Worse Than Watergate, Seven Members of Steven Colbert Television Crew Arrested Breaking Into Congressional Offices in DC Capitol


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 17, 2022 | Sundance

“On June 16, 2022, at approximately 8:30 p.m., U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) received a call for a disturbance in the Longworth House Office Building,” Capitol Police said in a statement obtained by the Washington Examiner. “Responding officers observed seven individuals, unescorted and without Congressional ID, in a sixth-floor hallway.” (read more)

Apparently, California congressman Adam Schiff was helping the television crew to break the law.  The group reportedly banged on doors of several Republican offices –  including that of Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California, Jim Jordan of Ohio and Lauren Boebert of Colorado — as they allegedly filmed a skit for Colbert’s “Late Show” program that was to center around the January 6 hearings.  The incident was covered by Jesse Watters on his broadcast this evening. WATCH:

Ruth Sent Us


Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption Re-Posted Jun 16, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

The Roe v. Wade document was released to the public to stir up emotions prior to the midterm elections. An extremist group called “Ruth Sent Us,” named after the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, deliberately leaked the addresses of six conservative members of the Court. The group has not been condemned, and they are permitted to operate and invoke terror in Biden’s America. “Our 6-3 extremist Supreme Court routinely issues rulings that hurt women, racial minorities, LGBTQ+ and immigrant rights. We must rise up to force accountability using a diversity of tactics,” the group claims on their website.

Justices Amy Coney Barrett, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch have been targeted. The situation reached a peak when a man armed with a pistol was arrested near Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house. He was carrying zip ties, a knife, and extra ammunition for his gun when he arrived at Kavanaugh’s home via taxi before being apprehended.

The House responded by passing a bill to protect the families of Supreme Court justices. However, 27 Democrats voted against the bill. Who leaked the bill? There does not appear to be an active investigation. “Somebody, likely somebody inside the court itself, leaked a confidential brief to the press, to stir up a pressure campaign,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned. “Whoever committed this lawless act knew exactly what it could bring about.” McConnell further warned that the leak is a threat to the trust that justices share with colleagues.

Justice Thomas is wary of Justice Roberts and stated that prior to 2005: “We actually trusted each other. We may have been a dysfunctional family, but we were a family, and we loved it.”

This is a direct threat to American democracy as the highest court is being threatened and top politicians are instigating violence. Kamala Harris claimed the Supreme Court is waging a war against women, Mayor Lori Lightfoot said the ruling is a “call to arms,” and the president has not condemned the group. So the question remains: who leaked the Roe v. Wade document?

CNN Puts Inflation into a Political Context


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 15, 2022 | Sundance

The people controlling policy behind the Biden administration do not care about polling or political consequence.  Biden is the one-term disposable tool for their collective effort to fundamentally change the United States.  They have a singular focus on pushing the most destructive and consequential Green New Deal policy regardless of collateral damage.  For them, using Joe Biden is a one-way ticket.

That said, none of the current political officeholders within the Democrat apparatus are going to escape the blast radius from this chaos.  CNN runs a segment asking the question, how bad is the damage going to be from the Joe Biden economic policy?  WATCH (90 secs):

.

Hawley and Grassley Receive Evidence from Whistleblower Showing DHS Intent to Weaponize Social Media to Control Information


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 9, 2022 | Sundance 

Thanks to a DHS whistleblower who has come forward to Senators Josh Hawley and Chuck Grassley, we are now seeing the direct evidence of how the Fourth Branch of Government, specifically the Dept of Homeland Security, were planning to take control over public discussion on Big Tech platforms. [Whistleblower Evidence HERE]

Previously the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) announced a new Dept of Homeland Security priority to combat disinformation {LINK} on technology platforms including social media.

Many eyebrows were raised as the original CISA announcement appeared to be an open admission that the U.S. government was going to control information by applying labels, that would align with allies in social media, who need a legal justification for censorship and content removal.  The whistleblower leak confirms exactly that.

This CISA announcement was quickly followed by various government officials and agencies saying it was critical to combat Russian disinformation, as the events in Ukraine unfolded.  In essence, Ukraine was the justification for search engines like Google, DuckDuckGo, and social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube to begin targeting information and content that did not align with the official U.S. government narrative.

Those same methods were deployed by the U.S. government, specifically the CDC and FDA, toward COVID-19 and the vaccination program. All of this background aligns with the previous visibility of a public-private partnership between the bureaucracy of government, the U.S. intelligence agencies and U.S. social media.  That partnership now forms the very cornerstone of the DHS/CISA effort to control what information exists in the public space.  It is highly important that people understand what is happening.

