Secretary of War Pete Hegseth FULL REMARKS at the WAR DEPARTMENT ADDRESS
(45:14)
Tuesday, September 30, 2025
DC Corruption on Scale – The “Too Big to Jail” Aspect September 30, 2025 | Sundance |
DC Corruption on Scale – The “Too Big to Jail” Aspect
| Sundance |
A frequent reaction when understanding the revelations of the Obama Surveillance System is:
“WOW! If only 1/2 of this is true, why haven’t heads rolled?“
This is a very common response.
The problem, that few understand and even fewer accept, is that this is not a partisan issue. Every element within the DC system is a stakeholder in maintaining the status of corruption; that includes every Republican and every Democrat, every leftist, moderate, liberal, libertarian and every conservative.
The entire DC system, including the RNC and DNC, are aligned to retain and expand the surveillance state- including popular and well-known names like Devin Nunes, Kash Patel, Pam Bondi, Susie Wiles, Ed Martin, Bill Barr, Mike Johnson, Marco Rubio, John Ratcliffe and Jim Jordan. These names are just a few of the people who believe in the created “continuity of government” national security system. A system that justifies and underpins the capture of all electronic metadata.
♦ To address the “if only 1/2 of this is true” aspect. Let me remind you of the very specific evidence that supports what is demonstrably visible in the Obama spying operation.
Deep inside the report, released by John Durham {CITATION}, the special counsel outlined how former FBI Director James Comey was intimately involved in the creation of the Carter Page FISA application.
Durham noted that Comey kept asking the DOJ National Security Division and FBI counterintelligence investigators, “Where’s the FISA, we need the FISA?” However, John Durham never interviewed James Comey or Andrew McCabe.
The former FBI Director and Deputy refused to cooperate or give testimony to John Durham. So, how did John Durham have details about the demands of Comey?
The answer is found in the footnotes.
Special Counsel John Durham reviewed transcripts of interviews given by Andrew McCabe to the Office of the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, who previously investigated FBI conduct in the origin of the Carter Page FISA.
Durham pulled quotes from that transcript. [Footnote #1207, page 199 – Durham Report]
QUESTIONS: If Andrew McCabe gave testimony to the OIG about the motives and impetus of FBI Director James Comey, in pushing for the Carter Page FISA application, why did the OIG report never outline those transcribed interviews? Why was the interview transcript never included in the 2019 OIG report?
[ NOTE: An August 15, 2019, transcribed interview of Andrew McCabe exists in the OIG office. That means, DNI Tulsi Gabbard through Attorney General Pam Bondi can request the McCabe transcription and release it to the public.]
However, let me answer the question about why it was never released without the customary pretending from the DC professional political class. The short version is that OIG Michael Horowitz was protecting the DOJ and FBI. The longer version is a coverup that includes Rod Rosenstein, Bill Barr and ultimately yes, John Durham.
“Where’s the FISA? We need the FISA.” ~ James Comey
The DOJ-NSD, FBI and FBI Counterintelligence Division needed to find a safe and legal justification for previous spying on the Trump campaign.
The Clinton operation and 2016 FISA Title 1 surveillance of former CIA operative Carter Page became the fraudulent justification for that intent.
Because “FISA Title I” surveillance authority against a U.S. citizen is so serious (the U.S. government is essentially calling the target a spy), only a few people are authorized to even apply for such surveillance warrants. One of the four people authorized to make such a search warrant request is the Asst. Deputy Attorney General, as head of the National Security Division of the DOJ.
In September and October of 2016, a few critical things were happening:
1. NSA Director Mike Rogers was about to inform the FISC of the FBI spying operation using the NSA database.
2. CIA Director John Brennan was informing President Obama of the risk factors associated with the Clinton/FBI operation (that included #1).
3. The DOJ-NSD was quickly assembling the FISA Court application, sans Woods File, to be used against Carter Page. The Clinton/Steele Dossier was going to be used in lieu of the mandatory Woods File.
While Comey was saying, “Where’s the FISA? We need the FISA.” Pressure was building on the office of the Asst. Deputy Attorney General in charge of the DOJ-NSD, that’s John Carlin.
Subsequently, in late September 2016, Asst. Attorney General John P. Carlin resigned as head of the DOJ-NSD. {CITATION}
Did Carlin resign (in fear) because he simply didn’t feel comfortable participating in the convoluted operation? It seems likely.
♦ MORE EVIDENCE – THE DOCUMENT TRAIL.
A few years later, September 28, 2020, while COVID was raging and few people were paying attention, OIG Horowitz released a COVID delayed letter and summary report about the FBI spying operation [technically, exploiting the NSA database].
On its face, the OIG release {SEE HERE} outlines a review and finding, actually a warning, by Horowitz’s office about FBI contractor access to “a certain national security database.”
