Posted originally on the CTH on January 4, 2025 | Sundance
With the full support of President Trump working the members, House Speaker Mike Johnson won the speakership again on the first round of voting with only Republican Thomas Massie voting against Johnson. This was the first test of Republican resistance to President Trump and the DeSantis House coalition, aka the Freedom Caucus, conceded their first defeat.
President Trump called Texas opposition member Chip Roy personally, to put pressure on him to stop opposing the MAGA movement. It appears the pressure campaign was successful.
(Washington DC) – In a surprising move, Mike Johnson managed to tamp down a conservative rebellion and secured the support to remain speaker on the first ballot Friday, after two Republicans who initially opposed him flipped their votes.
After a long break, Reps. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) and Keith Self (R-Texas) switched their votes to Johnson after initially backing others for the top House job. (more)
There’s a good background article on some of the discussions HERE. This is also a significant loss for the House Democrats and the left-wing of the UniParty apparatus. A prolonged speaker battle would have been good for their interests; however, President Trump intercepted the issue quickly and pulled Mike Johnson over the line in order to keep momentum moving forward.
Posted originally on the CTH on December 28, 2024 | Sundance
The central argument is this. “Whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (“the Act”), as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment.”
Congress enacted a law that effectively bans the social media app TikTok, or at the very least, forces the sale of the company to a non-foreign owned entity. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on the First Amendment aspect. Biden signed the law that requires TikTok’s China-based parent company ByteDance to divest from the app or face a ban on U.S. networks and app stores.
Mitch McConnell [SEE HERE] and Mike Pence [See Here] are asking the Supreme Court to support the law and support the forced sale or ban. However, President Trump is urging the Supreme Court to be very careful. [SEE HERE]
John Sauer, President Trump’s nominee to be solicitor general, has penned an amicus brief saying, “The power of a Western government to ban an entire social-media platform with more than 100 million users, at the very least, should be considered and exercised with the most extreme care—not reviewed on a ‘highly expedited basis.”
After initially supporting the ban on Tik Tok in 2020, President Trump changed his opinion and now contemplates whether a ban against the popular platform is in America’s best interest.
“Consistent with his commanding presence in this area, President Trump currently has 14.7 million followers on TikTok with whom he actively communicates, allowing him to evaluate TikTok’s importance as a unique medium for freedom of expression, including core political speech. Indeed, President Trump and his rival both used TikTok to connect with voters during the recent Presidential election campaign, with President Trump doing so much more effectively. As this Court instructs, the First Amendment’s ‘constitutional guarantee has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office.’” (source)
Many people have wondered what changed President Trump’s mind, with some pointing to President Trump’s meeting with TikTok CEO Shou Chew at Mar-a-Lago earlier this month. Additionally, Elon Musk and the Silicon Valley tech team, including JD Vance, are opposed to Tik Tok. However, the shift in Trump’s thinking since 2020 makes sense if you look at the timeline.
TikTok is a content and information platform that presents a significant issue from an American perspective. It is a Chinese platform available in the USA, but American platforms are banned in China. As a consequence, there is a particular conflict on geopolitical interests. Thus, in 2020 President Trump was against TikTok as an equity/fairness issue.
However, if most or all of the USA social media platforms are under the influence and control of government, which they are. And when President Trump became a victim from that influence and control, which he did. And when the only counterpoint for pushback against the Mis-Dis-Mal information scheme of the U.S. Govt., is to use an external platform to deliver information…. Then the relative issues in the platform discrimination argument take on a different context.
If you look at the timeline, after he was silenced by the U.S government’s influence in Big Tech, President Trump changed his position on Tik Tok.
If USG control the public conversation, and the overwhelming evidence is that they do; then you can argue the merit of allowing a foreign platform to exist as a domestic vehicle for information uncontrolled by the USG. This is also the essential argument that exists within communication platforms like Telegram; not coincidentally another platform targeted by the same USG.
TikTok may be garbage, I think it likely is. However, in the era where we have a documented history of our government controlling the content on social media platforms, I can make an argument that their lack of control within TikTok is really the bigger part of the USG opposition to it.
Posted originally on the CTH on December 21, 2024 | Sundance
The House Subcommittee on the weaponization of government has issued a massive 17,000-page series of staff reports documenting the Obama/Biden weaponization of government.
While many of the findings are not going to be a surprise to CTH readers, the details and emails cited in the report are substantial.
EXAMPLE: A redacted Facebook executive spilled the beans in an email about a call with DHS, saying: “DHS cannot openly endorse the portal.”
EXAMPLE: • Alex Stamos of the Stanford Internet Observatory emailed NextDoor executives: “We already have partnerships with Facebook, Twitter, and Google, and we would love to chat with you and your team.”
The massive documentary report is broken down into four segments [Available Here]. It is going to take some time to go through all of the reports and extract the critical components. If you would like to take a review, the four-segment links are below:
At its core, the Obama era weaponization of government was the motive for the entire Obama team selecting Joe Biden as the 2020 candidate who gave them the best option for controlling and concealing the activity they undertook during the tenure of Barack Obama.
Biden was the avatar giving the Obama control operatives time to continue covering for all their previous action.
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.
With increased scrutiny and a more awakened public seeing the consequences, it is harder for Main Justice, DHS and a weaponized intelligence community to execute their domestic propaganda operations. Even the labeling and categorization through “mis-dis-mal-information” does not appear to be working.
Within a recent WEF discussion, Secretary Kerry outlined 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, he hoped at the time it would be Kamala Harris, would 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:
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!
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
Centinel2012 