House Republicans Shine A Light On The Feds’ Egregious Censorship-Industrial Complex

Wednesday’s House committee hearing analyzed federal agencies’ efforts to collude with Big Tech to censor Americans for questioning claims made by the government.

Shawn Fleetwood reporting for The Federalist

The federal government’s censorship-industrial complex is an existential threat to Americans’ First Amendment rights, several witnesses testified during a House subcommittee hearing on Wednesday.

The federal government “not just participated, but led this creation of … a mass flagging and censorship operation that was coordinated with a broader effort to pressure [Big Tech] platforms to do more censorship,” independent reporter Michael Shellenberger said.

Titled “Censorship Laundering Part II: Preventing the Department of Homeland Security’s Silencing of Dissent,” Wednesday’s hearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability analyzed federal agencies’ extensive efforts to collude with Big Tech platforms to silence Americans online for questioning claims made by the government. During his opening statement, subcommittee chair Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., underscored the role of the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a subagency within the Department of Homeland Security, in coordinating this censorship operation.

“What is stopping DHS from overreaching its jurisdiction beyond elections to censor more Americans to ‘protect’ whatever government-deployed orthodox notions it deems ‘critical infrastructure’?” Bishop asked. “The answer is: nothing.”

Often called the “nerve center” of the federal government’s censorship complex, CISA facilitates meetings “between Big Tech companies, and national security and law enforcement agencies to address ‘mis-, dis-, and mal-information’ on social media platforms.” Ahead of the 2020 election, for example, the agency upped its censorship efforts by flagging posts for Big Tech companies it claimed were worthy of being censored, some of which called into question the security of voting practices such as mass, unsupervised mail-in voting.

An interim report released by House Republicans last month revealed that CISA’s censorship enterprise was more extensive than previously known. According to that analysis, CISA — along with the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) — colluded with Stanford University to pressure Big Tech companies into censoring what they claimed to be “disinformation” during the 2020 election. At the heart of this operation was the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), “a consortium of ‘disinformation’ academics” spearheaded by the Stanford Internet Observatory that coordinated with DHS and GEC “to monitor and censor Americans’ online speech” ahead of the 2020 contest.

Created “at the request” of CISA, EIP allowed federal officials to “launder [their] censorship activities in hopes of bypassing both the First Amendment and public scrutiny.” As documented in the interim report, this operation aimed to censor “true information, jokes and satire, and political opinions” and submitted flagged posts from prominent conservative figures to Big Tech companies for censorship. Among those targeted were The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway and Sean Davis.

Also highlighted during Wednesday’s hearing was Missouri v. Biden, an ongoing court case to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court that documents efforts by the Biden administration to coerce Big Tech platforms to engage in similar censorship activities. In his testimony, Mark Chenoweth, president of the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), noted how the federal government pressured social media platforms into censoring Americans “who dared to express rational and scientifically accurate views about the Covid-19 virus and the vaccines” and in doing so, violated their First Amendment rights. NCLA is representing the individual plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden.

“Indeed, I daresay there are some in this room—on both sides of the aisle—who brush away the monumental efforts of the Biden Administration to squelch speech on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and other social media sites as merely the actions of private companies. Not so,” Chenoweth said. “When the government coerces or pressures a company with inducements or threats and the company responds by crushing private individuals, that is state action, and the First Amendment forbids it.”

Meanwhile, CISA officials testifying during Wednesday’s hearing avoided answering questions from Republicans about how the agency’s efforts to combat so-called “disinformation” have changed in recent years. When pressed by Bishop on how CISA’s practices have evolved since the 2020 election, for example, agency official Iranga Kahangama declined to provide a straightforward answer.

Despite evidence showing otherwise, House Democrats attempted to defend the federal government’s censorship activities by pretending they never occurred. In his opening statement, for example, ranking member and Maryland Democrat Rep. Glenn Ivey claimed the evidence showing CISA’s role in the censorship-industrial complex “completely misses the mark” and further cited a quote from a CISA official asserting the agency doesn’t censor speech as evidence that it doesn’t engage in such behavior.

Meanwhile, Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., similarly attempted to convince Americans the myriad communications documenting government-compelled censorship do not exist, falsely claiming there is “no evidence” CISA has “engaged in any nefarious or unconstitutional activity.”

