In advance of an effort to bring sunlight to events, and with full appreciation to the credo of our assembly, The Truth Has No Agenda, a few points of personal emphasis.

Everything you read and review upon these pages is free for the taking. Anyone, for any reason, can take any content I produce and use it to advance the honest effort of providing raw unfiltered truth to their audience.

Everything is available for use free, without any attribution or citation needed.

All that I provide is free and can be modified, changed, enhanced in part or whole to meet your needs. Images, writing, research, analysis, all of it is provided, along with no expectation of citation or attribution dependent on your motives and intents.

Make the words your own, use them in part or modify to make a more intelligent or comprehensive outline. All the accompanying graphics are available to use as would suit your interests. All the research is cited and verifiable.  We are not going to save this republic by demanding or restricting information via self-important perspectives on citation or attribution. I simply do not care about such issues. Make it your own in whatever manner or format fits your interests.

I am currently working on a big picture article that should explain why this is important. There is something key and critical that is being missed and overlooked by those who are communicating the importance of events that took place over the past several years, through today.

(more…)

The bottom line is that everything the Obama justice department, IC and FBI did, to include support from Republicans in congress during the 2016 election and aftermath, was a coup d’état against U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration.  This is the truth of the thing.

The U.S. media participation and subsequent denial of their culpability looks increasingly pathetic in the aftermath of the report outlined by Special Counsel John Durham. However, it doesn’t take a media admission of the coup effort for the demonstrable actions and evidence of the coup to be factual.

Read THE REPORT, all the evidence is there. The truth stands alone, regardless of the discomfort it creates. {Direct Rumble Link} WATCH:

Under impeachment standards created by our constitutional republic, it takes a vote in the house to begin an impeachment investigation. The impeachment investigation then produces a finding which is delivered to congress and a vote is held.

John Durham spent four years conducting the investigation. The report outlining the coup is complete and delivered to congress.  The only thing needed is a vote.

This might make House Speaker Kevin McCarthy very uncomfortable.  However, do or do not, there is no ‘TRY’.

(more…)

Twitter platform owner Elon Musk has confirmed the hiring of Linda Yaccarino as CEO of Twitter. Many reactions are happening, but CTH analysis generally likes to stay ahead of the reactions and more into the future of what each datapoint means.  That said, here’s some context.

The general or more common logic, completely understandable, is to look at the hiring of Yaccarino as binary.  Either Musk was previously lying about everything he believed in, or the revenue situation is at a critical mass. Otherwise, it really doesn’t make sense to bring in Linda Yaccarino.

Before going deeper, it is critical to know just how ideological Linda Yaccarino is.  The former head of NBCUniversal is the apex voice in the system of promoting Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) from an advertising perspective.   I’m not talking about a little bit ideological, I mean the full dna-level, metastatic, this is the core essence of what makes Yaccarino believe she has purpose in life.

Changing social culture by leveraging commercial enterprise is Yaccarino’s life work.

Literally Linda Yaccarino believes that advertisers should determine the product being sold. This is not a spoof, exaggeration, hyperbole or a spin on her outlook. Yaccarino believes marketing and advertising executives should be able to control the physical content, the actual stuff, created by the publisher they pay to advertise their product.

A traditional example might be Ford Motor Company telling Motor Trend magazine what positions to place ads for competitors in the auto industry as a contingency for their ad spend.  A modern example might be Disney telling Fox News what content may be discussed by Tucker Carlson.  This is the origin of DEI ideology controlling platform content.

To understand how this mindset applies to Twitter and Elon Musk, watch a few minutes of this previous interview between Yaccarino and Musk at a convention of advertisers. This is an example of how the NBCUniversal executive thinks.  WATCH (prompted):

(more…)

Whether you believe Fox News intentionally created this opening, or whether it was just a disastrous mistake on behalf of a multi-billion corporation with a full suite of lawyers they chose not to use, Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Corp created a problem in the Dominion settlement that is only going to get worse.

Once you expose yourself to the vulnerabilities of Lawfare, the leftists will pour through the opening like Central American aliens in Texas.  Funded by allies in the cultural and political battle, former DHS Disinformation Czar Nina Jankowicz is now suing Fox News for defamation of her character and reputational harm.

NEW YORK – The head of the short-lived Department of Homeland Security (DHS) disinformation board has launched a defamation suit against Fox News, alleging the network published false reports about her that endangered her life.

Nina Jankowicz was tapped to lead DHS’s Disinformation Governance Board, and though the board never held a meeting, it was heavily criticized by the GOP and was regularly covered by Fox News.

The purpose of the board was to coordinate disinformation efforts at DHS across topics ranging from migration to addressing plots from Russia and Iran.

The Republican National Committee dubbed it the “Ministry of Truth” in a nod to George Orwell’s novel “1984” and couched disinformation as “any speech we don’t like.”

