Tag Archives: USA

Jan 2 2026

Here We Go – First Day of 2026, First Discussion of FISA-702 Reauthorization Surfaces


Posted originally on CTH on January 1, 2026 | Sundance 

The tenuous legal theory permitting the U.S. government to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizen data (emails, texts, phone calls, messages etc.) rests on the unconstitutional ability of the government to intercept your “private papers” with the use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, specifically FISA-702.  The “702” aspect is the term for U.S. citizen intercepted.

The authority for the United States government to capture the electronic records of all Americans without warrant falls under the auspices of FISA-702.  The current authority expires in April of 2026.  The 702 authorities have been abused to conduct political surveillance for just about everything in Washington DC.  Millions of unauthorized searches have been identified; it is unconstitutional.

Politico, an outlet for the concerns of the administrative state, begins the new year by noting there is increased resistance to the reauthorization.  However, in order to carry out the domestic national security agenda of the Trump administration, the Deep State considers JD Vance, Marco Rubio and others as likely supporters for reauthorization.

(Politico) – […] During the last reauthorization debate in 2024, then-candidate Trump urged Congress to “kill” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the larger spy law that Section 702 is nested under. Trump’s decision frustrated supporters of the program — in part because they believe he conflated the foreign-target spy program with the broader surveillance law that was not up for reauthorization.

A crucial Biggs-sponsored House amendment that would have added a warrant requirement for any communications involving Americans failed on a 212-212 tie, with Speaker Mike Johnson casting a rare and decisive vote to kill it.

Now the spy powers fight is a major headache for Johnson, who infuriated privacy hawks with his 2024 amendment vote after having advocated for more surveillance guardrails as a former member of the Judiciary Committee.

Judiciary Committee Republicans — led by Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, a close Trump ally — have started discussing how to approach the reauthorization during their weekly meetings. Jordan said in an interview he is again hoping to impose a warrant requirement for searches involving Americans as well as a ban on data brokers selling consumer information to law enforcement.

He said he has “had some discussions over this past year with some members of the administration” on this issue and plans to meet alongside House Intelligence Committee Chair Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) with White House officials on the matter early next year.

Lawmakers on both sides of the debate are carefully watching Crawford, who opposed the warrant requirement in 2024 — along with every other House Intelligence Committee Republican. But Johnson has since added five Republicans to the panel who each voted for the Biggs amendment.

A committee spokesperson said Crawford is working with House leadership, Jordan, the Senate and the administration “to determine the best way forward to extend 702 authority.”

There are still, however, a majority of Intelligence Committee Republicans who are working to extend the program without adding a warrant requirement — and they are hoping administration officials whom they view as allies, including Vice President JD Vance, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, will be able to sway Trump. (read more)

Some administrative state defenders will argue this issue with me. However, having researched almost every aspect to the construct, and the argument, I am confident FISA-702 authority underpins the much bigger, quasi-constitutional justification for the wholesale collection of U.S. citizen metadata.  Without the 702 authority, the legal justification for the apparatus of surveillance no longer exists.  It really is that simple.

The only way the government can justify the capture of U.S. Citizen data is if there is some quasi-constitutional or national security reason for it.  That’s where FISA-702 comes in.

Take away “702” search authority, and the data collection argument collapses; ANY “incidental” search of the database then loses any plausible legal justification.  702 is the camel’s nose under the tent that forms the baseline for all data records to be intercepted, stored and ultimately available for review.

This is a very key component to fully understand.  Most practical applications of surveillance are contingent upon the capture of electronic records for tracking.  Ex. – if domestic travel records are considered private papers (never argued yet), then government agencies have no right to exploit them without a valid search warrant underpinned by a national security justification.  The government, not private sector – government, tracking people becomes more difficult if privacy rules are applied.

The legal aspect runs through the 4th Amendment, which -while historically undefined in the modern era- likely stirs in the background of the recent TSA decision to provide a $45 opt-out, for the use of REAL ID in domestic transit (interstate commerce application notwithstanding).

The Fourth Amendment aspect to the ‘warrantless’ government capture of American citizen records has never been fully argued in court; the modern definitions are opaque, and the govt has a vested interest in retaining the untested status quo.

The Intelligence Community (IC) has told Congress, particularly the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, that all hell will break loose if they don’t reauthorize full electronic surveillance of Americans.

Congress has historically been scared of the “seven ways from Sunday” IC.  However, now Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is attempting to change things; specifically change things as they pertain to the domestic use of the intelligence agencies.

As the counterargument is made, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and all of the key participants, are siloed from understanding that 702 has nothing to do with incidental collection of American data, whilst the honorable IC were doing foreign intercepts.

According to intelligence experts, Speaker Johnson and most Republicans believe the IC justification, and perhaps many of them pretend not to know the alternatives.  I do not buy this argument, because too much recent evidence exists to sell the story that Congress is unknowing of how this metadata capture is being continually exploited.

The only way to really test congressional knowledge is to question them.  No one is questioning them.

In my opinion, the politicians and their key staff pretend they cannot fathom how the FBI, DOJ, NSD, DHS and contractors use this database to conduct political and “other” (think corporate espionage for sale) surveillance.  When you engage with them, you realize they really do put on a great show proclaiming the IC is full of honorable rank-and-file, trying to walk a fine line between the 4th Amendment and exploitation.  The counter position is akin to them living in a DC bubble.

