In this short clip {direct Rumble link here} former AG Eric Holder is asked about the potential for a President (Trump) to target his political opposition using the DOJ.

Not coincidentally, nor ironically, Holder goes on to outline the exact process that Joe Biden is using to target Donald Trump.  Which is the exact same process Barack Obama used through Eric Holder to target his political opposition in the aftermath of the 2010 shellacking.  First the video, then the reminder.  Eric Holder knows a great deal about how this process works, because he did exactly what he is outlining.  WATCH:

What too few people remember is that back in 2011, in the aftermath of the November 2010 shellacking of the Democrats by activist Tea Party groups around the country, AG Holder asked the Treasury Department to participate in a “special research project.”

The IRS was asked for the Schedule-B’s of groups who were registered as “patriot” groups (Tea Party Patriots) and other names associated with the political uprising against Barack Obama and the takeover of federal healthcare, ie Obamacare.   The Cincinnati field office of the IRS then sent the DOJ a batch of CD-ROM’s containing the names of the individual donors listed on the IRS 501-c (3)(4) forms.  That list was then compiled and used by the federal government to target the donors and supporters.

(more…)

Alex Jones did not warrant the scale of deplatforming and censorship that he received.  In the free market, independent people can choose not to engage with, tune out or block anyone they find is not in alignment with their value system.

In the era of defined information (dis, mis and mal), a slippery slope is created where information itself is suppressed, and ultimately this erodes the principle of speech.  Just because information, even significantly contrary information, is provided, that does not mean anyone is required to believe it.  As I have previously shared, when we allow definitions imposed by others to define and ultimately control information, we become subjects to the censors.  The decision to permit Jones to return to Twitter was the correct decision.

All of that said, the action taken by Musk will likely only worsen the revenue side of the X/Twitter financial situation.  With staunch opposition groups now using the reinstatement of Alex Jones as a targeting arrow in their quiver, and with approximately $1.5 billion in annual debt service, even 10 million paid subscribers ($8/mo) cannot offset the scale of revenue drop from a lack of advertisers.

It remains to be seen how X/Twitter can remain viable in the longer term with $12.5 billion in debt.

(more…)

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) Chairman Mike Turner is celebrating the passage of HR 6611, the 2023 FISA reauthorization bill.

Chairman Turner would have granted a clean FISA renewal, he’s that kind of Republican; however, several Republicans demanded changes to the FISA-702 authorities that capture the data of American citizens without a warrant.  Thus, the HPSCI modified the authorities within HR 6611, but they made it worse.

(Via CDT) – Tucked away near the end of the bill the House Intelligence Committee reported on December 7 (H.R. 6611, the “HPSCI bill”) is a provision that would dramatically expand surveillance under the controversial Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA 702”), which sunsets on December 31 unless reauthorized. Section 504 of the bill, innocuously captioned “Definition of Electronic Communications Service Provider,” would expand the types of entities that can be compelled to disclose internet communications whether in storage or in transit.

FISA 702 permits the U.S. government to compel communication service providers to disclose for foreign intelligence purposes the communications of persons reasonably believed to be non-U.S. persons abroad. No warrant is required; a belief that the communications relate to U.S. foreign affairs or national security is sufficient.  Under current FISA 702, only entities that provide communication services like email, calls, and text messaging can be compelled to disclose these communications. 

(more…)

Last Tuesday, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) pressed the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard and MIT about rising antisemitism on college campuses and whether the speech calling for “intifada” or the elimination of the Jewish people violates their schools’ codes of conduct. The alarming responses are now leading to severe blowback on the presidents.

“Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s rules or code of conduct?” Rep. Stefanik asked. “It is a context-dependent decision,” replied UPenn’s Elizabeth Magill. “If the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment.” Stefanik was stunned.  “‘Conduct’ meaning committing the act of genocide?” an incredulous Rep. Stefanik asked. “The speech is not harassment. This is unacceptable.”