In July of 2021 the first admission of the official agenda behind the public-private partnership was made public {Reuters Article}.

What we are seeing now is an extension of the government control mechanisms, combined with a severe reaction by all stakeholders to the latest development in the Twitter takeover.

For two years the control mechanisms around information have been cemented by govt and Big Tech.  Even the deployment of the linguistics around disinformation, misinformation and malinformation is all part of that collective effort.  The collaboration between the government and Big Tech is not a matter for debate, it is all easily referenced by their own admissions.   The current issue is how they are deploying the information controls.

We have COVID-19, the vaccination effort and now Ukraine as examples of the collaboration to control information, to control what people are permitted to question and discuss on the internet.  Now things are getting much more detailed, and more alarming.

Shortly after Elon Musk made a bid to purchase a single information platform, Twitter, and then expressed his intent to open the speech valves, former Obama administration intelligence officials wrote a letter {SEE HERE} warning about efforts to break up the information control by Big Tech and Social Media.

That letter was shortly followed by a speech delivered by Obama himself where he specifically demanded that government take a larger role in the control of information {LINK}, essentially promoting an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’ to control information in the public sphere.

The internet search engine operators have already agreed to align with the interests of the government.  That’s not debatable as in the examples of Google {LINK) and DuckDuckGo {LINK} to name just two.  Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube have famously also expressed their intent to align with the control of information, based on the instructions and edicts of the same U.S. government agencies.   Again, this is not a conspiratorial claim, it is self admitted and we have all witnessed it.

Today, we are seeing the architecture of how they planned to organize the tools.

[Read Emails Here]

Biden Spreads Inflation Lies on Twitter. Jeff Bezos’ Response Is Priceless | DM CLIPS | Rubin Report


Posted originally on the The Rubin Report  on Rumble on May 23, 2022

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” talks about Jeff Bezos calling out Joe Biden’s inflation lies. Jeff Bezos attacked Joe Biden’s statement which connected inflation with corporate tax rates. Even Democrats like Bezos are turning on Biden as the US economy continues to tank amid inflation, supply chain problems, and market crashes.

Project Veritas Releases Video of Senior Twitter Engineer Describing Culture and Ideology of The Platform


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on May 16, 2022 | Sundance 

A senior engineer working for the Twitter social media platform is captured on undercover video explaining the culture and ideology of the people who work within the organization.

In the video Twitter Sr. Engineer, Siru Murugesan, a self-described communist, explains why most of his colleagues are freaked out about Twitter being purchased by Elon Musk and operating as a capitalistic company.  Many might have to work more than 4 hours a week to earn their salary. WATCH:

[NEW YORK – May 16, 2022] Project Veritas published explosive undercover footage on Monday night featuring one of Twitter’s senior engineers discussing the dynamics behind internal reactions to the acquisition of the tech company by business magnate, Elon Musk.

In the video, Twitter Sr. Engineer, Siru Murugesan, says many of his colleagues have voiced “this would be my last day if it happens,” referring to Musk’s high publicized intended purchase of Twitter. He also says employees at Twitter are “stress-eating” and “worried for our jobs.”

More significant than those soundbites are the reasons he says employees at Twitter feel this way. (read more)

The Twitter Bot Inquiry Intensifies as Musk is Seemingly Stiff Armed


Posted Originally on the conservative tree house on May 16, 2022 | Sundance

The ramifications for Twitter surrounding fake users or algorithmic bots are considerable.  One issue is overcharging advertisers for ad impressions based on mDAU’s, which are “monetized Daily Active Users.”  The second issue is an outcome of the first and relates to the valuation of Twitter.  If Twitter bots are higher than Twitter estimates, then the mDAU rate is overstated.

Elon Musk is indicating there may need to be a lowering of the purchase price unless Twitter becomes transparent with how they are calculating the number of bot users at less than 5%.  All outside reviews attempting to estimate the number of fake accounts, or bots, puts the estimations considerably higher than the claims by Twitter.  Elon Musk tweeted:

At “The All In Summit 2022,” Elon Musk gave the impression the purchase price of Twitter may be tenuous.  He said that a deal with a lower price tag is not “out of the question,” Bloomberg reported.  “Currently, what I’m being told is that there’s just no way to know the number of bots… It’s like, as unknowable as the human soul,” Musk said at the Miami conference, per a social media video, Bloomberg added.