The OIG report was titled: “Management Advisory: Notification of Concerns Identified in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Contract Administration of a Certain Classified National Security Program.”
The advisory part is particularly interesting, when absorbed through the prism of prior information.
On the surface of the release, the OIG was noting concerns and a warning shared with the FBI about ongoing contractor access to the NSA database. Thus, a “classified national security program” becomes defined.
However, in the background of the release, it appears the OIG was using this public notification as a CYA of sorts.
Meaning, the OIG was saying publicly they have advised the FBI of “concerns” they carried with the FBI abusing access to the NSA database.
Within the report, you will note the IG calls out the FBI because the FBI hid their response to the IG warning behind the cloud of “classification” and national security matters.
This left the IG with no alternative, except to say the classified response, technically a non-response, had to be accepted as the final FBI response to the IG warning.
The IG goes on to say to the FBI, you have 90 days to tell me what you did to address the contractor access abuses. [The 2020 election fell inside this 90-day window and effectively removed any pressure for the FBI to respond.]
In reality, the reason for the report was OIG Michael Horowitz covering his ass on the FBI spying operation, and telling us why. Perhaps that’s why Horowitz was removed from his position recently, and sent to the IRS office where Secretary Bessent could keep an eye on him.
Keep in mind, this ongoing access to the bulk NSA metadata is a big deal. All of the FISA audits in the past eight + years have pointed out how FBI contractors and government officials continue to abuse their access to the database and unlawfully extract information, without minimization efforts required by Fourth Amendment protections.
The scale of the surveillance abuse is actually stunning. In 2020, the OIG had reviewed the process and found the same issues, that existed in 2015 and 2016, as identified by NSA Director Mike Rogers, remained uncorrected five years later. Yes, the embeds within the FBI were still conducting spy operations even when President Trump was in office. That’s the point within the September 28, 2020, letter.
♦ Now, you might note, within my prior research outline, I said, ” This is an issue Director Rogers would later address by moving custodial control of the NSA database to Cyber Command (a DoD agency).” Indeed, Rogers did take that action in his effort to find some guardrail that would stop the exploitation, but it didn’t work.
[Keep in mind, trying to stop the exploitation of the NSA database when every element within Washington DC supports the availability to exploit that database, is a frustrating exercise in futility. Stakeholder example: Think about congressional stock trading. Think about DC insiders with access to the private electronic communication of corporations and corporate CEOs. See the value?]
How do we know moving the NSA Database to Cybercommand did not work? Keep reading…
♦ MORE EVIDENCE – MORE DOCUMENTS:
First, context – The 2020 election is now over. Biden was installed via mail-in ballots. Trump is told he lost. Then, on January 6, 2021, a fedsurrection took place. The FBI is now on the hunt for attendees to the J6 protest. FBI operation “Arctic Frost” is in full swing. Now, let’s look at this specific moment in time.
Office of Inspector General Michael Horowitz testified, in April 2022, that more than 3.4 million search queries into the NSA database took place between Dec. 1st, 2020 and Nov. 30th, 2021, by government officials and/or contractors working on behalf of the federal government. {CITATION}
Approximately 30%, of those 3.4 million search queries, were outside the rules and regulations that govern warrantless searches – what the politically correct government calls “non-compliant searches.” Approximately one million times the NSA Database was used, unlawfully, to conduct electronic surveillance.
Additionally, IG Horowitz also admitted that somewhere north of 10,000 federal employees have access to conduct these searches of the NSA database; a database which contains the electronic data of every single American, including emails, text messages, social media posts, instant messages, direct messages, phone calls, geolocation identifiers, purchases by electronic funds, banking records and any keystroke any American person puts into any electronic device for any reason.
If we were in a functioning system of government, everything would have stopped, right then.
In a nation concerned about digital IDs, Central Bank Digital Currencies, and the inherent constitutional privacy protections, no conversation would be taking place that was not about this issue.
What the OIG revealed, in 2022, was a massive explosion in the exploitation of the NSA database that took place after the November 2020 election, after all these “reforms” were in place, and after NSA Director Mike Rogers moved the database into U.S. Cybercommand.
You think it stopped? Hell – it’s getting worse.
The entire DC apparatus, ‘friend’ and foe alike, support the status quo.
Patriots have only one ally in the endeavor to drag it all out in full sunlight in front of the American public. And that, my friends, is exactly why the UniParty system is targeting DNI Tulsi Gabbard constantly.
The NSA Report No One Has Ever Seen September 30, 2025 | Sundance |
The NSA Report No One Has Ever Seen
September 30, 2025 | Sundance |
During the period of Nov 2015 to April 2016, the Obama administration, through the FBI under James Comey and Andrew McCabe, was conducting a political spying operation against all Republican presidential primary candidates using the power of their offices.
