Kamala and Her Cronies Will Make America Lose Again

posted by Kurt Schlichter at Townhall 

Last week, dozens of competent American patriots with national security experience endorsed Donald Trump by publicly signing a powerful letter that reads, "Our nation is facing the most serious and grave threats it has faced in decades. A revival of American peace through strength coupled with a strategy that puts the American people first is necessary to restore peace and economic stability throughout the world."

Damn straight. I'm proud to be one of its signers. This powerful call for a powerful America stands in stark contrast to the pathetic weakness demonstrated by the collection of goofs, hacks, clowns, and incompetents that recently signed one for Kamala Harris. At their core, the losers despise America and believe we must be weak and constrained. We reject that ridiculous idea. We believe America is and must remain the world’s greatest nation are Andrew Jacksonians; Kamala and those who think America should be a slightly laughable backup singer on the world stage are Tito Jacksonians. 

The letter from "NATIONAL SECURITY & FOREIGN POLICY PROFESSIONALS FOR TRUMP" includes signatures from cabinet-level officials, generals and colonels, various national security experts, and - very importantly - the families of some of the troops killed by the gross incompetence of the Biden-Harris cabal in Kabul. It was organized by a bunch of concerned pros led by my friend Ambassador Robert C. O'Brien, who was Trump's final National Security Advisor and arguably a better one than any of the 26 NSAs who preceded him. Let's review where we stood when Trump left office. We were right at the end of an astonishing interregnum between the decades of Middle East conflict that boomers and Gen Xers had grown up watching on the nightly news, back when the networks mattered. For many of us, it was personal - we deployed there. But Trump stopped the cycle of violence and failure.

How? Primarily by ignoring the idiots who would later sign the Kamala letter. Trump understood what the failed Yalies who couldn't get a Wall Street gig and had to go into government instead of Wall Street never got - that bad people are not swayed by cliches and pablum about "the Rule of Law" and "the international order." Bad people understand strength, and Trump understands that.

If you messed with Trump, he would kill you. Soulemani - a blood-soaked degenerate who had overseen the murder of hundreds of Americans - had inexplicably walked the earth for years after starting and continuing his reign of terror. He got uppity. Trump killed him. Andrew Jackson would be proud.

Trump also stopped giving the mullahs money. He, and the competent folks who would later sign on this endorsement, never held the bizarre view that the Iranians would stop being seventh-century psychotics if we only paid them off and sucked up to them enough. But that was - and is - the controlling fantasy of the establishment apparatchiks now lining up behind Kamala—just what we need - a brat foreign policy.

Trump's administration putting the mullahs in a box made the Abraham Accords possible - peace in a place where we had not seen peace in almost a century. And there was more. They attained peace in Kosovo. They got the NATO deadbeats to start ponying up their fair share. They even kept Putin from expanding the chunk of Ukraine he invaded under Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama - remember, these hacks think "peace" means America and its allies sit back and talk abuse. 

Trump also began to rebuild our shattered military, though there is still much more to do there, starting with firing the kind of war-losing generals and admirals who today back Kamala. They sure have a lot of attitude for folks who have not managed to unequivocally win a major conflict in better than three decades.

Robert Gates famously said about a decade ago that Joe Biden had been wrong about every major foreign policy question in the previous 40 years. Now, it's 50 years, and despite his manifest senility, our alleged president has stayed consistent. He has been wrong about every major foreign policy question in the last half-century, and so have the people who signed Kamala's letter. It's an unbroken track record of defeats, humiliations, collapses, routs, and disasters. Name a foreign policy achievement of the four years under these quarter-wits—just one. 

Cue the tumbleweed.

It's not hard to list their failures - the only problem is that a column can only be so long. Let's start with Afghanistan, a mix of gross negligence, political motivations, and hubris that led to America being revealed to the world as a paper tiger, to over a dozen dead servicemembers, to a bunch of Afghan civilians being killed when Biden panicked and decided he had to be butch, as well as thousands of abandoned allies and even Americans. 

