No one should be OK with this...

[DriftBusta]

The Twitter Files Illustrate How Intelligence Agencies Can Rig Politics

BY: JOY PULLMANN

DECEMBER 14, 2022

7 MIN READ

IMAGE CREDITYURI SAMOILOV/FLICKR/CROPPED/CC BY 2.0

Perhaps the most important outcome of these releases is the broadening recognition that Twitter, Facebook, Google, et al., are part of government propaganda operation.

•  

It’s not clear whether Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter is hostile.

Musk could be motivated by deeply personal reasons to battle Big Tech’s enforcement of Marxist identity politics. Or he could be attempting to do damage control for the regime by duping people who have reason to distrust the regime into believing Twitter is now more trustworthy. There are many other possibilities, too, and it’s impossible for outsiders to know which is true.

After all, the Twitter Files haven’t so far released that much new information. We already knew Big Tech was colluding with federal officials to deny Americans free speech and therefore self-government. We already knew the internet’s dominant infrastructure is completely rigged. We already knew Donald Trump’s Twitter defenestration was based on Twitter employees’ personal animus against him, not any objective reading of company policy.

We already knew Joe Biden is likely owned by foreign oligarchs who pay his son Hunter for access and influence, and that the Hunter Biden laptop story’s suppression was a deep state influence operation that tipped the 2020 election.

Whatever is going on behind the release of the Twitter Files, good things can come of it. This wormhole likely goes very deep, and even what we’re seeing now, quite close to the surface, is alarming and indicative enough. Perhaps the most important outcome of these releases is the broadening recognition that Twitter, Facebook, Google, et al., are part of government propaganda operations.

This is very likely why we’ve been hearing increasing alarms about “protecting democracy.” The existence and prevalence of this chant online is itself a strong indicator that democracy, or the concept of self-rule through free and fair elections, as the basic bloke thinks of it, doesn’t really exist anymore. At least, that’s certainly the case if Big Tech, in collusion with unelected officials who are almost as far-left as Twitter’s employees, selects what information voters may receive.

 

This Twitter-capade reveals further details about Big Tech’s function as an arm of U.S. “national security” and “intelligence” agencies. Decades ago, these agencies started going rogue on the formerly inalienable constitutional rights of American citizens, with tacit acquiescence from Congress through repeat authorizations and increased funding. These agencies and the entities they’ve colonized now treat the American people like occupied foreign territory, subject to psychological manipulation and institutional infiltration in a manner reminiscent of the Chinese Communist Party.

In fact, this whole affair emits more than merely a whiff of totalitarian collectivism, both communist and fascist. For one thing, the Twitter Files details about the revolving door between U.S. intelligence agency employees and Twitter — and surely also Google and Facebook — recall that Germany’s infamous National Socialists embedded party operatives on “private” company boards. So does today’s Chinese Communist Party.

One must also consider the possibility, if not absolute likelihood, that many of these “former” U.S. military and intelligence agents working at Twitter and Co. are not actually former, but covert government agents. I hear the practice is called “sheep dipping.” Former Twitter Deputy General Counsel Jim Baker certainly fits that description. So does Vijaya Gadde.

It’s also noteworthy that a number of these types, including Baker and big fat lying former CIA Director John Brennan, seem to be laundered through CNN and MSNBC stints as “security analysts.” I.e. to use TV to spread regime-desired disinformation, such as to help quash the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020.

 

This use of spycraft against American citizens seems to be an increasingly recurring and increasingly visible aspect of our post-2016 dystopia. Recall that it appears to have been a feature of the Jan. 6, 2021 “insurrection,” the 2020 Michigan tyrant “kidnapping” false flag operation, the Spygate operation, the attempted FBI entrapment of Sen. Ron Johnson, and many more.

While the vast majority of Americans don’t use Twitter, it has a massive, outsized influence on every American’s everyday life. We saw that in real-time with the consent spiral manufactured, possibly by national security agencies, to impose unprecedented lockdowns in 2020.

