An interesting infographic from Will Geary [SOURCE] that gives context to the amount of money the United States is spending in Ukraine.
Each dot in the video represents $100,000.00 as outlined.
The source for the graphic data is the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Just hit play:
Visualizing U.S. Aid to Ukraine from Will Geary on Vimeo.
Joe Biden and Canada’s Justin Trudeau are in ideological alignment, willing to destroy the entire North American economy as they construct the new climate change energy systems for the U.S and Canada. However, Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez-Obrador (AMLO) has already indicated -including direct statements to Joe Biden at the White House– that he is not willing to put the Mexican economy into collapse and try to engineer an economic future on solar panels and windmills.
That puts Mexican President AMLO in the crosshairs of a unified climate change agenda as outlined by the World Economic Forum and western leadership under the guise of the Build Back Better agenda. In essence, AMLO goes from socialist hero of the unionized left to becoming a target. CTH has been saying we need to watch carefully how this plays out because a great deal of the western economic agenda hangs in the balance.
Now that AMLO has taken a pragmatic position on energy development {Go Deep} his lack of alignment means the apparatus of the United States government, the proverbial Eye of Sauron, will target him. Not coincidentally, the public relations firm for the deepest part of the interventionist intelligence apparatus, the Washington Post, now outlines AMLO as the specific person responsible for the explosion in fentanyl use.
(Washington Post) – […] A new Mexican leader rejected the $3 billion anti-narcotics agreement that had spanned three U.S. presidencies, known as the Mérida Initiative. Andrés Manuel López Obrador, a veteran leftist who took office in December 2018, argued that the drug war strategy had sent homicides spiraling in Mexico while failing to curb U.S. demand.
Former Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, appeared on Sunday with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the Twitter file release that pertained to his former office and the contact between DNI election official Shelby Pierson and Twitter executive Noel Roth. {Direct Rumble Link}
DNI Ratcliffe does not use Shelby Pierson’s name within his comments, but refutes her action as described within the release by Matt Taibbi. WATCH:
.
Within the Twitter file release, you will find Twitter’s lead censor, Yoel Roth, meeting with an official from the U.S. Dept of National Intelligence (DNI). From the testimony of FBI Special Agent Elvis Chan, we know that official was Shelby Pierson. Chan was speaking under oath in an ongoing first amendment lawsuit against the Biden administration for manipulating and censoring speech on social media.
The fifth installment of the Twitter Files release drops today courtesy of Ms. Bari Weiss [READ HERE]. The focus of Ms Weiss was on the decision to ban President Donald Trump from the platform, and her outline walks through the events leading up to the decision to remove him.
After a review of internal discussions, slacks and conversations within the social media platform, ultimately the officers within the company decided to protect their view of democracy by removing their biggest ideological opponent.
The Twitter executives justified their actions by echo-chambering a belief that President Trump was tweeting “coded messages,” the secret transmission of thoughts that can only be received by those wearing red hats, tuned to a specific psychological frequency. As Weiss notes: “Less than 90 minutes after Twitter employees had determined that Trump’s tweets were not in violation of Twitter policy, Vijaya Gadde—Twitter’s Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust—asked whether it could, in fact, be “coded incitement to further violence.”
President Trump tweeted the term “American Patriots,” which would be viewed by the Twitter ideologues as something akin to “the leader of a terrorist group responsible for violence/deaths comparable to Christchurch shooter or Hitler and on that basis and on the totality of his Tweets, he should be de-platformed.”
It did not take long for the narrative to embed as the most senior Twitter regulatory officers assembled. “One hour later, Twitter announces Trump’s permanent suspension “due to the risk of further incitement of violence.”
When various doctors and professionals in the healthcare industry were kicked off Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and social media platforms for holding a contrary view of the COVID-19 mitigation efforts, their voices found a way to alternate platforms including TikTok. At the heart of the government argument about TikTock as a national security threat, you will find this dynamic.