No wonder Putin invaded. He saw he was facing a coterie of spineless invertebrates. And after he did, these clowns managed to pick the worst of the three options in response. They could make it so Ukraine could win, let Ukraine lose quickly, or allow the war to grind on endlessly, draining our treasure and Ukrainian lives, while they all put UKR emojis on their Twitter bios. Of course, they took Option 3. They always do the worst possible thing.

They have wrecked our military. Recruiting is in the cellar because the kind of normal, patriotic Americans who once fought our wars (and, when allowed to, won them) have no desire to service in a Petrie dish of freakish social pathologies of the sort tolerated by our current elite. China does not play silly games; it is serious about winning. We are not. China is building a world-class military, and our Navy is shrinking. Oh, China is now ramming allied ships as it pushes outward. Where is America? In trans awareness training.

These clowns have pressured Israel not to win - what is it with their aversion to winning? Sadly, for far too long, Netanyahu listened and put off the righteous retribution for October 7th. Now, a year later, Netanyahu has chosen to ignore these buffoons and - shocking! - Israel is annihilating Hezbollah, including killing some of the Marine barracks bombers who we should have killed long ago. These people are the George Costanzas of foreign policy - you succeed when you do the opposite of their gut instinct. That instinct instantly recoils at anything like victory. The Houthis are tossing flocks of missiles at us, and we sit there taking them; they shoot one at Israel, and the Jewish state wipes out their oil reserves. The foreign policy squishes even cried when Israel tricked the Hezbollah dummies into buying booby-trapped pagers, taking out hundreds of terrorist fighters. Suppose you can't summon up sufficient inner Genghis Khan to cheer the involuntary sex reassignment surgery of jihadi scumbags. In that case, you have no business being in the business of protecting the United States.

Trump is a Jacksonian. He's not looking for wars, and he did not start any. But he sure finished a bunch, which prevented others from beginning. America is done being the world's policeman - the GOP base, which paid the price of the last couple of decades in blood and taxes, has made that clear. But we do have interests, and we do need to defend them. Bad people hate us; we need to crush them. Trump's foreign policy believes that the best defense is a good offense. The Kamala foreign policy thinks the best defense is a weak defense and that we don't do offense. With the world going to hell, we had better pick a president who would listen to advisors taking America's side in a fight.

X22, And we Know, and more- Oct 7

 

Are We All Criminals Now?

posted by J.B. Shurk at American Thinker 

If Western nations replaced their respective fiat currencies with digital versions (as many advocates for individual liberty fear they will soon do), would organized crime disappear?  

If the answer is, “No,” why not?  Don’t human traffickers and international drug cartels depend upon a supply of paper currency that they can move back and forth across borders and launder through unrelated businesses for future use?  If there were no money except for the digital ones and zeroes created and monitored by national governments, surely major criminal organizations would have no way to operate and nowhere to hide. 

How could prostitution and corner drug sales survive within a system that traces all digital transactions in real time?  How could black market trades in illicit commerce or between sanctioned nations continue if Western central banks actively surveil each digital dollar that changes hands?  Surely the imposition of government-mandated digital currencies would usher in a more peaceful planet that is relatively free of crime…right?

If you’re still not convinced, let me suggest what might be tripping you up: your instincts tell you that criminals will find a way to skirt any future digital surveillance.  Somehow, human ingenuity will succeed in creating effective workarounds to government-imposed central bank digital currencies.  The sale of illegal narcotics, weapons, and other banned materials will continue around the world because, at the end of the day, humans adapt and overcome whatever obstacles stand in their way.  Crime will continue to exist because criminals will continue to exist, and criminals will continue to exist because in every generation some faction of the human race behaves immorally, disregards social mores, or flat out refuses to obey.