X22, On the Fringe, and more - December 14

 

The Totalitarian Three-Step

posted by Paul E. Scates at American Thinker 

For at least half a century, the Left has been luring this nation into a deadly dance. Like the sirens of Greek myth, their music hits all the right notes: true equality, fairness, justice for all, health, peace, etc. Because the music is so beautiful, and the steps to the dance so familiar, again and again, we’ve accepted their invitation and blindly followed their lead.

This simple political dance can be done to many types of “music,” for it has only three steps. We have seen its familiar choreography in efforts against racism and crime, in steps to preserve our national security, in efforts to support agriculture and education, etc.; whatever the tune, the steps are the same:

1. Manufacture a “crisis”
2. Offer “emergency solutions” people would never accept except for the “crisis.”
3. Results achieve the hidden goal, unrelated to the supposed problem

We’ll look at three examples below, but in her excellent book Behind the Green Mask, Rosa Koire describes this three-step process as “communitarianism,” which claims that in matters of public policy, we must “balance” individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution with (imagined) community rights to assure “fairness.” So here the three-step process is:

1. Individual rights are selfish, harming the community
2. Individuals cede some of their rights to the community
3. Results: fewer rights/freedoms for individuals, more power for local, state, or federal government

The “problem” (i.e., lack of community rights) didn’t actually exist but was manufactured by those whose true goal was abolishing individual rights and freedoms and increasing the power and reach of government to impose their social and political visions.

Imagine, Koire wrote, that individual rights are a glass of milk, and community rights are a glass of water. To “balance” those rights, pour each glass into a pitcher. The result is watery milk, i.e., lessened, “watered down” individual rights. Community rights are strengthened (i.e., more government power/control)… the activists’ true goal.

We can see how this “dance” played out in the 2008 housing bubble collapse:

Step One, the “Crisis”: Bill Clinton manufactured the “crisis,” saying poor people couldn’t afford to buy their own homes. Of course, poor people have never been able to afford their own homes, so why was this suddenly a crisis? That situation is actually a motivation for good behavior: work, save money, defer children until you’re more financially secure, use alcohol (or drugs) only moderately, if at all, etc. But no, to Clinton and the left, it was suddenly a “housing crisis.”

Step Two, Emergency “Solution”: Force banks and mortgage companies to lower housing loan standards so people who can’t afford homes are able to get loans anyway. Using the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make 30% of their mortgage purchases these sub-prime loans in 1977, that requirement grew to 50% by 2000. Bush43 continued this “affordable housing” boondoggle. In 1991, CRA sub-prime loans were $8 billion; by 2007, they were $4.5 trillion. By 2008, half of all outstanding mortgages in the U.S. were sub-prime (high-risk) loans.

Step Three, Actual Results: When financial firms sold these sub-prime loans as mortgage-back securities, the stage was set. When a major increase in loan defaults occurred in 2008, the housing market crashed, taking the stock market with it. The manufactured housing “crisis” wasn’t fixed, but the U.S. economy was devastated… which was the true goal all along by the globalist Clinton and his leftist cronies.

But that makes no sense, you might say; why would anyone want that result? Because the Left has always supported global government (UN, World Economic Forum, World Health Organization, et al.), but the U.S. has long been the major barrier to that dream, so anything that weakens the U.S. politically, socially, or especially economically, then, is a good thing.

Your mistake is in assuming that the Left (whether Clinton, Obama, Biden, Schumer, Pelosi, et al) actually wants what’s best for this nation and its citizens… they don’t. They want what’s best for them and the other global elites with whom they share a self-serving globalist fantasy.

Another example is the pandemic:

Step One, the “Crisis”: the COVID-19 ‘pandemic’ was supposedly an existential threat to humankind that demanded draconian “emergency” measures (turns out that for healthy people, it was barely more deadly than seasonal flu).

Step Two, Emergency “Solution”: business lockdowns, schools closed, vaccine mandates, social distancing, etc. Many small businesses operate on narrow margins, so such lockdowns forced their permanent closings, and even major industries were impacted.

Step Three, Actual Results: devastated U.S. (and world) economy… again, the global elites’ primary goal all along, making Western democracies weaker against their globalist push from the UN, WEF, et al.

Finally, the biggest example, “climate change”:

Step One, the “Crisis”: ‘climate change’ is an existential threat to the earth; if something isn’t done immediately, the earth will burn up in “X” number of years.

Step Two, Emergency “Solution: eliminate fossil-fuel usage (curtail all manufacturing production, reduce/eliminate gasoline-powered cars, trains, trucks, planes, and ships), drastic restrictions on agriculture and cattle raising, make CO2 (behind oxygen the most beneficial element in the world) a pollutant, etc.