Twitter has a fraction of the users of every other major online network, yet it controls the political conversation because of who uses it and how they use it. It’s helpful, even if not literally true, to think of Twitter as an influence operation targeted at Congress, the executive agencies, the corporate media that control the ruling Democrat Party, and other members of the ruling class. That’s who its users overwhelmingly are, especially the most active.

Twitter is where people go to link up to the woke hive mind. That’s why it’s poison to everyone, but especially Republican officeholders.

This is why Republican politicians make some of their stupidest decisions when framed by what they see on Twitter, because the Twitter “consensus” reflects the opposite of their constituents’ views. (This disconnect is a major reason The Federalist exists.) It’s simply a pressure tool for the leftist mob. That’s also why big business leaders are idiots to respond to Twitter mobs — the majority of their customers don’t pay any attention to Twitter.

This information asymmetry has been highly destructive to the American republic but highly useful to the nefarious actors who run our deeply corrupt federal agencies. For one thing, it has allowed the veiled imposition of a vast information iron curtain across Western countries where many people believe themselves to be free citizens. Twitter is the tip of the spear for this growing censorship regime now consisting of a shadowy web between federal officials, social media-sponsored “fact checking” censorship hacks, Big Tech, corporate media, intelligence agencies, and who knows what other entities.Twitter has been the typical initiator of bans on a person, organization, idea, or conversation from an online voice — and sometimes from basic life necessities such as banking. Then Facebook, Apple, Google, and others follow suit. The other colluding entities get Twitter to do the heavy lifting of canceling a dissenting person, political movement, conversation, or idea, then just file behind and copy Twitter so they avoid blowback.

We now have more evidence to add to the growing pile establishing that Twitter wasn’t just functioning this way because almost all of its employees were far-left Democrat activists. It also has been rigging public conversation, and therefore public life and elections themselves, at the behest of elected and unelected Democrats using their public positions for deeply partisan gain.

The Biden administration admitted it was flagging specific posts for Twitter to take down. It called for Big Tech to inflict “consequences” on those who disagreed with Democrats, and attempted to publicly formalize its evisceration of this vital tool of democracy — free speech — with a “Disinformation Governance Board.” The Biden administration’s national security apparatus openly declared that anyone who doesn’t agree with Democrat politicians could be investigated as a potential “domestic terrorist”!

These government-entwined monopoly platforms obviously exist to disseminate coordinated information operations and kill competing information. They are staffed with de facto or actual intelligence agents at levels high enough to disappear key internal records. Anyone who claims these are simply “private companies” is either not intellectually competent, in denial, or part of the ongoing psy-op to deny Americans the right to make their own political decisions based on genuinely free and open public discussions.

Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children. Here's her printable household organizer for faith-centered holidays. Sign up here to get early access to her next ebook, "101 Strategies For Living Well Amid Inflation." Her bestselling ebook is "Classic Books for Young Children." Mrs. Pullmann identifies as native American and gender natural. She is the author of several books, including "The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids," from Encounter Books. Joy is also a grateful graduate of the Hillsdale College honors and journalism programs.

The Twitter Files Illustrate How Intelligence Agencies Rig Politics (thefederalist.com)

[SnowRider]

Opinion piece from The Federalist  I hear an echo……..

[Mainecat]

Citizens United =  GOOD

[toslow]

1 minute ago, Mainecat said:

Citizens United =  GOOD

Democrat underground = better 

[Carlos Danger]

I love when liberals defend the power of the state. 

[DriftBusta]

Love Newt or hate him, he's a professor and historian.  I agree with him btw.  The Democratic party is run by fucking fascists.

Gingrich: ‘This Is the Most Corrupt and Dangerous Executive Branch in American History’

21

JEFF POOR

30 Dec 2022202

2:18

According to former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, the Biden administration rates as “the most corrupt and dangerous” in the history of the country.

During an appearance on FNC’s “Hannity” on Thursday, Gingrich made the declaration and warned of a “constitutional crisis” stemming from the Biden administration’s desire to wage war on its own people.

