Apparently when President Barack H Obama said that Aliens were real, his opinion was party based on classified “classified intelligence material.” As noted by President Trump earlier today, he may have to declassify material related to the statements of Obama in order to protect him from prosecution…
.
Telegram platform founder Pavel Durov is one of very few tech CEOs who is consistent in his efforts to protect information from the grip of government censorship. Today, Durov used his platform to warn Telegram users in Spain what is pending:
[VIA Pavel Durov X Account] – Today, Telegram notified all its users in Spain with this alert:
Pedro Sánchez’s government is pushing dangerous new regulations that threaten your internet freedoms. Announced just yesterday, these measures could turn Spain into a surveillance state under the guise of “protection.” Here’s why they’re a red flag for free speech and privacy:
1. Ban on social media for under-16s with mandatory age verification: This isn’t just about kids—it requires platforms to use strict checks, like needing IDs or biometrics.
⚠️ Danger: It sets a precedent for tracking EVERY user’s identity, eroding anonymity and opening doors to mass data collection. What starts with minors could expand to all, stifling open discourse.
2. Personal and criminal liability for platform executives: If “illegal, hateful, or harmful” content isn’t removed fast enough, bosses face jail.
⚠️ Danger: This will force over-censorship—platforms will delete anything remotely controversial to avoid risks, silencing political dissent, journalism, and everyday opinions. Your voice could be next if it challenges the status quo.
3. Criminalizing algorithm amplification: Amplifying “harmful” content via algorithms becomes a crime.
⚠️ Danger: Governments will dictate what you see, burying opposing views and creating echo chambers controlled by the state. Free exploration of ideas? Gone—replaced by curated propaganda.
4. “Hate and polarization footprint” tracking: Platforms must monitor and report how they “fuel division.”
⚠️ Danger: Vague definitions of “hate” could label criticism of the government as divisive, leading to shutdowns or fines. This can be a tool for suppressing opposition.
These aren’t safeguards; they’re steps toward total control. We’ve seen this playbook before—governments weaponizing “safety” to censor critics. On Telegram, we prioritize your privacy and freedom: strong encryption, no backdoors, and resistance to overreach.
✊ Stay vigilant, Spain. Demand transparency and fight for your rights. Share this widely—before it’s too late. [SOURCE]
One of the reasons I am so strongly against the use of AI to frame points of opinion and thinking, is specifically because AI is programmed to review information only from approved sources. When you use AI as a search and information tool, the algorithm that launches the search is under the control of the engineer who instructs the system where to look for responsive information.
When the algorithm controls information, the algorithm controls the definitions of truth or facts. The algorithm is then manipulated to reward speech that complies to the approved message and punishes speech that runs counter to the approved definitions. This is dangerous, yet I see it surfacing everywhere.
In the bigger picture, Pavel Durov is warning about allowing government to control information, and this is a direct alignment with the mis-dis-mal-information effort that has been ongoing for several years. We all experienced the outcomes of this in the COVID-19 era and the severe manipulation of information.
My position: 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.
When you accept the terms “disinformation”, “misinformation” or the newest lingo, “malinformation,” you are beginning to categorize truth and lies in various shades. You are merging black and white, right and wrong, into various shades of grey.
When your mind works in the grey zone, you are, by direct and factual consequence, saying there is a problem. You are correct; however, this is where people may make a mistake. The problem is supposed to be there.
It is not a solution to the problem to try and remove the grey by using artificial intelligence simply because it takes too much work to separate the white pixels from the black ones. You were born with a gift, the greatest gift a loving God could provide. You were born with a brain and set of natural instincts that are tools to do this pixel separation, use them.
If you define the grey work as a problem you cannot solve on your own, you open the door for others to solve that problem for you. When you use AI to assist your understanding, you begin to abdicate the independent brain work, that’s when trouble can enter.
Put more clearly, when you accept the terminology “disinformation”, you accept a problem.
The problem is then the tool by which authorities will step in to make judgements.
