Expert Says Congressional Republicans’ Plan to Curb CISA’s Criminal Censorship Practices Is Ineffective And ‘Sloppy’

Evita Duffy-Afonso reporting for The Federalist 

An appropriations bill passed by the House and awaiting approval in the Senate will supposedly inhibit the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) from engaging in censorship, but a homeland security expert is not convinced.

CISA, a component of the Department of Homeland Security, is described as the “nerve center” of federal government censorship. It is responsible for facilitating collusion between federal agencies and social media companies, interfering in our elections, and censoring Americans who spread anything the agency deems “dis” and “misinformation.” 

CISA also censors “malinformation,” which the agency defines as information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.” CISA justifies censoring information it knows is true because it believes, as current CISA Director Jen Easterly said, that it is its job to secure the public’s “cognitive infrastructure.” In other words, CISA wants to control our minds. 

Early this month, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the Missouri v. Biden that CISA is barred from continuing to violate the Constitution, but, according to experts, the only sure way to stop CISA from illegally censoring Americans is to defund the agency. 

‘Poorly’ Drafted Legislation

Instead of defunding CISA, members of Congress added provisions within their Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill to allegedly put an end to the agency’s illegal activity.

According to the bill, none of the DHS funds can be used “to classify or facilitate the classification of any communications by a United States person as mis-, dis-, or mal-information,” nor can the funds be used to “partner with or fund nonprofit or other organizations that in any way instruct, influence, direct, or recommend that private companies in any way censor, prohibit, or obstruct lawful and constitutionally protected speech of United States persons on social media platforms.”

Cato Institute Senior Fellow Patrick Eddington, who is an expert on homeland security and civil liberties, wrote in a statement to The Federalist that this part of the bill is “the most poorly/sloppily drafted pieces of legislation I’ve seen in my 35 years in D.C.” The first issue, Eddington says, is that “There’s no definition of what constitutes ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’ or ‘malinformation,’” leaving “the entire section wide open to attack in federal court.”

Eddington foresees issues with another section of the bill, where the lawmakers state, “Any officer or employee of the federal government whose salary is funded by this Act and who conducts” the illegal censorship activity, “shall be removed from the Federal service.” According to Eddington, this would be “a flagrant violation of the separation of powers and also, as drafted, is a de facto bill of attainder—both unconstitutional.” A bill of attainder is a law that legislates consequences without going through the standard legal process, and it is, as Eddington said, unconstitutional. 

How To Handle CISA

Brian Cavanaugh, a visiting fellow at Heritage and a former member of President Trump’s National Security Council, told The Federalist that he doesn’t think CISA should be abolished because it plays an important part in the security apparatus. “CISA has a very important role,” said Cavanaugh, particularly because we are at a “precarious point in time with quantum computing and AI capabilities.” Enemies of America, for instance, have “the capability to turn off all the lights in the U.S.,” he said.

To fix the abuses prevalent across the entire Department of Homeland Security, Cavanaugh told The Federalist that DHS needs to “consolidate its mission” and diminish the size of “bureaucratic middle management.” The best way to accomplish this would be “to have the next Republican president ask Congress for presidential reorganization authority for DHS,” he stated.

“What needs to be done is somebody needs to sit back and say, ‘What are the fundamental things we need to do to protect the homeland that are inherently government-oriented responsibilities?’” said Cavanaugh. “‘And how do we focus our efforts and get rid of the fluff and the waste and abuse?’”

In the meantime, however, Congress can make headway by cutting CISA’s funding. “CISA has been given more money than they know what to do with,” Cavanaugh said. “Up until this past year, they have gotten what they’ve asked for, if not more, than what they’ve asked for.” Cutting CISA’s funding would incentivize the agency to “laser focus on their actual mission and use the funding they’ve received to demonstrate that they’re moving the needle on the areas that they’ve actually been authorized to execute by Congress,” explained Cavanaugh.