(more…)

Elon Musk has reportedly hired Linda Yaccarino as the CEO of Twitter.  Unfortunately, this decision is the exact opposite of what everyone hoped about Musk’s intentions with the platform.

Ms. Yaccarino is the head of NBCUniversal Advertising and Partnerships [Example Here], and she is the tip of the spear in the creation of DEI (Diversity Equity and Inclusion) indexing and corporate scoring.  You might be familiar with ‘DEI’ as a result of the Bud Light woke advertising campaign to promote beer for transgenders.  Well, that’s DEI in action, and Ms. Yaccarino is one of the pioneers in the advertising industry.

Additionally, Linda Yaccarino is the Chairwoman of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Taskforce on Future of Work.  As she noted in her position, “every CEO and executive needs to look inward, and build workplaces that ensure our employees, current and future, can always succeed amid rapid transformation.” Overlaying the Diversity Equity and Inclusion mindset, you will note Yaccarino says, “long-term benefits for the unemployed, women, and communities of color.”

Why would Elon Musk bring the most woke NBC advertising executive to become the CEO of Twitter?  Obviously, he is focused on generating revenue, and Yaccarino can bring woke credentials to the platform luring corporate advertisers.  Unfortunately, in order to achieve that objective, the platform content will have to be modified.

That means the public square of Twitter needs to become a platform of non-controversial NPCs (Non Player Characters) which generally are identified in memes [SEE HERE].  The content on Twitter must fit an approved standard for advertising. Leading this effort to control platform content through the control of the monetization, is literally what Yaccarino has done in her work at NBCUniversal.  Thus, her efforts to promote DEI take on a new level of importance.

(more…)

Only if you really understand the background of Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop, an argument can be made that the deal between Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson is trying to get the unsubsidized financial viability of Twitter under the control of an independent platform.  At least, that’s my slant on the positive perspective here.

As a free communication platform, Twitter has never been, and is not now, financially viable.  However, if Musk can continue finding ways to monetize the platform, subscriptions, exclusive content, advertising, and now broadcasting etc., he might finally be able to break free from the data processing subsidy running behind it.  We should be cautiously optimistic, yet pragmatic to the reality of the challenge.

Toward that end, Tucker Carlson announced today an intent to use the social media platform as a free speech and journalistic broadcasting system.  If Elon Musk chooses to make Carlson the anchor of this ¹Twitter enterprise it would be akin to ²Fox streaming services making Carlson the anchor of Fox News digital, via Fox Nation.  {Direct Rumble Link} WATCH:

.

¹On an investment/return approach, it would make a lot of sense for Elon Musk to give Tucker Carlson a percentage stake in the enterprise (25% backend wealth) in combination with a front-end lump sum and generous expense deferred contract [all write-offs for Musk].  Carlson retains full proprietary control of his created content; Musk gets platform profitable; a genuine win-win.

²Tucker Carlson and the show Tucker Carlson Today was the prior anchor of Fox Nation digital. Murdoch shot themselves in the streaming foot when they fired him.  However, you will notice Murdoch waited until Carlson had produced a year’s worth of yet to be broadcast long-format programming which Fox Nation still owns.

(more…)

The nature of our politically corrupt justice system takes on new clarity today as a jury in New York City decided President Trump did not rape E. Jean Carroll, the crazy moonbat funded by political operatives, but President Trump did defame her in his denial of the accusation.  Thus, the jury awards damages to the false accuser, while finding the accused not guilty.

Presumably the position of the jury was that something ‘may have happened‘ because this was not a criminal trial outcome which would be based on “beyond a reasonable doubt” as the standard.  Instead, this verdict was based on the possibility that something ‘may have happened,’ albeit not proven, and President Donald Trump was defamatory toward the accuser in his strong denials of the accusation.

The jury awarded $2million in compensatory damages and $20,000 in punitive damages for the battery allegation. The jury awarded $1 million in compensatory damages for the defamation and $1.7million for the repair of her reputation. They awarded another $280,000 in punitive damages for the defamation. (read more)

Keep in mind that New York wrote a new law specifically to provide E Jean Carroll a pathway to file a lawsuit over the allegation that something might have happened sometime in the past, though the accuser could not identify what year President Trump assaulted her.  The accuser, a woman of notoriously odd behavior and remarkably unstable mindset, was funded by billionaire LinkedIn founder and very vocal Trump critic, Reid Hoffman.

New York created the new law for Ms. Carroll, Reid Hoffman paid for the legal costs, and Ms. Carroll made her sketchy accusations of something, from sometime, that wasn’t certain to have happened.  There were no witnesses to the claimed events, there was no evidence the event took place, there was nothing to indicate Ms. Carroll or Mr. Trump were even in the same place at the same time.

However, the judge in the case permitted the presentation of possibility, then blocked President Trump from speaking about the case, and then instructed the jury to consider that Ms Carroll’s claims may have indeed taken place, at some point – although no evidence exists and no one knows when, not even Ms Carroll.

