1911) followed the defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War of 1895. Humiliating territorial losses to Japan exposed the dynasty’s weakness, sparking anti-Manchu sentiment and Sun Yat-sen’s republican movement. The last emperor abdicated in 1912, ending over 2,000 years of imperial rule and ushering in the Republic of China.
Franco-Prussian War of 1870 saw the Paris Commune and fall of the empire (1870–1871). Napoleon III’s defeat led to the Third Republic’s proclamation. Radical workers then revolted in the Paris Commune, which was brutally suppressed, but the monarchy was permanently ousted.
These modern historical events illustrate a pattern without having to catalogue all the countless such events throughout human history. Wars drain resources, erode legitimacy, and amplify grievances (e.g., food shortages, casualties), creating fertile ground for revolutionaries. Not all post-war unrest leads to full regime change—e.g., Bulgaria’s monarchy survived WWI initially, only falling later in 1944. Nonetheless, these are clear instances of direct causation between revolution and the loss of a previous war.
In a post on his Telegram channel, Medvedev made the realistic statement that granting NATO members permission to down Russian drones operating in Ukrainian airspace would mean “war between the Alliance and Russia.” His comments followed growing calls in Europe and NATO to intervene in the war, demanding stronger Western action against Russia for its drone incursions while supporting Ukraine to use Western long-range missiles to attack even Moscow. On Sept. 12, Bundestag Defense Committee Chair Thomas Röwekamp urged NATO to begin intercepting Russian drones over Ukraine.
I have repeatedly stated that the psychological war tactic is that you MUST claim that an adversary has attacked you to get people to sign up. The support hasn’t been this low since 2022. This is why false flags are so important. They are used to claim you have been attacked, and then the common people will sign up to die on the battlefield for a noble cause.
That works on all sides. A new poll made by the independent Russian institute Levada shows that the Russians are growing tired of the war in Ukraine. The poll showed that 66%, or roughly two out of three, of the participants want the Kremlin to engage in peace negotiations with Ukraine. That is the highest number since 2022, when the war began. If NATO attacks Russia using a false flag, this will support the Rally Around the Flag for Russia. Let’s face it. Russians are treated with disdain as were the Jews before World War II. That is not a scenario that implies world peace lies ahead.
Senior military leaders from NATO member states have publicly assessed that the alliance would prevail in a conventional war against Russia relatively quickly due to overwhelming advantages in personnel (over 3.4 million active troops vs. Russia’s 1.3 million), aircraft (22,000+ vs. 4,000), ships (1,100+ vs. 400), defense spending (3.5 times Russia’s), and GDP (20 times larger).
In a February 2024 speech, UK Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral Sir Tony Radakin stated that “NATO would defeat Russia quickly,” citing Russia’s struggles in Ukraine as evidence of its military weaknesses and NATO’s growing strength with the addition of Finland and Sweden. Similarly, analyses from outlets like Al Jazeera and The Week conclude that NATO’s integrated command, superior training, and equipment would lead to a “quick” conventional victory. However, they warn that this could escalate to nuclear risks if Russia faces total defeat. As I have said, if I have a gun and you break into my house and threaten to kill me, I think I may shoot back.
Sensational claims, such as NATO submarines “destroying Russia in 30 seconds,” appear in YouTube videos and informal discussions but stem from hyperbolic speculation about nuclear scenarios, not official statements. Recent X posts echo debates on NATO’s superiority but often tie it to broader geopolitical tensions without referencing its past defeats. Overall, while NATO officials project confidence in deterrence, they prioritize avoiding direct war over public victory projections.
This push for war with Russia leaves out TWO critical factors
(1) China will support Russia because it knows it will be next, as they plainly told Kallas.
(2) This will turn nuclear, and Europe, with all its conventional power, can be turned to dust in minutes, not days.
“Europe is ready to take a step forward. We are ready to take control of the changes that are inevitable. Because we can’t let history push us around. This means that it is necessary to act now. Acting on a large scale is an indispensable condition for speed, scale and strength by 2030 … By 2030 Europe should have a strong European defense structure,” Ursula said.