Republicans Must Cut Funding

Two weeks ago, Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) introduced an amendment that would strip CISA of 25 percent of its funding. Unfortunately, ​​109 Republicans voted against the amendment, and it failed on the House floor.

In a statement to The Federalist, Clyde said that he is “hopeful that many of my colleagues will reconsider” their decision to vote against cutting CISA funding “and join with me in holding this weaponized agency accountable through the power of the purse following new information that has come to light regarding its nefarious censorship practices.”

“Considering that CISA has shamelessly violated Americans’ First Amendment freedoms for years, it is incumbent upon Congress to take additional steps to eliminate this taxpayer-funded government-by-proxy censorship from further tarnishing our nation,” Clyde continued. 

Clyde told The Federalist that there is still another opportunity for Congress to cut CISA funding and protect the American people and the integrity of the upcoming 2024 election. For now, however, it remains to be seen whether Congressional Republicans will use that opportunity to uphold the oath they took upon entering office to defend the Constitution.

X22, And we Know, and more- Oct 16

 

How The Middle-Class American Dream Became a Penny-Pinching Nightmare

We should be living comfortable, middle-class lives. Instead, we’ve been significantly and unsustainably squeezed.

by Auguste Meyrat for The Federalist

This past Columbus Day, I took my wife and kids to a pumpkin patch. While we had a good time, what struck us was the cost of the whole thing. Admission alone cost us $60 plus tax. If we weren’t so frugal, we could have easily spent another $60 or more just buying pumpkins and concessions. Altogether, a few hours at a semi-rural Texas property furnished with some pumpkins, bales of hay, overfed baby goats, and a few repurposed antique farm vehicles would cost well over $100.

On our way home, my wife and I talked about just how expensive these outings have become. The State Fair would cost us hundreds, as would a trip to the Dallas Arboretum, or the Dallas Zoo. Amusement parks like Six Flags cost even more. If we wanted to take a trip somewhere out of town for a few days, this would set us back over $1,000. Thus, for the foreseeable future, we will just have to settle for the modest thrills of the library, the park, and the nearby walking trail.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg as far as expenses go. A swarm of new residents has caused property values and accompanying property taxes to skyrocket. And due to inflation and restrictions on energy production, utilities, groceries, and gas are all much higher than just a few years ago. This leaves relatively little disposable income for eating out or visiting pumpkin patches. We save what little we can for disasters and retirement — my teacher’s pension does not keep up with inflation — but it’s not much. Like many others, we simply pray the cars continue running and everyone stays in good health.

There are others around us who face even bigger struggles. Most of my younger colleagues spend half of their paychecks or more on rent and don’t even bother looking at houses. Other teachers my age or older are working extra jobs to pay for the houses they do have. Those of us with families continually look for ways to save while those without families are either delaying having children or opting out of parenthood entirely. As for enjoying the leisure to cultivate a social life and read good books, there’s little time or energy for any of that.

All this might be understandable, but we are professionals with (sometimes multiple) college degrees. We should be living comfortable, middle-class lives. Instead, we’ve been significantly and unsustainably squeezed, making huge tradeoffs that cost us our mental health, connection with others, and our ability to raise the next generation. 

For the younger generations coming of age and entering the workforce (the older members of the Gen Z cohort), the prospects are dire. As cultural writer Addison Del Mastro explains in a recent essay, not only will this generation not be able to afford a starter home, but they won’t even be able to purchase a starter car: “Much like the starter home, the starter car is on its way out.” Smaller, cheaper sedans that worked out for young drivers just aren’t made anymore. Now, they will have to take out massive loans to pay for an SUV or electric car — on top of the loans they take out for college. Buying used will also set them back nearly as much in today’s market. With no starter home or starter car to commence adulthood, Zoomers, even the educated ones who supposedly did everything right, are stuck in abject dependence unless they were born rich. 

As for my generation, the Millennials, some of whom were lucky enough to purchase a starter home and starter car before they became prohibitively expensive, we’re pretty much stuck with these starters. I would love to upgrade my 13-year-old Honda Fit and move into a bigger house, a “forever home,” with an extra bedroom and bathroom — things my parents were able to do at my age — but this is unfeasible. 

