Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Elon Musk declares ‘war’ over plot to ‘kill’ X by NGO linked to Kamala Harris, Keir Starmer

Published

3 months ago

9 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

Elon Musk said ‘this is war’ after a plan to ‘kill Twitter’ (now X) was exposed by two journalists. The Center for Countering Digital Hate is considered an ‘ally’ of U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and its founder is now advising Kamala Harris.

The world’s most successful African-American, Elon Musk, has declared “this is war” after a plan to “kill Twitter” (now X) was revealed.

Leaked documents published by Twitter files journalist Matt Taibbi and Paul Thacker show how an NGO linked to both Kamala Harris and the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in a “real foreign election interference story.”

As Taibbi and Thacker reported on October 22: “Internal documents from the Center for Countering Digital Hate – whose founder is British political operative Morgan McSweeney, now advising the Kamala Harris campaign – show the group plans in writing to “kill Musk’s Twitter” while strengthening ties with the Biden/Harris administration and Democrats like Senator Amy Klobuchar, who has introduced multiple bills to regulate online ‘misinformation.’”

Following the publication of the report, X owner Elon Musk responded with three explosive words:

The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) is a pro-censorship pressure group and “ally of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour Party,” according to the joint report. McSweeney, who founded the group, has ties so close to the Democratic Party that Politico has called Labour and the Democrats “sister parties.”

The leaks expose a partnership between the U.K. Labour Party and the Democrats to make good on a plan that has been months in the making – to rid the globalists on both sides of the Atlantic of Elon Musk’s free speech platform.

The same tactics are now being used against X, the report continues: “Now, CCDH’s growing Washington office is working on similar plans to ‘kill’ the online presence of Democratic rivals like Musk by attacking X’s advertising revenue.”

Whilst Donald Trump was banned from the platform whilst serving as president, Musk’s tenure has seen the rocket launching billionaire clash directly with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer over the Labour leader’s draconian “two-tier” policing.

Musk had described Starmer as wanting “Soviet Britain,” expressing alarm at Britons “arrested for posting on Facebook.” It seems that war had already been declared on Musk, and his remark was more an acknowledgement of hostilities already well underway.

This is the second attempt on the life of the platform. The move follows efforts in 2023 by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to “kill this platform,” which pressured advertisers to defund X – leading to an estimated loss of $22 billion.

In a September 4, 2023 post, Musk claimed that the league was “trying to kill this platform by falsely accusing it & me of being anti-Semitic.” Musk threatened to sue the Anti-Defamation League – for defaming him, and for the massive loss of revenue resulting from its defamatory campaign.

Evidence of ties to the “Deep State” in the plot to “kill Twitter” has been uncovered, showing how the CCDH’s chairman is also on the Atlantic Council.

As Mike Benz reported in July 2023, “The Chairman of CCDH’s Board is Simon Clark, straight outta the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Lab. Atlantic Council has 7 former CIA directors on its board and is funded by the UK Foreign Office (and the US State Dept and US Department of Defense.”

Benz, a well-known critic and analyst of the Deep State, showed that the “anti-disinformation” group’s former communication chief was a “self-described CIA operative.”

His evidence shows that the U.K. government-backed censorship group is also linked through the Atlantic Council to Biden family connection Burisma.

“The Atlantic Council was also directly partnered with Burisma and had a direct partnership with DHS to censor Trump supporters ahead of the 2020 election,” Benz said in a post on October 22, adding that the Atlantic Council has “7 CIA directors on its board.”

The plot to silence the world’s leading free speech platform reveals a deep network of UK and US government coordination through its many proxies to destroy any challenge to its narrative control.

An in-depth report by Zerohedge, which survived a shutdown attack by the CCDH last year, shows a breathtaking network of covert and overt operations with enormous power in the U.S. going back years.

Zerohedge published evidence of a 2020 campaign by the CCDH directing state attorneys general to deplatform the “Disinformation Dozen” of twelve leading COVID “vaccine” critics – including Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

As Zerohedge notes, “However, these are only the visible parts of the British invasion. McSweeney’s Labour Together has been operating in the U.S. for several years through CCDH.”