Speech, in its most consequential form, is then qualified by others to whom you have sub-contracted your thinking.
When you willingly sub-contract information filters to others, you have lost connection with the raw information.
CTH was founded upon the belief that truth has no agenda, nor does it care about you, your feelings, or your opinion of it. It just sits there, empirically existing as evidence of information in its most pure form.
The search for truth, in all things, is the mission objective of this assembly. Often, we don’t like the truth; often, the truth is bitter, cold, challenging and even painful to accept. However, the truth doesn’t care. Information in its most raw form is ambivalent to our opinion.
Personally, I am an absorber of information – perhaps on a scale that is unusual. But I do not discount information from any form until I can put context to it and see if the information makes sense given all the variables present.
Often, I find myself struggling in the grey and complex. It is not unusual to spend days researching, digging, clarifying a situation, only to discover the path to finding the truth is in another direction entirely. Erasing everything and starting over is frustrating, but it is genuinely the only approach that works; and often finding truth is supposed to be difficult, that’s why it is rewarding.
In the digital information age, we are bombarded with information. It is easy to be overwhelmed and need to find something or someone who has better skills at separating the black grains from the white ones. All opinions in this quest should be considered; thus, it is important to allow the free flow of information.
I am not necessarily a speech absolutist. There is some language that needs to be constrained if we are to participate in a respectful society, with grandma’s rules and knowing the audience. The CTH has guidelines for comments for this exact reason. However, those constraints need to be based on a set of inherent values, respect for each other, politeness. When it comes to information it is important to draw a distinction from speech.
Be careful about anyone saying we need to label or categorize information in order to control or remove speech from the discussion.
You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told; rather, you were born with a God-given brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions.
Pray. Trust in a loving God.
Be thankful that God has allowed you to see what is unfolding. Others that remain asleep are not as lucky as you. Ask yourself in prayer, why you. Why now? Then, think about this daily in your quiet time. Affirm your spirit and allow this sense of fortunate knowledge to elevate your faith and confidence in a loving and purposeful God. You have the unique gift of discernment. Ultimately, you have been chosen.
Be thankful. Remember, Romans 13:12
Live a positive, affirming, purposeful and incredible life.
Within every battle, challenge and contest we encounter, always remember to be thankful and continue living your very best life.
Border Patrol Commander at Large Greg Bovino and ICE Executive Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations Marcos Charles hold a press briefing to discuss and answer questions about ongoing operations in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The questions begin at 16:18 of the video below.
Greg Bovino notes the difference in Minneapolis, Minnesota is that the leftist groups are more organized and in direct communication with the state and local government. If you read between the lines what Bovino is saying is that anarchists, professional leftists and radical groups are in control of the government within the region. There is no distinction between the political officials in Minnesota and the leadership of the activists. WATCH:
.
The House Judiciary Committee has released the [VIDEO] and [TRANSCRIPT] of special prosecutor Jack Smith’s deposition. What is outlined within it is alarming in the extreme. I strongly urge anyone with any platform to review the details and quickly highlight the content therein. There is no time to waste.
Jack Smith appeared before the committee with three personal lawyers to support him. The content of the deposition is chilling in the extreme. While many will focus on the granular details of the testimony, I wish to highlight one of the more alarming aspects to the bigger picture.
The predicate for Jack Smith to prosecute President Trump for his efforts to “interfere in the 2020 election”, and thereby “challenge all democratic norms”, essentially boils down to Jack Smith accusing President Trump of participating in a fraud when he challenged the outcome of the 2020 election.
To get beyond President Trump’s first amendment right to free speech, Jack Smith claims Trump knowingly understood that Joe Biden had won the election; President Trump was told by senior Republican advisors that Biden had legitimately won the 2020 election; President Trump rejected the reality of the “truthful information” presented to him, and instead chose to launch a psychological operation against the American people, i.e. “fraud.”