The IC argument is now something akin to how we have let thousands of terrorists into the country through the southern border crisis.  They say: “My god, we need to monitor the terrorists, and if you take away the 702, the foreign terror cells will activate and start killing us all.  Do you want that blood on your hands?”   You cannot take away surveillance tools.

Then you overlay the FISA 702 reauthorization argument, as used as a bargaining chip by the same people who don’t want to get caught up in the surveillance.

The DC conversations end up like, “Ok, we’ll reauthorize it, but you cannot use it against us – and all the sex parties and perverted stuff we do when no one is around; you must promise to keep our secrets hidden“…  Then, just like the 2024 reauthorization change, they exempt themselves.

The IC agree to accept a reauthorization that exempts Congress.   The IC keep the process – just promise not to use it against Congress.   This outlook is what we see visible in the CR bill extension that included forbidding the FBI from seeking search warrants against Senator’s telecommunications, and this outlook is highlighted by Elise Stefanik demanding that Congress be notified if any federal candidate for office is under investigation.   The Big Club protects the Big Club.

Unfortunately, ‘We The People’ do not have many friends in DC on this issue, other than a very small group in/around Tulsi Gabbard’s office, and they are constantly under attack.

The DC UniParty will attempt to reauthorize 702 to continue exploiting their surveillance authority. Do not forget, now we have over 10,000 log-in portals with access to the NSA database exist, including the workstation at Perkins Coie that tied into the NSA database {GO DEEP}.

After spending several years asking every representative of consequence why they support the FISA-702 process, I can tell you every one of them says they believe it is needed, because the IC tells them there are just too many domestic terror threats that need to be monitored.

It is almost impossible to find a person in DC who will forcefully try to stop FISA-702 reauthorization.

If you ask me why in hindsight, I now take the position that FISA-702 is the gateway to the massive surveillance system currently being put into place using Real ID and the AI facial recognition software provided by Palantir (CIA exploit).  In essence, the gateway that allows the full-scale surveillance state, is opened by the prior authorization of FISA-702 that negates any 4th Amendment protection.

BIG Why? Because all of the surveillance mechanisms within the network being updated and enhanced by AI search and capture, comes from the IC being allowed to exploit the NSA database.  That same database access allowance is the targeting mechanism for FISA-702.  If warrantless searches of the NSA database were stopped, the Palantir/IC and Tech Bro collaboration could hit a brick wall.

The significance of this FISA-702 issue is much bigger than most can appreciate.

This surveillance underpinning also reconciles many of the puzzled faces when it comes to who is permitted nomination and who is not.  The DC Deep State confirmed both Kash Patel to be Donald Trump’s FBI Director (SSCI), and Pam Bondi to be U.S. Attorney General (SJC).  Both Bondi and Patel are expressed believers in the value of FISA-702.

You might even remember this odd question from October of 2025 that came out of nowhere.  Attorney General Bondi literally read a script on the issue that was prepared for her.  WATCH:

Additionally, the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to be Director of National Intelligence was initially opposed by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), until she acquiesced and agreed there was value in the FISA-702 process.

We have a few weeks before things get really ugly, but they will get ugly.

Deals will be cut.  Offers will be made. Corruption throughout this argument will run amok.

In the background of every headline, that will surface over the next two months, this issue will enmesh.

We need to watch closely how National Security Advisor Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Vice President JD Vance respond to the surfacing issues.

All of the modern surveillance mechanisms, within the U.S. government network currently being updated and enhanced by AI search and capture, come from the gateway of 702; ie. govt being allowed to exploit the NSA database against Americans.

If warrantless searches of the NSA database are legally stopped, or no longer authorized, the gate closes and the DHS, Palantir/IC and Tech Bro surveillance collaboration hit a brick wall.

This is my hill! 

Jan 1 2026

Canada Trying to Find Trade Partners


Posted originally on CTH on December 31, 2025 | Sundance

A recent article in Politico quoting several cabinet members of Prime Minister Mark Carney reflects a particular reality of the problem their economy will face in 2026.

It appears that Canadian government officials have finally recognized the Trump administration plans to dissolve the USMCA or what Canada calls CUSMA next year.  With that reality they have a big problem.

Mexico has been working throughout the year to initiate economic policies in alignment with the United States.  However, structurally and politically this is an alignment that is impossible for Canada to do.  Like many contracting European countries, the economic policies of Canada are centered around their climate change agenda and green energy goals.

For the past few decades Canada bought into the carbon scam and enacted climate change goals into law for carbon pricing, alternative energy production, industry and manufacturing costs.  These mechanisms to control “climate change” are nuts in the big picture.

In order for Canada to position their economy to be in alignment with the rest of North America (USA and Mexico), Carney would have to reverse years of legislated rules and regulations.  That is not going to happen, and Canada will always be at a disadvantage because of it.

(Politico) – […] It’s a moment of existential crisis for Canada, a senior Carney government official told POLITICO. Waiting out the Trump administration isn’t an option, the official said, arguing that what’s happening in the United States reflects a generational shift — not a temporary disruption — and that returning to a policy of closer integration with America would be foolish. (more)

With three quarters of their economic production tied to exports into the USA, and with the USMCA likely to be dissolved in favor of a bilateral trade agreement, Canada now has to find other markets for its products or lower all the trade barriers currently in place.  Prime Minister Mark Carney is trying to find alternative markets.