If this is your conclusion — and I think it is the correct one — then don’t ordinary, non-criminal citizens also have a choice about what the future holds?  If you believe that criminals are wily enough to fashion workarounds to totalitarian government, then shouldn’t you expect defenders of liberty to be similarly inventive?  If so, then perhaps our worries about the future do not revolve around the idea that ordinary citizens will have no way to evade and overcome government tyranny but rather that the path to doing so might make many of us “criminals,” too.

An immoral law is no law at all — which is to say, whenever governments use the force of law to coerce citizens to do immoral things, moral citizens will choose to become “criminals.”  This is more difficult than it sounds.  

It is natural for people to overestimate their willingness to stand up to the State in matters of conscience.  From the comfort of our armchairs, we often judge too harshly those who yielded to tyrants in the past because we cannot step faithfully into our ancestors’ shoes.  We cannot accurately feel what they experienced as the coercive machinery of the State operated in their day.  Would we have hidden Jews in our cellars while the Nazis were rounding them up to be murdered in camps?  Would we have taken a strong stance against Japanese internment during WWII?  Would we have opposed racial segregation laws in Brazil and the United States, caste oppression in India, or ethnic cleansing in Africa, the Balkans, and the Middle East?  Many people would proudly say, “Yes.”  Most would be sorely mistaken.  Standing up to evil when it is backed by the authority of government offices and enforced by real human beings with guns and badges is no easy thing.  Moral people too often balance an abundance of conviction with a scarcity of courage.

The question of moral courage becomes even more difficult when we ask ourselves what we would do in situations that don’t rise to the level of evil we associate with persecution and genocide.  In 1933 President Roosevelt ordered Americans to hand over their gold savings.  Although justified as a policy for fighting the worsening depression, critics warned that the action was nothing short of government-sanctioned robbery and would only increase inflation and exacerbate economic suffering.  The critics were right, and a substantial number of Americans denounced the president’s order as entirely immoral.  Still, most complied. 

What would we do if the government came for our greenbacks, gold, silver, or bitcoin today?  If the Federal Reserve and the Department of Treasury joined other Western central banks in making all digital currencies illegal except their own, would you comply?  What if the FBI claimed that uncontrolled, decentralized currencies are used only by criminals who are most likely narco-terrorists and child sex-slavers?  Would federal officials’ concerted efforts to use your morality and sense of shame as psychological weapons ultimately succeed?  If the U.S. government used those same moral arguments to trash the Second Amendment and confiscate Americans’ firearms, would you hand over your weapons?  What if all your favorite athletes, movie stars, and musicians told you 24/7 that we must disarm ourselves in order to “save the children”?  Would you allow others to shame you into compliance? 

Many Americans might do their best Charlton Heston impression here and declare, “From my cold, dead hands.”  But how many of those same Americans quickly submitted to the government because of a virus not too dissimilar from the common cold?  How many wore masks in Walmart in order to avoid accusatory stares from strangers?  How many sat in cordoned-off stadium seats at empty ballparks or paid full tuition for college classes taught entirely online?  How many did what they were told when faceless bureaucrats demanded that they stand six feet apart or isolate inside their homes?  How many ultimately took at least one injection of an experimental “vaccine” because employers threatened their jobs, hospitals threatened not to treat their unrelated health conditions, or police officers threatened them with arrests and fines?  As Hannah Arendt so insightfully observed, crimes against humanity usually come not from the hands of monsters but from those of ordinary people.  Because they are ordinary, we too often disregard our worries, avoid conflict, and comply. 

Every act of compliance comes with two costs: we lose whatever liberty we freely hand over, and we invite further encroachment upon our liberty in the future.  Loss of personal freedom is like a loose thread that gets only longer with time.  Before you can repair the damage, you must make sure that your rights and liberties stop unraveling.  There has to be a moment when people say, “Enough.” 