That said, this economy seems to be working for some Americans. Living in the northern suburbs of Dallas-Fort Worth, I see plenty of new residential subdivisions packed with McMansions. I also share the road with more than a few Teslas and decked-out pickup trucks, and witness ever more boutique retailers, craft breweries, and upscale restaurants opening. Surely someone is able to afford to go to these places. 

I can only imagine they must have unusually good salaries, are DINKs (dual-income, no kids), receive financial help from their family, or spend money they don’t have. Judging from the soaring credit card debt, I would guess many of them are in that final group. 

It’s fair to say that today’s economy, even in prosperous red states like Texas, is designed to cater specifically to the rich and poor segments of the population. As for the majority of Americans in the middle, who don’t qualify for public welfare and can’t blow obscene amounts of money at Disneyland, they will continue feeling the squeeze in countless ways. 

Sadly, nothing is changing on this front. So long as the federal government continues to print more money to cover expenses, inflation will continue. So long as the housing supply fails to keep up with demand, housing will be expensive. So long as car manufacturing is tied up with idiotic environmental regulations, new cars will also be expensive. And so long as domestic energy production is tied up in regulation, all economic activity and utilities will cost more and more.

Even as other issues come up that influence the way Americans vote in the coming elections, it’s going to be the economy once again that decides where the political winds finally turn. As the present situation demonstrates, elections have consequences, and what we have now has been a recipe for economic decline. We’re all feeling it, some of us more than others. 

Trump owes money to media outlets and Secret Service — after not paying his bills: report

 Trump owes money to media outlets and Secret Service — after not paying his bills: report - Raw Story

Former President Donald Trump might have a lot of cash in his campaign coffers but he's not paying his bills, recent Federal Elections Commission reports reveal.

According to the campaign finance report, between July 1 and Sept. 30, Trump reported that he owed reimbursements to the New York Times, Daily Caller and ABC News. He also owes cash to the Secret Service.

The reason for the media bills is listed as a reimbursement for the press plane. Trump spends a lot of time trashing the media at his events, often pointing to them on the risers he sets up during each rally. But it turns out he's paying to ensure they're there.

As for the Secret Service, Trump owes them $330,401.62 in "air travel refunds," the FEC reports explain.

This isn't the first time Trump stiffed law enforcement. He has a long history of bamboozling his way out of paying police.

In 2021, Trump got into a fight with Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey over unpaid security from a 2019 rally. The $530,000 in security fees that the Trump campaign owed. Fray called them out and the campaign responded to it by threatening to sue him.

Trump's campaign said that the U.S. Secret Service should foot the bill for the security, but that's not the way it works in a campaign. The Secret Service protects the protectee, not the crowd. Taxpayer dollars can't be spent to fund political events, even if Trump is a protectee. Most campaigns pay their security bills, likely fearful of the public relations fallout. That hasn't happened with Trump, who didn't pay security costs for years. It's still unclear who he has and hasn't paid since the 2016 election season.

By the Minneapolis battle, the Trump campaign owed over $2 million in unpaid security costs and overtime to the same officers they purport to uphold. It was reported by the Albuquerque Journal in Oct. 2021, that their city sent Trump an invoice for $211,175.94 for barricades and overtime for officers to be on hand for the event. At last check, that hadn't been paid along with the several other cities.

Lebanon, Ohio, Mesa, Arizona and Erie, Pennsylvania, are just a few other cities Trump bilked during his failed 2020 campaign. According to the Center for Public Integrity, Green Bay and Eau Claire, Wisconsin; Tucson, Arizona; Burlington, Vermont and Spokane, Washington — have also been left holding the bag, but that was from before he was elected to the president and during the 2016 campaign.

