Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Kamala’s Secret Weapon: The British Operatives Determined to “Kill” Elon Musk’s Free Speech Platform X

Published

13 minute read

From Reclaim The Net

By

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Amid the chaos of pre-election America, major information has surfaced, revealing internal documents from the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). This UK-based group, which was founded by British political strategist Morgan McSweeney under the name Brixton Endeavours Limited before being renamed to the Center for Countering Digital Hate in 2019, outlined a clear goal in their agenda: “Kill Musk’s Twitter.” The documents make it clear that the CCDH is targeting Elon Musk’s social media platform with full force. McSweeney, who helped guide Keir Starmer to victory in the UK, is now involved in US politics, advising Kamala Harris as she navigates the upcoming election, raising serious questions about the CCDH’s reach and motives.

CCDH May 31st agenda, above a note about meeting “with [Senator Amy] Klobuchar’s team.”

Now, if you’re wondering why a think tank founded by a man who helped turn Keir Starmer into the British Prime Minister is so dead set on smashing up a social media platform thousands of miles across the pond, you’re not alone. But the CCDH isn’t just any ragtag team of keyboard warriors. These guys are plugged into Washington power circles like an iPhone into a dodgy charger, with ties so tight to the Biden-Harris campaign, that they might as well be writing the tweets. And with McSweeney now advising Kamala Harris, well, let’s just say the plot thickens. 

Related: Behind Closed Doors: The UK and US Plot Global Speech Crackdown

Kamala’s British Wingman

Meet Morgan McSweeney, a political operative you’ve never heard of—unless you’ve been glued to British politics or, for some inexplicable reason, a hardcore Labour Party fan in America. According to a new report from The DisInformation Chronicle and Racket News (which is worth reading in full), McSweeney, the brains behind Starmer’s rise to the UK premiership, is now advising Kamala Harris on how to go from “Where’s she been?” to “First female President.”

According to the report, McSweeney is credited with piloting Starmer’s victory against the Conservatives, beating Rishi Sunak. And McSweeney recently became UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Chief of Staff.

But McSweeney isn’t stopping at Downing Street. No, he’s set his sights on America. And what’s more American than advising Kamala Harris after founding an organization that’s trying to vaporize Elon Musk’s $44 billion free speech project? After all, nothing screams “Democracy!” like a transatlantic political hit squad targeting Musk’s favorite free speech toy.

Musk, Misinformation, and Tax Breaks

Let’s not forget that the CCDH is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit—a status they might want to cling to tighter than a senator to their PAC funding. According to the IRS, CCDH could lose its golden goose tax exemption if “a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation.” And yet, somehow, according to the report, “Trigger EU and UK regulatory action” is the third item on their annual to-do list.

And to make things even murkier, CCDH has hired Lot Sixteen, a firm known for lobbying congressional offices on—you guessed it—“misinformation.” Nothing screams integrity like a supposedly neutral non-profit hiring a lobbying firm to bend the ears of politicians in the world’s most corrupt zip code. It’s almost poetic, if by poetry you mean a collection of contradictory nonsense wrapped in a PR-friendly bow.

A tweet by Elon Musk stating "This is war" above another tweet by Paul D. Thacker about exclusive documents allegedly showing British advisors plotting against Musk's Twitter, with an image of two people speaking.Elon Musk reacts to the new report.

So, what does the CCDH’s fearless leader, Imran Ahmed, have to say about all this? Well, nothing, actually. Despite repeated requests from The DisInformation Chronicle and Racket, Ahmed—another British political operative welded to McSweeney’s Labour Together cabal—has clammed up. You can almost hear the sounds of frantic shredding from CCDH’s London offices.

Meanwhile, Senator Amy Klobuchar, who’s been pushing bills to regulate online “misinformation,” isn’t exactly rushing to answer questions either. And why would she? The CCDH’s plans dovetail nicely with her efforts to wrangle Big Tech under the guise of safeguarding democracy. Who cares if a few pesky details—like the potential illegalities of foreign interference or questionable nonprofit activities—get in the way? We’ve got elections to win here!

