Tuesday, March 21, 2023

X22, And we Know, and more- March 21

 



I'm soooo bored right now!! I wish there was a brand new Hetty photo to yack about.

Here's tonight's news:


The Death of Dissent

If anyone thinks conditions will improve soon, just wait until this same Justice Department indicts Trump for “inciting” the events of January 6.


The lead prosecutor in charge of the January 6 investigation, the largest probe in Justice Department history, just confirmed what American Greatness has reported for months: the number of criminal cases related to the Capitol protest is expected to at least double before it’s all over.

U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Matthew Graves, an advisor to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign who took over the powerful office in late 2021, sent a letter to the chief judge of the D.C. District court warning up to 1,200 more individuals could face charges. 

“We expect the pace of bringing new cases will increase, in an orderly fashion, over the course of the next few months,” Graves told Beryl Howell, who ended her term as chief judge last week. Graves’ office just surpassed 1,000 total defendants in what he renamed the “Capitol Siege” investigation—which means the final caseload might well exceed 2,000.

Graves also indicated his team would ramp up the number of felony indictments; the overwhelming majority of charges so far are low-level offenses, including the laughable “parading in the Capitol” misdemeanor. The Biden regime clearly wants to juice the numbers before the 2024 election season.

And Graves isn’t wasting any time. Eight people have been charged since March 1, including a married couple from Indiana arrested on a civil disorder felony and four misdemeanors. The D.C. federal courthouse is monopolized by January 6 hearings and trials on a daily basis; one judge announced he would retire rather than deal with January 6 cases for the next several years.

In addition to ruining the lives of thousands of Americans for mostly nonviolent participation in the events of January 6, the Justice Department is accomplishing a more sinister goal: criminalizing and silencing political dissent in America. I warned two years ago, as Attorney General Merrick Garland’s prosecutors bastardized a post-Enron law in an attempt to turn political protesters into lifelong felons, that January 6 would be used in this manner.

News of the imminent arrest of Donald Trump demonstrated the degree of the regime’s success. After NBC News reported that law enforcement agencies were preparing for unrest following the announcement of state charges against Trump in the Stormy Daniels saga, Trump responded on Truth Social. “[THE] FAR & AWAY LEADING REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE & FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WILL BE ARRESTED ON TUESDAY OF NEXT WEEK! PROTEST, TAKE OUR NATION BACK!” Trump wrote on March 18.

Trump followed up with a second post: “WE MUST SAVE AMERICA! PROTEST, PROTEST, PROTEST!!!”

Before January 6, 2021, an American political leader who called for mass protests would not be heard as calling for violence. Trump, in fact, did notencourage his followers to behave violently. He merely—and perhaps unwisely, given the current Gestapo-like conduct of the FBI and federal prosecutors—asked his supporters to protest the unprecedented act of arresting a former president and current candidate for president.

But his social media posts were enough to cause traumatizing flashbacks among the ruling class. The easily traumatized Washington Post columnist Philip Bump weighed in immediately. “The things that made Jan. 6 dangerous were a call to action and a time and place for that action to take place [sic],” Bump tweeted on Saturday morning, conveniently omitting that Trump urged peace during his speech on January 6. “It’s not just that Trump is again demanding a response, it’s that he’s telling people when.”

Iraq War booster David Frum, partially responsible for decades of deadly violence around the globe, insisted that Trump “and his supporters proved on January 6, 2021, their readiness to use violence to defy the law.” Vox claimed Trump’s posts were an “echo of the capitol riots of January 6, 2021.” Salonwriter Areeba Shaw said Trump’s “extreme rhetoric” on Truth Social “echoed similar language he used at a Washington rally shortly before the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.”

“It’s almost like he’s attempting to organize his domestic terrorists to show up and to resist him being arrested,” Representative Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) warned. Waters infamously encouraged Democrats in 2018 to “create a crowd” to publicly harass Trump Administration officials.

By Monday afternoon, in order to advance optics to support the January 6 comparison, the New York Police Department began installing steel barricades around the Manhattan criminal courthouse, the site of the expected announcement. Politico reported that Capitol Police this week planned to erect “bike-rack type fencing” around the Capitol building—because that worked so well on January 6.

Republicans, understandably, cautioned against plans to protest, not over manufactured fears that another “insurrection” would occur but legitimate fear of how any protest will be criminalized by the Biden regime. 