Ripon, Wisconsin Mayor Theodore Grant told Greenburg, PA not to expect Pence's rally with pro-Trump police to be worth the costs to the city. Ripon, which boasts itself as the "birthplace of the Republican Party," was forced to use its emergency fund to handle Pence's security costs from a July 17, 2020 event.

The $5,000-10,000 they had to come up with was two-thirds of the city's $15,000 emergency fund. The city didn't have any more funds available for any emergencies in the city.

Two dead in Brussels shooting

 

Two people have been shot dead in central Brussels, according to police.

The victims are both Swedish nationals, according to Ilse van de Keere, a spokeswoman for Belgian police.

Sweden are playing in a Euro qualifier match against Belgium this evening in Brussels.

She declined to give any further details on the shooting.  

According to local media, the shooting took place near Sainctelette Plein, to the north of the centre of the city.

It is around miles (5km) from the King Baudouin Stadium, where the match is taking place.

Both victims were wearing Sweden shirts at the time, according to Het Laatste Nieuws - a Dutch-language newspaper based in Belgium.

"I was completely in shock and immediately started shouting," one witness told the news site.

No suspect has yet been arrested, and police have cordoned off the scene, according to reports.

Video reported to be of the incident shows a gunman in a fluorescent orange jacket and a white helmet chasing a man into a building.  

https://news.sky.com/story/two-people-wearing-football-shirts-shot-dead-in-brussels-belgian-media-report-12985711   

Our Republic Endures Only When Enemies Can Retire in Peace

If losing is criminalized a vicious circle sets in rendering politics warfare by other means

by Steve Balch for American Greatness

Sometime during the latter part of the 18^th century politics took an unprecedented turn in the English-speaking world: it ceased to be dangerous. Although little appreciated by scholars for its historical consequence, perhaps because it consisted of non-consequences, things that didn’t happen, it was essential to the development of modern democracy. Up to that point, in just about every time and place, politicians who lost high office, or failed in grasping at it, faced the possibility of imprisonment, confiscation, exile or death. Now in Britain and America, then increasingly elsewhere in Europe, and eventually in places even further afield, loss of office, while not pleasant, was no longer lethal.

The knowledge that political failure doesn’t threaten life, limb or liberty, is essential to the stability of constitutional systems. If politicians believe that losing an election means personal disaster, they’ll ensure that it never happens. Since free elections are unpredictable, they’ll be rigged, or their results rejected, or elections abandoned entirely. When John Adams allowed Thomas Jefferson, his (then) bitter political enemy, to enter the presidency unobstructed, and was himself allowed to retire in peace, the American constitution proved it was capable of enduring.

This kind of cross-party indulgence is partly a matter of professional self-interest. Every politician benefits. But given its historical rarity much more must be in place to keep forbearance alive. One is custom. The longer the peaceable transfer of power persists the more it is likely to continue. Just as with other practices, rootedness brings reliance. On the other hand, once it ceases to be settled habit, the resulting insecurity makes it difficult to restore. Once you expect your neighbor to do you in, you’d better do him in first.

Also important are the nature of politics larger stakes. If elections put core social, economic or cultural interests at risk, all bets are off. America’s constitutional architecture starting crumbling when the South’s peculiar institution became the central political issue. The region’s elites eventually saw in Lincoln’s election a line they would not cross. Violence was again in the air when the 1876 presidential election precipitated a showdown over Reconstruction, complicated by the (correct) perception of widespread electoral malfeasance by both Democrats and Republicans.

Contrarily, bipartisan Ideological comity softens defeat’s shock, although those at the political fringes may not enjoy the live-and-let-live that prevails among the centrists. Socialist Eugene V. Debs spent the presidential election of 1920 in jail despite commanding almost a million votes.

Ideology aside, big government itself puts political tolerance under strain. The more the interests feed at the government’s trough, the more the pressure on rulers to keep delivering the feast, electoral objections notwithstanding. The welfare state thus planted a destabilizing seed, which Its successor, the social engineering state, has further nourished by making the meal toxic to many of those who have to foot its bill.