Yet this transatlantic conspiracy goes beyond the business of limiting speech – and defunding those who defend its freedom. Reports now show direct interference in the U.S. presidential election.

The Trump-Vance campaign has filed a Federal Election Commission complaint against Starmer’s ruling Labour Party after it publicized moves to “recruit and send … far-left party members” members to canvass for Kamala Harris “in critical battleground states.”

In a statement titled “The British Are Coming!” Trump-Vance campaign co-manager Susie Wiles said “the failing Harris campaign is seeking foreign influence to boost its radical message” – charging that this amounts to “election interference.”

The move comes alongside reports comparing both Trump and Elon Musk to Hitler. Musk responded to the charge in Germany’s Der Spiegel with a humourous tweet which was immediately used by CNN to re-Hitlerize him.

The exposure of this second plot to “kill Twitter” shows Elon Musk, Robert F. Kennedy, and now Trump and Vance themselves, directly targeted by a globalist “Grand Atlantic Alliance” and its covert and overt agents.

This amounts to a mission not only against these men, but against regime-critical media from across the political spectrum. This is a scandal which reveals the mechanism by which permanent rule is intended to be secured.

With Musk’s declaration, the first shots have been fired in a war for the future of freedom of speech – and for the nature of the free world itself.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
National / 4 hours ago

Liberal Leadership Launch…

COVID-19 / 6 hours ago

BREAKING: Days before Trump Inauguration HHS fires doctor in charge of gain of function research project

International / 7 hours ago

Bill Maher Torches California’s Disastrous Wildfire Response in Brutal Monologue

Business

Our energy policies have made us more vulnerable to Trump’s tariffs

Published on January 19, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Elmira Aliakbari and Jason Clemens

As Donald Trump, who will be sworn in as president on Monday, threatens to impose tariffs on Canadian exports including oil and natural gas, the calls from some Canadian politicians and analysts for greater energy trade diversification grow louder. However, these calls highlight a hard truth—Canada has repeatedly foregone opportunities to reduce our dependence on the United States by cancelling already approved pipelines and failing to approve new pipeline and LNG projects that could have increased our access to global markets.

The U.S. is not just Canada’s largest energy customer—it’s nearly our only customer. In 2023, 97 per cent of crude oil exports and virtually all natural gas exports were sent south of the border. This dependence on the U.S. for exports leaves Canadian producers and the Canadian economy exposed to policy shifts in Washington and even state capitals.

Consider Energy East, a pipeline proposed by TransCanada (now TC Energy) to transport oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries and export terminals in Atlantic Canada. The pipeline would have reduced Atlantic Canada’s reliance on imported oil and opened export markets for Canadian oil to Europe.

However, in 2017 the Trudeau government introduced new criteria for evaluating and approving major pipeline projects, and for the first time assessments included not only the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from constructing the pipeline but also emissions from producing and using the oil it would transport. Later that year, TransCanada suspended its application for the project, effectively cancelling it. The CEO of TransCanada blamed “changed circumstances” but many observers recognized it was a combination of the new regulations and opposition from Quebec, particularly the City of Montreal. Consequently, the refineries in Atlantic Canada continue to rely on imported oil.

A year earlier in 2016, the Trudeau government cancelled the already-approved Northern Gateway pipeline, which would have connected Alberta oil production with the west coast and created significant export opportunities to Asian markets.

Canada is even more dependent on the U.S. for natural gas exports than oil exports. In 2023, Canada exported approximately 84 billion cubic metres of natural gas—all to the U.S.—via 39 pipelines, again leaving producers in Canada vulnerable to U.S. policy changes.

Meanwhile, Canada currently has no operational infrastructure for exporting liquified natural gas (LNG). While LNG Canada, the country’s first LNG export terminal, is expected to become operational this year in British Columbia, it’s long overdue.