Step Three, Actual Results: Agenda 2030 is the UN’s supposed response to climate change; if its 17 Sustainable Development Goals are actually implemented, the world will be reduced to mid-1800s-levels of food production, transportation, manufacturing, etc… except for the globalist elites behind the “climate change” scam.

More and more scientists are finding the nerve to speak out against the climate hoax, but they’re decades behind the climate-industrial complex that is making trillions of dollars from “green” energy like solar and wind farms.

But it’s becoming clear even to the environmentalist Kool-Aid drinkers that those “renewables” won’t come close to replacing the cheap and reliable fossil fuels that drive the world’s economy. Eliminating meat and dairy and crippling agriculture will result in the mass starvation of millions of people.

Again, who would want those results? Only the globalist elites at the UN, the World Economic Forum, the Club of Rome, et al. -- many of whom are U.S. politicians, industrial magnates, and Big Tech oligarchs -- whose globalist fantasies are based on Malthusian ideas of “sustainable” levels of world population being limited to one billion people. They know that only a world government with unrestricted power can achieve what they call the “peaceful elimination” of over 7 billion people, so they see Agenda 2030, the WEF’s Great Reset, et al., as the paths to achieve that global power and control.

Those globalists use their three-step process in every area of life to bring about the ruination of the U.S. and the Western democracies that are the major barriers to their dreams. That’s the true goal behind all their supposed “solutions.”

It's way past time to stop dancing to the leftists’ globalist tune, to stop accepting their phony “crises” and, especially, their crippling “solutions” that are designed to destroy our republic.

What Motivates American Globalism?

'Globalism' is the latest iteration of American 'imperialism'

by Edward Ring for American Greatness

It is too easy, and dangerously misleading, to examine the most controversial globalist policies combined with America’s most obvious weaknesses and conclude that American power, and the future of globalism is in jeopardy. In both there is nuance and hidden strength. Understanding this ambiguity offers both hope for the future and a clearer sense of what choices face Americans today.

It is important to recognize that while other Western Nations from New Zealand to Sweden are participants in globalist policies, and that globalist theories may have originated from Europe, the influencers and institutions turning them into policy and pushing them onto the rest of the world are almost all American.

This distinction matters, because it frames the entire question of globalism in a manner that contradicts the term. Globalism is less about the dissolution of nations, and more about the extension of American global hegemony. Globalism, in this sense, isn’t global. It’s the latest iteration of American imperialism. This is expressed in every “globalist” imperative, from rapid and mandatory sacrifices to cope with a “climate crisis” to “equity” and racial redress, to trans ideology, gay rights, and mass immigration.

The motivation for American globalists demanding action to prevent “global boiling” is almost transparently imperialistic. By denying financing to nations in the Global South to develop economically viable energy solutions, they are condemned to become dependent on “renewables” which require a level of technological sophistication that only America and the West can offer. At the same time, of course, the elites in these nations are seduced by the promise of massive foreign aid to compensate for the “climate crimes” allegedly committed by Western oil companies, and bribed by the royalties attendant to massive new mines to extract the minerals necessary to build more resource intensive renewable energy technologies.

When pondering what could possibly motivate America’s globalist elites to push mass immigration, it is difficult to dismiss the possibility that it may stem from outright malevolence towards the legacy population descended from European settlers. After all, these new immigrants arrive almost exclusively from failed states, all too often bringing conflict and trauma with them. They receive what are by their standards exceedingly generous government support that burdens taxpayers and stretches public services. And they are constantly exposed to a narrative that blames colonialism for the problems in the nations they came from, and blames institutional racism for whatever challenges they may face here in America.

There is another reason, however, that also might explain the motivation for a policy of mass immigration. American birthrates are nowhere near sufficient to maintain a healthy balance between old retirees and young workers. While automation might solve the productivity challenge that comes with an aging population, automation cannot replace the dynamism that comes with a young population.

This argument – healthy nations need to have a young population and a growing population – has become a truism among neoliberal economists. And if the only place to find young people is in the few but still teeming pockets of fecundity left on earth – Sub-Saharan Africa and Central America – then that’s where they’ll be found. By the tens of millions. And since these new residents have linguistic, cultural, ethnic, and religious characteristics that diverge more profoundly from America’s legacy citizens than at any point during America’s prior waves of immigration, “equity” and multiculturalism must become the new establishment doctrine.