These factors have been eroding the foundations of political self-restraint across the Western world. But because of an accompanying lapse in electoral credibility nowhere have power transitions become as fraught than in the United States. In most other Western democracies ballots are collected and counted in a manner widely believed to be honest. In Britain, for example, paper ballots are cast almost entirely in person on a single day and counted constituency by constituency under the close observation of all interested parties. Most other European countries maintain comparable transparency.

In the United States the localization of electoral administration, complicated by machine politics wherever the masses huddle, created enduring, and now spreading, islands of electoral corruption. Because of bloc voting in the electoral college, these political pustules can make the difference in close presidential races. Bipartisan consensus long mitigated the problem. Did Nixon really lose Illinois and Texas in 1960? The daylight between him and JFK was just too small for Republicans to go to the mat over it.

Those days are gone. Ideological dissensus and an imperial national executive combine with campaign manipulation and electoral opacity, to make it increasingly hard for America’s losers to accept defeat. On the relatively disempowered right the reaction has by necessity been limited to angry rhetoric and scattered protest, which, on January 6, 2021, boiled over into dramatic trespass and scattered violence within the hallowed halls of Congress. On the entrenched Left the reaction has been far more sinister: the return of politics to its immemorial status of blood sport, power severed from law to do in opponents.

The blast of prosecutions against Donald Trump and his cohorts, the targeting of other Administration opponents from small fry pro-lifers to titans like Elon Musk, are now demolishing the wall that long sheltered political difference from the penal code. This criminalization of politics means that If Trump, or any other red-blooded Republican, were in spite of everything to recapture the presidency, a host of bigwigs in the White House, federal law enforcement and Congress will themselves face prosecution. Will they allow this disaster to fall upon them? If not, what are they prepared to do during the campaign, the vote casting, the vote counting, or pre-inauguration run-up to prevent it? Rule or ruin politics raise these questions.

Is there a way out of this minefield? If there is it will involve both resolve and circumspection.

First, if and when constitutionalists retake power, they’ll need to enact a national election law that makes outcomes as unambiguous as is humanly possible. Constitutionalists naturally shy away from this, but there’s no longer any choice. We need elections that the Left can’t juggle, and the present system, if a system it can be called, doesn’t provide them. A national system involving in-person balloting, unassailable proof of voting eligibility, public and replicable counting, a radically shortened period of casting, and rapid and simultaneous announcement of results must be established. Our system is too fragile to survive more implausible results, and if we don’t tighten it the Left, as soon as it can, will use national power to make voting even more chaotic and subvertible.

Second, the rule of law won’t be restored by turning a blind eye to its current savaging. Yet the response can’t be too sweeping or vindictive. The “Good Germans” at lower administrative levels, those who just followed orders, should be demoted, rusticated or dismissed but, generally speaking, not prosecuted. Nor should laws be stretched to catch those who merely lied and defamed even when they are patently obnoxious. Their punishment should be left to politics. When Charles II was restored to the English throne part of the bargain was an “Act of Oblivion,” forgetting – if not forgiving – past malefactions short of regicide. It worked.

Excepting the most culpable individuals where it should be conspicuous and exemplary – the DOJ and Homeland Security in particular have been functioning as criminal conspiracies with seats in the cabinet – the real reckoning should be institutional not personal, demolishing bad agencies and, where necessary, rebuilding them from the ground up. Determining whom to rehire and whom not, would make for a powerful, if non-judicial, form of condign punishment. The Left is full of vengeance seekers, punishing for punishment’s pleasure. Constitutional redemption requires that those kinds of perverse satisfactions be foresworn.

Third, woke fanaticism must be dampened. Violent protest – genuine sedition ­- needs be given its whiff of grapeshot, its practitioners ignominiously chased off the streets and into prisons. Incarceration for them, their behind-the-scenes promoters, together with more ordinary criminal types, would send a forceful message and eliminate the tinder the Left so likes to ignite. Mobs will vanish when mobbing is disincentivized.