“We don’t need to protest about the Communists Democrat’s [sic] planning to arrest Pres Trump and the political weaponization of our government and election interference,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) tweeted over the weekend. She later warned of likely infiltration by undercover agents or informants. “How many Feds/Fed assets are in place to turn protest against the political arrest of Pres Trump into violence?”

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) also downplayed Trump’s calls for protests and appeared to help Trump walk back his own statements. “I don’t think people should protest this, no. And I think President Trump, if you talk to him, he doesn’t believe that, either,” McCarthy said during a Sunday press briefing. As if referring to January 6 himself, McCarthy urged “calmness” in response to Trump’s arrest.

Regardless of the disparate responses from both political sides, the clear winner here is the Biden regime, and the Justice Department in particular. The ongoing manhunt for Trump supporters is yielding victories of all sizes, not the least of which is the elimination of once-cherished rights to petition the government and redress grievances without being considered a domestic terrorist.

And if anyone thinks conditions will improve soon, just wait until this same Justice Department indicts Trump for “inciting” the events of January 6. 



Donald Trump, Regime Foe

We don’t acknowledge that we promulgate bills of attainder in this country, but that is essentially the judgment that has been pronounced against the former president.


The funniest thing I have read in, well, at least the last several hours, comes from Manhattan’s George Soros-funded affirmative-action district attorney, Alvin Bragg. Responding to the uproar that greeted Donald Trump’s all-caps Truth Social warning that he would be “arrested” on Tuesday, Bragg sent ’round a memo to his staff informing them, and the world, that “This office is full of the finest public servants in the country.” 

The comedy didn’t end there, however. 

“I am committed to maintaining a safe work environment where everyone is able to continue to serve the public with the same diligence and professionalism [!] that make this institution so renowned. In the meantime, as with all of our investigations, we will continue to apply the law evenly and fairly . . .” 

What a card! And, yes, that’s my emphasis but his credulity-breaking bluster. 

“Evenly and fairly,” forsooth. Everyone knows that Alvin Bragg does not apply the law at all evenly or fairly. Favoring and disfavoring certain groups is what he is famous for doing. It’s his standard operating procedure. When it comes to your common or garden variety violent thug, especially those of a swarthy disposition, Bragg is the Angel of Mercy. 

Last year, Bragg reduced the majority of felony charges that were brought before him to misdemeanors while at the same time targeting people like the bodega employee who fought back to protect himself after being assaulted by one of those common or garden variety thugs. 

Will Donald Trump be “arrested” this week? I wouldn’t be surprised. Minions of the state at every level have been working overtime to neutralize Trump for years. 

Remember the Russia collusion delusion? The feds fabricated that long-running entertainment. Its result? To expose the senility of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who declared under oath that he was unfamiliar with the organization Fusion GPS. Then the Democratic-controlled House impeached Trump not once but twice, first because he spoke to the president of Ukraine on the phone, then when some of his supporters gave themselves an impromptu self-guided tour of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Various authorities were slavering over the prospect of inspecting Trump’s tax returns only to discover when they finally got their hands on six years worth—O sadness!—that there was nothing incriminating there. 

If Bragg dials down felonies for certain groups and individuals, he is perfectly prepared, when his masters in the Democratic Party so desire it, to dial up misdemeanors into felonies for others. That is what seems to be happening with Trump. 

If the former president is right that he is about to be arrested, what is the crime? It’s supposedly a “campaign finance violation,” the sort of thing that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama—who I believe still holds the record for the biggest fine exacted for such naughtiness ($375,000)—are old hands at practicing. Except Trump’s supposedly campaign finance violation wasn’t really a campaign finance violation but a clandestine payment of $130,000 made to “Stormy Daniels,” née Stephanie Clifford, via Trump’s former-lawyer-turned-snitch for services that may or may not have been rendered by said Stormy. There was a lot of he-said-she-said swirling about that relationship, whatever it was, including a court order that Daniels reimburse Trump $300,000 for a failed defamation suit she brought against him. 

It should be noted that just because Donald Trump says that he will be arrested this week doesn’t necessarily mean that he will be. The New York Times has cast doubt on the timing and exactly what is likely to happen. Almost everyone outside the most fetid fever swamps of anti-Trump mania thinks that the indictment, if it happens, is a patently political move and a gross violation of Trump’s due process rights. Even National Review, no friend of the former president, has been ringing alarm bells, calling Bragg’s planned indictment a “disgrace.”