It is the charge of “fraud” which underpins the entirety of the case against Donald Trump, as pursued by Jack Smith. The charge itself is predicated on definitions of what constitutes truthful information, and within that subset of predicate you begin to realize just how important it is to professional leftists that they control information.
The case was dropped after the results of the November 2024 election, won by President Trump. However, if President Trump had not won that election, the prosecution would have continued.
Jack Smith notes in his testimony, in the most Machiavellian way, that his primary prosecution approach was to present “Republican” witnesses like Mike Pence, who Smith cunningly said he could not discuss as he was restricted from revealing grand jury testimony.
Smith was prepared to present witness testimony from Pence and other political “Republicans” who told President Trump that Joe Biden had legitimately won the election, and Trump needed to concede. This testimony then forms the baseline for the definition of “truthful information” that Trump rejected out of a malice mindset to continue clinging to power.
In essence, Smith defines what is “truth” (Biden won), then outlines how that truthful information was delivered and how President Trump dismissed it. Therefore, President Trump’s “mens-rea”, or state of mind, was one of promoting an intentional falsehood. According to the Lawfare approach selected by Smith, this mindset is the predicate that blocks President Trump from using his First Amendment right to speech as a defense.
Intentional fraud is not allowed under the protections of “free speech.” Jack Smith wanted to prove that President Trump was engaged in intentional fraud, and wanted to prove his mindset therein through the use of Republican political voices who delivered information to President Trump.
Jack Smith sought to define “truth”, and then counter the free speech defense by mob agreement on what constitutes the “truth.” Under this predicate, President Trump was being prosecuted for a thought crime, and Jack Smith sought to legally prove he knew his thoughts.
The only way Jack Smith could prove fraud would be to prove that President Trump believed the information about Joe Biden winning the election. Smith sought to prove Trump’s belief by presenting Republican voices who told President Trump he lost.
Whether you like or dislike President Trump, the issue here is alarming when contemplated.
A man tells you a chicken is a frog, you laugh. The man then brings 15 of your family members to tell you a chicken is a frog. You reject the absurdity of the premise, but the man brings forth hundreds more people to tell you the chicken is a frog, and if you do not accept that Chickens are Frogs, you will be defined as mentally impaired, institutionalized and become a ward of the state.
[Insert any similar metaphor needed, including “what is a woman.”]
When we consider the current state of sociological, societal or government manipulation of information, and/or the need for government to control information (mis-dis-mal-information) as an overlay, you can quickly see where this type of legal predicate can take us. Bizarro world becomes a dystopian nightmare.
Yes, it is also clear that Leftists, inside that closed-door committee hearing, are intending to impeach President Trump on these grounds if they successfully win the 2026 midterm election. However, that is not the critical takeaway from this deposition. Instead, the critical takeaway is how the Lawfare construct can be twisted and manipulated to create the legal means to the leftist ends.
Stop the Division!
We cannot allow these communist, Marxist and leftist-minded control agents get back into power.
It’s not about Trump. It’s about us.
EU leaders from across the spectrum of their collective assembly, are furious with the administration of President Donald Trump for restricting their entry into the United States by blocking their visa permissions. However, these same EU leaders are the people who sent operatives into the United States in order to interfere in our 2024 election.
The Vice President of the European Commission, Kaja Kallas, sums up the European position: “The decision by the U.S. to impose travel restrictions on European citizens and officials is unacceptable and an attempt to challenge our sovereignty. Europe will keep defending its values — freedom of expression, fair digital rules, and the right to regulate our own space.”
The “attempt to challenge our sovereignty” statement is a particular type of hubris when we consider THIS:
GREAT BRITAIN (October 2024) – The British Labour Party is sending approximately 100 current and former staff members to the United States to work for Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign in key swing states.
Not only did the U.K attempt to challenge our sovereignty, but they also actively worked to influence the outcome of our national election in 2024.
The same pearl-clutching assembly, now standing jaw-agape at the Trump administration recognizing their censorship, are the same assembly who engaged in political operations intended to influence the voting voice of the American electorate.
Methinks they doth protest too much.