Wokeness’ ultimate source lies in our universities which, outside STEM, should be drastically defunded along with the public-school systems the universities have taken in tow. Education reform will need time to show results. In the meanwhile, it will be a matter of manning all the other pumps to keep the republic afloat.

Humans fight fire with fire, eye for eye and tooth for tooth. Once elections are compromised and losing is criminalized a vicious circle sets in rendering politics warfare by other means. We may not have entirely reached that point, but we’re perilously close. Assuming power is still ours to regain we’ll need some consummate and fearless statesmanship to steer it clear.

Meanwhile, Shameless Biden Has Handed $2 Billion to Taliban Since Disastrous Afghanistan Withdrawal

Mike Miller reporting for RedState 

It's virtually impossible to make a complete list of the disastrous effects on the United States caused by Joe Biden's precipitous 2021 withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Afghanistan. Impossible, of course, because there are likely additional consequences to come. The only question is how bad those consequences might be.

Welp, Biden being Biden — whether we're talking about the Biden Border Crisis, Bidenflation, or the Biden War on Energy — the most inept president in history always manages to make his intentionally created crises even worse, which brings us to the subject of this article:

The Biden administration has sent roughly $2 billion in aid to the Taliban-controlled Afghan government in the aftermath of the withdrawal debacle. 

Samantha Power, the incompetent-as-hell head of the USAID (United States Agency for International Development), actually boasted about the ongoing U.S. hand-outs. 

The United States is the single largest humanitarian donor in Afghanistan, providing nearly $2 billion in humanitarian assistance for Afghans since mid-August 2021, including more than $1.46 billion from USAID.

Not to nitpick, but Power's braggadocio about the U.S. being the largest humanitarian donor to Afghanistan reminds us of just how brain-dead Team Biden remains. 

The Staggering Number of Weapons and Armaments Biden Left Behind

Not to forget, as my colleague Bob Hoge reported in March, Biden's chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 included the abandonment of billions of dollars worth of weapons and armaments. Most of the military equipment of course ended in Taliban hands. Shortly before Hoge's article was published, the Taliban posted disturbing images of the left-behind military hardware, including this one:

Anyway, to further put into perspective the administration's continuing handouts to Afghanistan, the Taliban continues to do unacceptable crap like this:

Almost 20 staff members of a charity organization operating in central Afghanistan, including one U.S. national, have been arrested by regional officials in the Taliban-controlled nation, a spokesman for the provincial government in Ghor province told CBS News. 

The 18 detained aid workers were arrested for “propagating and promoting Christianity,” a violation of the Taliban’s strict regulations on all non-governmental groups, according to Abdul Wahid Hamas, the spokesman for the regional administration in Ghor province.

A local employee of The International Assistance Mission (IAM) in Ghor province also told CBS News, on the condition that he not be named, that the detained foreign employee was a U.S. woman who works at the office.

"At this time, out of respect for the family and our ongoing efforts to ensure their release, we can't confirm the nationality of the detained foreign worker," IAM told CBS News in a statement. 

"We are in a state of shock. We are accused of something I never imagined. We are just waiting to see what happens next and when they arrest us."

Yet the Biden administration continues to send U.S. taxpayer dollars to the Taliban, hand over fist.

Pentagon Is Doubling U.S. Military Presence in Middle East to Deter Further Attacks

Jeff Charles reporting for RedState 

The Pentagon is expanding the U.S. military presence in the Middle East as the war between Israel and Hamas continues. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced that he is deploying another warship to the region to deter future attacks against American interests.

This development comes a week after the U.S. deployed a cadre of warships to the Mediterranean Sea in a show of support to Israel.

The Pentagon is rapidly doubling the amount of American firepower deployed in the Middle East in an effort to deter a wider regional war and to carry out possible airstrikes to defend American interests, U.S. officials said on Sunday.