Carney has looked toward Europe, but that is a closed trade bloc difficult to engage.  Carney has looked to southeast Asia, but that is an export driven market with limited capabilities to import costly western products.  Carney has looked to Japan and China, but on scale there’s little to be gained.

The question is, where can Canada send its products if not to the USA.   The brutally honest answer is nowhere.  There just isn’t any other market, or combination of markets, who could replace the consumer base of the USA.  Canada is refusing to admit this reality and 2026 is going to be a harsh awakening for the Canadian people.

The USMCA is currently facilitating around 60% of Canada’s exports into the United States.   Cancel that agreement and suddenly 100% of all Canada-U.S. trade is on the table for negotiations.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and President Trump are going to put the squeeze on Mark Carney and every province within Canada as a consequence of their intransigence.

[…] Two-thirds of Canada’s economy is powered by trade, and roughly three-quarters of its exports flow to the U.S. It’s a C$1.3 trillion annual relationship that was celebrated on both sides of the border in good times but has become a source of leverage for America, especially with the Trump administration expected to continue squeezing Canadian industries with tariffs.

Europe is Carney’s top priority for deepening existing free-trade relationships. But closer integration with the European Union is a long game, and Canada has no interest in joining the bloc, according to the official, pushing Ottawa to explore other regions.

“Trade diversification is nothing new. People have talked about this for decades,” Sidhu said. “The difference here is other countries’ willingness to look at Canada as a reliable, stable trading partner,” he added, saying Trump has had a bigger influence on Ottawa’s strategy than any difference in trade philosophy between Justin Trudeau and Mark Carney.

Canada’s governing Liberal Party is under new management, forcing a cohort of Trudeau-era lawmakers to quickly learn the language of economics to make an impression with the new boss. Social issues have been demoted — as have brown shoes.

Cabinet ministers are competing to establish themselves as closers to meet Carney’s high expectations. The result is overlapping mandates that sow confusion over who owns what.

Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc leads a new portfolio created under Carney, who sliced out North America from the international trade minister’s purview. (read more)

Dec 30 2025

Nervous Netanyahu and President Trump Hold Press Availability: …”If you don’t have Trump”…


Posted originally on CTH on December 29, 2025 | Sundance

The sense you get from reviewing the interactions is that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is nervous in his need to maintain very close support from U.S. President Donald Trump.  When we review the interaction, we see Netanyahu’s praise of President Trump through a prism of tenuous dependency.

Netanyahu needs to retain a close and favorable position of influence; yet there is something in the engagement that seems to indicate an unease, a nervousness visible within the Prime Minister of Israel.

The moment at 10:48 is important, “Someone said in the room: if you don’t have Trump“… and the U.S. President strategically decided to let that thought trail off without finishing.  However, in context it was very clear what would have come next if Trump didn’t restrain himself.  “Someone said in the room: if you don’t have Trump”… you don’t have Netanyahu, was likely the end of that thought, and Trump isn’t wrong.  Benjamin Netanyahu’s body language, facial expressions and overall demeanor imply agreement.

Bibi knows the unspoken words are accurate, so does everyone who supports Bibi – especially those pro-Israel voices inside the USA.  Also, within that geopolitical dynamic, you will find President Trump’s leverage and an understanding of the behavior for those who support Netanyahu’s government.  WATCH:

The non-pretending review of Netanyahu’s purpose for the visit, is to get additional support from President Trump for more military action against Iran.  President Trump knows the intents and motives behind the shaped information from Netanyahu, the Israeli government and U.S. donors and voices.

President Trump emphasized strongly how the Arab coalition supports the elimination of Hamas as a terrorist threat, not just the United States.  This emphasis on retaining the original peace agreement continues to pull the narrative away from the U.S. having to give support to ongoing Israel military action in Gaza.   “If Hamas doesn’t disarm voluntarily” the Arab countries will disarm them President Trump suggested.

Benjamin Netanyahu is not going to be able to pull the Trump administration into military engagement in Iran.  That part is clear from the tone and presentation of Netanyahu as well as the space between the words of Trump.

Dec 30 2025

Memos of Conversations Between George W. Bush and President Vladimir Putin Are Released


BUMPED Due to Importance:

Posted originally on CTH on December 29, 2025 | Sundance |

Following a series of FOIA lawsuits, memos from conversations between Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin and former US President George W. Bush have been released online by the National Security Archive. [Original Source Here]

I know it’s Christmas, but bookmark or review as time allows, because the content is very interesting and very important. As early as 2001 and 2008, President Putin clearly told President Bush of his opposition to Ukraine’s accession to NATO, along with other key positions.

Despite what popular media might say, these are NOT full transcripts. Rather, they are memos containing quotes from both leaders as they discuss geopolitical relations between the U.S. and Russia. [SOURCE HERE]

♦ June 16, 2001 – Memorandum of Conversation. Subject: Restricted Meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. [LINK HERE] In this first personal meeting at the Brno Castle in Slovenia Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush express respect for each other and desire to establish a close relationship. Putin tells Bush about his religious beliefs and the story of his cross that survived a fire at his dacha. In a short one-on-one meeting they cover all the most important issues of U.S.-Russian relations such as strategic stability, ABM treaty, nonproliferation, Iran, North Korea and NATO expansion. Bush tells his Russian counterpart that he believes Russia is part of the West and not an enemy, but raises a question about Putin’s treatment of a free press and military actions in Chechnya. Putin raises a question of Russian NATO membership and says Russia feels “left out.” [READ MEMO HERE]