“Oh, look, I think they’ll do a lot, and I think this is just a childish game by the Biden team,” he said. “The fact is on the third or the fourth, the Republicans who will run the committees no matter who the speaker is, you know, I totally believe Kevin McCarthy will be speaker but put that to one side. The Republicans are going to be running the committees can simply hand deliver everything they’ve already sent up there and say, fine, we now may your standard, give us the information. I think they also can begin to file subpoenas, and I think they should broaden out what they’re doing if the ways and means Democrats release Trump’s tax data. I think next year, the Republicans have to subpoena all of the Biden family’s various taxes, including the University of Pennsylvania records and say, fine.”

“I think you have to recognize two things here: One, the Democrats are going to play hardball every single day,” Gingrich continued. “They’re never going to be reasonable, and that’s fine. That’s who they are. They are desperately defending power. Two, this is much bigger than the Biden administration. This is the most corrupt and dangerous executive branch in American history. The FBI was corrupt before Joe Biden got elected. The things that have been going on with Fauci were before Joe Biden got elected. We have a real constitutional crisis of an executive branch seeking to wage war against the American people, and I think the House Republicans who are the only coherent conservative group in Washington, given the chaos in the Senate. I think the House Republicans have an obligation to take head on the totality of corruption and dishonesty that we’re now dealing with at every level of the bureaucracy, not just the Biden administration but deep into the bureaucracy.”

Edited December 31, 2022 by DriftBusta

[DriftBusta]

23 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

Opinion piece from The Federalist  I hear an echo……..

So debate it.  Or stfu if you have nothing intelligent to say.    

[Skidooski]

Seems like just yesterday Liberals were blaming Facebook for an election loss

[SnowRider]

First amendment isn’t carte blanche to say whatever one wants.  Also these platforms are global and we do we allow foreign government influence to direct the narrative? 
 

Content Regulations

Some laws may prevent the expression of certain ideas and messages. While presumptively impermissible, there are limited exceptions to when the government can prohibit certain forms of speech. Some examples are described below.

Fighting Words

Government may prohibit the use of “fighting words,” which is speech that is used to inflame another and that will likely incite physical retaliation. Likewise, language that is meant to incite the masses toward lawless action is not protected. This can include speech that is intended to incite violence or to encourage the audience to commit illegal acts. The test for fighting words is whether an average citizen would view the language as being inherently likely to provoke a violent response

Obscenity

Most forms of obscenity are protected by the First Amendment. However, there is a high threshold that must be met in order for obscenity not to be protected, which includes showing that the language appeals to the prurient interest in sex, that it depicts something that is considered patently offensive based on contemporary community standards and that it lacks serious literary, scientific or artistic value. 

Child Pornography

Child pornography is an exception to the First Amendment’s right to free speech and to having to meet the high threshold test for other obscene works. Speech is not protected if it depicts a minor performing sexual acts or showing their private parts. 

Libel and Slander

The First Amendment does not protect individuals from facing civil penalties if they defame another person through written or verbal communication. 

Crimes Involving Speech

The First Amendment also does not provide protection for forms of speech that are used to commit a crime, such as perjury, extortion or harassment. 

Threats

Speech is not usually protected when it constitutes a threat toward another that places the target of such speech of bodily harm or death. There are certain exceptions, such as when a reasonable person would understand the language not to be a credible threat. Additionally, threats of mere social ostracism or boycotts are protected by the constitution. 

Violation of Copyright Rules

Intellectual property is protected, including copyrights and trademarks. The Supreme Court has held that copyright laws can withstand a First Amendment challenge based on the freedom of speech.

Conduct Regulations

The government is permitted to make laws regarding the conduct related to speech, such as by stating when speech may be provided, where it may be provided and how it can be communicated. Courts generally uphold these types of regulations as long as they are considered content-neutral and not directed only at prohibiting the expression of certain ideas. For example, the government may prohibit demonstrations at certain locations, may limit the size of a poster used for speech and may limit the amount of sound that can be heard at specific times. 