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III said in a statement on Saturday night that he had ordered a second aircraft carrier, the Dwight D. Eisenhower, to the eastern Mediterranean to join the carrier Gerald R. Ford “to deter hostile actions against Israel or any efforts toward widening this war” after Hamas’s attack on Israel last weekend. The Eisenhower is expected to arrive in the next few days.

The Air Force is also rushing additional land-based attack planes to the Persian Gulf region, doubling the number of F-16, A-10 and F-15E squadrons on the ground. Combined with the four squadrons of F/A-18 jets aboard each carrier, the United States will have an aerial armada of more than 100 attack planes, officials said.

The doubling of America’s military presence in the Middle East is intended to send a message to Iran, Syria, and terrorist groups like Hezbollah after recent attacks against military personnel. So far, 29 Americans have been killed during the fighting between the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Hamas, which launched a surprise attack against the Jewish state on October 7.

While there are currently no plans to deploy ground troops to participate in the conflict, lawmakers have suggested that the U.S. could play a critical role in aiding Israel’s war effort.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) highlighted the importance of intel when discussing ways the U.S. could provide assistance to Israel:

While Washington isn’t planning to have boots on the ground in Israel, the American military does have a major role to play there, according to the first group of U.S. lawmakers to visit the country since the Hamas attacks.

U.S. “intelligence gathering and intelligence sharing” could be “extremely important” to Israel locating and freeing hostages held by Hamas in Gaza, said Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, the top Republican on SASC’s Emerging Threats and Capabilities panel, who just returned from leading a congressional delegation to Israel for talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Additionally, the Pentagon is sending military aid to Jerusalem, including Iron Dome interceptors to bolster the country’s ability to defend against rocket attacks launched by Hamas and Hezbollah.

As tensions between Israel and her enemies continue to escalate, the Pentagon’s expansion of the military presence is intended to reaffirm Washington’s commitment to ensuring the safety of Israelis. As the situation on the ground continues to develop, it is possible that America’s role in the war could expand even further – especially if Iran, through Hezbollah, decides to ramp up its efforts against Israel.

“We”?

posted by Sundance at Conservative Treehouse 

I’m not posting this for the content per se’, but rather as an example of how if you listen carefully, you can catch the DeceptiCONs.  This is the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mike McCaul, talking to Maria Bartiromo about the Israeli war.

♦ Context matters!  Remember, it was just a few days ago when Mike McCaul left a “non-classified” White House briefing by DNI Avril Haines and the State Dept, likely Victoria Nuland, and immediately went to the microphones to push a false story that Egypt had warned the Israelis in advance of the Hamas attack {GO DEEP}.  That never happened.  Additionally, it was just a few weeks ago when Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member Maria Bartiromo dropped her mask in the interview with Matt Gaetz {LINK}.

Listen carefully, and you will notice how Bartiromo cites the White House briefing (“situation room“) and then immediately McCaul starts talking about “what we are doing,” meaning the Biden administration.  The “we” in that sentence is profoundly Freudian, and if you know the cues to look for, you can spot them immediately.

Essentially, McCaul is admitting in that brief section that he (even though he is supposed to be a Republican), is a part of the Biden effort.  That explains his willingness to go immediately to the microphones and give the false story as a media narrative – more valuable from the Republican than from the Biden intelligence apparatus. I hope you can see what my reference is here.

As I say all the time, in this era of universal deceit, trust your instincts.  If you know what to look for, you will quickly start to see the professional deceivers don’t even realize when they slip, because they are still attached to the “old” level of scrutiny that was being applied. WATCH:

We The People are being manipulated.  We need to break this cycle of propaganda abuse, by reminding ourselves about the history of how we have been abused.

This is a very dangerous awakening. The UniParty has been on full display in the past few weeks.  Factually, the more the average American understands the nature of their abuse, the manipulation, the more dangerous the potential response from government becomes.  A narcissist becomes violent when their gaslighting no longer works.  A government becomes similarly disposed when the propaganda stops working.

See things as they are, not as we would prefer them to be.

Live your absolute best life while being frosty, smart and strategically small.

Pay attention to the things that people think no one is noticing.