Indeed, several energy companies have cancelled or delayed high-profile LNG projects in Canada due largely to onerous regulations that make approvals uncertain or even unlikely, including the $36 billion Pacific NorthWest LNG project in 2017, the $9 billion Énergie Saguenay LNG project in 2020, Kitimat LNG in 2021 and East Coast Canada LNG in 2023.

This all adds up to a missed opportunity, as global demand for LNG increases. If governments in Canada allowed or even facilitated more development of LNG facilities, Canadian companies could supply high-demand regions such as Asia and Europe. Indeed, during Europe’s 2022 energy crisis, Germany and several other countries turned to Canada for reliable LNG supply, but the Trudeau government rejected the requests.

The contrast with the U.S. is stark. Since 2011, 18 LNG export facilities have been proposed in Canada but only one—LNG Canada Phase 1—is nearing completion, more than 12 years after it was announced. Meanwhile, as of January 2025, the U.S. has built eight LNG export terminals and approved 20 more, securing its position as a global LNG leader.

Years of inaction and regulatory roadblocks have left Canadian energy producers overly dependent on a single trading partner and vulnerable to shifting U.S. policies. The looming threat of tariffs should be a wake-up call. To secure its energy future, Canada must address the regulatory barriers that have long hindered progress and prioritize the development of infrastructure to connect our energy resources to global markets.

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

Trudeau leaves office with worst economic growth record in recent Canadian history

Published on January 18, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Ben Eisen

In the days following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s resignation as leader of the Liberal Party, there has been much ink spilt about his legacy. One effusively positive review of Trudeau’s tenure claimed that his successors “will be hard-pressed to improve on his economic track record.”

But this claim is difficult to square with the historical record, which shows the economic story of the Trudeau years has been one of dismal growth. Indeed, when the growth performance of Canada’s economy is properly measured, Trudeau has the worst record of any prime minister in recent history.

There’s no single perfect measure of economic success. However, growth in inflation-adjusted per-person GDP—an indicator of living standards and incomes—remains an important and broad measure. In short, it measures how quickly the economy is growing while adjusting for inflation and population growth.

Back when he was first running for prime minister in 2015, Trudeau recognized the importance of long-term economic growth, often pointing to slow growth under his predecessor Stephen Harper. On the campaign trail, Trudeau blasted Harper for having the “worst record on economic growth since R.B. Bennett in the depths of the Great Depression.”

And growth during the Harper years was indeed slow. The Harper government endured the 2008/09 global financial crisis and subsequent weak recovery, particularly in Ontario. During Harper’s tenure as prime minister, per-person GDP growth was 0.5 per cent annually—which is lower than his predecessors Brian Mulroney (0.8 per cent) and Jean Chrétien (2.4 per cent).

So, growth was weak under Harper, but Trudeau misdiagnosed the causes. Shortly after taking office, Trudeau said looser fiscal policy—with more spending, borrowing and bigger deficits—would help spur growth in Canada (and indeed around the world).

Trudeau’s government acted on this premise, boosting spending and running deficits—but Trudeau’s approach did not move the needle on growth. In fact, things went from bad to worse. Annual per-person GDP growth under Trudeau (0.3 per cent) was even worse than under Harper.

The reasons for weak economic growth (under Harper and Trudeau) are complicated. But when it comes to performance, there’s no disputing that Trudeau’s record is worse than any long-serving prime minister in recent history. According to our recent study published by the Fraser Institute, which compared the growth performance of the five most recent long-serving prime ministers, annual per-person GDP growth was highest under Chrétien followed by Martin, Mulroney, Harper and Justin Trudeau.

Of course, some defenders will blame COVID for Trudeau’s poor economic growth record, but you can’t reasonably blame the steep but relatively short pandemic-related recession for nearly a decade of stagnation.

There’s no single perfect measure of economic performance, but per-person inflation-adjusted economic growth is an important and widely-used measure of economic success and prosperity. Despite any claims to the contrary, Justin Trudeau’s legacy on economic growth is—in historical terms—dismal. All Canadians should hope that his successor has more success and oversees faster growth in the years ahead.

Continue Reading

Trending

X