Commercial Speech

While commercial speech is protected, it is generally viewed as having “diminished protection.” Commercial speech may be faced with many more regulations than speech from a private citizen if a substantial government interest is advanced and the government’s restriction is no more extensive than necessary. This type of protection serves the interest of protecting the public from false information while still recognizing the need for free communication between businesses and potential customers.

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-type-of-speech-is-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment-34258

[DriftBusta]

2 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

First amendment isn’t carte blanche to say whatever one wants.  Also these platforms are global and we do we allow foreign government influence to direct the narrative? 
 

Content Regulations

Some laws may prevent the expression of certain ideas and messages. While presumptively impermissible, there are limited exceptions to when the government can prohibit certain forms of speech. Some examples are described below.

Fighting Words

Government may prohibit the use of “fighting words,” which is speech that is used to inflame another and that will likely incite physical retaliation. Likewise, language that is meant to incite the masses toward lawless action is not protected. This can include speech that is intended to incite violence or to encourage the audience to commit illegal acts. The test for fighting words is whether an average citizen would view the language as being inherently likely to provoke a violent response

Obscenity

Most forms of obscenity are protected by the First Amendment. However, there is a high threshold that must be met in order for obscenity not to be protected, which includes showing that the language appeals to the prurient interest in sex, that it depicts something that is considered patently offensive based on contemporary community standards and that it lacks serious literary, scientific or artistic value. 

Child Pornography

Child pornography is an exception to the First Amendment’s right to free speech and to having to meet the high threshold test for other obscene works. Speech is not protected if it depicts a minor performing sexual acts or showing their private parts. 

Libel and Slander

The First Amendment does not protect individuals from facing civil penalties if they defame another person through written or verbal communication. 

Crimes Involving Speech

The First Amendment also does not provide protection for forms of speech that are used to commit a crime, such as perjury, extortion or harassment. 

Threats

Speech is not usually protected when it constitutes a threat toward another that places the target of such speech of bodily harm or death. There are certain exceptions, such as when a reasonable person would understand the language not to be a credible threat. Additionally, threats of mere social ostracism or boycotts are protected by the constitution. 

Violation of Copyright Rules

Intellectual property is protected, including copyrights and trademarks. The Supreme Court has held that copyright laws can withstand a First Amendment challenge based on the freedom of speech.

Conduct Regulations

The government is permitted to make laws regarding the conduct related to speech, such as by stating when speech may be provided, where it may be provided and how it can be communicated. Courts generally uphold these types of regulations as long as they are considered content-neutral and not directed only at prohibiting the expression of certain ideas. For example, the government may prohibit demonstrations at certain locations, may limit the size of a poster used for speech and may limit the amount of sound that can be heard at specific times. 

Commercial Speech

While commercial speech is protected, it is generally viewed as having “diminished protection.” Commercial speech may be faced with many more regulations than speech from a private citizen if a substantial government interest is advanced and the government’s restriction is no more extensive than necessary. This type of protection serves the interest of protecting the public from false information while still recognizing the need for free communication between businesses and potential customers.

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-type-of-speech-is-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment-34258

^^^^Someone didn't read the article I posted.  Don't post this deflection bullshit in there.  Start your own thread.

[SnowRider]

1 minute ago, DriftBusta said:

^^^^Someone didn't read the article I posted.  Don't post this deflection bullshit in there.  Start your own thread.

Your OP is pure bullshit.  Peddling more right wing propaganda that’s already been debunked.  It’s a ‘feel sorry for’ and ‘poor right wingers’ piece of garbage. 

[DriftBusta]

7 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

Your OP is pure bullshit.  Peddling more right wing propaganda that’s already been debunked.  It’s a ‘feel sorry for’ and ‘poor right wingers’ piece of garbage. 

Debunked?  By who?  John Brennan?  Clapper?  Tell us who debunked it and post up your proof. 