In other words, there has to be a moment when citizens accept that the State sees them as common criminals.  The price for speaking our minds will not stop with censorship.  It will not stop with de-banking.  It will not stop with professional blacklisting.  It will not stop with the J6 political prisoners.  It will not stop with all the Republican attorneys who have been disbarred and prosecuted for fighting election fraud.  It will not stop with the DOJ’s efforts to imprison President Trump.  It will not stop with all the servicemembers whose military careers came to an end because they refused to submit to the government’s experimental “vaccines.”  Like a loose thread coming undone, the State will continue to yank at our freedoms until we are left naked.  Only we can decide whether to remain so.

Because we have a choice, we don’t really fear that there is nothing that can be done about growing totalitarianism in the West.  We are apprehensive about what will be required to thwart it.  That’s a fine and prudent feeling to have, but it’s altogether different from the miserable dread of acquiescence.  Knowing that a fight is coming and worrying about its costs do not reflect weakness.  Nor does it matter whether an immoral government calls moral people, “criminals.”  We’ll have to get over that.

Ten Prepping Tips We Should All Be Following

posted by Scott Morefield at Townhall 

Events like Hurricane Helene and the shipyard worker holdout tend to turn most everyone into ‘preppers’ to some degree or another. I witnessed this firsthand when I walked into my local Sam’s today and saw the back shelves - where they normally keep mile-high stacks of various brands of toilet paper and paper towels - completely bare. When I commented to the cashier about it she told me it was a combination of Helene relief efforts and panic buying from the strike.

Panic buying, of course, is never a good thing, but the cycle repeats itself anytime there’s a ripple or even the threat of a ripple in the normalcy most of us have come to enjoy over the past several decades. When this happens, a few people hoard all the needed supplies, leaving supply lines strained and everyone else out in the cold. I understand the impulse to want to be prepared for something you know that’s coming or is already here, but my point here is that you shouldn’t put yourself in a panic-buying situation. Instead, you should buy before the panic, slowly and methodically, so you don’t get caught with your pants down and even become part of the problem when the sh*t hits the fan, whatever that looks like.

In other words, we should ALL be ‘preppers.’ Meaning, we should all be prepared at least to some degree for whatever is coming our way. If recent events haven’t convinced you of this, I don’t know what will.

Does being a ‘prepper’ mean you have to go off-grid, build a bunker, and apply for a slot on Doomsday Preppers? Sure, if that’s what you want to do and you have the means and the will, go for it. But that doesn’t define most of us. It’s quite possible to live a normal life and still be at least somewhat prepared. Here are a few basic tips to get you started:

Buy what you like, then buy more

What you prep should fit your lifestyle—common sense stuff. If you and your family love spaghetti, stock up on pasta and cans of diced tomatoes. If you don’t like pinto beans, don’t buy them because you don’t eat them and they’ll just go to waste. (Besides, they don’t last as long as you think they do without becoming impossible to soften.)

Along this vein, if you can work longer-lasting ingredients into your daily meals, so much the better. For example, our family routinely cooks some meals with a canned chicken we get from Sam’s with a two to three years off expiration date, allowing us to store plenty of them and cycle through before they expire.

Do it gradually

If you normally buy two cans of that canned chicken, go ahead and buy four that trip, and so on. Over a few months, your pantry will grow, you won’t stretch your budget too much, and expiration dates will be staggered appropriately.

Organize your supplies, then FIFO

Don’t just stick boxes in the garage, the back of a cabinet, or a corner somewhere. Instead, organize them so you always know what you have, and you can reach the oldest first. Make FIFO (first in, first out) an automatic, ingrained practice.

Watch those expiration dates

You can often take expiration dates with a grain of salt, more of a suggestion, really. For example, most canned goods last much longer than their expiration date. But you should still do your research and know how long things last, how much you and your family consume, and how much of an item you can stock up on without having to later throw things away.

Learn how to grind wheat

On the surface, this probably seems like an advanced tip, but it’s really not. We’ve been grinding our wheat using a Nutrimill grinder since 2008 and find it super easy and satisfying. The pre-ground wheat can be stored for decades (nullifying any expiration date concerns), and the ground wheat flour is far more nutritious than the stripped-down version you get from stores. Using home-ground flour for at least some of your bread products is healthier, cheaper, and conducive to long-term prepping.

