Not Just Recession—Massive Economic Shift!


Lee Camp Published originally on Rumble on November 26, 2022 

This is not just a Recession — it is a Massive Economic Shift!

Twitter Weaponizes Against Dems ReeEEeE Stream 11-25-22


TheSaltyCracker Published originally on Rumble on November 25, 2022

This is what the deserve

DOJ Once Again Changes Trump Seizure Evidence List Dropping “Empty Classified Folders”, and Continues Refusing to Give President Trump Lawyers the Affidavit Used for Search Warrant


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 25, 2022 | Sundance

In a recent court filing [Document Here] President Trump through his legal counsel has requested Judge Cannon to unredact and unseal the search warrant affidavit used as the predicate for the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago.  Apparently, the DOJ have yet to provide President Trump with the constitutionally required predicate documents to support their search.

Additionally, the DOJ previously leaked to media about “empty folders with classified banners” as part of the evidence cache they collected.  According to the filing the DOJ has since presented three different versions of their evidence collection list, with the most recent list dropping any claims of “two empty folders with classified banners.”

[Source, page 4]

While asking the court to provide the affidavit to the defense team, the lawyers for President Trump are noting the fourth amendment protects everyone against warrantless searches and seizures, and that same protection also guarantees the target the right to receive and review the claimed justification for the warrant.

The unredacted affidavit is obligated to be supplied so that it can be determined if the search warrant was legally valid and predicated.  General search warrants are not legally permitted.  The warrant must specify what is being searched and why.  The DOJ is fighting against this affidavit release.  The Trump lawyers are asking the judge to make a decision.

[Source with complete filing]

The issue of compartmented (siloed) information, specifically as a tool and technique of the aloof DC system to retain control and influence, is a matter we have discussed on these pages for several years.

Quite literally anything can be classified as a ‘national security interest’ in the deep state effort to retain the illusion of power over the proles, ie us. It is the exact reason why congress exempts themselves from laws and regulations written for everyone else.

In this case we are watching the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) deny the production of the material that supports the framework of their search warrant.  Again, if Main Justice has nothing to hide, then why are they not willing to stand openly behind the predicate for their search.

Tucker Carlson Accurately Cites the Source of U.S. Inflation, Biden Energy Policy


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 26, 2022 | Sundance 

The true cause of inflation, and yes that includes ‘global inflation ‘, is the collective western economic jump into climate change energy policy known as “build back better.”  Stopping the use of oil, gas and coal as the source for cheap energy, has resulted in every element of the inflation now outlined.

As an outcome of their ideology, the central banks of the western economies began desperately to lower economic activity to reduce energy consumption.  The goal was/is to lower human economic activity to the point where windmills and solar farms can sustain it.  Everything else is pretending.  Tucker Carlson finally points this out. WATCH:

Coming out of the pandemic, western oil, coal and gas energy development was blocked.  Immediately energy prices skyrocketed, driving up the costs of everything.  Using the justification of “too much demand” the central banks (including the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank) are raising interest rates to lower the need for energy.

Western political leaders are pretending this is not a collective intention.  However, their prior promotion of the Build Back Better agenda belies their current protestations.

If You Have Not Been Taught to Think for Yourself, Then Disinformation is Scary


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 25, 2022 | Sundance 

CTH has encountered criticism for our position on information.  Perhaps it is important to step back and explain exactly why we should not be playing by rules established to control us while engaged in the battle of ideas.  First, 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.”… 

There are only two elements within the public discussion of information, truth and not truth.

In an era filled with “fact-checkers” and institutional guardians at the gates of Big Tech, let me explain exactly why it is important not to accept the speech rules of the guards.

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 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.  You begin to abdicate the work, and that’s when trouble can enter.

The sliding scale of Pinocchio’s is one of the most familiar yet goofy outcomes.

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 your opinion.  If you struggle to accept these things, that’s when you need grey.  The New York Times is not called the “grey lady” accidentally.

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.  When something doesn’t feel right, it’s almost always because it isn’t right.

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.   When it comes to information it is important to draw a distinction from speech.

There needs to be an open venue for all information. Unfortunately, when we begin to apply labels or categorization to information, there’s an opportunity for information to be manipulated – even weaponized.  Saul Alinsky spent decades pondering the best techniques to weaponize information and speech.  Alinsky’s intentions in the endeavor to change society by changing how language and information was used were not good. He devoted his completed rulebook book to Lucifer.

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.

Important Discussion – Let’s Talk About 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court Decision with a Decade of Hindsight


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 25, 2022 | Sundance

I have given a great deal of thought to this in the past several years and I am welcoming all opinions.  Just to let you know I intend to read every single comment, because ultimately this is important. AND I believe it will become a silent topic in the next two years [As did the recent conversation of Ballots -vs- Votes].