It’s almost endearing to see the British influence clawing its way back into American politics. Once upon a time, they tried to impose taxes on tea; now they’re sending think tanks to tackle free speech. If you’re wondering why a bunch of Brits are interested in who gets to say what on American soil, well, let’s just say the empire never really dies—it just switches to online servers.

The CCDH, that shiny bastion of truth-squelching, made headlines when they tried to silence Substack writers like Alex Berenson and Dr. Joseph Mercola, daring to spout the unthinkable—vaccine “misinformation.” In a world where dissent is dangerous, what’s a good digital inquisition without a few heretics to burn at the stake? But Substack threw a wrench into CCDH’s plans with the audacity to say, “No, thanks. We’re not here to take orders from the mob.” Their exact words? “At Substack, we don’t make moderation decisions based on public pressure.”

But the battle’s far from over. If at first, you don’t succeed in turning the internet into a digital police state, try again across the pond. CCDH’s new plan for American soil? Start by dismantling the platforms of opponents like Elon Musk—because if there’s one thing that irks the establishment more than free speech, it’s a billionaire who buys the bird app and starts letting people talk again. To do that, CCDH is deploying the tried-and-true tactic of hitting where it hurts: ad revenues. It’s like the financial version of waterboarding—slow, steady, and guaranteed to make you reconsider your life choices.

But they’re not stopping with the world’s richest troll. CCDH is also pushing for new regulations that would make Europe’s draconian Digital Services Act and the UK’s paternalistic Online Safety Act look like child’s play. Under these laws, an “independent digital regulator” (read: Orwellian overlord) would have the power to decide what counts as “harmful content” and hand out penalties to any platform that steps out of line. Nothing says “freedom” like letting bureaucrats decide what’s dangerous for you to read.

The Lobbying Blitz: CCDH’s Capitol Hill Campaign

Naturally, CCDH hasn’t come to the US to play nice. With Labour Together and McSweeney’s as their comrades in censorship, they’ve launched an all-out lobbying blitz on Capitol Hill. Their shiny new toy? The STAR framework is a friendly-sounding acronym that would essentially give them the ability to enforce platform censorship through government regulation. Because if you can’t silence your enemies with social media bans, why not use Congress as your personal speech police?

And don’t think for a second they’re not riding the wave of the latest moral panic. Following the riots that were oh-so-conveniently blamed on disinformation (because personal responsibility is so last century), CCDH and its allies are positioning themselves as the solution to America’s pesky free speech problem. In fact, across the Atlantic, under the would-be Prime Minister Keir Starmer, UK regulators are already sharpening their knives, threatening severe actions against any platform that refuses to fall in line with their censorship demands. You can almost hear them sharpening the guillotine from here.

Of course, all of this is framed under the noble guise of “safety.” We’ve heard it before: “We’re just trying to protect people from harm.” But when you peel back the layers of sanctimonious rhetoric, what you’re left with is a cold, calculated effort to control the narrative. If it’s not coming from the approved sources, it’s dangerous. If it challenges the establishment, it’s misinformation. And if you don’t fall in line? Well, they’ve got a regulation for that.

The Real Endgame: Speech Control

Let’s not pretend this is about safety, though. This is about power. CCDH’s push for stricter regulations, under the guise of protecting the public from harmful content, is nothing more than a naked attempt to control the flow of information. They’ve already tried it in the UK, and now they’re bringing their act to the US, hoping to use government muscle to do what public pressure alone couldn’t.

And the implications are staggering. If groups like CCDH succeed in shaping US regulations to mirror the Digital Services Act or the Online Safety Act, we’re looking at a future where platforms are forced to police speech in real-time, handing over the power to determine what’s “acceptable” to an unelected body of bureaucrats and activists. It’s not about misinformation—it’s about control. And once they’ve got that control, you can bet they won’t give it up easily.

At the end of the day, the CCDH and its allies are playing a long game. They don’t just want to silence a few Substack writers or take away Elon Musk’s ad revenue—they want to reshape the entire landscape of online discourse.