One still must ask, however, why assimilation can’t be tried with the same vigor with which it was successfully applied in previous centuries. And again, the answer is nuanced. Partly, again of course, because the leftist liberal mentality in America requires an excess of abashed regret and repentance on the part of all conscientious white people for their racist history.

But there may be more at work here. What better way for American globalists to extend American global hegemony than by making America a nation that overwhelms its own population by inviting in millions of migrants and catering to them in every possible way, economically and culturally? Do any of the impoverished multitudes eking out a life in Nigeria, or Honduras, dream of going to China? Russia? Or to they long to come to America, where they will have an apartment that is palatial by their standards, a car instead of a scooter, and free public education?

Perhaps, therefore, mass immigration and multiculturalism are part of the American globalist strategy to woo the world. Forget about Russia and China. They’re unwelcoming and racist, and we’re the good guys. Your future is with us.

The economics of America’s globalist strategy is deceptively effective. We may have trade deficits because we outsourced manufacturing, but there’s a sly but profound upside to these deficits. They help preserve the global appetite for dollars. We flood exporting nations with dollars when we buy their products. Then we balance our trade deficit by accepting foreign held dollars to purchase American assets, and as our swelling population creates demand driven price increases for everything from farmland to residential real estate, this domestic collateral for our otherwise fiat currency is worth more.

So it is as well with dollars we blithely print and ship overseas in the form of foreign aid, climate reparations, remittances sent by immigrants to their families overseas, Venezuelan oil, and ransoms to the Mullahs of Iran. With all these schemes, dollars pour into overseas accounts, our currency continues to circulate around the world, and so long as that’s true, we can print as many dollars as we want.

All of this, however, requires an expansionist, increasingly authoritarian government in America. Enforcing environmentalist restrictions – which also drive up prices for American assets as collateral for the dollar – diminishes America’s middle class. Hence the story must be tightly controlled. The climate catastrophe is happening now, and to cope we must accept that our middle class lifestyle is unsustainable. The foundation of American prosperity is racist exploitation and to atone requires reciprocal abuse and demographic replacement. White privilege and toxic masculinity are oppressive and must be broken.

You can’t sell this story to hard working families unless you censor news and social media and successfully divide the population by race instead of by class. And that is exactly what America’s institutions are trying to do.

On every level, geopolitical, demographic, cultural, corporate, and economic, a logic can be found in the American establishment’s choice of globalist policies. They may well succeed, erasing any possibility of an eventual multi-polar community of sovereign nations. But why? Why are they making these choices?

Why have American institutions promoted censorship to quash open debate over the policies they’ve chosen, policies destined to dramatically reduce America’s middle class and erase economic and political freedoms that have been taken for granted since the nation’s founding? Why have American institutions nurtured every cultural variant that might collapse birth rates; encouraging the sterilization of “trans” youth, encouraging homosexuality, stigmatizing women who prioritize motherhood over careers, and attacking traditional families as patriarchal anachronisms? Why have they chosen mass immigration as the demographic alternative to encouraging people to have more children? Or why not encourage immigration, but restrict it to applicants who speak English, have valuable skills, and a preexisting desire to assimilate? Why not allow everyone – including Americans – to develop natural gas and nuclear power, to lower the cost-of-living and more rapidly spread prosperity everywhere?

Are these choices merely the latest expression of the perennial human urge to build empires, the corruption of power? Or are they a product of genuine but misguided altruism, an elitist belief that only by wielding absolute power can they successfully cope with the climate crisis and the scourge of racism? Maybe all of this is merely a combination of megalomaniacal greed and megalomaniacal altruism. If so, there is still hope that an enlightened population can resist and overcome the incipient tyranny. But not so fast.

At this point the reader may howl with laughter, but what if the reasons for America’s current globalist strategy are not of this earth? In a recent X video, and with his usual lack of inhibition, Tucker Carlson raised the possibility that extraterrestrial visitors have negotiated agreements with the American deep state. That would explain a lot. Someone coming from another planet, visiting Earth and imbued with a dispassionate disregard for individual human life, might urge the global hegemon to cull the herd. It’s a nice planet you’ve got here, but there are too many of you. Clean it up, or we will.

That’s as good an explanation as any.

Let’s Play ‘Spot The Dictator!’

A head of state is desperately working to jail his top political opponent before a national election. Who does that sound like?