Many writers also note that were Trump actually to be arrested, it would be a big boost for him in the polls. Elon Musk, also a Trump skeptic, spoke for many when he said, should Trump be arrested, he would win the 2024 election “in a landslide victory.” Musk might well be right. Certainly, it would both harden and extend Trump’s base of support. 

Section nine of Article I of the Constitution says that “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” Bills of attainder were used and abused by the English crown to target specific people or groups of which it disapproved. If a person was “attainted,” his civil rights were forfeit. He became a pariah. His property could be seized, and he could face imprisonment or execution.

We don’t acknowledge that we promulgate bills of attainder in this country, but that is essentially the judgment that has been pronounced against Donald Trump. It was the aim of Robert Mueller’s darkly farcical investigation, the purpose of Trump’s two impeachments, and the aim of the kangaroo court known as the House’s January 6 Select Committee, Liz Cheney (D-Georgetown) presiding. Her work there, she said, was to make sure that Donald Trump never got near the Oval Office again. I think it was only a rumor that Cheney had special copies of the Constitution printed with an addition to Article II providing her with a veto over who was allowed to be president of the United States. 

Donald Trump has been singled out, he has been attainted, by the ruling elites of this country. As Michael Anton pointed out last summer, “The people who really run the United States of America have made it clear that they can’t, and won’t, if they can help it, allow Donald Trump to be president again.” What will the deep state do to prevent Trump from winning? Anton sketches several possibilities from having Trump declared ineligible because he allegedly sparked an “insurrection” on January 6, 2021 to simple cheating at the ballot box.

Then there is Plan F. 

What happens then? Well, in the words of the ‘Transition Integrity Project,’ a Soros-network-linked collection of regime hacks who in 2020 gamed out their strategy for preventing a Trump second term, the contest would become ‘a street fight, not a legal battle.’ Again, their words, not mine. But allow me to translate: The 2020 summer riots, but orders of magnitude larger, not to be called off until their people are secure in the White House.

I think that is eminently possible. And while I would rue the day it happened, I also believe that groveling and capitulating because you are intimidated by the possibility would be even worse.




Arresting Trump: An End-Of-America Watch Party

Even if Democrats really were concerned about our convoluted election regulations, no serious person thinks 
New York’s district attorney has a case against Trump.



As the saying goes: If even Never Trump Jonah Goldberg doubts your wisdom in bringing criminal charges against the former president, then you know it’s a stupid case.

Nobody actually says that, but it’s one of many indicators that the indictment potentially coming this week from Democrat New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg (yes, that’s his actual name) is so absurd as to make anyone wonder if our justice system really is a joke.

Trump on Saturday announced that he expected to be arrested soon in relation to the very old, very stale, very tiresome allegation that he violated campaign finance laws when he reimbursed his lawyer for a payment made to a porn actress in order to supposedly cover up a past affair. The accusation is that Trump did it to protect his campaign and intentionally neglected to publicly disclose the payment, as would be required by law.

I think Democrats have no interest whatsoever in campaign finance violations and really just enjoy thinking about Trump’s sex life. But even if they really were concerned with the integrity of our convoluted election money regulations, no serious person thinks Bragg has a case. That’s evidenced no less than by the fact that the people who considered pursuing this charge previously eventually dropped it— including Bragg!

While Trump was in office and Bragg was a U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, his office looked at this very case and decided it wasn’t worth pursuing. It’s a horse that has been beaten to death, resuscitated, and beaten again. Then smacked on the rear one more time.

But persecuting Trump has no downside for Democrats chasing fame. And now is as good a time as any. The historic nature of putting a former president in handcuffs as he campaigns for another term is too good for a low-rent prosecutor to pass up.

Not so good for a republic that wants to last another year, let alone 200, but that’s never top of mind for people like Bragg.

Try to wrap your mind around it. The former president, the likely Republican presidential nominee in 2024, might be seen on live national television cuffed, placed in the back of a squad car, and taken to a police station for his mug shot. All this over campaign paperwork that would any other time be resolved with a corrected filing and, perhaps, a penalty fee.

And that’s only if you presume Trump is guilty. Rational people think he might have tried hiding an affair, but that it’s absolutely possible it was for other reasons. (I wonder if anyone has ever in American history tried hiding an affair for reasons outside of protecting his prospects to be elected U.S. president. Interesting question, but far from settled!)

If Bragg brings an indictment, that’s one up for him and another one down for faith in America.