Twitter CEO Parag Agrwal has responded to the controversy in a very obtuse twitter thread:

Let’s talk about spam. And let’s do so with the benefit of data, facts, and context…

First, let me state the obvious: spam harms the experience for real people on Twitter, and therefore can harm our business. As such, we are strongly incentivized to detect and remove as much spam as we possibly can, every single day. Anyone who suggests otherwise is just wrong.

Next, spam isn’t just ‘binary’ (human / not human). The most advanced spam campaigns use combinations of coordinated humans + automation. They also compromise real accounts, and then use them to advance their campaign. So – they are sophisticated and hard to catch.

Some final context: fighting spam is incredibly *dynamic*. The adversaries, their goals, and tactics evolve constantly – often in response to our work! You can’t build a set of rules to detect spam today, and hope they will still work tomorrow. They will not.

We suspend over half a million spam accounts every day, usually before any of you even see them on Twitter. We also lock millions of accounts each week that we suspect may be spam – if they can’t pass human verification challenges (captchas, phone verification, etc).

The hard challenge is that many accounts which look fake superficially – are actually real people. And some of the spam accounts which are actually the most dangerous – and cause the most harm to our users – can look totally legitimate on the surface.

Our team updates our systems and rules constantly to remove as much spam as possible, without inadvertently suspending real people or adding unnecessary friction for real people when they use Twitter: none of us want to solve a captcha every time we use Twitter.

Now, we know we aren’t perfect at catching spam. And so this is why, after all the spam removal I talked about above, we know some still slips through. We measure this internally. And every quarter, we have estimated that <5% of reported mDAU for the quarter are spam accounts.

Our estimate is based on multiple human reviews (in replicate) of thousands of accounts, that are sampled at random, consistently over time, from *accounts we count as mDAUs*. We do this every quarter, and we have been doing this for many years.

Each human review is based on Twitter rules that define spam and platform manipulation, and uses both public and private data (eg, IP address, phone number, geolocation, client/browser signatures, what the account does when it’s active…) to make a determination on each account.

The use of private data is particularly important to avoid misclassifying users who are actually real. FirstnameBunchOfNumbers with no profile pic and odd tweets might seem like a bot or spam to you, but behind the scenes we often see multiple indicators that it’s a real person.

Our actual internal estimates for the last four quarters were all well under 5% – based on the methodology outlined above. The error margins on our estimates give us confidence in our public statements each quarter.

Unfortunately, we don’t believe that this specific estimation can be performed externally, given the critical need to use both public and private information (which we can’t share). Externally, it’s not even possible to know which accounts are counted as mDAUs on any given day.

There are LOTS of details that are very important underneath this high-level description. We shared an overview of the estimation process with Elon a week ago and look forward to continuing the conversation with him, and all of you.  (Link to Twitter Article)

Methinks Parag Agrwal doth protest too much….  Especially if you overlay the ideological incentives that Twitter carries into its operational platform.

If you accept that Twitter is manipulating the public conversation intentionally (they are), then Twitter bots would serve an ideological function.  However, the issue of ‘bots’ operating on the Twitter platform is interesting when you consider the cost of platform operation.

On one hand, extensive auto-generated ‘bots’ would be an issue of cost and data-processing, a net negative.  On the other hand, the use of bots would be a manipulative practice for the creation of false impressions to generate advertising revenue.

If the scale of data-processing was subsidized, an outcome of a network of data processing centers -the AWS cloud- linked to government resources, the bots would not be a cost issue for the operation.  Despite the false impressions generated, bots would, however, under this weird situation, be useful for the manipulation of the conversation.

At the root of Elon Musk’s line of inquiry is the need to discover if this suspicion is true.

If the scale of bots has been underestimated (likely by a willfully blind operation) the advertising fees charged by Twitter were potentially fraudulent.  This is another operational reason (mitigating lawsuits from advertisers) for Musk to make the determination prior to the final purchase of the platform.

Taking Twitter private as a company, eliminating bots (which is essentially removing fraudulent users) then carries the potential benefits of both lowering costs and positioning the company to increase genuine ad revenue from authenticated users as real people.

Many people suspect the size of the political left on the Twitter platform is manipulated by programatic bots.  Meaning there seems to be more people on the left side of the spectrum because bots are deployed to give the impression of like-minded users.  I am one of the people who believe this suspicion is accurate, because it would be a typical way the ideological left operates.

The bots would be in addition to the deployment of algorithms that are designed to suppress speech the platform operators do not like.

I have long suspected the Twitter algorithm process is essentially assigning certain users into specifically designed data-processing containers where their voice is suppressed.   Some people call this ‘shadow-banning,’ I simply call it suppression.