Paper goods last forever

Go ahead and stock up on paper towels, cases of toilet paper, and other things that basically last forever. But again, do it gradually so you’re not stretching your budget, storage space, or supply lines. 

Buy a toilet bidet

Basic toilet bidets are cheap, easy to install, don’t need power, and will save a TON of toilet paper while getting you far cleaner than TP ever could. I know it’s icky to talk about, but there it is. Trust me, once you make the switch, you won’t be able to imagine life without one. It’s just that much of a positive change.

Buy a generator

As with everything else, the time to buy a generator is not after a hurricane strikes but well before. Purchase a good one, learn how it works, and be able to switch to it to run critical systems (e.g., your refrigerator) when/if the power goes out for any significant amount of time.

Diversify your power

Between gas, wood, propane, kerosene, solar, and generators, the more you have, the better you’ll withstand a long-term outage. In this case, and the one to follow, diversity IS strength.

Diversify your money

I’m not here to give you investment advice except to say your portfolio should consist of more than a stock market-based 401K. Think gold, silver, bitcoin, cash, etc. Have a little of everything so you won’t be caught flat-footed when/if the stock market dives.

There are certainly plenty more I could have included, but those are a good start. Even though it can feel like the world is coming apart at the seams, being reasonably prepared is something we can all control. And the peace of mind that comes with that is worth more than the money or effort you’ll spend. The time to prep is yesterday, not when a disaster is imminent. But if yesterday doesn’t work, today will have to do it.

How Is CBS Marking October 7? By Admonishing Tony Dokoupil

The journalist did his job by asking tough questions of Ta-Nehisi Coates. That’s when the trouble began.

Last week, CBS journalist Tony Dokoupil conducted an interview with the writer Ta-Nehisi Coates whose new book, The Message, includes a one-sided polemic against Israel. 

Coates himself describes his book as an effort to debunk the complexities journalists invoke to obscure Israel’s occupation. He complained in an interview with New York magazine that the argument that the conflict was “complicated” was “horseshit,” that was how defenders of slavery and segregation described these plagues a century ago. 

“It’s complicated,” he said, “when you want to take something from somebody.”

So Dokoupil asked him about it.

“Why leave out that Israel is surrounded by countries that want to eliminate it?” 

“Why leave out that Israel deals with terror groups that want to eliminate it?” 

“Why not detail anything of the first and second intifada. . . the cafe bombings, the bus bombings, the little kids blown to bits?”

In other words, Tony Dokoupil did his job. 

That’s when his troubles began. 

One might think that respectfully challenging a source that presents misinformation or a picture so limited that it obscures the truth is what journalism’s all about. That’s exactly what CBS does in the aftermath of school shootings or when covering bans on critical race theory in local school districts. 

But on this subject—or perhaps it’s this particular author—honesty and integrity are now an unforgivable act of editorial malpractice. At least that is what CBS News is telling its own staff when it comes to Dokoupil’s interview of Coates on September 30. 

During its editorial meeting on Monday at 9 a.m.—the morning of October 7—the network’s top brass all but apologized for the interview to staff, saying that it did not meet the company’s “editorial standards.” After being introduced by Wendy McMahon, the head of CBS News, Adrienne Roark, who is in charge of news gathering at the network, began her remarks by saying covering a story like October 7 “requires empathy, respect, and a commitment to truth.” 

After quoting extensively from the CBS News handbook, she said, “We will still ask tough questions. We will still hold people accountable. But we will do so objectively, which means checking our biases and opinions at the door.”

“We are here to report news without fear or favor,” Roark added. “There are times we fail our audiences and each other. We’re in one of those times right now, and it’s been growing. And we’re at a tipping point. Many of you have reached out to express concerns about recent reporting. Specifically about the CBS Mornings Coates interview last week as well as comments made coming out of some of our correspondents’ reporting. 