Socialism Isn't about Creating Economies. It Is about Amassing Political Power

Socialism Isn't about Creating Economies. 

It Is about Amassing Political Power

Tags PoliticsSocialismCalculation and Knowledge

Ludwig von Mises wrote Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, a small book published in 1922, which demonstrated that economic calculation in a socialist commonwealth is impossible. Of course, Mises assumed that the purpose of an economy, even a socialist one, was supposed to produce goods and services, which determined its success or failure.

Alain Besançon wasn’t an Austrian or a Misesian, but he wrote Anatomie d’un spectre: l’Économie politique du socialisme réel, also a small book the size of Mises’s own Socialism, in which he also observed that the Soviet economy couldn’t perform economic calculation; thus, the Soviet economy performed poorly, very poorly by Western standards.

The Soviet economy was wasteful and chaotic. Besançon believed that economic planning induced irrationality in the system. Terrified managers couldn’t report failing the plan, and consequently any subsequent economic planning would be even more divorced from reality than previous planning had been.

Both Besançon and Mises knew that socialism could not discover market prices. Both knew that this would lead to widespread corruption. However, Besançon realized that the state not only tolerated but also used the black market for price discovery in economic sectors critical to the regime, like defense and certain prestigious cultural and sport endeavors (Bolshoi Theatre, gymnastics, eventually hockey, etc.).

However, there is a critical difference between Mises and Besançon. While Mises believed that the goal of the Soviet economy was to produce usable goods and services, Besançon believed otherwise. The Soviet economy, he posited, was never about producing goods and services for consumers, but rather had other goals.

The Soviet economy existed to keep the Communist Party in power, and that was the sole criteria party leaders used to evaluate its performance. The “production” of political power was supreme, and anything else was secondary, subordinated to the main goal for the Soviet economy.

Soviet political leaders did not want an economy that produced goods abundantly because abundance separates the citizen from the state. The state would lose its power over its subjects if they became wealthier. Homo sovieticus—the Soviet man—had to be dependent on the state, barely living from one day to the next on state-issued ration cards.

If a Soviet manager managed by some miracle to produce well-being, despite absurd planning orders and a lack of market prices, he might well have been punished for failing to produce what he really needed to produce: state power over simple people. Abundance and well-being always were and still are the true enemies of socialism; people cannot be able to ignore or to forget the power of the state.

While the Soviet economy is not something people wish to revisit, nonetheless, influential elites are calling for governments to assert power over individuals to restrict consumer choice to achieve political goals benefitting those in power. For example, the World Economic Forum declares that people should start eating insects in the name of “sustainability.” Likewise, in the name of fighting climate change, progressive elites in government and business are attempting to force people to buy electric cars despite their serious drawbacks. While social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter are private companies, they have done the bidding of governments in the name of “fighting disinformation” or trying to preserve a narrative that reflects the governmental message, something especially seen during the government-imposed covid restrictions, by restricting online speech.

For decades Western governments have been spending more than 45 percent of the gross domestic product. Rothbard warned us that every government-owned entity is an island of calculational chaos in the economy. In countries like Finland, France, Germany, Austria, and Belgium the government represents the majority of the economy. In the United States, government spending is nearly 40 percent of GDP and in 2020, it was almost half of GDP.

Hence, we cannot any longer speak of islands of calculational chaos induced by the government. In our day the rule of Western economies is chaos, the exception being the continued existence of market prices. The presence and influence of the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) movement in US corporations and especially financial and capital markets enables socialists to have a huge influence over the US economy, and ordinary people are helpless to stop it. Many economic sectors are enabling socialists to gain political power, and the production of real goods and services has become secondary to the promotion of leftist ideology.

Alain Besançon was right about the real goals of socialists, and while both he and Mises understood the inherent dysfunctionality of a socialist economy, Besançon went one step further in realizing that the chaos the socialism produces worked to the advantage of those in power. The goal of socialists is not a better economy through socialism, but rather the full establishment of socialist power.

Image source: Adobe Stock


Trump Is Way Ahead With Republican Voters of Color. His Challengers Better Take Note


A recent analysis out of CNN had some surprising news: Former President Donald Trump is way ahead of his nearest rival, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, with Republican voters of color. Harry Enten, one of CNN's top analysts, did a deep dive into two recent polls of Republican primary voters for the 2024 election. What he discovered was fascinating: While it's commonly known that former President Trump is ahead of his 2024 primary challengers, his large lead in the primary—to the tune of double digits—stems in large part from the fact that he is winning by a landslide among non-white Republicans. Among white Republican voters, Trump is ahead of DeSantis by only one point—38 percent to 37 percent. Yet among voters of color, Trump dominates Desantis, with 55 percent to DeSantis's 26 percent.

