The latest odd and confusing tale comes from a resurfaced speech he delivered on September 11, 2021; a PDF is available on the Minnesota government website. It was the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. An interesting segment of his speech stood out for two reasons. Here is the portion in question [emphasis added]:

In the years after that classroom, I had the privilege of serving in this state’s national guard. I stood one night in the dark of night on the tarmac at Bagram Air Base in Iraq and watched a military ramp ceremony–a soldier’s body being loaded onto a plane to be returned home. And if you’ve seen it, you don’t leave the same. It makes you wonder, what are we doing? What are we trying to get to? And then watching as all of you have been, the confusing last few weeks with the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.

There are two problems with his statement. By saying that he had the privilege of serving in the National Guard and then telling the story of watching a military ramp ceremony implies that the two are related. That was his intention, otherwise he would have noted his time in Congress during which he attended a military ramp ceremony as a member of a delegation. Instead, he wanted listeners to believe he was with the National Guard while in the Middle East watching the ceremony.

Here’s the video of Walz giving the speech itself. He doesn’t just mention being in the National Guard before telling of the military ramp ceremony. He took it a step further by talking of the “guilt” he felt in being able to come home knowing so many others didn’t, insinuating that he had “come home” from deployment in the Middle East, which never actually happened.

After referencing his time in the National Guard, Tim Walz said felt "guilt" of being able to come home from Afghanistan when so many others did not.

He was in Congress when he went to Afghanistan. pic.twitter.com/rSDHm13uRf

— JD Rucker (@JDRucker) August 12, 2024

The second error in his speech, which was written but not spoken, was saying the air base is in Iraq. Bagram Air Base is in Afghanistan. Details matter, especially when speaking from a position of authority on a matter.

As 𝕏 user @amuse noted:

Shore News Network noted:

After many examples of Walz claiming either directly or indirectly that he is a war veteran who saw combat, the Democrat party and the mainstream media continue covering for him.

However, the incident underscores the delicate nature of discussing military service, especially in the context of solemn remembrances like those for 9/11.

While the controversy may fade, it highlights the intense scrutiny faced by public figures, especially when it comes to their service records. For Walz, a simple slip of the tongue or a minor factual error turned into a significant political issue​.

Don’t believe it? Download the full pdf here.

If this was an isolated incident, we could give him the benefit of the doubt that he simply failed to transition between mentioning being in the military and telling the story about Bagram. But Walz has demonstrated multiple times that he intentionally keeps his service record hazy at best, distorted at worst. He has implied seeing combat, which he never did. He has claimed to be retired with a rank that he lost. He pretends he didn’t know about deploying to Iraq before retirement despite many of those around him at the time debunking him.

Tim Walz is a liar and a bad one at that. We should appreciate his willingness to serve his country. But if he cannot properly communicate what his service record really is, how can he be trusted to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

The plea deals would have allowed the three Guantanamo Bay prisoners — including alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — to skirt the death penalty in exchange for pleading guilty to all charges, a development that multiple family members of 9/11 victims objected to strongly in interviews with the Daily Caller News Foundation before Austin reversed course. Austin said that “responsibility for such a decision should rest with [him]” rather than subordinate entities given the significance of the government taking the death penalty off the table for terrorists who allegedly facilitated the murders of nearly 3,000 innocent people.

“For me and a lot of the families, this is a very welcomed change in their position. The biggest fear that I had, and a lot of family members had, was what could happen with these three individuals without a death penalty,” Terry Strada, whose husband died on Sept. 11 just days after the birth of their third child, told the DCNF following Austin’s order. “Wherever they would be held for a life sentence, any administration going forward could possibly use them in a prisoner trade deal. The death penalty is the right thing for them to face because of the crime that they committed. So, I’m very happy to hear that the Pentagon has stepped in and is doing the right thing.”

Prior to Austin’s decision to effectively revoke the plea deals, Strada told the DCNF that the pretrial agreements felt to her like a “betrayal.”

Austin 9-11 Plea Deals Order by Nick Pope on Scribd

In addition to effectively walking back the plea deals, Austin also relieved the Guantanamo Bay court overseer in his order, according to The New York Times.

“We remain hopeful that these animals get the death penalty. I can’t understand why we would ever be negotiating with terrorists,” Brinley Maloney, whose husband was killed on 9/11, told the DCNF in response to Austin’s decision to intervene. “Hopefully, politicians aren’t making this decision because it’s election season. All Americans should stand united in calling for accountability and justice.”

Before Austin stepped in, Maloney told the DCNF that the pretrial deals were a “disappointment to my family and all of the 9/11 families.” Maloney’s daughter, who was a toddler when her father died, told the DCNF that the agreements were “disgusting and incredibly disappointing” before Austin walked them back.