So next time you see CCDH and their cohorts talking about the dangers of misinformation and harmful content, remember: It’s not about safety. It’s about control. Because in the digital age, whoever controls the narrative controls everything.

Read the full report here.

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Business

No Jobs Clause: Liberals Under Fire Over Stellantis Deal in Fiery Committee Showdown

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Dan Knight's avatar Dan Knight

It was less of an industrial strategy and more of a cultural manifesto wrapped in a subsidy package… clause after clause mandates social goals: The “50-30 Challenge” pushes for 50% women and 30% underrepresented groups on boards, with detailed reporting on diversity metrics… But job protections? Squishy at best.

Folks, here’s why every Canadian should be boiling mad: Just two years ago, on May 2, 2023, Justin Trudeau’s Liberals were all grins and photo ops, announcing a whopping $15 billion deal with Stellantis to build the NextStar EV battery plant in Windsor, Ontario. Trudeau himself called it a “historic agreement” that would “create thousands of well-paying jobs” and position Canada as a leader in electric vehicles. But fast-forward to October 14, 2025, and Stellantis pulls the plug on Brampton: They’re shifting production of the Jeep Compass from the Ontario plant to Belvidere, Illinois, citing “market conditions” exacerbated by Donald Trump’s reinstated 25% tariffs on Canadian-made vehicles. As Reuters reported on November 3, 2025, those tariffs—slapped on earlier this year—made it untenable to keep building in Canada for the U.S. market. Result? 3,000 workers laid off indefinitely, a facility idled since February 2024, and billions in taxpayer subsidies looking like a sucker punch. Stellantis isn’t even hiding it; their press release that day admitted the move was to “optimize operations” amid tariff pressures, investing $600 million in Illinois instead.

It’s a question that should make every Canadian furious, particularly anyone who still believes that the government’s role is to defend the nation’s workers rather than sell them out to foreign multinationals under the guise of “green investment.” The Trudeau government—with a lot of ribbon-cutting, back-patting, and press conference confetti—told us this was a generational opportunity. Up to $15 billion of taxpayer money was pledged through a combination of federal and Ontario subsidies, a massive, glittering pile of cash dumped at the feet of a foreign company to secure so-called “green jobs” in the electric vehicle sector. Split two-thirds federal and one-third provincial, it’s tied to production incentives—paid per kilowatt-hour as batteries roll out, not upfront, per the redacted contract leaked by CBC on October 29, 2025. But that didn’t stop the Liberals from hyping it as a slam-dunk for Canada’s economy.

At the time, Liberal ministers paraded through Windsor and Brampton with photographers in tow, declaring that the NextStar EV battery plant and a retooled Brampton assembly line would solidify Canada’s future in the EV revolution. The Strategic Innovation Fund was rolled out like a magic wand—promising prosperity, sustainability, and, of course, “equity.” Not just for jobs, but for gender representation, for racial diversity on corporate boards, for net-zero targets. It was less of an industrial strategy and more of a cultural manifesto wrapped in a subsidy package. As revealed in the CBC-leaked documents, clause after clause mandates social goals: The “50-30 Challenge” pushes for 50% women and 30% underrepresented groups on boards, with detailed reporting on diversity metrics. Climate commitments? Baked in, with net-zero benchmarks. But job protections? Squishy at best.

But now, Stellantis is pulling up stakes in Brampton. They’re shipping production of the Jeep Compass south—to Illinois. The line is shutting down. Three thousand jobs are gone, and Ottawa’s response? A letter. A procedural dispute-resolution letter sent to Stellantis lawyers on November 3, 2025, with the government now claiming the company broke a “binding agreement.” As Industry Minister Mélanie Joly told the parliamentary committee that day, “We will start the 30-day period of the formal dispute resolution process in order to bring back production at the Stellantis Brampton facility.” She added, “These actions are not symbolic. They’re the direct consequence of the violation of clear commitments.” The same government that only weeks ago was hailing this deal as a model for the future now admits it may not even contain an enforceable jobs guarantee. The language is vague. The numbers are redacted. The accountability? Nonexistent.