It is worth remembering the British intelligence operation, (Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), commonly known as MI6), was at the center of the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy in 2016.
The first EU political group to be targeted with the visa bans includes French former EU commissioner Thierry Breton, who was one of the architects of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). Also: Imran Ahmed, the British CEO of the U.S.-based Center for Countering Digital Hate, Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon of the German non-profit HateAid, and Clare Melford, co-founder of the Global Disinformation Index.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the first five people targeted with visa bans “have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize and suppress American viewpoints they oppose.”
I would say that given the direct nature of the U.K effort to undermine American viewpoints, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is being diplomatically generous in his visa ban.
Lyndon LaRouche (1922-2019) was a rather eclectic communist in the world of American politics for several generations. A few of his perspectives were sound and nationalistic. However, many of his perspectives were completely communist and slipped into the realm of geopolitical conspiracy theory finding British Imperialism under every rock and blaming Queen Elizabeth II for assassination attempts against him.
Susan Kokinda and Barbara Boyd of Promethean Action continue the LaRouche tradition while smoothing out some of the more outlandish elements and removing the overt communism the originating political movement was known for.
Barbara Boyd is the spokesperson and treasurer of the LaRouche Youth Movement. Boyd’s partner, Susan Kokinda, maintains a belief that eliminating British Imperialism is the objective of President Trump’s America-First policy agenda. This is where I disagree.
While the outcome of President Trump’s policy does factually lead to the result LaRouche advocated, I strongly doubt “eliminating British imperialism” is the prism through which Donald Trump’s thought process flows. That said, in the overall picture of American politics, the Kokinda and Boyd analysis of Trump’s international opposition is generally accurate, but their perspective on the domestic opposition is entirely shallow.
In their recent update, “Britains Secret Plot”, Susan Kokinda discusses how Marco Rubio is confronting the EU censorship program, and how President Trump’s national security strategy marks a significant departure from over a century of British-influenced American foreign policy. Her review delves into the geopolitical friction between the U.S. and the UK, particularly regarding their strategies toward Russia and Ukraine.
Mrs. Kokinda underscores the broader clash of worldviews between America-First sovereignty and British-led internationalism. This episode also examines the opposition Trump faces from within the U.S. political establishment and British geopolitical strategists and emphasizes the importance of maintaining political support to ensure the success of Trump’s transformative policies. WATCH:
The divergence between the worldview of the European Union and President Trump is accurately presented as above. The Ukraine/Russia war serves as a case study in how the two worldviews conflict. The core of U.K policy and national security strategy continues to view Russia as the biggest threat; the national security outlook by President Trump does not.
On the domestic side of the issue, there are several American elements in direct opposition to the geopolitical policy structure of President Trump. Understanding the domestic opposition to President Trump is where Kokinda/Boyd are shallow, while seeing British control behind every shadow.
In reality the domestic opposition to President Trump is the ideological left in combination with the Wall Street right. Currently the EU/U.K opposition to President Trump is in alignment with goals and objectives of the Sea Island group and the professionally republican.
Just as the Biden/Obama agenda included the targeting of President Trump for removal (Transition Integrity Project – originating group) in early January 2017, so too did another UniParty stop Trump operation begin in January 2025. We saw the latest iteration surface in the odd (at the time), narrative surrounding Qatar -vs- Israel.
The ideologically similar GOPe elements within the Sea Island network, tech and traditional Republican party, are all aligned due to opposition to Trump policy. They continue their efforts to divide elements from the larger MAGA network.
The use of the Qatar vs Israel wedge is clear within the billionaire tech/political group, and essentially distillates to 2028 positioning, JD Vance -vs- Ron DeSantis.
The battle was clear last week at TPUSA with the alligator emojis leveraging all the pressure they could toward the organization. The Ellison, Weiss, Shapiro goal was to steer Turning Point to support DeSantis. However, Erika Kirk endorsed JD Vance.
Now the alligator emojis, blind orcs for the Ellison agenda, hate TPUSA.