The Biden White House distanced itself from the plea deals before Austin stepped in to revoke them, with a National Security Council spokesperson telling the DCNF on Thursday that it learned of the plea deals after they had been reached and that “the president and the White House played no role in this process.” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre also told reporters that the White House did not play a role in the plea deal process during a Thursday press briefing.

Republican lawmakers and many in the media lambasted the plea deals as a disgrace prior to Austin’s move to rescind the agreements.

Frank Siller, the founder of the Tunnel to Towers Foundation whose brother — a firefighter — died on 9/11, likened the deals to a “slap in the face” in a statement shared with the DCNF prior to Austin’s decision to effectively put the death penalty back on the table.

“After 9/11, we all said, ‘Never forget.’ Well, we forgot. And not only did we forget, we don’t give a damn anymore,” Don Arias, a retired Air Force lieutenant whose brother was killed on Sept. 11, told The New York Times before Austin stepped in. “A lot of people just want this over with.”

Joe Connor, who lost a cousin on 9/11 decades after his father was killed by Puerto Rican terrorists, also ripped the plea deals before they were revoked.

“You know, after seeing this, like, I’m so afraid we’re not going to get justice for my cousin and all the thousands killed that day and their families. My dad’s terrorists, the FALN, they were released. They were given clemency by the Clintons and Obama,” Connor told Fox News. “It’s all politics, and it concerned me then that we were going to have these guys somehow end up in a U.S. prison. It concerns me that someone’s going to use politics to release these guys.”

The White House did not respond immediately to a request for comment, and the Department of Defense referred the DCNF to Austin’s order when contacted for comment.

(Featured Image Media Credit: Screen Capture/ABC 7 News)

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

But based on a recent flurry of social media activity on TikTok, there may be good reason to expand the lawsuit to include young adults who have demonstrated a lack of common sense, accepting at face value the contents of a 2002 letter written by the terrorist founder of al-Qaida and mastermind of 9/11, the late Osama bin Laden.

Whoever used TikTok to dust off bin Laden’s two-decades old “Letter to America” perhaps was prompted by the Oct. 7 Hamas raid into Israel in which, despite every conceivable violation of international law being perpetrated, the terrorists received outrageous public support after Israel declared all out war. Chinese owners of the social media provider undoubtedly allowed its posting as an opportunity to inflict public opinion damage upon Israel and the U.S. by sharing the letter with a new generation of Americans undoubtedly unfamiliar with the epistle. And, by stoking the pro-Hamas fires, terrorist sympathizers probably also hoped to trigger additional calls for a Gaza ceasefire.

Bin Laden’s letter laid out his justification for the 9/11 attacks on America. It was translated by a British newspaper and posted online, from where it was recently obtained and re-published. Interestingly, it has since been removed both by the British newspaper and TikTok due to criticism of the large pro-bin Laden response.

The terrorist leader called the creation of Israel a “crime” in which the U.S. was complicit and, therefore, made all Americans criminals as well. He went on to accuse America of stealing Arab wealth and oil – “the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world” – as well as being guilty of occupying Muslim lands. He labeled America “the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind.” He blamed America for the global spread of AIDS. The roughly 3,800-word English translation of the letter rambled on and on, painting the constant picture of Palestinians, and all Muslims for that matter, as victims of the U.S. and its allies. Conveniently ignored by bin Laden was that by 2009 al-Qaida was responsible for killing eight times more Muslims than non-Muslims simply for failing to embrace his version of Islam.

Naive readers, apparently applying the often-used claim by former President BIll Clinton, “I feel your pain,” responded by glorifying the terrorist’s rationale, totally ignoring the freedoms and values he sought to destroy. Over a thousand young Americans, accepting bin Laden’s diatribe at face value sans fact checking, felt sufficient pain to post a pro-terrorist response.

American journalist Yashar Ali reported some of these:

“Many of them say that reading the letter has opened their eyes, and they’ll never see geopolitical matters the same way again. … [and many] say it has made them reevaluate their perspective on how what is often labeled as terrorism can be a legitimate form of resistance to a hostile power.

“In one viral video, a woman said the letter is ‘wild’ and ‘everyone should read it,’ adding that reading it has ‘left her disillusioned.’

“Another woman said reading the letter left her reeling in an ‘existential crisis,’ and encouraged viewers to also read it. ‘In the last 20 minutes, my entire viewpoint on the entire life I have believed and I have lived has changed. Please read that entire letter.’

“‘I need you to stop what you’re doing and go read a “Letter to America,”‘ a male said on video. ‘It is literally the craziest thing I have read in a while and while I can’t say that I’m not surprised, I’m pretty shocked.’ He then proceeded to read the following X post, which he said was reminiscent of the letter: ‘Under settler colonialism, any kind of resistance is branded as [terrorism] because the only acceptable violence is violence by the occupier.’”