In 2010 the Supreme Court ruled on a campaign finance legal challenge known colloquially as The Citizens United decision.  The essence of the decision was a speech issue. In the court’s opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that limiting “independent political spending” from corporations and other groups violates the First Amendment right to free speech.

Prior to CU corporations were limited in financial spending on behalf of political campaigns just like individuals.  However, unions were not.  Organized Labor Unions could spend unlimited amounts in support of candidates.  Corporations were limited like individuals.

At the time of the January 2010 Supreme Court ruling Democrats and Barack Obama were furious.  Corporations could not form SuperPACs and spend unlimited amounts of money ‘independently’ supporting candidates.

Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules on coordination and communication between the political campaigns and the independent SuperPACs was/is supposed to create a firewall.  However, the obscure nature of that effort has failed miserably.

Real World Example. A SuperPAC can organize a pro-Ben rally, spend on the venue, spend on the banners, t-shirts, rally material etc., and then advertise it.  If Ben shows up to deliver a speech, he’s not breaking the rules so long as Ben and the SuperPAC didn’t coordinate the event.  Ben just shows up to share his support for the effort, thank everyone and everything is legal in the eyes of the FEC.  Yeah, it’s goofy.

More commonly as a result of the Citizens United (CU) case, massive corporate advertising (considered speech) is permitted in support of the candidate; or the corporation can organize ballot collection or get out the vote efforts, etc.  Again, as long as they do not coordinate with any “official campaign” ie. Mark Zuckerbucks, yeah, goofy.   As a result, expanded corporate spending has massive influence over U.S. elections.

♦ Oppose CU – Democrats opposed the CU decision because they had an advantage with organized labor.  Labor unions were considered a representative body of collective individual membership interests and could spend without limit on campaign support.  Organized labor unions supported democrats.   Factually, Barack Obama won his 2008 election specifically because the SEIU, AFSCME, UFCW, AFL-CIO and other organized labor supported him over Hillary Clinton.

The CU decision watered down this overall Democrat advantage because now corporations funding Republicans could counterbalance the spending support of the labor unions.  Democrats stated the CU decision would inject billions into politics and would increase corruption.

♦ PRO CU – Republicans, in a general sense, supported the CU decision mostly because it did level the field with labor unions and also because the corporate lobbyist connections to the republican party meant a lot of corporate money was available to fuel republican Super Political Action Committees (SuperPACs).  Factually, the CU decision created the ability of SuperPACs to exist.

The business of politics expanded with the CU decision and ultimately both the DNC and RNC clubs evolved to enjoy this unlimited donor spending.

The business sector of politics expanded as the financial aspects to the it grew.  SuperPACs could now fund consultants, polling firms, campaign systems and the money inside politics as a business exploded.

Now we have political campaigns where spending tens-of-millions on a single race is commonplace.  The modern ballot collection (harvesting etc) is now funded by this same flow of unlimited financial resources.

At the time of the 2010 Citizens United decision, I personally was in support of the ruling.  However, in hindsight the benefits of leveling the field with organized labor have become overshadowed by the negatives associated with corporations now in control of which candidates achieve office.

Money was always a corrupting issue and politicians working on behalf of their donors was always problematic, long before the Supreme Court CU decision.  However, CU exploded that problem on a scale that was/is almost unimaginable at the time.

A previous several million-dollar presidential campaign is now a multi-billion-dollar venture, and the corporations are purchasing every outcome.

So, here’s the question….

Knowing what you know now, how do you feel about the Citizens United decision?

Twitter Alternative BACKFIRES On Woke, Leftists Start Getting Banned For Being Whiny Babies


TimcastIRL Published Originally on Rumble on November 24, 2022 

Twitter Alternative BACKFIRES On Woke, Leftists Start Getting Banned For Being Whiny Babies

The Day the Narratives Collapsed | Hoffman, Harmeet, Bovard, Walker, ALX, Sav| The Charlie Kirk Show


The Charlie Kirk Show Published  originally on Rumble on November 23, 2022 

All eyes remain fixed on Arizona and we kick off the show with Jake Hoffman, senator-elect and chair of the AZ Freedom Caucus followed by Lake Campaign lawyer, Harmeet Dhillon. Next up we have Rachel Bovard on her NYT column challenging the Trump doomers and Herschel Walker lays out the stakes in Georgia’s Senate runoff. Finally, ALX and Savanah Hernandez talk Twitter and Libby Emmons does a deep dive into just how extensive the FTX fraud and Democrat bribery goes. The Charlie Kirk Show is LIVE on Salem Radio stations across the country and simulcasting on Real America’s Voice.