The European Union, France and Germany are furious at the U.S. State Department and Marco Rubio for issuing visa bans against European political figures who are involved in censorship under the guise of combating online hate and disinformation. Brussels said Wednesday it will “respond swiftly and decisively” against the “unjustified measures.”
The first EU political group to be targeted with the visa bans includes French former EU commissioner Thierry Breton, who was one of the architects of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). Also: Imran Ahmed, the British CEO of the U.S.-based Center for Countering Digital Hate, Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon of the German non-profit HateAid, and Clare Melford, co-founder of the Global Disinformation Index.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the first five people targeted with visa bans “have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize and suppress American viewpoints they oppose.”
STATE DEPT – Free speech is among the most cherished rights we enjoy as Americans. This right, legally enshrined in our constitution, has set us apart as a beacon of freedom around the world. Even as we take action to reject censorship at home, we see troubling instances of foreign governments and foreign officials picking up the slack. In some instances, foreign officials have taken flagrant censorship actions against U.S. tech companies and U.S. citizens and residents when they have no authority to do so.
Today, I am announcing a new visa restriction policy that will apply to foreign nationals who are responsible for censorship of protected expression in the United States. It is unacceptable for foreign officials to issue or threaten arrest warrants on U.S. citizens or U.S. residents for social media posts on American platforms while physically present on U.S. soil. It is similarly unacceptable for foreign officials to demand that American tech platforms adopt global content moderation policies or engage in censorship activity that reaches beyond their authority and into the United States. We will not tolerate encroachments upon American sovereignty, especially when such encroachments undermine the exercise of our fundamental right to free speech.
PARIS, Dec 24 (Reuters) – The European Union, France and Germany condemned U.S. visa bans on five Europeans combating online hate and disinformation on Wednesday, after President Donald Trump’s administration took its latest swipe at long-standing allies across the Atlantic.
[…] In Brussels, Paris and Berlin, senior officials condemned the U.S. bans, and defended Europe’s right to legislate on how foreign companies operate locally.
A European Commission spokesperson said it “strongly condemns the U.S. decision”, adding: “Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in Europe and a shared core value with the United States across the democratic world.”
The spokesperson said the EU would seek answers from Washington but said it could “respond swiftly and decisively” against the “unjustified measures”.
French President Emmanuel Macron, who has been travelling across France to warn about the dangers that disinformation poses to democracy, said he had spoken with Breton and thanked him for his work.
“We will not give up, and we will protect Europe’s independence and the freedom of Europeans,” Macron said on X. (more)
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard left nothing off the table when she gave remarks to the audience at Turning Point USA. In a remarkable and very well delivered speech, Director Gabbard outlines in detail the biggest domestic and geopolitical challenges currently being faced by President Trump and his administration.
Underpinning her remarks is a refreshing focus on “freedom” versus the dark clouds of security threats drumbeat by those who seek control. Tulsi Gabbard accurately summarizes the importance of staying focused on liberty, while accepting the nature of the biggest threat to our core values, political Islam.
Director Gabbard hits on the key issues of the day as it pertains to her position in government, and she emphasizes how the message of fear/security is used against those of us who cherish freedom. As she emphasizes the administration’s efforts toward peace, she also points out how Europe and NATO may not hold the same objective. Gabbard hits multiple points that all of us can agree with, while intertwining a personal message.
There is already a visible apoplexy in reaction to these remarks, from U.S and international media on behalf of their benefactors in the Deep State. WATCH:
Both Tulsi Gabbard and Marco Rubio have been exceptional standouts in the first year of the administration.
During a press conference on Wednesday, a Providence-area radio host, Chas Calenda, directly confronted Brown University officials and law enforcement with information he has received about the school intentionally disabling surveillance systems due to DEI concerns.
The response from university officials and the Providence Mayor indicate Mr. Chas Calenda’s informed accusation and question is directly on target. WATCH:
In addition to information we previously shared {GO DEEP} reflecting requests from various “civil rights” and “humanitarian” groups who demanded Brown University disable their surveillance system, additional information about the issue comes via the Rhode Island ACLU making the same demand in October of this year [SEE HERE].