Tristan Justice reporting for The Federalist

A wave of hysteria hit the political press last week with a series of articles all dropping at the same time to peddle fear about another Trump presidency. The New York Times, Washington Post, and Atlantic each published pieces fomenting terror over Trump’s potential return to the Oval Office.

The Times went so far as to compare Trump to a Chinese dictator.

“Mr. Trump’s violent and authoritarian rhetoric on the 2024 campaign trail has attracted growing alarm and comparisons to historical fascist dictators and contemporary populist strongmen,” the Times wrote. “In recent weeks, he has dehumanized his adversaries as ‘vermin’ who must be ‘rooted out,’ declared that immigrants are ‘poisoning the blood of our country,’ encouraged the shooting of shoplifters and suggested that the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, deserved to be executed for treason.”

That’s interesting. Has President Biden never said anything remotely divisive? Was it not Biden who stood before a blood-red background flanked by Marines last fall to castigate political minorities as an existential threat to “the very foundations of our Republic?” Is it not Biden who implemented a socialist-style social credit system across the federal government to give priority treatment to specific races? Was it Trump whose son received an $80,000 diamond from a Chinese energy tycoon, sought to funnel millions from Chinese communist leaders directly into family bank accounts, and secured six-figure shopping sprees from Chinese businessmen? Oh wait, that was Hunter Biden.

“So what’s with the coordinated media campaign this week claiming a second Trump term will usher in the end of the republic and the rise of a fascist dictatorship?” Federalist Senior Editor John Davidson asked Friday. “It’s fair to call this kind of rhetoric ‘assassination prep,’ because of course if this will really be the last election, if we’re really facing a fascist dictatorship in Trump’s second term, well then drastic measures are necessary, are they not?”

It’s probably no coincidence that the coordinated campaign happens to coincide with the publication of former Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney’s new book, Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning.

“Former congresswoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming is the poster child of a Republican establishment abandoned by the party’s far-right base,” The Washington Post declared last week. “Now, she’s billboarding what may come next: In an interview with CBS aired Sunday, Cheney lamented the extent to which the Republican Party had been ‘co-opted’ by Trumpism and said she feared the potential of a vengeful Trump presidency in 2025.”

“One of the things that we see happening today is a sort of a sleepwalking into dictatorship in the United States,” Cheney told CBS.

Cheney, of course, led the House Democrats’ partisan Select Committee on Jan. 6 last Congress. The committee weaponized the levers of Congress to prosecute political dissidents and smeared political opponents in Soviet-style show trials. The partisan panel, which Cheney ran as vice chair, even zeroed in on political operatives who worked to unseat her with a humiliating defeat in the Wyoming primary.

But Trump is a dictator because he occasionally says a few mean things? Allysia Finley, a member of The Wall Street Journal editorial board, explained the far-left’s fascination with declaring Trump an authoritarian on Sunday.

“Cynicism is one way to explain the left’s hysteria,” she wrote. “Another is that the portrayal of Mr. Trump as a would-be dictator is a textbook case of psychological projection, the process by which people avoid confronting their own unwanted thoughts, feelings or behaviors by subconsciously ascribing them to others. Psychologists refer to this as a defense mechanism.”

Today, a head of state is desperately jailing top political opponents before an upcoming election to remain in power. Who does that sound like more? President Trump or Joe Biden?

What about a politician who illegally enriched his family with millions of dollars from foreign oligarchs by trading elite political influence? Trump or Biden? What about one with a well-oiled dystopian censorship regime to suppress dissident speech ahead of an election? Trump or Biden? Can election integrity even be certain? Who is banging the war drums in Ukraine, threatening to trigger third-world conflict? Trump or Biden?

In the context of these questions, there’s very little difference between Russian President Vladimir Putin — who the left routinely insists is an existential threat to Western liberalism — and Biden. Can any of these questions even apply to President Trump?

Between Trump and Biden, who is more similar to Putin? Whose top political opponent is under arrest?

But perhaps more importantly for the pro-regime press, which of the two presidents is more of a threat?

Germany arrests foil alleged Hamas anti-Jewish plot

 

German authorities say they have made four arrests of suspected Hamas members linked to an alleged plot to attack Jewish sites.

Prosecutors said the suspects intended to store weapons in Berlin for possible use in an attack.

Danish authorities also said they had arrested three people accused of preparing an attack.

It was not clear whether the Danish and German investigations were linked.  