Sadly, these TikTok users seem to totally ignore a point bin Laden blatantly made concerning Islam’s mission – one impacting upon them directly. He calls for all non-believers of Islam (those fighting in the cause of Satan) to become believers (those fighting in the cause of Allah) as al-Qaida’s mission (and, by the way, that of Hamas as well) is to subvert all other religions to it! While these people advise reading bin Laden’s letter, they failed to read it closely. They also have not read the Quran, which preaches only three choices for non-believers: 1) convert to Islam, 2) subvert their religions to Islam or 3) die!

In the aftermath of the praise for “Letter to America” posted by TikTokers, former Navy SEAL Robert O’Neill, who killed bin Laden in 2011 during a daring raid into the compound in Pakistan where the terrorist was hiding, made an appropriate observation about these American mental lightweights: “Deceit is a mask the Devil puts over the eyes of useful idiots.”

These young people need to read the comments of a 9/11 rescuer, still plagued with nightmares years later, who was queried about the victims jumping from the buildings:

“Although no one will ever know how these innocent civilians felt contemplating their choice of jumping (off the World Trade Center buildings) or burning to death, one can only imagine that it must have been a horrendous decision to make. I can share with you that some of the people seemed to simply fall from the towers as they were backing away from the flames that engulfed the area behind them. Others made a deliberate decision to jump out of the building to escape the horrors they were eventually going to face. There were others who would hold hands with another person and simply jump. I witnessed one group of 4 or 5 people holding hands as they fell to their deaths. Although I can’t imagine the thought process that went through their minds when they were forced to make this choice or what they were thinking during the time they were falling, but I can assure you that they died immediately on impact and did not suffer. …”

Whether it is Americans supporting bin Laden’s justifications or those of Hamas, it appears we will always be plagued by useful idiots. What is difficult to understand, however, is whether their motivation stems from ignorance, stupidity or, worse yet, an honest belief that acts of murder by terrorists can ultimately be justified.

If only such people could have been present during the early morning hours either in New York City’s World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, or in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. For those who willingly ingest an ideological poison, the only anecdote is a strong dose of reality.

Leave a comment about this story on The Liberty Daily Substack.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@wndnewscenter.org.

For the record, I’ve been exceedingly critical of the roles both Israel and the United States have played in allowing the terrorist attacks. I’m not one who blindly accepts the official narrative and I know that the Deep State in both countries are involved in what’s happening. Clearly, there are many agendas in play right now and none of them are beneficial to us.

Anti-Zionist and Anti-Semitic hatred has been building up ever since October 7 across college campuses and the streets of America. Protests are getting larger and louder. Wednesday night, the Decolonization Death Cult rioted in Washington DC, attempting to storm the DNC Headquarters.

Now, an article posted by The Guardian in 2002 has reemerged and is taking TikTok by storm. The so-called “Letter to America” written by 9/11 terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden is going viral with tens of millions of views accumulated between multiple influencers. Here’s a compilation video of these influencers instructing their sheep to go read it. This is, of course, a coordinated campaign by the Decolonization Death Cult.

The article has since been removed by The Guardian. According to The Post Millennial:

On Wednesday, The Guardian removed a letter written by Al-Queda founder Osama Bin Laden that had been published on its website for more than 20 years. This comes as the hashtag #lettertoamerica was viewed on TikTok over 10 million times.

TikTokers, many of them American, found the letter and began to share it. As they did so, they expressed their agreement with the letter. The letter was published in British news outlet The Guardian in 2002, after the September 11 terror attacks on the United States, which killed over 3,000 people. As they read the letter, steeped in the oppressor/victim worldview, they find themselves agreeing with bin Laden’s assessment that the US, and Israel, are responsible for attacks on their own nations. One American TikToker said the letter gave her an “existential crisis” and she will never look at the US the same again.

Watching the video’s compiled makes two things crystal clear. First, there is zero doubt the videos were coordinated. These influencers didn’t suddenly read the article and come up with the exact same talking points on their own in a matter of hours. Second, this marks a very dangerous turn in the situation, especially here in the United States, because it justifies terrorism as righteous to those participating in the “Free Palestine” movement, which I now refer to as the Decolonization Death Cult.

For years we’ve been warning about the infiltration of the United States by terrorists at our southern border. Those warnings have hit overdrive since Joe Biden opened the borders, but they continue to go unheeded. We know that terrorists are here on American soil to the tune of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands. What many of us didn’t expect is that they’d be able to build their terrorist army with support from Americans through the current indoctrination campaign. Maybe some saw it coming, but I missed it until now.

There are spirits of disillusionment, delusion, and anger spreading across America. Unfortunately, I don’t know of any solutions other than continuing to spread the truth, becoming increasingly diligent, and a whole lot of prayer. Just as Daniel prayed for his nation ceaselessly, so too must we pray for our nation as it plunges down a very dark hole. Stay frosty, friends.

Sound off about this development on my Substack.

