Tag Archives: Media bias

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

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


Posted originally on CTH on December 17, 2025 | Sundance 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dec 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

JD Vance Gives Strong Defense of Susie Wiles


Posted originally on CTH on December 16, 2025 | Sundance

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

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

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

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

Dec 17 2025

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


Posted originally on CTH on December 16, 2025 | Sundance 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SOURCE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~ Oscar Brown Jr

Dec 17 2025

Brown University Shooter Still at Large – Open Discussion Thread


Posted originally on CTH on December 16, 2025 | Sundance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dec 16 2025

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


Posted originally on CTH on December 16, 2025 | Sundance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dec 16 2025

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


Posted originally on CTH on December 15, 2025 | Sundance 

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

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

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

[SOURCE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dec 16 2025

Tom Homan Delivers Powerful Remarks Noting the Success of Trump’s Border Security Program


Posted originally on CTH on December 15, 2025 | Sundance

Delivering remarks from the Oval Office, Border Security Czar Tom Homan delivers a mic drop statement noting how President Trump and Customs and Border Patrol have essentially shut down illegal immigration, saving the lives of thousands of people who are no longer being trafficked into the U.S. homeland.

The current border of the U.S. is the most secure and controlled border in Tom Homan’s lifetime.  Homan outlines the damage previous administrations have created, and delivers powerful words putting context to the importance of the issue. WATCH:

.

Dec 16 2025

President Trump Participates in Border Defense Medal Presentation – 3:00pm ET Livestream


December 15, 2025 | Sundance | 44 Comments

Today, President Trump will participate in a Mexican Border Defense Medal award ceremony at the White House. The anticipated start time is 3:00pm ET with livestream links below.

.

.