♦ September 16, 2005: Document 2 – Memorandum of Conversation. Subject: Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation: [LINK HERE] Putin meets the U.S. President in the Oval Office for a plenary that covers mainly issues of nonproliferation and U.S.-Russian cooperation on Iran and North Korea. The conversation shows impressively close positions on Iran and North Korea, with Putin presenting himself as an eager and supportive partner. Bush tells Putin “we don’t need a lot of religious nuts with nuclear weapons” referring to Iran. Putin said that Ukraine’s accession to NATO would, in the long term, create a field of conflict between Russia and the United States, adding that internal divisions within Ukraine could lead to its fragmentation. [READ MEMO HERE]

♦ April 6, 2008 – Document 3: Memorandum of Conversation. Subject: Meeting with President of Russia [LINK HERE] This is the last meeting between Putin and Bush, taking place at Putin’s residence in Bocharov Ruchei in Sochi on the Black Sea. The tone is strikingly different from the early conversations, where both presidents pledged cooperation on all issues and expressed commitment to strong personal relationship. This meeting takes place right after the NATO summit in Bucharest where tensions flared about the U.S. campaign for an invitation to Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO. Turning to conversations in Bucharest, Putin states his strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia and says that Russia would be relying on anti-NATO forces in Ukraine and “creating problems” in Ukraine “all the time,” because it is concerned about “threat of military bases and new military systems being deployed in the proximity of Russia.” Surprisingly, in response, Bush expresses his admiration for the Russian president’s ability to present his case: “One of the things I admire about you is you weren’t afraid to say it to NATO. That’s very admirable. People listened carefully and had no doubt about your position. It was a good performance.” [READ MEMO HERE]

2001 –  Putin raises a question of Russian NATO membership and says Russia feels “left out.”

As noted by The Islander (Via Twitter) –  “The 2001 Memo That Should Have Ended the Cold War 2.0 and Instead Helped Write the Preface to Ukraine. There are documents that don’t merely record history, they expose it. This is one of them.

June 2001. A “restricted meeting” between President George W. Bush and President Vladimir Putin. Not a podium performance, not a television soundbite, not a speech crafted for domestic applause. A private conversation, the place where empires are supposed to speak plainly, where leaders test ideas that could reroute decades.

And what does the memo show?

Putin raises the idea that Russia could eventually join NATO. He says Russia feels “left out” by NATO enlargement. He points to an older fact most Western publics were never meant to internalize: the Soviet Union applied to join NATO in 1954. He argues the reasons for rejection no longer apply. He suggests, almost clinically, that perhaps Russia could be an ally — “European and multi-ethnic,” comparable in character to the United States.

Read that again slowly.

Because the propaganda version you’ve been fed for years requires amnesia: it requires you to believe Russia woke up one morning and decided to be “a threat,” as if geopolitics is a mood swing and security architecture is irrelevant.

But here is the declassified record: Russia was probing for an exit ramp. A pathway into a shared system. A new security architecture. A post–Cold War settlement that could have turned the 1990s from a hollow victory lap into a durable peace.

And it didn’t happen.

Not because it was impossible. Not because Russia “never wanted it.” Not because “the West tried everything.”

It didn’t happen because NATO, as an institution, does not know how to live without a frontier. It does not know how to justify itself without an adversary. It does not know how to maintain internal cohesion without a map that points east and says: there.

The 1954 Ghost: the offer the West never wanted to remember

The most important part of this memo is not the 2001 line, but the 1954 reference.

Because it collapses the morality play.

If the Soviet Union, a state the West defined as the existential enemy, floated the notion of joining NATO in 1954, that means something profound: the idea of Russia being inside the European security architecture is not a “Putin-era trick.” It is a recurring historical proposal, returning whenever Moscow believes there may be a rational way to avoid permanent confrontation.

And what happened then? It was refused.

Which is exactly the point: NATO was never simply a “defensive alliance.” Even in 1954, It was a structure. A protection racket. A way to organize Europe under an American strategic roof and to keep it there. If Russia enters that roof as an equal, the architecture changes. Budgets decrease, with less money for the MIC. Threat perceptions change. The entire postwar hierarchy changes.

So the West did what empires do when presented with a peace that would reduce their leverage:

It smiled, took notes, and kept moving.

“Join NATO” was never a plea, it was a test.

Some people still misunderstand the early Putin posture. They interpret it as naivete, or worse, submission.

Wrong.

This was not Russia begging to be absorbed. The consistent theme in contemporaneous accounts is conditionality, that Russia could consider joining if treated as an equal partner, but not as a defeated province invited into the emperor’s club after proving it can submit.

That distinction matters.

Because it reveals the real incompatibility:
•Russia wanted a security system where it is a partner of European security, not an object to be managed.
•The Atlantic system wanted Russia as a managed periphery, permanently “integrating,” permanently reforming, permanently conceding, never truly sovereign in security decisions.

You can’t fuse those visions. One side must yield.

So the Atlantic system chose the only thing it has ever really chosen, expansion.”

A quarter century has passed since that original outreach by Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin in 2001.  It was rejected by President George W Bush and all presidents thereafter.  In 2025, we are in the phase of consequence.

This public release just happened on December 23, 2025.

Perhaps, just perhaps, this release can change the conversation in the United States.  Perhaps, just perhaps, President Trump, Secretary Rubio and Emissary Witkoff can reverse the course, and change the arc of history toward peace and a strategic alliance.