The New York Republican then went on to ask each of the university presidents the same series of questions.

“Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules on bullying and harassment?” she asked Harvard’s Claudine Gay. “It can be, depending on the context,” Ms. Gay responded. “What’s the context?” Rep. Stefanik followed up. “Targeted at an individual,” the Harvard president said. “It’s targeted at Jewish students, Jewish individuals,” Rep. Stefanik shot back. “Do you understand your testimony is dehumanizing them? Do you understand that dehumanization is part of antisemitism?” WATCH:

Today, Ms. Liz Magill was removed from her position as U-Penn president.

(Politico) – […] University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill on Saturday voluntarily stepped down from her role after facing intense blowback following a House Education committee hearing this week.

Magill has agreed to stay in her role until an interim president is selected, according to a statement from Penn Trustee Board Chair Scott Bok.

(more…)

An amazing and long-awaited interview between Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones, the second most targeted and deplatformed American citizen; with the first being Donald J Trump.  {Direct Rumble Link} Well worth watching the full 90 minutes.

TIMESTAMPS: 2:46 Alex Jones predictions, 15:07 Deplatforming, 21:59 Dividing us on race, 25:37 The border, 28:09 Austin, 32:12 New World Order, 42:09 Brian Stelter demon video, 50:57 Depopulation, 1:07:51 Food, 1:13:51 Whiskey, 1:16:22 Presidential election.  WATCH:

(more…)

Appearing on NewsMax, Chris Pavlovski and Devin Nunes explain how their communication and content platforms are anti-fragile to the big tech censorship regime. {Direct Rumble Link}

It is critical that people, particularly Americans, understand the position of both Mr Nunes and Mr Pavlovski as fortresses against the DHS tech rollout, which CTH has outlined in great detail {Go Deep}.  Both platforms, Truth Social and Rumble, will remain under constant assault as they represent a threat to those who seek to control information and ultimately public opinion.

Pavlovski and Nunes are anti-fragile to the customary attack vectors, whereas Musk is fragile, exposed and vulnerable – as he has self-admitted recently.  In the next several months, this is going to become much more important. WATCH:

(more…)

I have stayed away from this subject for eight years; however, everyone in/around U.S. politics knows the Washington Post, owned by Big Tech Amazon, is effectively the PR firm of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). No one inside the DC beltway does not understand this basic truth.

Therefore, when the husband of State Dept official Victoria Nuland, a man named Robert Kagan, writes an op-ed in the CIA newsletter, effectively calling for President Trump to receive the Julius Caesar treatment, the non-subtle message is for the CIA to repeat their Kennedy performance and kill President Trump.

As alarming as this acceptance might sound, there are no intellectually honest people who would deny it.

WaPo/CIA – Let’s stop the wishful thinking and face the stark reality: There is a clear path to dictatorship in the United States, and it is getting shorter every day. In 13 weeks, Donald Trump will have locked up the Republican nomination. In the RealClearPolitics poll average (for the period from Nov. 9 to 20), Trump leads his nearest competitor by 47 points and leads the rest of the field combined by 27 points. The idea that he is unelectable in the general election is nonsense — he is tied or ahead of President Biden in all the latest polls — stripping other Republican challengers of their own stated reasons for existence.

[…] Are we going to do anything about it? To shift metaphors, if we thought there was a 50 percent chance of an asteroid crashing into North America a year from now, would we be content to hope that it wouldn’t? Or would we be taking every conceivable measure to try to stop it, including many things that might not work but that, given the magnitude of the crisis, must be tried anyway?

Will those who balked at resisting Trump when the risk was merely political oblivion suddenly discover their courage when the cost might be the ruin of oneself and one’s family? (more)

(more…)

The Iowa caucuses are January 15, 2024, and represent the first opportunity for the GOP nomination contest to highlight candidate support.

Initially, I was going to wait to post this information later, mid-December.  However, based on conversation earlier today, and my pledge to be publicly consistent and transparent, here’s an advance review of my expectations.