Today’s youth are more likely to be marching in support of sexual perversion than wondering about the source and purpose of the 9/11 attack.

Over the years I have reported the mounting evidence provided by scientists and by architect Richard Gage’s Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth until the organization he created removed him at the request of the government, effectively destroying the organization.  But for me the proof that 9/11 was an inside job has always been that no one in government and security agencies was ever held accountable for the worst humiliation ever inflicted on an alleged “superpower.”

Instead, it took a year before the White House even agreed to an official coverup with the 9/11 Commission, another in the long line of commissions like the Warren Commission that validates the official story. If a few young Saudi Arabians had actually defeated the entire national security apparatus of the United States, the White House would have been screaming, and heads would have rolled.

The neoconservatives had just called for a “new Pearl Harbor” so they could launch their wars of destruction of Israel’s enemies in the Middle East. They immediately blamed 9/11 on “Muslim terrorists” and began their invasions that halted only when Russia blocked the neoconservatives’ overthrow of Syria.  So it is pretty clear who is responsible for 9/11 and why.

Many Americans today understand what really happened, but the government will never admit it.  It takes decades for the truth to come out, and by then everyone affected by the event is dead, and the event becomes ancient history.

It is paradoxical that President Trump is in the dock for questioning an election, while Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives, and the whore media that covered up for them, never faced a single charge.

Article cross-posted from Paul’s blog.

It’s clear that Building 7 did not fall because of debris fire. Greg Reese’s video above demonstrates that in five minutes. But is it enough to make people question the entire narrative? They should. It’s been a best practice for a long time in the United States of America to question everything.

Why 9/11 Truth Is Still Important

As noted, the CIA is very good at distorting truths. But they also know they can’t keep every secret hidden forever, which is why they allow the release of new evidence periodically. It’s better to let the air out of the balloon slowly rather than just popping it. The more air they let out, the less noise the balloon will make when it finally pops.

There has been a ton of evidence about 9/11 dropped over the years, evidence that would have blown up the entire narrative if it came out all at once in the four or five years following the terrorist attack. But being 22-years removed from the event, many if not most of the conspiracy theorists have moved on.

I was not someone who dove too deeply into the events. As I recall I watched a documentary or two about it sometime last decade but I abandoned it know that nothing would be done about it, at least not in the short term. My interest has been renewed over the last year as we see the aftermath and connect the dots. A lot of what we’re seeing today with rising globalist tyranny is a direct or indirect result of 9/11 and everything that happened after it.

For example, many of the Covid lockdowns and mandates launched by oppressive state leaders and DC bureaucrats were only possible because of laws passed as a result of 9/11. If it weren’t for the changes made during the “War on Terror,” many states would have had to pass legislation to enact their lockdowns. And while some would say a lockdown is a lockdown, I would argue that being able to hold state legislators accountable would have allowed the people to better protest them. Some of the lockdowns and mandates would have started slower and ended faster if it weren’t for post-9/11 changes.

This is just one of the reasons I believe the terrorist attack was part of a much larger plot that began before the turn of the millennium and continues into today. It wasn’t just about radical Islamic terrorists killing thousands of Americans. It was about building on the foundation of the New World Order. As we see totalitarianism rising worldwide, the implications are clear.

This, perhaps more than anything else, is why I want people to be “red pilled” into looking at 9/11 more closely. It marked the beginning of the current phase of globalism that is engulfing us all.

Waking Up Normies

Whenever I call on people to share the truth with as many “normies” as possible, there are a lot who say or at least think that it’s the responsibility of these normies to do their own research. More importantly, they say that the sheep being led to slaughter are doing it to themselves and do not deserve our intervention.

I am a firm believer that regardless of what’s coming in the near future, we NEED people to be awake and alert. It’s important that as few Americans as possible are beholden to government because when the crap hits the fan, only the unbeholden will be in a position to be our allies. It doesn’t matter how patriotic or freedom-loving someone is. If they didn’t prepare, if they continued to trust the powers-that-be all the way up to the point of the crap hitting the fan, then they’ll be stuck under the thumb of the globalists.

Those people, patriotic as they may be, will not be our allies.

To make people question the UniParty Swamp, the Deep State, and the Globalist Elite Cabal is to give them the reasons they need to break free. 9/11 in general and Building 7 in particular are important possible pathways through which normies can be made to start asking questions about the whole agenda. What they’re doing to us today ties back to what they did to us on 9/11. What they did to us on 9/11 ties back to what they were setting up for the previous century. What they were setting up the previous century ties all the way back to what the serpent launched when he tempted Eve.

There are no coincidences.

If Reese’s video above is too “fringe” for some of your friends and family (or perhaps it’s too fringe for you), then here’s a video of a lucid eyewitness who was IN Building 7 at the time.