The timing of the release inspires hope, but the opposition to peace is extreme.

Dec 28 2025

Cutting Through the Fog and Conflict Within Current U.S. Republican Politics


Posted originally on CTH on December 28, 2025 | Sundance

Prior to the 2012 Republican presidential primary, many conservative Americans -including myself- were confused by the consistent illusion of choice offered in republican presidential candidates. The Republican party’s successful installation of Mitt Romney was the final straw.

Going into the 2016 Republican presidential primary, we became more attune to how the illusion of choice is created. By closely following the Republican party’s assemblies, tracking the participants, researching the networks and looking at how the Republican party professionals modified their election rules at a state level, revealed the closed system used to create the illusion of choice.

The GOP winter meeting in Washington DC, December of 2014, outlined the playbook. The sequencing of state elections, the distribution of delegates (proportional or winner-take-all) and various internal mechanisms all play a part. This led to our first breakthrough – we began to understand the “splitter strategy”.

A small group of internal party officers in combination with powerful established politicians and major donors could coordinate a party objective to support the “acceptable candidate.”

The outcome of the GOP 2014 winter meeting was a pathway for Jeb Bush in 2016. The outcome of the DNC construct was a pathway for Hillary Clinton. Regardless of which wing of the UniParty system won the election, the actionable outcome in policy would be the same; the institutions of DC maintained, and network affluence apportioned according to the victor.

In this form of party democracy voting is an outcome of the illusion of choice. The real decisions were/are not being made by voters. The party system determines the candidate. DNC or RNC the policy outcome is a few degrees different, but the direction is the same.

In 2016 the left-wing of the Uniparty would diminish any challenger to Hillary, Bernie Sanders would be controlled. The right-wing of the Uniparty would diminish any challenger to Jeb, divide the voting base and use party rules to clear his path.

The opaque nature of this party control system became clearer when the last GOP candidate entered the race. In the clearest exhibition of controlled politics in modern history, Donald Trump was the wildcard.

Mainstream “conservative” voices, what a later vernacular would describe as “influencers,” began exposing their ideological special interest in this political control system through opposition to Trump, the popular people’s choice candidate.

You know the history thereafter. However, the problem for the GOP wing in 2016 was not Donald Trump per se’, their biggest problem was that American ‘conservatives‘ had discovered their playbook. The illusion of choice was now becoming very well understood by a subset of voters later named MAGA voters, the original “silent majority” was silent no more.

This review is simply context; however, it is important context if we are to understand exactly where we are in late 2025 going into the midterm election in 2026. [Star Wars (2016), the Empire Strikes Back (2020), the Return of the Jedi (2024)]

The fourth chapter of this conflict is now upon us. It is a battlefield that has been unfolding all year.

When you understand the larger objectives behind what is happening, you can clearly see -even predict- each of the moves.

Dec 28 2025

The EU Leaders Shouting About Visa Bans Are the Same EU Leaders Who Sent Political Operatives Into the U.S. to Support Kamala Harris


Posted originally on CTH on December 27, 2025 | Sundance

EU leaders from across the spectrum of their collective assembly, are furious with the administration of President Donald Trump for restricting their entry into the United States by blocking their visa permissions.  However, these same EU leaders are the people who sent operatives into the United States in order to interfere in our 2024 election.

The Vice President of the European Commission, Kaja Kallas, sums up the European position: “The decision by the U.S. to impose travel restrictions on European citizens and officials is unacceptable and an attempt to challenge our sovereignty. Europe will keep defending its values — freedom of expression, fair digital rules, and the right to regulate our own space.”

The “attempt to challenge our sovereignty” statement is a particular type of hubris when we consider THIS:

GREAT BRITAIN (October 2024) – The British Labour Party is sending approximately 100 current and former staff members to the United States to work for Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign in key swing states.

[SOURCE – LINKEDIN]

Not only did the U.K attempt to challenge our sovereignty, but they also actively worked to influence the outcome of our national election in 2024.

The same pearl-clutching assembly, now standing jaw-agape at the Trump administration recognizing their censorship, are the same assembly who engaged in political operations intended to influence the voting voice of the American electorate.

Methinks they doth protest too much.

It is worth remembering the British intelligence operation, (Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), commonly known as MI6), was at the center of the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy in 2016.

The first EU political group to be targeted with the visa bans includes French former EU commissioner Thierry Breton, who was one of the architects of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). Also: Imran Ahmed, the British CEO of the U.S.-based Center for Countering Digital Hate, Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon of the German non-profit HateAid, and Clare Melford, co-founder of the Global Disinformation Index.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the first five people targeted with visa bans “have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize and suppress American viewpoints they oppose.”

I would say that given the direct nature of the U.K effort to undermine American viewpoints, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is being diplomatically generous in his visa ban.

Dec 27 2025

President Trump Tempers Optimism Ahead of Zelenskyy Meeting on Sunday


Posted originally on CTH on December 27, 2025 | Sundance 

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is promoting support for his 20-point peace plan via phone calls with various EU stakeholders including, President of Finland Alex Stubb, Prime Minister of Canada Mark Carney, NATO General Secretary Mark Rutte, the Prime Minister of Estonia Kristen Michal, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and the Prime Minister of Denmark Mette Frederiksen.

The overall position of Zelenskyy is a continuum of public relations and constructs intended to maintain the illusion of support in order to retain receiving funding from western interests.  Ukraine is the proxy war between the ‘west’ and the Russian Federation.