The Industry Minister, Mélanie Joly, faced her grilling on Parliament Hill during a meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology (INDU)—that exposed just how hollow this whole deal really was. Conservative MPs, including Raquel Dancho and Michael Guglielmo, demanded to see the clause. Which clause did Stellantis allegedly violate? What exactly was the commitment to Brampton? How many jobs were actually guaranteed? Was there a number? Was it enforceable? The Minister couldn’t—or wouldn’t—say. She deflected, pointed to redacted documents, and, when pressed about why the contract was packed with detailed social engineering mandates on board diversity but lacked hard job protections, accused her critics of being “against women.”

You can’t make this up.

Raquel Dancho, hammering in the core question that everyone watching already knew the answer to, asked,

“Was it 3,000 jobs that that SIF agreement with Brampton guaranteed?”

The minister responded like a bureaucratic ghost, floating just above the substance of the question.

“There are job guarantees in all the different contracts,” she said, “but you absolutely need to make sure that you see not only the contract… but also its amendment.”

Translation: Trust us. It’s in there somewhere. You just can’t see it.

Dancho pushed again: Where’s the number? Where’s the clause? The minister replied, “Clearly it is about protecting jobs. It is also about the production at the Brampton facility.” Not a single figure. Not a single line reference. Just the usual empty affirmation: “We care.”

Dancho didn’t let up. She cut through the fluff with brutal clarity:

“Surely there should be an explicit Canada-wide jobs guarantee. But we’re splitting hairs here. You’ve been evasive about the numbers… I’m not sure if you understand the magnitude of the money that you’ve committed.”

Then came the math:

“Over 647,000 full-time, two-parent Canadian families had to work an entire year to provide the $11 billion your government handed over to Stellantis. And still, there’s no explicit jobs guarantee.”

And when Michael Guglielmo followed up with the most damning observation of all—why are the clearest commitments in this contract about gender and racial equity quotas, not Canadian jobs?—the minister didn’t even deny it. She shot back with the cheap and predictable counterpunch:

“Are you against women being on boards?”

This is what it’s come to.

Instead of defending Canadian workers, the minister defends ideological clauses. Instead of admitting they cut a $15 billion cheque without a locked-down jobs guarantee, they imply that questioning the deal is somehow anti-diversity. These people don’t just miss the point—they refuse to even stand in the same room as the point.

Because the priority wasn’t jobs. It was ideology. The contract’s most detailed provisions weren’t about keeping Canadians employed—they were about the “50-30 challenge,” ensuring that Stellantis boards hit quotas: 50% women or non-binary individuals, 30% racialized, LGBTQ+, Indigenous, or disabled. These were enforceable clauses. Meanwhile, the 3,000 Brampton workers whose plant just shut down got… vibes.

That’s not economic strategy. That’s social engineering masquerading as industrial policy.

And now, when the jobs are gone, when Brampton is shuttered, when the workers are packing up their toolboxes and wondering how they’re going to pay their mortgage, the Liberals say they’re “launching a dispute-resolution process.” They sent a letter. They held a press conference. The Prime Minister, not present. The Minister, ducking behind amendments and redactions. And Canadians are left asking the only question that matters: Did we just get played?

Yes. We did.

The Liberals want you to believe this is just the price of doing business in a green economy. That global supply chains shift. That the transition to EVs is complicated. That we must continue to “work together.” But that’s not leadership. That’s surrender. The truth is, this wasn’t an industrial strategy—it was a $15 billion act of political performance art. A press release dressed up as policy. A parade of woke checkboxes signed into law while real, blue-collar livelihoods were used as bait.

And now we’re paying for it—not just in tax dollars, but in lost paychecks, empty factories, and shattered trust.

This is what happens when your government governs with hashtags instead of handshakes. When they negotiate with ideology, not leverage. When they cut billion-dollar deals and forget to actually protect the people they claim to represent.