German prosecutors said in a statement that three suspects linked to Hamas were arrested in Berlin and one in the Netherlands. Hamas, which runs Gaza, is a banned terrorist group across Europe.

The three held in Berlin were Lebanese and Egyptian, according German prosecutors.

Ch Insp Flemming Drejer of the Danish police said the three suspects arrested in Denmark would be charged with terror offences.  

The Dutch citizen was also a suspect in the Danish inquiry, but Danish authorities have not confirmed a link with the German investigation.  

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said the threat was "as serious as it gets".

The office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wrote in a statement on X (formerly Twitter) that the seven people arrested were "acting on behalf of Hamas". While federal prosecutors in Germany linked the plot to Hamas, Danish authorities have not confirmed any links to the group.

Danish Justice Minister Peter Hummelgaard said the alleged plot "tragically confirms that Danish Jews are under threat".

Those arrested in Denmark were scheduled to appear in closed court hearings on Thursday.  

Ch Insp Drejer said an investigation had uncovered a transnational network of people preparing an attack, with links to criminal gangs.

Security around Jewish sites would be reinforced and police patrols in Copenhagen made more frequent, he added.

Danish intelligence chief Anja Dalgaard-Nielsen said the terror threat was linked to the Israel-Gaza war and burnings of the Quran in Denmark and neighbouring Sweden.

Earlier this month, EU Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson warned that Europe faced a "huge risk" of terrorist attacks over the Christmas period.

In 2015, two people were killed in an attack on a cultural centre and a synagogue in Copenhagen.

The terror threat in Denmark currently stands at level four out of five, the second-highest. The PET security and intelligence agency says the main threat to Denmark comes from militant Islamists, most likely from" a small group or a lone actor" inspired by propaganda.

Mr Hummelgaard said the government currently saw no reason to raise the threat level.  

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67715120   

What Was Eric Swalwell Doing Standing With Hunter Biden As He Defied Subpoena?

posted by Nick Arama at RedStateVIP 

As we reported earlier Hunter Biden was supposed to appear in response to a subpoena and give a deposition behind closed doors to the House Oversight Committee. But he defied the subpoena and didn't show up. 

BREAKING: Hunter Biden Skips Deposition After Self-Serving Speech, Invites Contempt Charge

Instead, he appeared outside the Capitol and gave a speech in which he tried to play the victim, saying that they wanted to question him to go after his father, Joe Biden, and attacking "MAGA Republicans." 

Hunter Biden Gives Surprise Presser in Front of Capitol Building, Desperately Moves the Goalposts

Seems Hunter Biden didn't want to testify under oath and have to tell the truth -- or face the consequences. Instead he's trying to spin -- not under oath -- playing propaganda theater outside on the steps. 

But by not showing up in Congress to the deposition, and in fact, showing he was very capable of showing up, he's now invited the Committee to pursue him for a contempt of Congress charge and the Republicans said they would be initiating the process. The smart money would have been to show up and take the Fifth, but he didn't make the smart move here.

House Republicans to Begin Contempt of Congress Proceedings for Hunter Biden for Ditching Deposition

But one of the things that had people talking was that he showed up at the Capitol in the company of Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA). 

Why is Eric Swalwell glued to Hunter's ass? pic.twitter.com/NNQrBEuUT6

— Tiffanie Tx (@tiffanie_tx) December 13, 2023

Turns out that wasn't all -- Swalwell organized the event at the Capitol steps, according to this report. 

Why did Hunter Biden bring disgraced Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell (left) with him to his press conference? pic.twitter.com/GadEXY54Cs

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) December 13, 2023

Here's why he showed up on the Senate side of Capitol Hill to thumb their noses at the Congressional investigators. 

Hunter Biden defies congressional subpoena, but did you notice Congressman Eric Swalwell (Dem-CA) aiding and abetting the criminal?#BidenCrimeFamily pic.twitter.com/ZDkflEkZLf

— • ᗰISᑕᕼIᗴᖴ ™ • (@4Mischief) December 13, 2023

Now Swalwell has confirmed to Politico, that yes, he indeed did reserve the space-- perhaps appropriately named the "Senate Swamp" area -- for Hunter to give his speech, which was a big finger to Congress and the subpoena. 

Here's what Swalwell said about helping Hunter and why he was there.

Describing the president’s son as “a recovering addict who has admitted his mistakes and has been clean for many years,” Swalwell said the former president “has directed MAGA Republicans to weaponize Hunter’s past addiction to attack President Biden, someone Trump and House Republicans won’t acknowledge won the 2020 election.”