Zelenskyy is scheduled to meet with President Trump on Sunday.  However, in an interview with Politico U.S. President Donald Trump tamps down expectations.

(Via Politico) – […] Trump appeared lukewarm to Zelenskyy’s latest overture and in no rush to endorse the Ukrainian president’s proposal. “He doesn’t have anything until I approve it,” Trump said. “So we’ll see what he’s got.”

[…] Still, Trump believed he could have a productive meeting this weekend. “I think it’s going to go good with him. I think it’s going to go good with [Vladimir] Putin,” Trump said, adding that he expects to speak with the Russian leader “soon, as much as I want.”

Trump’s comments came the day after Zelenskyy spoke with special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law. Zelenskyy called that a “good conversation.”

[…] Trump also confirmed that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would visit him this weekend. “I have Zelenskyy and I have Bibi coming. They’re all coming. They all come,” Trump said. “They respect our country again.”

Netanyahu, according to a report from NBC, will brief Trump on the growing threat from Iran.

Zelenskyy’s meeting, in addition to security guarantees, will focus on management of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, and territorial control of Donbas, the eastern territories claimed by Moscow.

Zelenskyy’s plan, which Ukrainian officials have described as an attempt to show flexibility without conceding territory, has received little public reaction from Washington.

Zelenskyy’s offer of a demilitarized zone came with a key condition: Russia would have to withdraw its forces from a corresponding stretch of land in Donetsk. (read more)

President Trump is correct in saying Zelenskyy has nothing until President Trump agrees to support the proposal.

Despite the promotional toursof the Ukraine president, ultimately Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin is in control of the majority of the Eastern Donbas region and has not indicated any willingness to give up that territory.

The European Leadership and ‘coalition of the willing’ have essentially constructed the terms and conditions of the Zelenskyy proposal.  However, that same group have positioned their interests with exceptional antagonism toward Russia.

According to those who control the political power centers, Russia is the existential threat to Europe, and all of their proposals are with a baseline of continued conflict at the center of their strategic plan.

Zelenskyy is proposing that Russia pulls back from the Donbas and Ukraine will agree to a demilitarized economic control zone in the region.  However, that is essentially no different from what existed prior to Russia’s entry into Ukraine, and there is no reason to think the “economic control zone,” filled with a regional population who support Russia, would be anything less than another name for a place where NATO will be playing games to provoke further conflict.

Without U.S. support the NATO proxy war against Russia will be much more difficult to maintain.  Team EU/Zelenskyy are positioning their tactics with an expectation that President Trump will be greatly diminished in the 2026 midterm election.

Dec 27 2025

Zelenskyy will Meet with President Trump on Sunday in Mar-a-Lago


Posted originally on CTH on December 26, 2025 | Sundance 

Representatives from Zelenskyy’s public relations and media team have confirmed to various news outlets the Ukraine President will be meeting with President Donald Trump in Mar-a-Lago on Sunday to discuss the latest five segment draft document organized by negotiators.

The meeting between Zelenskyy and President Trump comes after several days of negotiations between the Ukrainian delegation, Trump Emissaries Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner over the Christmas holiday.

(VIA UPI) Former Defense Minister “Rustem Umerov reported on his latest contacts with the American side,” Zelensky wrote. “We are not losing a single day. We have agreed on a meeting at the highest level — with President Trump in the near future. A lot can be decided before the New York.”

CNN reported that Zelensky told reporters he couldn’t say whether he’d leave the meeting with a deal in place. Negotiators will “finalize as much as we can,” he said.

Unnamed Ukrainian officials confirmed to Axios the meeting would take place Sunday at Trump’s private Mar-a-Lago estate.

The meeting will come one week after Russian negotiators and U.S. officials Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner met in Miami to hammer out details on a peace plan. Zelensky on Wednesday unveiled a 20-point peace plan agreed upon during that meeting, which would provide strong NATO-style security concessions for Ukraine in exchange for land concessions to Russia. (more)

According to Politico: – […] “The 20-point plan that we worked on is 90 percent ready. Our task, to make sure that everything is 100 percent ready. It is not easy and no one says that it will be 100 percent right away, but nevertheles we must bring the desired result closer with each such meeting, each such conversation,” Zelenskyy told journalists.

He added that the meeting will focus on security guarantees, management of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, and territorial control of Donbas, the eastern territories claimed by Moscow.

“First of all, we are working on several documents every day, there are five of them now. We want to talk about a few nuances on security guarantees … In my opinion, I see now that the agreement between us and the United States is almost ready,” Zelenskyy said, adding that he is ready to sign a bilateral agreement depending on how the meeting goes.

The 20-point plan will be a four-party agreement between Ukraine, U.S., Russia and Europe, he added. European leaders might join the meeting online, Zelenskyy said.

Zelenskyy’s announcement came after Thursday talks with U.S. lead negotiator Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, which the Ukrainian president called a “good conversation” and said yielded “timing on how to bring a real peace closer.

Contacts between Ukrainian and U.S. officials have intensified as prospects for a possible peace deal grow in the war-torn country, which has been resisting Russian aggression for nearly four years.

The updated 20-point draft peace plan that Zelenskyy unveiled on Wednesday includes the possibility of creating a special demilitarized economic zone in some areas of Donbas. (read more)

I would not hold out too much hope on this specific set of proposals from Zelenskyy because it still calls for the frontlines in Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions to form the de facto border, while Russia will pull out of Ukraine’s Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Sumy, and Kharkiv regions.