This drone shot down in Poland from EVERY source I have states that this is a FALSE FLAG and there is no evidence that this every invaded Polish airspace. They desperately need to create a False Flag, get gullible people to sign their own death wish, so these failed EU leaders can keep their pensions. Ursula told the EU Parliament with great theatrics:
“Battle lines for a new world order based on power are being drawn right now,” von der Leyen told the European Parliament in her annual State of the EU address.
“So, yes, Europe must fight. For its place in a world in which many major powers are either ambivalent or openly hostile to Europe,” she said.
Putin is the smartest and responsible world leader at the table today. Remove him, and we will get an emotional leader like Medvedev. Speculating on a post-Putin Russia is inherently uncertain, as the regime’s opacity and Putin’s tight control over security services make a smooth transition debatable. An overthrow—whether via coup, elite infighting, or sudden death—would likely trigger a power struggle among siloviki (security elites), oligarchs, and technocrats, potentially leading to instability or even fragmentation. I would emphasize that no apparent clear heir exists, and the outcome depends on the circumstances: a managed handover (unlikely in an overthrow) versus chaotic removal.
I would list the potential replacements, prioritize loyalty to the current system, hawkish stances on Ukraine/NATO, and control over key institutions like the FSB, military, or economy, which will all come into play. Dmitry Medvedev is indeed a contender due to his proximity to Putin, but he’s not the top pick—his role is often seen as that of a “bad cop” provocateur rather than a unifying leader. Perhaps, but we are looking at an outright statement from the EU that Russia must be defeated and obliterated. We are not talking about just pushing Russia out of Ukraine.
Kaja Kallas, a ruthless Neocon, openly calls for the total destruction and breakup of Russia. This is the total destruction of the country. That is not something that should be taken lightly. That is the justification for nuclear war. Kallas is a greater threat to the EU than Putin.
MY LIST OF CONTENDERS:
Mikhail Mishustin, Prime Minister Nikolai Patrushev, Deputy Chair, Security Council (former FSB head) Sergei Sobyanin, Moscow Mayor Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chair, Security Council Andrei Belousov, Defense Minister Alexei Dyumin, Tula Governor (ex-bodyguard) Sergei Kiriyenko, First Deputy Chief of Staff
Medvedev’s name surfaces due to his history (tandem with Putin in 2008-2012) and recent high-profile positioning him as a “nuclear-ready” hardliner who could rally nationalists. X discussions often call him the “natural successor” for stability. However, he’s rarely ranked #1 in expert assessments—his provocative style (e.g., 2025 threats sparking U.S. sub deployments) makes him a Kremlin mouthpiece, not a consolidator. Others see him as a fallback, not a frontrunner, due to reputational damage from past “liberal” image and scandals. In an overthrow, elites might prefer Mishustin or Patrushev for their institutional grip.
Keep in mind that Khruschev was overthrown in a coup, and he was usurped by Bresnev because of his reckless handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Post-Stalin USSR saw infighting; a similar “vicious struggle” would be likely if Russia were defeated in Ukraine, with FSB vs. military clashes. No democratic shift should be expected. Any successor would most likely double down on authoritarianism and anti-West policies, and any hope of world peace will be completely obliterated.
Then, for a coup, any replacement inherits a quagmire; hardliners like Patrushev or Medvedev might escalate, while technocrats like Mishustin seek de-escalation for economic relief.
In summary, Mishustin or Patrushev edge out as most probable for their balance of competence and control, but Medvedev remains a wildcard—loyal enough for continuity, radical enough for drama. Russia after Putin looks more like Putinism 2.0 than reform. This is all upset if NATO pushes its agenda to destroy Russia and break it up, strip mining its assets. This goal, as articulated in part by Kallas, warrants a fight to the death with nukes, and in this case, I would put my money on Medvedev, who has the high-profile that would become more valuable when confronted with the destruction of Russia, not with just pushing it out of Ukraine.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 