“There is absolutely zero evidence Hunter or his father acted corruptly,” Swalwell added. “So I’m not going to sit quietly and let MAGA Republicans do Trump’s bidding in Congress.”

In other words, he helped Hunter to join in the big middle finger he was giving Congress. Notice how he repeats the Hunter talking points about this being about his addiction and "MAGA Republicans," not the alleged corruption of Joe and Hunter Biden. That's something Hunter has pitched before, most recently in a wild interview with Moby. But bottom line: Hunter showed by his appearance on the Capitol steps that he was perfectly able to show up for the deposition, but willfully failed to do so. 

Hunter Biden's Interview With Moby Is Wild: Republicans Trying to 'Kill Me' to End Biden Presidency

So Swalwell seems to have been standing with him as he defied Congress. That sounds like it might be raising some big questions. Who is Swalwell serving here and why is he standing by him looking like his attorney? Will Swalwell face any consequences from Congress for his actions? What's his relationship and does this impinge now upon his ability to fairly judge a potential impeachment before the Judiciary Committee, the Committee he still serves on? He's already impugning his ability to make that determination with these remarks. 

A reminder that this was the guy who got booted off the House Intelligence Committee because of a relationship with an alleged Chinese operative. Now he's helping someone under investigation for payments from China? But remember -- they're the poor victims here, that's what Swalwell wants you to believe.

SHOCKER: The New York Times Altered Hunter Biden Presser Quote to Cover for Joe Biden

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

Apparently, journalist ethics doesn't exist at The New York Times anymore. As RedState reported, Hunter Biden showed up in front of the Capitol Building on Wednesday to mislead about his business dealings before refusing to appear for a congressionally subpoenaed deposition. That immediately set off a firestorm among Republicans who talked tough about holding the president's son in contempt of Congress before backing off on immediately holding a vote on the matter. 

The presser itself was illuminating due to the brazenness with which Hunter Biden tried to rewrite history. He wasn't the only one doing rewriting things, though. The New York Times decided to alter a quote from the presser in order to protect Joe Biden. 

An archived link to the story reveals that the Times did, in fact, produce a false quote. That quote just so happened to exonerate Joe Biden in a way that not even his own son was willing to do. In my write-up on Hunter Biden's presser, I noted that he was moving the goalposts by claiming that his father was not "financially" involved and that there is almost no chance that qualifier was included randomly.

Instead, it appears the new standard put forth by Hunter Biden is that the Chinese or whoever else was paying Hunter Biden for "legal services" didn't write checks directly to Joe Biden. That, of course, has never been alleged. Not even Republicans are naive enough to believe that the Bidens could be that stupid. Any money that ended up in the hands of the current president would have been moved through various entities before reaching him. We've seen that with checks written from Hunter Biden and James Biden to Joe Biden from their personal accounts and business accounts. 

The Times likely picked up on that, which is why it altered the quote to simply say "business," providing an overly broad (and falsely framed) dismissal of Joe Biden's involvement. The newspaper has since stealth-edited its story (i.e. no correction) to include the word "financially," but it seems exceedingly unlikely the original quote was published by mistake. 

There are simply no lengths to which the mainstream media won't go to protect the Bidens. That much is clear.

Controlled Information Beta Test Detected?

posted by Sundance at Conservative Treehouse 

Someone asked: …”[Alex] Jones’ theory of the “massive cyber-attack” that requires a lockdown of the internet, followed by a limited access/controlled access internet where only approved (“safe”) sites can be accessed is both alarmingly believable and difficult to prepare for. It also nearly perfectly mirrors the COVD playbook in a virtual way – virtual lock downs, virtual “approved activities/sites”, controlled information and total censorship.” (link)

My requested response… Where the heck do you think Jones’ came up with that theory?  Go back to AUGUST 2023, it’s so transparently predictable I even created a drop-down category “Internet” for the citations and articles about it.  Jones is describing what I called, “The shadow banning of the internet“.

I believe the Beta Test was yesterday:

The process isn’t complicated if you have followed the development of the government systems.  DHS is not going to shut down the North American Internet, just change the pathways using their public-private partnerships with social media and Big Tech.  Justification big picture: national security.  Details of control found in the motives of creating labels like, disinformation, malinformation, or misinformation.