The claims of data insecurity as a reason for government action against TikTok is a false justification. The reason the U.S. govt is defining TikTok as a national security threat is not because a Chinese firm controls it, the threat is because the U.S. government does not control it. Thus, DHS involvement in Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Google, Apple, Microsoft and more takes on a more accurate perspective. TikTok is not under DHS control, therefore TikTok’s ability to transmit information without DHS filter controls is a threat.
Bread and circuses. In this interview with California Congressman Ro Khanna, Maria Bartiromo notes he was one of the only Democrats in congress who wrote a warning to Twitter about the censorship issue. However, even then, a key sentence in the letter from Khanna to Yoel Roth is ignored. He’s no hero. WATCH:
The DHS Portal – […] discussions have ranged from the scale and scope of government intervention in online discourse to the mechanics of streamlining takedown requests for false or intentionally misleading information.
“Platforms have got to get comfortable with gov’t. It’s really interesting how hesitant they remain,” Microsoft executive Matt Masterson, a former DHS official, texted Jen Easterly, a DHS director, in February. (link)
It’s not just the First amendment being compromised by this collaboration, it’s also the Fourth Amendment against unwarranted searches of private papers (communication).
While current conservative headlines are filled with discussion surrounding revelations of Twitter being used by U.S. government officials to control and manipulate public opinion, it is worthwhile reminding everyone how this process was first triggered – and then look at how the intelligence community applied the lessons to the USA in 2020.
The Obama administration first created the public-private partnership with Twitter and Facebook to support the “Arab Spring” uprising. As a consequence, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was the first elected official to be taken out by former President Obama’s deployment of Twitter as a community activist tool for revolution in 2011. In direct and consequential ways, Egypt was the BETA test for a process that surface a decade later in the United States during the 2020 election.
Using and influencing social media was a tool created by the Obama state department, as noted years ago in Mic.Com:
[…] In countries like Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen, rising action plans such as protests made up of thousands, have been organized through social media such Facebook and Twitter. “We use Facebook to schedule the protests” an Arab Spring activist from Egypt announced “and [we use] Twitter to coordinate, and YouTube to tell the world.” The role that technology has taken in allowing the distribution of public information such as the kinds stated by the aforementioned activist, had been essential in establishing the democratic movement that has helped guide abused civilians to overthrow their oppressor. (link)
(NationalPulse) The most popular Twitter hashtags in the Arab region in the first three months of this year were “Egypt”, “Jan25”, “Libya”, “Bahrain” and “protest”.
Nearly 9 in 10 Egyptians and Tunisians surveyed in March said they were using Facebook to organise protests or spread awareness about them. All but one of the protests called for on Facebook ended up coming to life on the streets.
These and other findings from the newly released second edition of the Arab Social Media Report by the Dubai School of Government give empirical heft to the conventional wisdom that Facebook and Twitter abetted if not enabled the historic region-wide uprisings of early 2011. (link)
Fast forward to 2020, and those same elements deployed against the Egyptian government were deployed in the United States in a coordinated public-private partnership with Twitter, Facebook and social media.
The U.S. government control over these social media platforms is ultimately what lies at the heart of the latest Twitter Files release.
As noted by Taibbi, “as the election approached, senior executives – perhaps under pressure from federal agencies, with whom they met more as time progressed – increasingly struggled with rules and began to speak of “vios” as pretexts to do what they’d likely have done anyway.”
“Vios” is a short-hand term for violations.
Internal Slacks, communication chats within the organization, show Twitter executives discussing various relationships with federal agencies, specifically the Dept of Homeland Security (DHS), various elements of the FBI and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ODNI. Twitter’s main censor Yoel Roth plays a key role in the discussion. Mr. Roth organized many of the communication chats that surrounded the election.
The slacks (communication chats) contain channels to create sub-sets of topics with smaller groups of internal officers assembled to prioritize the discussion.
The reports being cited by Taibbi are, “based on searches for docs linked to prominent executives, whose names are already public. They include Roth, former trust and policy chief Vijaya Gadde, and recently plank-walked Deputy General Counsel (and former top FBI lawyer) Jim Baker.” … “On October 8th, 2020, executives opened a channel called “us2020_xfn_enforcement.” Through J6, this would be home for discussions about election-related removals, especially ones that involved “high-profile” accounts (often called “VITs” or “Very Important Tweeters”).”