As a Bible-believing Christian, I know that true freedom only comes with complete submission to God’s Will by accepting Grace through belief in Jesus Christ. With our undeserved salvation secured, the machinations of the adversaries are understood as temporal. But just because we submit to God does not mean we should willingly submit to the Powers and Principalities. We must fight the good fight for as long as we’re here on earth, and that means expanding our ability to act. That’s why we must prepare.

I know 9/11 conspiracies aren’t for everyone. Some think they’re just too old. Others think they’re just too crazy. I believe most who have been concerned over the years have simply moved on because it seems clear there will be no accountability delivered nor changes made. But if we ignore how we got here, I believe we are ill prepared to deal with what’s happening, and more importantly what’s to come.

The adversary has spent a very long time setting up the evil plans that are now engulfing the nation and the planet. It behooves us to do what we can while the windows of opportunity are still open. It starts with knowing and sharing the truth.

Join the conversation about this story on my America First Substack.

In a March 28, 2023, article titled “A Guide to Understanding the Hoax of the Century,”^1,2 Jacob Siegel, senior editor of Tablet magazine’s afternoon news digest, News and The Scroll, discusses the emergence of the “disinformation industrial complex,” which is the topic of his forthcoming book.

The United States has been unique in its dedication to free speech, but that Constitutional right is rapidly eroding in the name of national security and protecting public health.

Siegel traces the early days of the information war to Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who in 1950 claimed to have proof of a communist spy ring within the U.S. State Department. Initially, he claimed to have the names of 205 communist spies. A day later, he revised it to 57. However, the inconsistency is not the point.

“The point was the power of the accusation,” Siegel says. “For more than half a century, McCarthyism stood as a defining chapter in the worldview of American liberals: a warning about the dangerous allure of blacklists, witch hunts, and demagogues.”

Blacklists and Witch Hunts Return

By 2017, American liberals had seemingly forgotten that lesson, as mainstream media pundits accused Donald Trump of being a Manchurian candidate installed by Russia. An organization called Hamilton 68 claimed to have proof showing hundreds of Russian-affiliated Twitter accounts manipulated the U.S. election to get Trump into the White House.

As it turns out, none of these accusations were true and Hamilton 68 turned out to be a “high-level hoax.” Most of the accounts were Americans engaged in organic conversations, which Hamilton 68 arbitrarily described as “Russian scheming.” Twitter’s safety officer, Yoel Roth, even admitted the company had labeled “real people” — again, mostly Americans — as “Russian stooges without evidence or recourse.”

A key difference between the McCarthy and Hamilton 68 episodes was that journalists, U.S. intelligence agencies and Congressional members didn’t swallow McCarthy’s accusations without chewing. When the witch hunt against Trump took off, anyone who questioned the accusations was attacked as a co-conspirator.

Media even refused to report on the evidence proving that Hamilton 68 was a complete scam. The level of disinterest in the truth suggested that American liberalism “had lost faith in the promise of freedom and embraced a new ideal,” Siegel writes.

Propaganda and Censorship — Two Sides of the Same Coin

Propaganda is as old as humanity itself, but the modern version of it can be traced back to 1948, when the CIA’s Office of Special Projects launched Operation Mockingbird, a clandestine CIA media infiltration campaign that involved bribing hundreds of journalists to publish fake stories at the CIA’s request.

The dismissal of conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists as mentally unstable crackpots was one of the tactics invented by the CIA at this time. Its intent was (and still is) to marginalize and demoralize anyone who questions the fabricated narrative.

It’s quite telling that Operation Mockingbird was launched the same year the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act (aka the Smith-Mundt Act) became law, which forbade the U.S. government from pushing propaganda onto the U.S. population.

This anti-propaganda law was repealed in 2013 by then-President Barrack Obama. So, since July 2013, the U.S. government and CIA have been legally permitted to propagandize U.S. citizens. In addition to the simplification of global coordination of news by way of news agencies, this is yet another reason why propaganda has flourished and grown exponentially in recent years.

The undermining of free speech took off at the end of 2016, when Obama signed into law the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act, which opened the door to an offensive information war against the public.

But for propaganda to be truly successful, especially in the long term, you also need censorship — a concept wildly opposed in the U.S. until recently — and censorship, at least in America, requires the undermining of free speech rights.

As noted by Siegel, the effort to undercut free speech really took off at the end of 2016, when Obama signed into law the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act, which opened the door to “an open-ended, offensive information war” against the general public.

Seemingly overnight, “misinformation” and “disinformation” were said to pose an urgent existential threat to national security, freedom, democracy and, later, to public health. We’re now told we must eliminate misinformation to preserve free speech, which is so twisted that no Constitutionally-literate person can make sense of it.

The Acceleration of Free Speech Elimination

By repealing the Smith-Mundt Act, and signing into law the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act, Obama laid the legal groundwork for government control of speech in the U.S. Since then, a sprawling disinformation industrial complex has emerged, which seeks to control the internet and all information in it.