Elon Musk represents a threat to the way the platform was/is designed to operate.  If Musk removes the discussion constraints, opens the containers and removes the restrictions, while simultaneously eliminating bots and fake accounts, the entire perspective of the platform could change very quickly.  This is what I think the current board and operators are trying to avoid.

Another rudimentary way to look at it…. Think about the last several months of public opinion polls.   Despite the efforts of a compliant media, repeatedly we see a 75/25 split against Biden and leftist policies.  The 3:4 and/or 4:5 ratio has been a consistent pattern for several months.  That ratio shows up in almost every poll.  However, if you look at Twitter that ratio is not present in the “organic” conversation about the same issues.

As CTH has said for many years, there are more of us than them.  However, Big Tech controls the mechanisms we use to communicate – and as a consequence the scale of our assembly is severely understated.

Twitter user fraud is the digital and social media equivalent to voter election fraud.   The voices raised in opposition to researching both issues are exactly the same.

Suspicious Cat remains, well, suspicious….

The BMJ: Evidence Based Medicine has Been Corrupted by “Corporate Interests, Failed Regulation, and the Commercialization of Academia”


Posted originally on TrialSite by Staff originally on April 21, 2022

A March 16 opinion piece in The BMJ raises some serious questions about what they call, “The illusion of evidence based medicine.” Authors Jon Jureidini and Leemon B. McHenry posit that the prominence of evidence-based medicine constituted a paradigm shift, meant to give a solid foundation in science for our medical care system. But the validity of the paradigm depends of accurate data from clinical trials, and most of these are conducted by the pharma industry and then published under the name of “senior academics.” Public release of what had been confidential pharma industry documents gives the medical world key insights into the level to which pharma-sponsored trials are mischaracterized. Getting a bit philosophical, The BMJ argues that critical rationalism is key for both the integrity of science and the role of science, “in an open, democratic society.” But this ideal is under threat by corporate power, a world in which, “financial interests trump the common good.” The dominance of massive pharma firms involves some competition, but all these players are united in working to expand the general pharma market. And while what the authors call, “free market champions” have embraced privatization, “the unintended, long-term consequences for medicine have been severe.”

Medical Schools Take Neo-Liberal Approach

Knowledge and data ownership hamper progress in science due to the fact that the pharma industry tends to suppress negative trial outcomes, not report adverse events, and not share their raw data with the research community. To quote The BMJ, “Patients die because of the adverse impact of commercial interests on the research agenda, universities, and regulators.” And duty to shareholders’ “hierarchical power structures” prioritizes both product loyalty and public relations over integrity. Further, while our fancier universities face influence from their endowments, “they have long laid claim to being guardians of truth and the moral conscience of society.” And facing reduced government funding, these schools have taken the, “neo-liberal market approach,” seeking out pharma funding, with strings attached.

Doctors as “Product Champions”

And thus, science departments at a broad swath of our universities can be seen as “instruments of industry.” When you combine firm-level control of the research agenda and the “ghosting writing of medical journal articles and continuing medical education,” scholars can transform into promotors of commercial products. Further, media reports of “industry-academe partnerships[s]” add to a general mistrust of our academic institutions that betrays the very vision of an open society. And what The BMJ calls the “corporate university” itself undermines the idea of academic leadership. Where once deans were folks with “distinguished contributions to their disciplines,” now they are more of fundraisers/academic managers who must show their “profitability” and ability to attract corporate sponsorship. And medical academia’s stars, who tend to be opinion leaders, advance their careers via industry opportunities. These folks are hired based largely on their influence on the “prescribing habits” of other doctors. The opinion leaders are also often well-paid by pharmaceutical advisory boards and speakers’ bureaus in the context of presenting results of pharma industry trials. And instead of being “independent, disinterested scientists,” they can become “product champions,” in the parlance of marketing executives.

Reforms Called For

Proposals for reform can include, “liberation of regulators from drug company funding; taxation imposed on pharmaceutical companies to allow public funding of independent trials; and, perhaps most importantly, anonymized individual patient level trial data posted, along with study protocols, on suitably accessible websites so that third parties, self-nominated or commissioned by health technology agencies, could rigorously evaluate the methodology and trial results.” For readers seeking more information, the American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 7.1.4 sets out that organization’s policies on conflicts of interest in industry-funded research.