It's impossible to overstate the significance of these numbers. First, it means that many people of color that voted Republican in recent general elections are now primary voters, a sign that they are becoming full fledged members of the Republican Party.

Second, it's significant because voters of color are poised to have a significant impact on determining who the next Republican nominee for president is. Though most Republican voters are still white, voters of color are managing to pull Trump way ahead of DeSantis—at just 18 percent of the GOP.

Trump's competitors better adjust to this new reality quickly if they have any hope of dethroning the former president.

While these numbers may be shocking to some, they hew closely to the patterns that developed in the 2016 and 2020 elections. Trump performs better among working class voters of all races generally. That pattern is holding: Among Republicans whose households make less than $50,000 a year, Trump leads DeSantis by 22 points, while losing to DeSantis among voters that make more than $50,000 a year.

This class divide in the GOP has a significant impact on his numbers among Republican voters of color. After all, Republican voters of color are far more likely than white Republicans to make less than $50,000 a year—45 percent, compared to just 28 percent of white Republicans.

Those questioning the significance of Trump's over-performance among Republican voters of color would do well to recall that Trump has historically performed poorly among white voters with a college degree. A landslide among voters of color would counterbalance this and probably be enough to deliver him the Republican nomination.

As long as Trump is winning GOP voters of color by a landslide, he is virtually unbeatable in the primary. Any competitors wishing to deny him another nomination better start focusing on this growing voting bloc.

Moreover, it would be foolish to think that Trump's support among Republican voters of color is not based on policy. The Opportunity Zones legislation, authored by South Carolina Senator Tim Scott and signed by President Trump in 2017, drew $29 Billion dollars of investment and development to low income communities. In 2019, he signed bipartisan legislation providing $250 million a year for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. For Black men, Hispanic voters in border states, and Asian Americans, there was a marked policy-based shift that was amplified between 2016 and 2020. Yet few seem interested in replicating that success.

Worse, some of the loudest Trump allies are attempting to run away from core parts of the former President's legacy, like the First Step Act, which addressed inequities in the criminal justice system and is popular in Black communities across the country yet is now being demagogued as a political weapon by some on the Right.

Some GOP hopefuls are following an old playbook, thinking that their ticket to glory is to ignore voters of color, or, worse, intentionally antagonize them. But those voters now make up nearly 20 percent of the Republican primary base. The old rules won't work anymore.

Neither will retreating on the working class policies that have transformed the party. Part of Trump's appeal with voters of color is based on class, and his competitors will have to match, if not outdo, Trump's appeal to the working class of all races.

Where is his challengers' version of Trump's 2020 "Platinum Plan" for Black voters, or his "American Dream Plan" for Hispanic voters?

The candidate that can be competitive among GOP voters of color and working class voters in general while also winning over the still sizable amount of white Republican voters suffering from Trump fatigue will have the best shot at beating Trump in the primary. But candidates that ignore Republican voters of color, or alienate them in a misguided attempt to appeal to other GOP voters, will be relegated to the dustbin of history.

The base of the Republican Party is changing, and the former President will steamroll over his primary opponents if they do not compete for this voting bloc.

Ignore voters of color at your own peril—in both parties.



China Hires the Biden Administration

China Hires the Biden Administration

And gets the “resistance” thrown in with the deal.

 for Frontpage Magazine

Whenever SKDK sends out a press release, it makes sure to mention that Politico had once called it “the loyal opposition where powerful Democrats plot the anti-Trump agenda” and that the Holmes Report had described the firm “the hub of the resistance.”

The “loyal opposition” now works for Communist China. And the “hub of the resistance” is being employed on behalf of a company operating out of one of the world’s most totalitarian regimes.

Faced with a possible ban on its destructive social media app, TikTok has gone out and hired the Biden administration and its “resistance” apparatus. And it probably even got a good deal.

SKDK’s managing director, Anita Dunn, is Biden’s senior advisor and unofficial campaign manager who took control and steered him through the Democrat primaries.Dunn, an Obama vet, is now in charge of crafting the response to Biden’s classified documents scandal.