As described by Siegel, the U.S. national security infrastructure has now fused with social media platforms, which is where the information war is being fought. The national mobilization against disinformation has also been expanded from a whole-of-government approach to a whole-of-society approach.

In a 2018 document, the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) calls for “leveraging expertise from across government, tech and marketing sectors, academia, and NGO’s.” “This is how the government-created ‘war against disinformation’ became the great moral crusade of its time,” Siegel writes.

Of course, media have also played a significant role in the “whole-of-society response” to disinformation, but they are “by far the weakest player in the counter-disinformation complex,” Seigel notes, adding:³

“The American press, once the guardian of democracy, was hollowed out to the point that it could be worn like a hand puppet by the U.S. security agencies and party operatives.

It would be nice to call what has taken place a tragedy, but an audience is meant to learn something from a tragedy. As a nation, America not only has learned nothing, it has been deliberately prevented from learning anything while being made to chase after shadows.

This is not because Americans are stupid; it’s because what has taken place is not a tragedy but something closer to a crime. Disinformation is both the name of the crime and the means of covering it up; a weapon that doubles as a disguise.

The crime is the information war itself, which was launched under false pretenses and by its nature destroys the essential boundaries between the public and private and between the foreign and domestic, on which peace and democracy depend.

By conflating the anti-establishment politics of domestic populists with acts of war by foreign enemies, it justified turning weapons of war against American citizens. It turned the public arenas where social and political life take place into surveillance traps and targets for mass psychological operations.

The crime is the routine violation of Americans’ rights by unelected officials who secretly control what individuals can think and say. What we are seeing now, in the revelations exposing the inner workings of the state-corporate censorship regime, is only the end of the beginning.

The United States is still in the earliest stages of a mass mobilization that aims to harness every sector of society under a singular technocratic rule.

The mobilization, which began as a response to the supposedly urgent menace of Russian [election] interference, now evolves into a regime of total information control that has arrogated to itself the mission of eradicating abstract dangers such as error, injustice, and harm — a goal worthy only of leaders who believe themselves to be infallible, or comic-book supervillains.”

Phase 2 of the Information War — Total Control

The COVID pandemic was a significant part of Phase 1 in the information war, although the war on public perception began years earlier. As noted by Siegel, the COVID phase was “marked by distinctively human displays of incompetence and brute-force intimidation.” Phase 2 will undoubtedly be carried out by artificial intelligence, now thoroughly trained to identify the greatest triggers of fear and panic, both on an individual and societal basis.

We can also expect censorship by algorithm. It will no longer be a game of whack-a-mole with humans tagging posts and requesting their removal. Instead, messages containing certain words simply won’t go anywhere and won’t be seen. Spoken and written key words will be automatically flagged and deleted or barred from posting by AI.

AI-based bots and “sock puppets” (fake accounts) can also be launched across platforms and be algorithmically amplified to alter the perceptions of billions in real time. We saw this trend emerging during the first round of COVID, where multiple accounts were posting the same “original” message, verbatim, at the same time.

As noted by Siegel, the end goal of all this information wrangling is control. Not partial control, but total. Over everything and everyone. This is also why we will never see a government authority admit they spread disinformation themselves, even though, technically, they’ve been guilty of such on numerous occasions over the last three years.

They dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation, even though U.S. intelligence had proof that it, and its contents, were real. They claimed the lab leak theory was a racist conspiracy, even though, privately, the scientific consensus was that the virus came from a lab. They told us the COVID jabs would stop transmission, even though that was never tested in the first place. The list goes on.

“Disinformation, now and for all time, is whatever they say it is,” Siegel writes.⁴ “That is not a sign that the concept is being misused or corrupted; it is the precise functioning of a totalitarian system.”

Partners in Crime

Siegel isn’t the only one calling out the information war as a crime. In another Tablet article titled “Partners in Crime,”⁵ New Civil Liberties Alliance attorney Jenin Younes reviews evidence from the Missouri legal case⁶ against the Biden administration showing how government and Big Tech built “a whole-of-system censorship campaign” in clear violation of the First Amendment.

Internal Meta documents obtained by the House Judiciary Committee’s Select Subcommittee on Weaponization of the Federal Government in July 2023 has also fleshed out the story of how state-sponsored censorship came to be the official policy of so many private companies.

The evidence shows that Facebook and other social media companies did not take it upon themselves to become arbiters of truth. Rather, they were aggressively pressured to do so by Biden administration officials, and officials within various federal agencies. Sometimes they did meekly follow the direction given, but even in cases where they tried to push back, they eventually had to fall in line for fear of government retaliation.