Despite the U.S. intelligence community, NATO forces and mercenaries assisting on the ground in Ukraine and generating successful counterattacks against Russian positions, there is no indication that Russia is willing to cede ground already under their control.

Dec 26 2025

Memos of Conversations Between George W. Bush and President Vladimir Putin Are Released


Posted originally on CTH on December 25, 2025 | Sundance

Following a series of FOIA lawsuits, memos from conversations between Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin and former US President George W. Bush have been released online by the National Security Archive. [Original Source Here]

I know it’s Christmas, but bookmark or review as time allows, because the content is very interesting and very important. As early as 2001 and 2008, President Putin clearly told President Bush of his opposition to Ukraine’s accession to NATO, along with other key positions.

Despite what popular media might say, these are NOT full transcripts. Rather, they are memos containing quotes from both leaders as they discuss geopolitical relations between the U.S. and Russia. [SOURCE HERE]

♦ June 16, 2001 – Memorandum of Conversation. Subject: Restricted Meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. [LINK HERE] In this first personal meeting at the Brno Castle in Slovenia Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush express respect for each other and desire to establish a close relationship. Putin tells Bush about his religious beliefs and the story of his cross that survived a fire at his dacha. In a short one-on-one meeting they cover all the most important issues of U.S.-Russian relations such as strategic stability, ABM treaty, nonproliferation, Iran, North Korea and NATO expansion. Bush tells his Russian counterpart that he believes Russia is part of the West and not an enemy, but raises a question about Putin’s treatment of a free press and military actions in Chechnya. Putin raises a question of Russian NATO membership and says Russia feels “left out.” [READ MEMO HERE]

♦ September 16, 2005: Document 2 – Memorandum of Conversation. Subject: Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation: [LINK HERE] Putin meets the U.S. President in the Oval Office for a plenary that covers mainly issues of nonproliferation and U.S.-Russian cooperation on Iran and North Korea. The conversation shows impressively close positions on Iran and North Korea, with Putin presenting himself as an eager and supportive partner. Bush tells Putin “we don’t need a lot of religious nuts with nuclear weapons” referring to Iran. Putin said that Ukraine’s accession to NATO would, in the long term, create a field of conflict between Russia and the United States, adding that internal divisions within Ukraine could lead to its fragmentation. [READ MEMO HERE]

♦ April 6, 2008 – Document 3: Memorandum of Conversation. Subject: Meeting with President of Russia [LINK HERE] This is the last meeting between Putin and Bush, taking place at Putin’s residence in Bocharov Ruchei in Sochi on the Black Sea. The tone is strikingly different from the early conversations, where both presidents pledged cooperation on all issues and expressed commitment to strong personal relationship. This meeting takes place right after the NATO summit in Bucharest where tensions flared about the U.S. campaign for an invitation to Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO. Turning to conversations in Bucharest, Putin states his strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia and says that Russia would be relying on anti-NATO forces in Ukraine and “creating problems” in Ukraine “all the time,” because it is concerned about “threat of military bases and new military systems being deployed in the proximity of Russia.” Surprisingly, in response, Bush expresses his admiration for the Russian president’s ability to present his case: “One of the things I admire about you is you weren’t afraid to say it to NATO. That’s very admirable. People listened carefully and had no doubt about your position. It was a good performance.” [READ MEMO HERE]

2001 –  Putin raises a question of Russian NATO membership and says Russia feels “left out.”

As noted by The Islander (Via Twitter) –  “The 2001 Memo That Should Have Ended the Cold War 2.0 and Instead Helped Write the Preface to Ukraine. There are documents that don’t merely record history, they expose it. This is one of them.

June 2001. A “restricted meeting” between President George W. Bush and President Vladimir Putin. Not a podium performance, not a television soundbite, not a speech crafted for domestic applause. A private conversation, the place where empires are supposed to speak plainly, where leaders test ideas that could reroute decades.

And what does the memo show?

Putin raises the idea that Russia could eventually join NATO. He says Russia feels “left out” by NATO enlargement. He points to an older fact most Western publics were never meant to internalize: the Soviet Union applied to join NATO in 1954. He argues the reasons for rejection no longer apply. He suggests, almost clinically, that perhaps Russia could be an ally — “European and multi-ethnic,” comparable in character to the United States.

Read that again slowly.

Because the propaganda version you’ve been fed for years requires amnesia: it requires you to believe Russia woke up one morning and decided to be “a threat,” as if geopolitics is a mood swing and security architecture is irrelevant.

But here is the declassified record: Russia was probing for an exit ramp. A pathway into a shared system. A new security architecture. A post–Cold War settlement that could have turned the 1990s from a hollow victory lap into a durable peace.

And it didn’t happen.

Not because it was impossible. Not because Russia “never wanted it.” Not because “the West tried everything.”

It didn’t happen because NATO, as an institution, does not know how to live without a frontier. It does not know how to justify itself without an adversary. It does not know how to maintain internal cohesion without a map that points east and says: there.

The 1954 Ghost: the offer the West never wanted to remember

The most important part of this memo is not the 2001 line, but the 1954 reference.

Because it collapses the morality play.