SKDK people became Biden’s campaign comms and they’ve continued to fill that role in the administration. White House Deputy Communications Director, Herbie Ziskend. was an SKDK veep. As was Biden’s deputy communications director Kate Berner. Biden’s special assistant and senior adviser Jordan Finkelstein was an SKDK associate. Biden’s former press secretary and current Pentagon Deputy Press Secretary Sabrina Singh was a senior SKDK associate.

TikTok had previously hired a Pelosi senior adviser and another senior adviser to Rep. James Clyburn: the third highest ranking Democrat. Now it decided to go all the way to the ’big guy’.

Biden’s messaging apparatus consists of SKDK vets. Hire SKDK and you get insights into what the Biden administration thinks and how to best influence its thinking.

During the Obama administration, a senior Democrat warned that, “it’s an open secret in the Dem consultant community that SKD has been signing up clients based on ‘perceived White House access’ tied to prior relationships and employment.”

There’s no reason to believe that the game is any different at SKDK.

Under Trump, SKDK was the “hub of the resistance”, fighting to keep government bureaucrats at their jobs, opposing travel restrictions for terrorist states and fighting to save Obamacare while cashing in on Planned Parenthood and the Rockefeller Foundation and also working for Disney, Google and AT&T. The “resistance” was about getting its own people into power so that the company could benefit from even more lucrative contracts. Including overseas money.

Ukraine had signed up with SKDK and the firm helped draft some of Zelensky’s UN speeches with the Ukrainian leader benefiting from the services of one of Obama’s former speechwriters.

Why not China?

The “Hub of the Resistance” has gone to work for a company that has an internal Communist Party committee and which covers up China’s slave labor and persecutions of minorities.

SKDK dumped Starbucks because opposition to unions was against its “principles”. But like most Communist countries, China bans independent unions. The only legal union is a Communist government organization that exists to pressure foreign companies. That, like the forcible abortions, political prisoners, mass murders and political terror doesn’t bother SKDK.

But maybe that’s also a matter of principle.

Anita Dunn was forced to step down as Obama’s communications director after a video surfaced of her describing Mao as one of her favorite political philosophers. Dunn’s lesson from one of the twentieth century’s greatest mass murderers was, “You’re going to make choices; you’re going to challenge; you’re going to say, ‘Why not?’; you’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before.”

SKDK is still making its choices and doing things that have never been done before. Why not?

In June 2021, Biden revoked Trump’s TikTok executive order and his people began reaching out to TikTok influencers to build an “influencer army”. Among the other horrifying results was the deaths of seven children who strangled themselves to death after TikTok promoted the “blackout challenge” to them. Their blood is on Biden’s hands and that of his comms people who prioritized using TikTok to boost his image over protecting the lives of American children.

Now after the latest round of revelations exposed the fact that TikTok’s American mouthpieces lied, that the company is run out of China and sends information back into that Communist dictatorship, and with bipartisan momentum gathering to ban TikTok, the company has gambled that Biden can still be bought. And with his track record, there’s every reason to think so.

SKDK is intertwined with the Biden administration. Its winning argument will be that keeping TikTok open in America will be crucial for any 2024 campaign. TikTok was already proven to be a very effective tool for recruiting and mobilizing younger voters and pre-voting activists. A ban on TikTok would weaken Democrats and strengthen Republicans. And the same SKDK comms people inside the White House who no doubt talked the administration into its TikTok outreach may be in a position to make the case and close the deal for Communist China on the inside.

SKDK is a corporate brand that knows how to look like the woke grass roots. Take the “Princess of the Resistance”, dubbed as such by another SKDK employee, whose real name is Danielle Moodie-Mills, a former SKDK VP of Public Affairs, who hosts WokeAF Daily and is constantly on TikTok. The “resistance” is full of consultants who sound like edgelord influencers.

They’re a crucial element in making the Democrats seem like an insurgency rather than the corrupt authoritarian oligarchy with strong corporate elements that they actually are.

What works for corporate clients like AT&T and Pfizer can also work for Communist China.

TikTok will undergo another makeover. New faces will be trotted out to promise that this time the company can be trusted. Ex-FBI and NatSec types will be drafted to claim that they will oversee data handling and that this time, unlike before, it really will stay in America. All these lies will really come down to the interconnections between Biden,SKDK and TikTok.

The Left and China both want power over America: SKDK has gotten big by offering it to them.