[Snake]

3 minutes ago, DriftBusta said:

Debunked?  By who?  John Brennan?  Clapper?  Tell us who debunked it and post up your proof. 

Debunked by liberal talking points...

I love those who are so fast to deny free speech, always tells me they have something to hide...

[DriftBusta]

Just now, Snake said:

Debunked by liberal talking points...

I love those who are so fast to deny free speech, always tells me they have something to hide...

As my daughter would say, "I can't even.........."    

[SnowRider]

6 minutes ago, DriftBusta said:

Debunked?  By who?  John Brennan?  Clapper?  Tell us who debunked it and post up your proof. 

It’s too easy:

 

https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/musks-twitter-files-repackage-debunked-claims-falsely-allege-crime-collusion-and-conspiracy

 

You guys are trying to justify a position that has been falsely propagated through your echo chambers.

[SkisNH]

39 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

Citizens United =  GOOD

Citizens united did nothing except balance the power of Union political donations (I'm okay with eliminating both)

Especially with the resistance to right to work legislation from the left...plenty of conservatives in the unions that are funding interest other than their own. 

Lastly, the union donation is much more insidious as its just a money pump for the democrats.  Using tax payers dollars to pump up the unions then the unions send money back to buy political favor. Then the cycle continues the politicians steal taxpayers money to fund union projects and the unions skim that money and send it back to the politicians 🙄 

[Sleepr2]

1 hour ago, SnowRider said:

Opinion piece from The Federalist  I hear an echo……..

Like you get at duh underground and KOS?

[Sleepr2]

52 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

It’s too easy:

 

https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/musks-twitter-files-repackage-debunked-claims-falsely-allege-crime-collusion-and-conspiracy

 

You guys are trying to justify a position that has been falsely propagated through your echo chambers.

 

Media Matters Rated Left in Dec. 2021 Independent Review

A Dec. 2021 Independent Review by an AllSides reviewer found Media Matters maintained its Left bias.

Media Matters runs advocacy campaigns urging advertisers to drop conservative TV personalities, such as Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham. It largely focuses its activism on targeting Fox News. A Media Matters campaign at the time of review, #UnFoxMyCableBox, was an effort to get consumers to tell their satellite or cable TV providers to drop Fox News. On its campaign landing page, Media Matters said that "Fox News lies all the time" and "promotes extremism, fuels conspiracy theories, and celebrates bigotry and racism."

Media Matters took a strong left stance on all issues reviewed, such as stating that right-wing media was "baselessly portray[ing] [Twitter's] decision to suppress a story about Hunter Biden as having influenced the results of the 2020 presidential election." (Background: Read about the Hunter Biden laptop story and the Twitter Fileshere.) Media Matters takes a supportive stance on gender-affirming care (read about why "gender-affirming care" terminology and transgender medical practices are controversial here.) Media Matters called "climate denial" a "conspiracy theory", and rejected concerns that red flag laws meant to address gun violence would end or harm due process.

[Matt]

1 hour ago, SnowRider said:

It’s too easy:

 

https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/musks-twitter-files-repackage-debunked-claims-falsely-allege-crime-collusion-and-conspiracy

 

You guys are trying to justify a position that has been falsely propagated through your echo chambers.

You can't post something from a well known propaganda outlet to make a point that something is debunked. Lol

The deep state federal agencies outsourced the suppression of speech to a third party. Full stop. Clear violation of their charters to protect and uphold the constitution. 

No left wing spin piece changes that clear fact. 

[SayatodaU.P.eh?]

1 hour ago, SnowRider said:

It’s too easy:

 

https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/musks-twitter-files-repackage-debunked-claims-falsely-allege-crime-collusion-and-conspiracy

 

You guys are trying to justify a position that has been falsely propagated through your echo chambers.

Speaking of echo chamber bullshit. 
 

Why do you defend corruption at the highest levels of the government, so vehemently? Personally, I don’t even think this is a left or right issue. They both do it. 