The intent was two-fold. (1) Tracking the candidates to identify activity; and (2) conducting opposition research to be fed to the campaign of Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton.
This surveillance activity was happening in concert with Comey, McCabe and a small group inside the FBI, running a defensive operation for the issues surrounding Hillary Clinton’s prior use of private email servers -which included classified information transmission- during her tenure as Secretary of State. SOURCE: DNI
Documentary evidence of the Obama spying operation surfaced as an outcome of the NSA compliance officer discovering the FBI activity.
The compliance officer reported the activity to National Security Agency Director, Admiral Mike Rogers.
The spying operation is not an issue of FISA-702, or any FISA system or process. However, the availability of FBI access to the NSA database is what triggered the discovery of the spy operation.
That FBI access is created under the auspices of FISA, but FISA-702, or any aspect therein, was not the issue. The issue was the spying operation.
FISA, and using the NSA database to conduct the electronic surveillance, was simply the tool to exploit the electronic communication (metadata) of the targets.
The Obama administration was spying on their political opposition and telling the Clinton team the results of their surveillance.
Put another way, the United States government was spying on political candidates for office, in order to control the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
After Director Mike Rogers was made aware of the operation, and the exploitation of the NSA database, the NSA Director blocked the FBI from access and began an investigation.
That investigation culminated in Director Mike Rogers informing the regulatory body in charge of protecting the database from exploitation.
FISC SIDEBAR: With the NSA now collecting the private electronic communication of Americans, the FISA Court was assigned the responsibility of oversight; it was intended to protect the growing metadata library and ensure the 4th Amendment provisions to the constitution were maintained.
The FISC oversight was intended to stop the government from reviewing the private records of Americans, the NSA database, without a warrant.
Because the NSA database was used by the Obama administration, the FBI, to conduct political spying operations, the only normal compliance venue Director Mike Rogers had to reveal the spying, was to inform the FISA court (FISC).
NSA Director Mike Rogers was a cabinet member working for President Obama at the time the Obama administration was exploiting the NSA database.
Director Mike Rogers does not appear to have informed congressional oversight. That would have violated the chain-of-command, and the President held absolute power.
Director Rogers could have chosen to inform the congressional Gang-of-Eight of the issue. He did not.
[This is an issue Director Rogers would later address by moving custodial control of the NSA database to Cyber Command (a DoD agency)].
NSA Director Mike Rogers informed the FISA Court of the issue, by detailing who the people were who were searched within the database, and what the results were over the timeframe of Nov ’15 to April ’16.
The compliance officer provided the audit-trail, audit logs showing who was being spied on, who was being searched (queried), how often and how many times. The audit-trail also showed who was logging in to conduct the spy operations, and what FBI authorized workstations they were using.
Director Rogers informed the court he had blocked FBI access and removed part of the functionality for how the system could be exploited.
The internal investigation by the NSA compliance officer and Rogers was completed and sent to the FISA Court in October 2016, with additional information sent in March 2017.
The FISA Court then responded in April 2017, where Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer outlined the events in a heavily redacted 99-page opinion. Citation HERE.
President Obama conducting political spying operations, through a politically weaponized FBI, against the Republican opposition elements is colloquially called “Spygate.”
Hillary Clinton manufacturing a political dirty trick against Donald Trump, accusing him of a Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy, is called “Russiagate.”
President Obama and every member of his cabinet, that was involved in the spying operations, used Clinton’s “Russiagate” to cover up Obama’s “Spygate.”
The two controversies are distinct and separate.
Within the evidence trail, that documents the Obama spying operation exists: (1) the NSA audit-trail, and, more importantly, (2) the specific document where the NSA notified the FISA Court. Those have never been seen.
While a redacted 99-page response from the court has been reviewed in granular detail, the missing piece of the puzzle; -the evidence that proves the operation beyond any reasonable doubt – is the NSA investigative outcome, the notification to the FISC given by NSA Director Mike Rogers to the FISA Court.
The NSA report to the FISA Court is a specific, actionable, discoverable document. I have been on the hunt for that notification report for 8 years.
Now you know why this position is so important.
Thursday, September 18, 2025
Panic Afoot – Professional Marxists Panic Over the Rise of Decency and Morality Following Charlie Kirk Murder, September 18, 2025 | Sundance |
September 18, 2025 | Sundance |
There is no Charlie Kirk equivalent on the left.
There is no leftist individual willing to enter the intellectual or philosophical gauntlet of debate and challenge a conservative audience to “come to the front of the line” and convince the audience of their viewpoint.
There is no person of leftist ideology capable of advocating their man-made construct against the natural laws that underpin the conservative worldview of a Charlie Kirk audience. Because the only place their ideology can survive is in an arena without challenge.