“I want to acknowledge and apologize that it’s taken this long to have this conversation.

“This goes way beyond one interview, one comment, one story. This is about preserving the legacy of neutrality and objectivity that is CBS News,” she said. “We want every show to be a place for courageous and robust conversations and discussions.” 

Roark of course was talking about Dokoupil’s interview with Coates and suggesting that somehow his interview impugned the network’s “legacy of neutrality and objectivity.” 

Not everyone was buying it. CBS reporter Jan Crawford, who has been the CBS chief legal correspondent since 2009, rushed to Dokoupil’s defense.

“It sounds like we are calling out one of our anchors in a somewhat public setting on this call for failing to meet editorial standards for, I’m not even sure what,” she said. “I thought our commitment was to truth. 

And when someone comes on our air with a one-sided account of a very complex situation, as Coates himself acknowledges that he has, it’s my understanding that as journalists we are obligated to challenge that worldview so that our viewers can have that access to the truth or a fuller account, a more balanced account. And, to me, that is what Tony did.”

Crawford went on: “Tony prevented a one-sided account from being broadcast on our network that was completely devoid of history or facts. As someone who does a lot of interviews, I’m not sure now how to proceed in challenging viewpoints that are obviously one-sided and devoid of fact and history.”

An industry source said that Crawford has “balls of steel” and “is one of the most respected journalists at CBS.” He added: “It’s disgraceful that management chose not to answer her question in front of the whole group on the call.” 

But it should not take courage in an American newsroom to state what is obviously true. 

Keep in mind that this editorial meeting was held on the one-year anniversary of the October 7 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel. The harshest thing that Dokoupil said in his interview with Coates was: “If I took your name out of it, took away the awards, and the acclaim, took the cover off the book, the publishing house goes away—the content of that section would not be out of place in the backpack of an extremist.” 

That’s putting it mildly. As our own Coleman Hughes wrote in his review of Coates’s book, it “doesn’t even mention the word Hamas—or Fatah, or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Hezbollah, or Iran—once. In his telling, the threats don’t exist, only the barriers that Israel erects to contain them.” 

We suppose that has the advantage of eschewing complexity. But this simplistic telling of the Israel-Palestinian conflict omits so much complicating history that it’s no different than a lie. It would be like writing a book about the Civil War that blames the war on the Union without ever mentioning slavery.  

The other thing worth noticing is CBS’s double standard. Here was Gayle King on May 26, 2020, after the news broke that George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. “I am speechless. I am really, really speechless about what we’re seeing on television this morning. It feels to me like open season… and that sometimes it’s not a safe place to be in this country for black men,” she said, holding back tears. 

In the case of King—on the subjects of wokeism, racism, Black Lives Matter, and gun rights—her “lived experience” is an asset to the newsroom. As it should be. But for Dokoupil, his experience as the father of Jewish children who live in Israel, has no place in an interview with an author sharing his cartoonish indictment of the world’s only Jewish state. 

The sad truth is that Coates is not speaking truth to power. He is echoing the new consensus of the powerful. One can find more sophisticated versions of The Message in the course catalogs of Ivy League universities, the editorial pages of leading newspapers, and in the reports of well-funded NGOs. 

It is journalists like Tony Dokoupil who are an endangered species in legacy news organizations, which are wilting to the pressures of this new elite consensus. 

 https://www.thefp.com/p/cbs-marks-october-7-by-admonishing-tony-dokoupil?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=260347&post_id=149932156&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=rd3ao&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

Hillary Clinton Wants Increased Censorship and Control Over U.S. Social Media Platforms

Sundance reporting for Conservative Treehouse 

The latter part of 2010 through 2011 was a key period in the Obama presidency.  On the cusp of a midterm election shellacking, with domestic focus on the issues around Obamacare, the Obama team and Hillary Clinton team were also intent on fueling the “Arab Spring” and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya and Egypt.