In any other situation this case would have been thrown out of court for being ridiculous. However, in the modern era where justice is metered by regional public opinion that is based on Lawfare and political motivation, we get this situation.   President Trump responded below:

(more…)

“Foxweiser’d” – it’s a verb to describe taking a majority approved brand and aligning yourself with minority interests to destroy it. Also called stepping on a rake.

With Fox News reported to have lost half their audience, the trio of MSNBC, CNN and Fox Corp are now neck, neck and neck, in a three-way race to the bottom. Into this financial spiral, which doesn’t seem the least bit worrisome to the board and owners who are more concerned with their multinational financial interests, comes Fox News prepositioning to avoid further downgrading via a Tucker counter offensive.

Axios is reporting that Tucker Carlson is going to launch nuclear tipped verbal SCUDS at Fox News as soon as his tongue is unleashed.  However, a note of caution is warranted. Which is more likely: (a) that Carlson is going to expend the energy on an irrelevant media network committed to destroying itself; or (b) that Fox News is leaking information to Axios in a proactive measure to mitigate their fall into irrelevance.

Stop Pretending – Anyone who is still appearing on Fox News to support the network, specifically including anyone who would appear on Sean Hannity show – a man entirely compromised by his zipper problems and therefore useful to the interests of the opposition, is at this point aligning themselves against ‘We The People’.  [Insert upcoming tour de’ force of Fox News on behalf of Ron DeSantis here]

AXIOS – Tucker Carlson is preparing to unleash allies to attack Fox News in an effort to bully the network into letting him work for — or start — a right-wing rival, sources close to him tell Axios.

Bryan Freedman, the high-powered Hollywood lawyer Carlson retained for the contract dispute, told Axios: “The idea that anyone is going to silence Tucker and prevent him from speaking to his audience is beyond preposterous.”

Why it matters: Tucker vs. Fox could reshape the conservative news world. Fox, which has seen its ratings plunge in Carlson’s slot since he was let go 13 days ago, wants to sideline him by paying him $20 million a year not to work.

(more…)

Occam’s Razor: When faced with competing explanations for the same phenomenon, the simplest is likely the correct one.

(1) An investigative silo within the federal apparatus falsely identified me as “1% Watchdog.”  (2) When confronted with the truth of the matter, and after their own independent investigation, federal investigators acknowledged that some other entity fabricated their bona fides using my identity.  (3) Admitted (by them) the most likely motive was to influence trust amid the communication group of “1% Watchdog.”

In my humble opinion, and applying Occam’s Razor, “1% Watchdog” was/is a federal agent.

What other motive would a person carry to fabricate their identity, create false bona fides, if not to influence a sense of trust in their target audience?

NOTICE the wording: […] “your administration of the “Stop the Steal J6” channel.”

This appears to outline “1% Watchdog” as the owner/administrator/controller of the communication platform.

These are not unfounded suppositions.  Simply reverse engineer the process, apply the scientific method to your review, then apply Occam’s razor.

Counselors – On behalf of your client(s) file a motion with the judge requesting a court order compelling Zello to give up the registration records of the ‘Stop the Steal J6’ channel.  This will identify the person behind “1% Watchdog”.  If federal prosecutors fight the request for the court order, well: (a) there’s your answer; and (b) take the next step of using the preexisting congressional subpoena as evidence to support your compulsion.

(more…)

A follow-up to answer some of the popular questions about my experience with the corrupt administrative state, what I prefer to call the Fourth Branch of Government that operates behind the visible Potemkin Village.

♦Why did you wait a year to outline what took place?  Common question. Lots of reasons, some obvious, some obscure and strategically granular.  First, I know the people who are not in alignment with the principles of freedom also watch our discussion.  If I am engaged with them in conflict, I do not want them to see my path.  Second, I did not want them to shut down our conversation using ‘national security’ as the blanket often deployed.  Third, I wanted to watch and assemble data quietly.

♦Why tell the story now?  AG Garland just quantified publicly what the DOJ was doing.  They just put details on the scope of their unconstitutional activity.  Keep in mind, AG Garland is the Robert Mueller of the DOJ. Garland has no better understanding of what is going on inside that heavily siloed institution of Main Justice than Joe Biden understands what is going on inside his (White House).  The true manager of the apparatus is Lisa Monaco, Obama’s eyes and ears into Main Justice operations.   The Lawfare operatives ultimately report to Monaco, not chairman emeritus Garland.

♦Who benefits from the current information?  If you take the time to fully absorb what is evident, traceable and provable to a demonstrable certainty, the representatives of any target who was/is also facing evidence gained by similar construct benefit.  The source information is all there, free for the taking; following it leads to the same outcome – it is what it is.  Whether it is beneficial or not is unique to the individual, or their rep.  Beyond that, hopefully the general public will take pause and think about the ramifications.  When you change the way you look at something, what you look at changes.   The truth has no agenda.

(more…)