Time Is Running Out To Speak Freely About Free Speech In America

Americans need to have an important discussion about free speech now before the Censorship Complex makes it impossible to do so. 



The Censorship Complex — whereby Big Tech censorship is induced by the government, media, and media-rating businesses — threatens the future of free speech in this country. To understand how and why, Americans need to talk about speech — and the government’s motive to deceive the public. 

To frame this discussion, consider these hypotheticals:

  • Two American soldiers training Ukraine soldiers in Poland cross into the war zone, ambushing and killing five Russian soldiers. Unbeknownst to the American soldiers, a Ukrainian soldier filmed the incident and provides the footage to an independent journalist who authors an article on Substack, providing a link to the video. 
  • Russia uses its intelligence service and “bots” to flood social media with claims that the Ukrainians are misusing 90 percent of American tax dollars. In truth, “only” 40 percent of American tax dollars are being wasted or corruptly usurped — a fact that an independent journalist learns when a government source leaks a Department of Defense report detailing the misappropriation of the funds sent to Ukraine.
  • A third of Americans disagree with the continued funding of the war in Ukraine and organically prompt #NoMoreMoola to trend. After this organic hashtag trend begins, Russian operatives amplify the hashtag while the Russian-run state media outlet, Russia Today, reports on the hashtag trend. 
  • Following the collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank, the communist Chinese government uses social media to create the false narrative that 10 specifically named financial institutions are bordering on collapsing. In reality, only Bank A1 is financially troubled, but a bank run on any of the 10 banks would cause those banks to collapse too.

In each of these scenarios — and countless others — the government has an incentive to deceive the country. Americans need to recognize this reality to understand the danger posed by the voluntary censorship of speech.

Our government will always seek to quash certain true stories and seed certain false stories: sometimes to protect human life, sometimes to protect our national defense or the economy or public health, sometimes to obtain the upper hand against a foreign adversary, and sometimes to protect the self-interests of its leaders, preferred policy perspectives, and political and personal friends.

Since the founding, America’s free press provided a check on a government seeking to bury the truth, peddle a lie, or promote its leaders’ self-interest. At times, the legacy press may have buried a story or delayed its reporting to protect national security interests, but historically those examples were few and far between. 

Even after the left-leaning slant of legacy media outlets took hold and “journalists” became more open to burying (or spinning) stories to protect their favored politicians or policies, new media provided a stronger check and a way for Americans to learn the truth. The rise of social media, citizen journalists, Substack, and blogs added further roadblocks to both government abuse and biased and false reporting. 

Donald Trump’s rise, his successful use of social media, and new media’s refusal to join the crusade against Trump caused a fatal case of Stockholm Syndrome, with Big Tech and legacy media outlets welcoming government requests for censorship. With support from both for-profit and nonprofit organizations and academic institutions, a Censorship Complex emerged, embracing the government’s definition of “truth” and seeking to silence any who challenged it, whether it be new media or individual Americans — even experts. 

The search for truth suffered as a result, and Americans were deprived of valuable information necessary for self-governance. 

We know this because notwithstanding the massive efforts to silence speech, a ragtag group of muckrakers persisted and exposed several official dictates as lies: The Hunter Biden laptop was not Russian disinformation, Covid very well may have escaped from a Wuhan lab, and Trump did not collude with Putin. 

But if the Censorship Complex succeeds and silences the few journalists and outlets still willing to challenge the government, Americans will no longer have the means to learn the truth. 

Consider again the above hypotheticals. In each of those scenarios, the government — or at least some in the government — has an incentive to bury the truth. In each, it could frame the truth as a foreign disinformation campaign and offer Americans a countervailing lie as the truth. 

A populace voluntarily acquiescing in the censorship of speech because it is purportedly foreign misinformation or disinformation will soon face a government that lies, protected by complicit media outlets that repeat those lies as truth, social media websites that ban or censor reporting that challenges the official government narrative, hosting services that deplatform dissenting media outlets, advertisers that starve journalists of compensation, and search engines that hide the results of disfavored viewpoints.

The window is quickly closing on free speech in America, so before it is locked and the curtain thrown shut, we must talk about speech. We need to discuss the circumstances, if any, in which the government should alert reporters and media outlets to supposed foreign disinformation and how. We need to discuss the circumstances, if any, under which Big Tech should censor speech.

Americans need to have this discussion now — before the Censorship Complex makes it impossible to do so.