[September 2023] – You might ask – why is the Dept of Homeland Security (DHS) in the business of conducting widescale surveillance, monitoring and tracking of American citizens?

Unfortunately, if you are asking that question, then you likely don’t know the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were usurped by the 2001 Patriot Act.

George W Bush and Dick Cheney created the domestic surveillance system under the auspices of DHS and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.  Barack Obama and Joe Biden then took that DHS surveillance system and modified the dials (Justice Dept., FBI) so the surveillance only applied to their ideological enemies.

If you have followed my outlines on this issue [Category Here], you will note exactly where this development falls on the continuum.   The 2024 election is right around the corner. Previously, I stated the artificial intelligence (AI) component to the internet surveillance system was going to launch toward the end of this year.  Well, DHS has just announced exactly that [SEE HERE].

I find it very interesting the DHS memo was issued on August 8th, but only published for the general public September 15th. July and August were when I first identified AI spider crawls were already underway.  Pay very, very close attention to the two underlined words in the following paragraph:

[SOURCE pdf, Page 3]

Take out the word “improper” and the admission is, DHS uses AI to profile, target and discriminate.  In the second sentence, DHS currently participates in systemic, indiscriminate and/or large-scale monitoring, surveillance, or tracking of individuals.  The only thing those sentences in the paragraph say, is that DHS will not allow AI to create improper outcomes within a system they outline that already exists.

Stop and reread that last sentence as much as needed.  Inasmuch as this DHS guidance is telling us the rules for Homeland Security (DHS) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) as they use AI, they are also outlining what current processes of surveillance would be enhanced by it.

DHS’ AI task force is coordinating with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency on how the department can partner with critical infrastructure organizations “on safeguarding their uses of AI and strengthening their cybersecurity practices writ large to defend against evolving threats.”

What are those critical infrastructure organizations?  They include voting systems.  Who or what are those evolving threats?  You!

Federal News Network – […] The report also recommends DHS encourage pursing off-the-shelf commercial solutions instead of “building everything in-house.”

Mayorkas emphasized the need for DHS to adopt AI quickly, regardless of whether it’s commercially acquired or internally developed technology.

“We have got to change the procurement capabilities of a government agency to actually move quickly and nimbly, so that when we’re dealing in a very dynamic environment, we can actually move with dynamism,” Mayorkas said. “I’m not suggesting moving to a sole source model, but we just have to be quick.”

He also stressed the need for DHS to prioritize where it will use AI, rather than attempting to adopt it across every mission and use case. The report points to combatting both fentanyl and human trafficking as use cases that could be “accelerated and championed” across DHS. But it also suggests DHS “integrate AI/ML into as many areas of the DHS mission as possible.”

“We’re going to need to prioritize what aspect of our mission should we really double down on to harness AI because I worry about diluting our focus too much,” Mayorkas said. “And I really do want to demonstrate, as quickly as is responsible, how this could really be a game changer for us in advancing our mission . . . we have to pick our spots here, in my view, somewhat surgically.” (more)

Notice the emphasis on speed.  Get this AI system launched into DHS surveillance, tracking and monitoring systems as quickly as possible.

Now do you see my point about how radical and fast everything is going to change?  It’s the 2024 election targeting.

Remember, the Dept of Defense (DoD) will now conduct online monitoring operations, using enhanced AI to protect the U.S. internet from “disinformation” under the auspices of national security. {link}

I share this information with you so that you understand what is being constructed and what is about to be deployed on a large-scale throughout the U.S. internet operating system.  The U.S. internet will be different.  The social media restrictions became more prevalent and noticeable in the past several years; now it is time for DHS to expand that process and begin directing traffic.

When I wrote about Jack’s Magic Coffee shop, people initially thought I was crazy – but the guys inside the coffee shop didn’t.  Eventually DHS control over Twitter was revealed in the Twitter Files.  The same background is true here.  The entire American online apparatus is going to change, quite soon.

I’m alone out here, but I’m not wrong.

More will follow comrade dissidents….

.

RESOURCES:

Using AI for Content Moderation

Facebook / META / Tech joining with DHS

Zoom will allow Content Scraping by AI 

AI going into The Cloud

U.S. Govt Going into The Cloud With AI

Pentagon activates 175 Million IP’s **ahem**

Big Names to Attend Political AI Forum

DoD to use AI to monitor U.S. Internet for Disinformation

DHS Announces Guidelines for Using AI to monitor Americans.

DHS Announces “Expert Group”

Government demands Twitter metadata