Consider the example of the ‘Law of the Farm’ vs. the ‘Law of the School’. Natural principles vs. those made by man.
A student can skip class, take few notes, pay only half attention, then stay up all night cramming for a test and manage a decent grade. It depends on the student’s goal: grades or learning.
The student can choose to manipulate the education, by avoiding the learning and capturing the grade.
This is possible in the ‘Law of the School’. However, a farmer cannot take short cuts. A farmer cannot avoid tending to the soil, preparing the seed, fertilizing and nurturing the crop, and still gain benefit of an abundant harvest.
The farmer must necessarily do all of the appropriate work in order to benefit from it. Such is the ‘Law of the Farm’, the natural law. This is the position from which Charlie Kirk effectively advanced his beliefs.
Stay elevated, and you will notice there is considerable panic visible amid the professional Marxists.
The comments and quick responsive appearance of Barack Obama; the jaw-agape leftist reactions to backlash upon Jimmy Kimmel; corporate media entities trying to cope with the reemergence of shame; the fallback to tribalism and the need for reassurance from their echo chamber, and many other visible similarities are all akin to an abuser being confronted by the family of the abused.
The constant drumbeat of leftism has battered the minds of Americans for so long, the perpetrators took it for granted they would always hold the strongest position – even if in the minority. However, something has radically changed.
A martyr is defined as a person who suffers death as a penalty for refusing to renounce their religion or beliefs. More broadly, a martyr is someone who sacrifices their life, well-being, or freedom to support a principle, belief, or ideology that they hold dear. In the attack posture to defend themselves from the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s murder, the left is proving they just created a martyr.
The need for control is a reaction to fear. The panic amid the collective left is so extreme, every mechanism within their arsenal is being deployed to gain control of the narrative. Some of these efforts are so over-the-top they have become absurd.
Politico identifies the global response to Charlie Kirk’s assassination as the result of international manipulation. Their assertion is absurd in all contexts.
Their claims are created within the hive of those who previously constructed the false reality around COVID-19 and subsequent vaccination protocols. People like security analysts at the Center for Internet Security and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, as well as voices within the control mechanisms of NewsGuard, the private sector information police.
“Mentions of Charlie Kirk appeared more than 6,000 times across official media in China, Russia and Iran between Sept. 10-17, according to misinformation tracker NewsGuard.”
I’m sure the mention of Charlie Kirk appeared at least that many times in China, Russia and Iran, because what Charlie Kirk embodied is something much larger than the geopolitical constructs their government boundaries represent.
A conservative estimate on Google searches alone is around 2.8 million. Multiply that number by every social media and internet communication platform, then consider the ‘mentions‘ found in news feeds and other tech systems. The result is beyond billions.
God is universal. God is truth. Trying to manipulate the natural world is the professional skillset of all these various NGOs and influence agents who operate in a realm they ultimately do not control.
Two days ago, a 40-year-old Taiwanese woman was riding the escalator halfway around the world from where Charlie Kirk was killed. What was she watching on her phone as she stood descending, a Charlie Kirk speech video with close-captioning translation.
The next evening, two middle-age Chinese men were having drinks in an Asian restaurant speaking concerningly in Mandarin. What were they discussing? Charlie Kirk’s assassination. I stand as silent witness to these events.
We have never witnessed anything even remotely similar to what is unfolding in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s murder.
For the first time in the history of social media, the influence of a person is expanding more in their death than it was during their life. That expansion is seemingly exponential, and substantively spiritual.
I have no idea what the future of this story will entail, yet I am absolutely certain of the author who controls it.
'The Instinct to Hurt Those with Whom One Disagrees,' Robin Koerner
The Instinct to Hurt Those with Whom One Disagrees
By Robin Koerner September 17, 2025
To those of us old enough to remember the before-times, these “woke” times feel different because we never saw that instinct to hurt manifest in political discourse. Back then, live and let live was the fundamental assumption that enabled Western politics. Today, for all too many, it is not: literally, politics has become, for millions, live and let die. That is the honest feeling of the woman in the hospital reception room, the woman in the bus in the airport, and they find themselves today in a culture in which that feeling is openly and easily expressible. Similarly in kind (although of course not in degree), the students in my department are operating in a culture where organizing against a person in an institution in which he has earned every right to participate seemingly requires no pause for thought.
And that is the problem. It is not so much that the psychopathological instinct to hurt one’s opponents exists: it is that it has become normalized; it has become accepted. People voice it without fear or shame. It is so normal, and so accepted, that it has buried in large swathes of our population the most basic and formerly ubiquitous moral sentiments.
That this single phenomenon – an instinct to hurt those with whom one disagrees – is the sine qua non of what ails us is obvious when written down.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)