“While other lawsuits alleging First Amendment violations based on government involvement in social media censorship have been filed over the past two years, Missouri [v. Biden] has proven uniquely successful,” Younes writes.⁷

“When the complaint was filed in May of 2022, the main proof the Missouri plaintiffs had were public statements from high-ranking members of the administration, including former White House Press Secretary Jennifer Psaki, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and President Biden himself.

The plaintiffs cited public statements of government officials unabashedly proclaiming they were flagging posts for social media companies to censor; openly criticizing the companies for inadequate removal of content (especially anything that cast doubt on the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines); accusing tech executives of ‘killing people’ for not adequately censoring so-called misinformation; and threatening to hold them accountable should they refuse to comply.

Judge Terrence Doughty ordered discovery at an early stage of litigation … For the first time, the public became aware of the Biden administration’s clandestine censorship operation, which began a mere three days after President Biden’s inauguration …

By February of 2021, then-White House Director of Digital Media Robert Flaherty had intensified the administration’s tactics … He began bullying companies — using expletives, wielding accusations, and making demands — in his efforts to get them to remove content that he claimed might cause people to decline vaccines …

On numerous occasions, Brian Rice and other Meta employees sent the White House detailed lists of agreed-upon policy changes after initial attempts to assuage Mr. Flaherty’s wrath proved unsuccessful.

On July 4 of this year, Judge Doughty granted the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction in Missouri, observing that ‘the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,’ and describing the administration’s censorship regime as akin to an ‘Orwellian Ministry of Truth.’

Crucial to the outcome was the court’s finding⁸ that the Biden administration and various federal executive agencies coerced, pressured, and encouraged social media companies to suppress First Amendment protected speech, converting otherwise private action into that of the state.

The core principle at issue, which forbids the government to co-opt private industry to circumvent constitutional prohibitions, is known as ‘state action doctrine.’ Without it, the Bill of Rights would be worthless.

Police could, for instance, hire a private company to search your home despite lacking probable cause, in order to get around the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against warrantless searches and seizures. Or the government could evade the guarantees of Equal Protection in the 14th Amendment by funding racially segregated private schools.

The judge agreed with the plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden that … since the First Amendment prohibits government from abridging freedom of speech, the Constitution cannot be read to permit government to commandeer private companies to accomplish its viewpoint-based censorship aims.”

Direct Evidence of Coercion

While the initial evidence suggested the Biden administration was the driving force behind the media censorship, it was still circumstantial. That changed in late July 2023, when internal Meta documents were obtained by the Subcommittee on Weaponization of the Federal Government.

According to Younes, “These documents tie the knot: They unequivocally establish that but for the Biden administration’s strong-arm tactics, certain viewpoints would not have been suppressed.”

For example, in a July 2021 email, Meta’s head of global affairs, Nick Clegg, asked Brian Rice, who was in charge of Facebook’s content policy, why they had removed, rather than flagged or demoted, claims that SARS-CoV-2 was manmade.

Rice replied, “Because we were under pressure from the [Biden] administration and others to do more and it was part of the ‘more’ package.” He ended the email saying, “We shouldn’t have done it.”

“Not only did Rice explicitly state that pressure from the White House caused Meta to remove content endorsing the lab leak theory of COVID’s origins, he also expressed remorse for this decision.

These new documents also prove that the removal of ‘vaccine discouraging content’ occurred because of government pressure,” Younes writes.

Clegg, for example, told Andy Slavitt, former White House senior adviser for the COVID response, that removing humorous memes disparaging the COVID jab — as demanded by Slavitt — “would represent a significant incursion into traditional boundaries of free expression in the U.S.” Slavitt insisted and brushed off Clegg’s concerns as immaterial, and in the end, Clegg acquiesced to avoid potential retaliation.

Quid Pro Quo

Younes continues:⁹

“The White House’s coercive tactics had the desired effect. Both Clegg and [Meta COO Sheryl] Sandberg urged acquiescence to avoid adverse consequences. In Clegg’s words, ‘Sheryl is keen that we continue to explore some moves that we can make to show that we are trying to be responsive to the WH.’

He explained that the company’s ‘current course … is a recipe for protracted and increased acrimony with the WH as the vaccine roll out continues to stutter through the Fall and Winter. Given the bigger fish we have to fry with the Administration — data flows etc — that doesn’t seem a great place for us to be.’

Thus, ‘given what is at stake here, it would also be a good idea if we could regroup to take stock of where we are in our relations with the WH, and our internal methods too.’ The ‘data flow’ referenced a dispute Meta was having with the European Union at the time over transfer of users’ data. If resolved in favor of the EU, Meta could face significant fines.

As Twitter files journalist Michael Shellenberger and his co-authors recently explained in analyzing this exchange, ‘the series of events suggests a quid pro quo. Facebook would bow to White House requests for censorship in exchange for its help with the European Union.’”