(#1) The full-throated DOJ, Jack Smith, Georgia and New York legal cases will likely trigger, like scud missiles in a blitz attack against Donald Trump, around 10 days prior to the Iowa caucuses.  I’m not sure what the granular details of the Lawfare assault will look like; however, the timing will certainly be in/around these dates.  The deepest part of the DC system that is in full alignment against Trump will be looking at this time frame as the first opportunity to hit Trump hard.  The main battery comes after the 2024 RNC convention (Wisconsin🙄, thanks Ronna).

(#2) Simultaneous to this, keep in mind the Sea Island group have spent hundreds of millions on an organizational process for Ron DeSantis, that is now contingent upon an Iowa victory.  Just like the timing of the Mar-a-Lago raid, there will likely be some background coordination between the administrative state in DC and the organizational assemblies of DeSantis and Nikki Haley. Again, this is the first opportunity for the ‘stop Trump’ apparatus to create an inflection point.  If President Trump crushes the Iowa caucuses, he will destroy the GOPe narrative.

(more…)

Against the revelation that DOJ officials gathered the Trump Twitter hit list of wrong thinking Americans, including all the metadata therein, this monologue by Neil Oliver -a good friend of the Treehouse- is timely and prescient in its forethought.

Discussing how the new legislative effort in Ireland is intended to conduct surveillance on the Emerald Isle nationalists, ie dissident voices within the Irish population considered adverse to the interests of the state, Neil Oliver outlines how the communication freedom of most Irish citizens is now dispatched.  Irish citizens are now under full government surveillance for any speech that might be considered dangerous.

Populations of various countries already experienced the testing ground of government control in the recent COVID-19 vaccination process.  Regulated freedom was contingent upon compliance with an untested vaccine, so it should not be a surprise to see the next evolution of control – the control over speech and communication.

.

13 years ago, people on these pages did not quite fathom what I was implying with the sharing of the image below.  However, if you have watched the Oliver monologue, and you are one of the non-pretending wolverines who find ways to live amid the surveillance with a productive free purpose, just like a Rorschach test, the imagery might take on a new perspective.

(more…)

It is slightly unfair to say this is a Biden issue, because the minefield of verifying employment eligibility has been a weaponized DOJ process since Eric Holder entered the picture as Attorney General.   Both wings of the UniParty support the intentional conflict in employment law.  The civil rights division of the DOJ now uses a Lawfare concept called “disparate impact” to target any employer who would require employment eligibility verification as a contingency for a job.

Essentially, if you have a work eligibility screening process that disproportionally hits any protected category of person (ie. race, color, national origin, etc.), then the practice creates a “disparate impact” and is therefore unlawful.  Example: 100 people apply for a job; 50 of them are Latino. All of the applicants must provide work eligibility documents to process their I-9 form.  If more than half the denied applicants are Latino, the demand for the documents creates a disparate impact and is therefore illegal.

Covenant Logistics and Transport Management Services LLC, “routinely discriminated against non-U.S. citizens by requiring lawful permanent residents to show their Permanent Resident Cards (known as green cards) and by requiring other non-U.S. citizens to show documents related to their immigration status,” according to the DOJ filing.

(via AP) – […] That violates a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which says employers must allow workers to present whatever acceptable documentation the workers choose and cannot reject valid documentation that reasonably appears to be genuine and to related to the worker. (read more)

Not a lot of people understand the issue of “disparate impact” and the exact reason why the DOJ and Dept of Labor created the novel legal theory.  The DC system, Republicans and Democrats, support illegal aliens holding jobs in the USA – Democrats for ideological reasons, Republicans for their corporate owners.

This issue has existed for 15 years and is the primary reason why illegal aliens find it so easy to work in the USA.  Essentially, employers are in a no-win situation.  If you hire illegal aliens, you are breaking the law.  However, if you disqualify applicants based on their employment eligibility status -and a disparate impact issue exists- then, you are also breaking the law.

(more…)