If the Soviet Union, a state the West defined as the existential enemy, floated the notion of joining NATO in 1954, that means something profound: the idea of Russia being inside the European security architecture is not a “Putin-era trick.” It is a recurring historical proposal, returning whenever Moscow believes there may be a rational way to avoid permanent confrontation.

And what happened then? It was refused.

Which is exactly the point: NATO was never simply a “defensive alliance.” Even in 1954, It was a structure. A protection racket. A way to organize Europe under an American strategic roof and to keep it there. If Russia enters that roof as an equal, the architecture changes. Budgets decrease, with less money for the MIC. Threat perceptions change. The entire postwar hierarchy changes.

So the West did what empires do when presented with a peace that would reduce their leverage:

It smiled, took notes, and kept moving.

“Join NATO” was never a plea, it was a test.

Some people still misunderstand the early Putin posture. They interpret it as naivete, or worse, submission.

Wrong.

This was not Russia begging to be absorbed. The consistent theme in contemporaneous accounts is conditionality, that Russia could consider joining if treated as an equal partner, but not as a defeated province invited into the emperor’s club after proving it can submit.

That distinction matters.

Because it reveals the real incompatibility:
•Russia wanted a security system where it is a partner of European security, not an object to be managed.
•The Atlantic system wanted Russia as a managed periphery, permanently “integrating,” permanently reforming, permanently conceding, never truly sovereign in security decisions.

You can’t fuse those visions. One side must yield.

So the Atlantic system chose the only thing it has ever really chosen, expansion.”

A quarter century has passed since that original outreach by Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin in 2001.  It was rejected by President George W Bush and all presidents thereafter.  In 2025, we are in the phase of consequence.

This public release just happened on December 23, 2025.

Perhaps, just perhaps, this release can change the conversation in the United States.  Perhaps, just perhaps, President Trump, Secretary Rubio and Emissary Witkoff can reverse the course, and change the arc of history toward peace and a strategic alliance.

The timing of the release inspires hope, but the opposition to peace is extreme.

Dec 25 2025

John Brennan’s Lawfare Lawyers Are Revealing More Than They Intend


Posted originally on CTH on December 24, 2025 | Sundance 

As we noted yesterday, lawyers representing former CIA Director John Brennan are sending proactive letters to the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida {SEE HERE}.  However, some of the information included in the letters intended to be exculpatory is actually damning against their defense position.

You have to go deep in the weeds to see it, but if you understand the details of the events, the information being revealed by Brennan’s lawyers is the opposite of helpful to his case.  As an example, there is a citation included in a footnote of the December 22, 2025, [fn #20 page 6] letter that links to a March 31, 2022, letter sent to John Durham.

Here’s page 6 of the 2025 letter.

Compare the underlined section to the 2022 letter sent to John Durham.

In 2025, Brennan is telling the Florida court the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) conclusion was confirmed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in a “very serious review.”  However, in 2022 Brennan told John Durham that Robert Mueller never interviewed him or offered an assessment of the ICA; Mueller just regurgitated it.

So, which is it?

These contradictions are throughout both of the letters when you compare them side-by-side.  In 2022, former CIA Director John Brennan was trying to escape the Durham review.  In 2025, Brennan is trying to escape a grand jury review.

[We are aware that the U.S Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Jason Reding Quiñones, has access to the CTH public library of research into all of these historic events.]

There are other citations in the 2022 letter that are certainly worth reviewing, because the legally binding statements made by John Brennan at the time have been shown to be false in 2025.

Another of the claims, in the 2022 letter to John Durham, highlights why it was critical for the CIA to assist in the capture and arrest of Julian Assange in 2019.

[SOURCE – Page 7]

The lawyers representing John Brennan in the above 2022 letter apparently did not know the DNC emails were provably not hacked by Russia, unless they are claiming that Seth Rich (DNC staff) and Julian Assange (Wikileaks) were working for the Russian government.

John Brennan asserts a “definitive determination” that Russia was involved in the theft of the DNC emails, and across the intelligence community that determination was “unanimous.”  That assertion, by Brennan, underpinning the “Russian interference narrative”, opens up the entire DNC email issue for Jason Quiñones to explore.

The DNC hired Crowdstrike to investigate the leak/hack; the James Comey FBI never looked at the DNC servers; and Crowdstrike told the Senate there was no evidence of a hack or outside intrusion.  Perhaps Quiñones will finally highlight these contradictions and get to the bottom of it? Because, after all, this is part of Brennan’s ICA defense.

What Brennan did not realize we would discover when he wrote the letter in 2022:

In December of 2016, President Obama turned to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan with a request to change the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) and blame the Russians for election interference in the prior presidential election. Brennan gave the task of assembling the fraudulent intel to a CIA analyst named Julia Gurganus.

Subsequently, inside the CIA the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the Directorate of Analysis began working on a pretext that would create the impression for the misleading Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), as demanded by Obama, Clapper and Brennan – ultimately constructed by Julia Gurganus.

Inside the National Intelligence Council, one of the key figures who helped create the ICA fabrication was a CIA analyst named Eric Ciaramella.

You might remember the name Eric Ciaramella from the 2019 impeachment effort against President Trump.  However, in 2016/2017 Eric Ciaramella was a CIA deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia on the CIA’s National Intelligence Council, at the time the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment was created.

Oh look, there’s another trail for U.S Attorney Jason Quiñones to follow.

What would Julia Gurganus and Eric Ciaramella have to say about putting the ICA together?

Merry Christmas!

U.S Attorney Jason Quinones