[Mainecat]

1 hour ago, SkisNH said:

Citizens united did nothing except balance the power of Union political donations (I'm okay with eliminating both)

Especially with the resistance to right to work legislation from the left...plenty of conservatives in the unions that are funding interest other than their own. 

Lastly, the union donation is much more insidious as its just a money pump for the democrats.  Using tax payers dollars to pump up the unions then the unions send money back to buy political favor. Then the cycle continues the politicians steal taxpayers money to fund union projects and the unions skim that money and send it back to the politicians 🙄 

No it didn’t…… 

[SkisNH]

Just now, Mainecat said:

No it didn’t…… 

Umm yeah it did...why could unions give endlessly but corporations couldn't? 

[ActionfigureJoe]

The OP is in defense of the fact that Donald Trump was a lousy candidate and lost the election because of just that. As for the rest? Window dressing. Get better candidates. Duh. 

[DriftBusta]

2 hours ago, SnowRider said:

It’s too easy:

 

https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/musks-twitter-files-repackage-debunked-claims-falsely-allege-crime-collusion-and-conspiracy

 

You guys are trying to justify a position that has been falsely propagated through your echo chambers.

I read your link.  I'm convinced more than ever you are brainwashed.  You suffer, as Musk calls it (in your link), "woke mind virus".  David Brock has no crebiliity.

 

2 hours ago, SkisNH said:

Citizens united did nothing except balance the power of Union political donations (I'm okay with eliminating both)

Especially with the resistance to right to work legislation from the left...plenty of conservatives in the unions that are funding interest other than their own. 

Lastly, the union donation is much more insidious as its just a money pump for the democrats.  Using tax payers dollars to pump up the unions then the unions send money back to buy political favor. Then the cycle continues the politicians steal taxpayers money to fund union projects and the unions skim that money and send it back to the politicians 🙄 

The public needs to understand that the #1 problem in politics right now, is the money in politics.  Until we have some kind of ballot initiative to vote on actual reform, even publicly funded elections, along with term limits and bans on moving right from government into lobbying, etc., we're stuck with this swamp bullshit.

2 hours ago, Sleepr2 said:

 

Media Matters Rated Left in Dec. 2021 Independent Review

A Dec. 2021 Independent Review by an AllSides reviewer found Media Matters maintained its Left bias.

Media Matters runs advocacy campaigns urging advertisers to drop conservative TV personalities, such as Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham. It largely focuses its activism on targeting Fox News. A Media Matters campaign at the time of review, #UnFoxMyCableBox, was an effort to get consumers to tell their satellite or cable TV providers to drop Fox News. On its campaign landing page, Media Matters said that "Fox News lies all the time" and "promotes extremism, fuels conspiracy theories, and celebrates bigotry and racism."

Media Matters took a strong left stance on all issues reviewed, such as stating that right-wing media was "baselessly portray[ing] [Twitter's] decision to suppress a story about Hunter Biden as having influenced the results of the 2020 presidential election." (Background: Read about the Hunter Biden laptop story and the Twitter Fileshere.) Media Matters takes a supportive stance on gender-affirming care (read about why "gender-affirming care" terminology and transgender medical practices are controversial here.) Media Matters called "climate denial" a "conspiracy theory", and rejected concerns that red flag laws meant to address gun violence would end or harm due process.

Thank you

1 hour ago, Matt said:

You can't post something from a well known propaganda outlet to make a point that something is debunked. Lol

The deep state federal agencies outsourced the suppression of speech to a third party. Full stop. Clear violation of their charters to protect and uphold the constitution. 

No left wing spin piece changes that clear fact. 

Run by this guy.  Where do we start with what a corrupt hack he is...

1 hour ago, SayatodaU.P.eh? said:

Speaking of echo chamber bullshit. 
 

Why do you defend corruption at the highest levels of the government, so vehemently? Personally, I don’t even think this is a left or right issue. They both do it. 

Best question ever.

[f7ben]

If the article is going to go as far as the possibility that Musk is controlled opposition it should make the same scenario a potential possibility for Donald Trump.