A March 16 opinion piece in The BMJ raises some serious questions about what they call, “The illusion of evidence based medicine.” Authors Jon Jureidini and Leemon B. McHenry posit that the prominence of evidence-based medicine constituted a paradigm shift, meant to give a solid foundation in science for our medical care system. But the validity of the paradigm depends of accurate data from clinical trials, and most of these are conducted by the pharma industry and then published under the name of “senior academics.” Public release of what had been confidential pharma industry documents gives the medical world key insights into the level to which pharma-sponsored trials are mischaracterized. Getting a bit philosophical, The BMJ argues that critical rationalism is key for both the integrity of science and the role of science, “in an open, democratic society.” But this ideal is under threat by corporate power, a world in which, “financial interests trump the common good.” The dominance of massive pharma firms involves some competition, but all these players are united in working to expand the general pharma market. And while what the authors call, “free market champions” have embraced privatization, “the unintended, long-term consequences for medicine have been severe.”

Medical Schools Take Neo-Liberal Approach

Too Dangerous to Allow Elon Musk Control Over So Much Data Says Washington Post


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 19, 2022 | sundance

The latest developments in the effort to purchase the unsustainable magic coffee shop are quite revealing.

According to the New York Post, “Musk himself is willing to invest between $10 billion and $15 billion of his own cash to take Twitter private, two sources close to the situation said. That’s up from the current 9.1% stake in the company he revealed on April 4, which is worth about $3.4 billion.”

However, more revealing about the overall issue are the comments from the PR firm of the U.S. Intelligence Community, The Washington Post:

(WaPo) […] “Putting so much power in the hands of one company is bad enough, but putting it in the hands of one person, as is largely the case with Facebook shareholder Mark Zuckerberg and would be the case if Twitter were owned by Musk, would be incompatible with democracy.” 

“There are simply no checks and balances from any internal or external force,” … “It would leave Musk, like Zuckerberg, with an amount of assembled data about people and the ability to use it to manipulate them “that cannot be compared to anything that has ever existed, and allows intervention into the integrity of individual behavior and also the integrity of collective behavior.” (read more)

People are starting to catch on to the reality that costs for data processing on many social media platforms (the free coffee), exceeds the ability of the platform to generate revenue.  People are starting to understand that behind the scenes of the Big Tech consortium, there is something else, some other operational construct and mechanism, that subsidizes & facilitates their existence.

It is very revealing how the intelligence apparatus of the United States had no issue with Twitter data and influence, until the potential for private ownership, perhaps uncontrolled private ownership, surfaced.  Do not be naïve in pretending not to know how The Washington Post represents the interests of the intelligence apparatus.

In the long arc of history, I truly believe we will discover the inflection moment for the merge of U.S. Deep State (intel community) and U.S. Social Media, will be identified in the early moments of the Arab Spring of 2010/2011.  That was when Facebook and Twitter became tools for the State Dept operation in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Bahrain and beyond.  That was the beta-test of synergy.

“Arab Social Media Report by the Dubai School of Government give empirical heft to the conventional wisdom that Facebook and Twitter abetted if not enabled the historic region-wide uprisings of early 2011.” (LINK)

It was from that original, albeit misguided and manipulative partnership, when the actual details about how to create the social surveillance state was first tested.   Everything after those events more than a decade ago, has been this rapidly evolving blend of social media technology and the capacity of the U.S. intelligence apparatus to create and fund the underlying structures.

Daily, we see numerous examples of the ideological control that surfaces as a direct result of this public-private partnership, the closed-conversations between deep government interests (the Fourth Branch) and social media companies which are dependent on the subsidized technology for them to exist.

Perhaps 2022 represents the first time the commonsense of the American electorate begins to recognize the fallacy of the ‘free coffee’ business model.  Personally, I am very optimistic people will soon recognize what many have suspected for a long time.

Ultimately the question becomes, how far will the U.S. Fourth Branch of Government go to stop people from understanding?

Marc Andreessen believes Govt and Big Tech will double, triple and quadruple down to keep their public-private partnership, the backbone of the Free Coffee Shop, hidden.  I cannot say I disagree, because ultimately it is still only the minority of people who understand the stakes.  However, on the upside, the number of people who are starting to understand it, is growing almost exponentially thanks to Elon Musk.

(Source Link)

This is one of those situations where we should all welcome being called ‘conspiracy theorists’, because no matter how big the crowd is that refuses to believe it, ultimately the impossible business model of Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop will reveal everything.

That’s why the public-private partnership must stop Elon Musk.  As the Washington Post noted, this level of revelation “cannot be compared to anything that has ever existed.”

“Very shadowy” indeed.

Elon Musk Could Takeover Twitter


Armstrong Economics Blog/BigTech Re-Posted Apr 17, 2022 by Martin Armstrong