Brown University was under pressure from far-left groups as an outcome of concern the CCTV and school security system would be used by federal authorities to (a) identify radical leftists expressing antisemitic sentiments, and (b) identify the immigration status of persons on campus. It is not just isolated to Brown University.
Multiple municipal governments, private and municipal agencies have received the same demand in an ongoing effort to block Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations. The mass shooting on Brown University is leading to a larger public awareness of an issue that has been spreading rapidly in the last several months.
The claim by Chas Calenda is that his local sources within law enforcement are confirming the university cowed to the concerns of the civil rights groups, including the removal of cameras. This is why there is no recorded CCTV footage, and the university is talking gibberish in their efforts to avoid admitting what has taken place.
Brown University and Providence police have $8 billion liability reasons to be less than honest with the alarmed public. The political ramifications of the story are also complicating the issue for Brown University, as well as local and national figures.
Here is the full press conference. The key question comes at the very end of the video 49:20.
As originally reported in August 2025 {SOURCE}, a group of far-left human rights advocates sent a letter to 150 U.S. colleges and universities asking them to disable the CCTV systems to protect “free expression and academic freedom across the country,” because “the Trump administration has launched an aggressive campaign against US academic institutions.”
The motive for the request to disable CCTV systems as stated: “Right now these tools are facilitating the identification and punishment of student protesters, undermining activists’ right to anonymity––a right the Supreme Court has affirmed as vital to free expression and political participation.” {SOURCE}
The letter from ‘Fight For The Future‘ (August, 2025) came after an earlier campaign by the same group seeking to stop the use of facial recognition cameras on college campuses. {SOURCE}
The Brown University President and school officials have been giving ridiculous answers to questions about the 800 cameras on the campus and the fact that no current footage exists of the shooter walking around inside the campus or inside the buildings therein.
The question is really a simple one. Did Brown University follow the requests of the hardline leftist groups who asked the school to disable the functioning of their surveillance network in order to protect the identity of the students on campus?
Obviously, this potential explanation would answer a lot of seemingly irreconcilable questions about the lack of surveillance footage available to local law enforcement, state police and FBI investigators. The only current footage of the shooter is from privately owned doorbell cameras and CCTV systems from businesses near the campus. No footage of the shooter on campus has been identified.
Against the factual evidence of Brown University receiving requests to disable their surveillance cameras, someone needs to ask the right question.
Everyone can see the potential ramifications here, along with the severity of the legal risk Brown University would be facing. Perhaps that dynamic is what’s behind the twisted wording and explanations coming from university and local officials.
A targeted political assassination of a young, female conservative vice-chair of the Brown University Republican group takes place. The ideological shooter benefits from the lack of school security and surveillance. That lack of security was intentionally created by ideological school administrators and officials bowing to pressure from ideologically aligned leftist organizations.
If accurate, this is quite a scenario on many levels; including a considerable legal risk, intentional and willful negligence, and massive lawsuit exposure in the aftermath of two deaths and 9 injured students. Brown University has an $8 billion endowment.
As everyone understands, a University like Brown creates a local economy unto itself. College towns like Providence, Rhode Island are college towns for a reason. The college is a considerable foundation for the economic wealth of the community. As an outcome, the local officials would be in full protection mode over their economic foundation. In this case, there are billions at stake.
Perhaps this dynamic explains all the conflicts and seemingly bizarre statements by local and university officials. WATCH:
.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
De Oppresso Liber
A group of Americans united by our commitment to Freedom, Constitutional Governance, and Civic Duty.
Share the truth at whatever cost.
De Oppresso Liber
Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine
De Oppresso Liber
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Australia's Front Line | Since 2011
See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors
Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News
De Oppresso Liber
Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com
Exposition and Encouragement
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
Real Estate Lending
Centinel2012 