With background research provided by the U.S. State Dept and Rivkin Project in France, a petri-dish dish experiment to see if French culture could be diluted and enhanced with “brotherhood-style” multiculturalism, Hillary and Barry then fine-tuned the mechanics.  Secretary Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power and Susan Rice quickly convinced President Obama to help leverage his Silicon Valley allies.

As a workaround to stop Hosni Mubarak and Muamar Kaddafi from controlling information flow and putting down the protests, the social media platforms of Twitter and Facebook were enlisted to assist the Brotherhood in Egypt and Libya respectively.  The U.S-designated Brotherhood partners were given support, communication and influence through Twitter and Facebook to organize their protests.

In 2011 the official merge of U.S. social media platforms to assist the U.S. State Dept foreign policy agenda was created.  In many ways this merge was the inflection point for government to begin controlling social media, Libya and Egypt were the BETA test for what would later be deployed domestically.

Seeing the success and influence of the Arab Spring experiment, in 2012 President Obama signed HR-5736, with an addition to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.  The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, contained within the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013, eased some restrictions so that media produced by the U.S. Agency for Global Media and intended for foreign audiences could be distributed domestically upon request, according to its text. Prior to its passage, the propaganda content was banned from being disseminated in America.

This move made it possible to deploy the same social media tactics domestically.  Within the Twitter Files, you will note how 2012 and 2013 are key periods when the Dept of Homeland Security began exploring their new influence partnership in social media.   For the next ten years, that partnership created various sub-set silos within the government.

DHS, FBI and Intelligence Community offices now had direct communication lines into Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Google, WhatsAp, etc.  However, Telegram and TikTok were not around and not part of the partnership.  What two platforms have been targeted recently?… Just a coincidence, I’m sure.

The Arab Spring was the BETA test, the proving ground.  Then they went domestic with the same operation.

The results of the domestic operation, the public-private partnership, later became stunningly visible in the COVID-19 censorship operation as well as the government influence operation in the aftermath of the 2020 election.  However, most recently there has been some pushback from both originating entities; Twitter – via Elon Musk, and Facebook – via a regretful Mark Zuckerberg.

Remember, Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State when this entire system was originating.

This is the fullest context to absorb the video soundbite below.  Hillary Clinton is upset that control over social media platforms is slipping away. Hillary Clinton now saying, ‘we lose total control’ if we don’t ‘Moderate & Monitor’ social media more. WATCH:

Hillary Clinton is frustrated because from her perspective so much progress had been made.

Now, suddenly, with increased scrutiny and a more awakened public seeing the consequences, it is harder for the government to execute their domestic propaganda operations.  Even the labeling and categorization through “mis-dis-mal-information” does not appear to be working.

Within the recent WEF discussion, Secretary Kerry outlines how freedom of speech is a ‘threat to the global democracy‘ because the governing officials have a difficult time controlling information.  Kerry goes on to posit how the next administration, presumably in his hope Kamala Harris, will forcefully structure all the tools of government to stop Americans from using the first amendment to freely speak about issues.

Governing is too challenging, according to Kerry, when the government cannot stop people from seeking and discovering information that is against their interests.  Effective governing required compliant adherence to a singular ideology.  Against the backdrop of COVID-19 and a host of similarly related government narratives, if people are free to find alternative information and think for themselves, they become increasingly more difficult to control.  Yes, this is said quite openly.  This is the mindset of those in power.  WATCH: 

On a positive note, millions of people now accurately understand why it is so important to refute the terms “mis-dis-mal information.”  When CTH initially warned about the labeling, most people did not understand; however, as the consequences begin to surface, I would argue almost a majority of people now understand.

…”There is no such thing as “disinformation” or “misinformation”.  There is only information you accept and information you do not accept.  You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told; rather, you were born with a brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions.”… 

The absence of control creates fear.