First Amendment Seeks to Prevent Suppression of Dissent

As noted by Younes, President Biden had promised to make mass vaccination against COVID central to his agenda. The problem was, a great many Americans didn’t feel comfortable being injected with an experimental gene therapy that had no long-term safety data.

This was an impediment to Biden’s political agenda, and rather than acknowledging that the mass vaccination campaign was ill received, the White House simply scapegoated social media instead.

It was their fault that Americans weren’t rolling up their sleeves in sufficient numbers. Internal Meta emails attest to the fact that employees felt they were being used as scapegoats whenever the vaccination campaign wasn’t going as hoped.

“A government using its power to suppress dissent is precisely what the First Amendment sought to prevent,” Younes notes.

“‘Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government: When this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved,’ Benjamin Franklin, one of the Founding Fathers, famously wrote.

The first president of the United States, George Washington, once said, ‘If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.’

Let us hope that when the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and probably the Supreme Court, consider these cases in the upcoming months, they interpret the First Amendment as the Constitution’s Framers understood it. Otherwise, the future of free speech, and liberty itself, is in grave danger.”

In closing, while Younes recognizes the terrible threat state-sponsored censorship poses, he doesn’t follow the bread crumbs as far as Siegel does. Younes seems to believe the government censorship network came about to protect Biden’s political goals, but it’s way bigger than that.

Like Siegel states, the end goal is global control. To get there, those seeking that control must create a total stranglehold on all information, because that’s how you best control a population.

What’s more, this stranglehold is global. It’s not an American phenomenon that sprung up because Biden wanted to get a jab in every arm. COVID censorship is happening in every country, and every country needs to investigate what role, if any, their governments played in the suppression of truth.

• ^1, 3, 4 Tablet March 28, 2023
• ² Patreon Manifesto Podcast April 4, 2023
• ^5, 7, 9 Tablet August 20, 2023
• ⁶ Missouri v. Biden Case No. 3:22-cv-01213
• ⁸ Missouri v Biden Memorandum Ruling on Request for Preliminary Injunction

Article cross-posted from Dr. Mercola’s site.

Libertarian Nevada state assembly candidate Mindy Robinson took to Gab to lay out some of the questions that remain unanswered over two decades later:

Here’s your reminder on 9/11 to Never Forget:

• • The missing 3 trillion dollars the government “lost” the day before.
  • The Israelis they caught with a van full of explosives that were on a rooftop filming BEFORE the first plane hit and had access to the buildings all month thanks to Mossad shell companies.
  • Why building 7 fell down demolition style despite never being hit and two buildings away from the towers.
  • Why the only footage from the Pentagon looks like a missile hit it.
  • Why firemen heard large explosions going off at the base of building 1.
  • How one of the terrorist’s passports was “found” in near perfect condition on the ground.
  • Or how all the big honchos including the head of security for the entire WTC didn’t go to work that day.

I know I’m not supposed “to be saying this as a candidate” but you know what? I really do hope the media tries to slam me as a ”conspiracy theorist” for this one…at least it would force all these unanswered questions back into people’s minds. If our government has no problem creating illegal viruses, pushing toxic vaccines, denying us life saving medicine, and covering up mass shootings they always seem to have a hand in like Las Vegas…then they have no problem killing 3,000 of us for oil, war profits, and hiding the 3 trillion dollars they stole.

As I noted earlier today, it behooves us to continue to ask questions. Now more than ever, Americans are waking up to the reality that many if not most of the “official narratives” we’re being sold on a plethora of issues are false. They’re lying to us. They’ve been lying to us. Why would we believe they weren’t lying to us about 9/11?

How many woke modern athletes would do something similar if the attacks happened today? How many would take a knee instead?

FLASHBACK: Sammy Sosa takes the field his first game after the September 11th terrorist attacks.

Where has this uplifting gratitude gone in professional sports?

pic.twitter.com/gZCL2q6fqg

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) September 11, 2022

According to Fox News:

U.S. military prosecutors are reportedly negotiating potential plea deals with 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other conspirators imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay. The plea deals may allow the five dependents to escape a potential death penalty, according to CBS. Mohammed is widely credited with being the architect of the 9/11 terror attacks. The other four defendants are Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, Walid bin Attash and Ammar al-Baluchi.

Attorneys for the defendants reportedly say they would be willing to enter a guilty plea in exchange for taking the death penalty off the table, as well as for getting treatment for alleged torture they experienced while in CIA custody.

Retired actor and active patriot James Woods noticed what many of us did, that the timing of the news is an outrage:

To see this headline on September 11 is appalling. Why is justice such an elusive concept in America today? Will the heinous among us never be held accountable? This is an outrage, and to read about it on this sacred day is an insult to the fallen.

https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1569035039324925954

The timing of this news is not a coincidence any more than the timing of the Benghazi attack was a coincidence. They’re insulting us. They’re laughing at us. This regime truly and absolutely hates America and they’re proud of that fact.