There was internal discussion about how they should describe their contact with federal agencies who were involved in the process of filtering the public discussion. Essentially, what were these Twitter executives going to say about how they are coordinating with DHS, FBI and ODNI? Policy Director Nick Pickles, eventually led a discussion to label the government contacts in the generalized term “partnerships.”
Thesis: Begin with The End in Mind – The U.S. Government control over social media though DHS was going to surface eventually. The people who constructed the systems knew exposure would eventually come. Two CENSORSHIP lawsuits, one filed by Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai in 2020 [LINK], and another filed by Missouri Attorney General in May 2022 [STATE OF MISSOURI ET AL VERSUS JOSEPH R BIDEN JR ET AL], were going to push the relationship between DHS and social media into the public consciousness; mitigation efforts would be needed.
The timing of the Twitter purchase by Elon Musk, initially triggered via major stock purchase in April 2022, must be considered with the overlay of these two sunlight lawsuits. Regardless of who owned Twitter, the nature of DHS controlling a backdoor portal into the content of social media was going to surface – as it has been unfolding from the two referenced censorship lawsuits.
The Twitter Files represent a gateway of discovery into how government assisted creating “Oligarchical Systems.” Surveillance systems delivering mutual benefits called public-private partnerships were formed. Readers here are months ahead of where the arc of this story is destined. However, oligarchical beneficiaries will always defend the system against rogue oligarchs who become a threat.
There are major inconsistencies in the public narrative as it swirls around Elon Musk and Twitter.
How could a businessman, an entrepreneur like Elon Musk, spend $44 billion, that’s BILLION, on an enterprise without knowing the basic outline of how that enterprise was operating. In a world of financial due diligence, on a scale of this size, the contradictions do not make sense.
Yet if we are to take Elon Musk at his word, he had no idea that DHS operated a portal into the network. He also had no idea about James Baker working as Twitter legal counsel and carrying such a massive conflict of interest. Additionally, via his announcement last night, Musk had no idea that Perkins Coie was legally representing Twitter.
How does an owner/operator take ownership of an organization and not know these senior executive issues? Reconcile these questions, and we begin to reconcile a background of activity that Mr. Musk may not know about. The alternative explanation is much more nefarious and involves Musk as a willing participant.
Regardless, before going further I cannot emphasize this point enough. We cannot fight our way through these puzzling issues until we all approach the big questions from the same baseline, the root of what created the system.
When it comes to congress and the graft that is Ukraine, nothing should come as a surprise. Last month, the Biden administration asked Congress for another $37.7 billion in support for Ukraine. If that passes, and it certainly will, Congress will have approved more than $100 billion in Ukraine-related spending.
To wit, yesterday congress slipped Ukraine Debt Payment Relief, into the 4,400 page National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which will make the Senate happy as the intent of the upper chamber is to continue the laundry operation.
(Via Fox News) – The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2023 passed the House Thursday afternoon in a 350-80 vote. Included in that 4,400-page bill is a section on “Ukraine Debt Payment Relief.”
That section says the U.S. treasury secretary will instruct U.S. representatives of international financial institutions to “use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States to advocate that the respective institution immediately provide appropriate debt service relief to Ukraine.”
It instructs Treasury to commence “immediate efforts” with other governments and commercial creditors to “pursue comprehensive debt payment relief for Ukraine.”
As an independent in the Senate, not much will really change as far as the voting and caucusing is concerned. However, from the standpoint of having to gain votes for reelection in Arizona and accepting the complete chaos that is now Arizona voting, the strategy will likely play well.
As a Democrat Sinema was likely to face a well-funded primary challenge from her left, while simultaneously she will likely face a strong opponent from the Republican side, by taking a place to avoid the primary and position herself as a third-party candidate, she can likely carve out enough votes to win a 3-way race.
(Politico) – In a 45-minute interview, the first-term senator told POLITICO that she will not caucus with Republicans and suggested that she intends to vote the same way she has for four years in the Senate. “Nothing will change about my values or my behavior,” she said.