Stellantis didn’t betray Brampton. The Liberal government did.

If there was a real deal—an actual, enforceable agreement that tied billions in taxpayer money to thousands of Canadian jobs—we’d be hearing about it nonstop. The Liberals wouldn’t be hiding behind redactions, amendments, and vague references to “linked contracts.” They’d be shouting from every podium: Here’s the clause. Here’s the violation. Here’s the money we’re clawing back. But instead, what do we get?

We get, “You’ll find it.”
We get, “It’s in the amendment.”
We get, “It’s commercially sensitive.”

It’s a shell game. A bureaucratic sleight of hand. Because the truth is, if this government had locked in a rock-solid guarantee, they’d be waving it in your face. They’d be naming names and quoting line numbers. But they can’t. Because it doesn’t exist. Or worse, because they were too arrogant or incompetent to include it in the first place.

And frankly, I’m not surprised. We’ve come to expect this from a Liberal government that governs by photo op and backpedals by committee. But what this is really about—what this entire spectacle reveals—is not just incompetence. It’s the desperate attempt to hide that incompetence from their own base. To maintain the illusion that they’re builders of the future while the factories go dark behind them.

They knew what they were doing. They just didn’t care who paid for it.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Business

Carney government’s first budget should signal end to crippling ‘climate’ policies

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

The Carney government will table its long-awaited first budget tooday. The vote on the budget is expected to be a confidence vote, so the stakes are high. Everyone is speculating about what’s to be in it. CBC, the Toronto Sun and Global News are all reading the tea leaves. And I hate to miss a tea party.

The budget is, naturally, going to have major implications for Canada’s economic indicators of debt, deficit, spending, governmental expansion/contraction, and so on. I’ll leave all that macroeconomics to my colleagues at Fraser Institute. But Prime Minister Carney has made some specific claims in my areas of specialty (environment, natural resources and regulation), and has made noises about Canada becoming an “energy superpower” and “building things” again. He’s also, in speeches leading up to the budget, re-affirmed that the Trudeau-era climate-change-centric, carbon-emission-control mindset is unchanged. The wording has changed, but the focus and predicates remain. Now though, rather than pounding on terms such as carbon, greenhouse and climate change, it’s all about Canadian policy being “responsible,” “sustainable,” “moral” and “equitable.”

Here’s what I’ll look for in the budget.

First, will the government dismantle or reform bills C-48, C-69 and the oil and gas emission cap—the three-pronged trident of death for major oil and gas development in Canada? Without this, it will be difficult to take any of his talk of energy superpower or natural resource trade renaissance seriously.

Second, will the government renounce or seriously reform the economically irrational, unattainable and crippling “net-zero 2050” anti-carbon agenda and shift Canada’s climate policy from emissions abatement to something potentially more attainable, such as adaptation and resilience building? Will it free Canada’s carbon natural resource economy to be the engine of Canadian prosperity and international competitiveness once again? Or keep Canada’s carbon (oil and gas) economy (and manufacturing economy) on a path toward extinction?

Third, will the government reset the tone of Canadian culture and defuse some of the adversarial relations with resource-rich provinces by acknowledging that Canada’s natural-resource economy has been, is now and must continue to be a cornerstone in Canada’s total economy? Or will it stick to the “net-zero” extinction process for carbon emissions, which will also be an extinction process for anything that requires substantial energy generation, and for the development of natural resources as the primary wealth engine of Canada? Will the government end the disdain for the role of Canada (and notably some of Canada’s western provinces) as a natural-resources export economy?

The budget will offer a window into the mind of Prime Minister Carney on the matter of natural resources in Canada’s economy and society. With global changes undermining the international carbon control regime and idee fixe, and with an understanding that Canada is on an economic precipice, there’s an opportunity here. Let’s hope Carney works to unshackle one of Canada’s greatest engines of economic progress—its energy and natural resource production, transformation, transportation, consumption and exportation.

Canadians could use the boost in quality of life that Canada’s natural resources could bring to current and future generations.

Continue Reading

Trending

X