Blog

Trump Is Using the ‘Misinformation’ Censorship Playbook Republicans Attacked Biden For

A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson recently complained about alleged “lies, smears and AI deepfakes that are designed to deceive Americans” about President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda. Pressed on whether the government was talking with social media platforms to stem this purported misinformation, the spokesperson said, “Yes and we are also putting resources forward to ensure DHS combats this.”

It wasn’t so long ago that candidate Trump and his Republican allies were decrying the Joe Biden administration for pressuring platforms to police misinformation. The Trump administration seems to have warmed to the idea. 

Many on the left, who previously supported giving the government greater power to combat so-called misinformation, are and should rightly be fearful of a Trump administration empowered to censor speech it disagrees with.

The DHS announcement signals a deeper shift toward government-driven moderation of online speech—a shift that threatens to turn every administration into a speech arbiter. The power to dictate what can be said on the internet is inherently prone to abuse, no matter who holds it. The stakes are high.

Jawboning for Me but Not for Thee

Under the First Amendment, federal and state governments cannot censor speech they dislike, so instead of blatantly shutting down a news organization or online platform, government actors often try to force a company to do their bidding through more subtle means. These demands often happen behind closed doors, backed by an implicit—or sometimes explicit—threat that refusal will bring government retaliation. Because the government wields so much power over businesses, these companies understand they are in a weak position to resist. This practice is called “jawboning.”

When the Biden administration made public and private demands that social media companies remove “misinformation” and “disinformation” related to the COVID-19 pandemic, it ended up at the Supreme Court in Murthy v. Missouri. The Court ultimately punted by ruling that individual social media users who claimed their speech was suppressed lacked standing to sue. 

This was disappointing. Internal emails from various social media companies showed that senior leaders felt they had no choice but to comply with the administration. Meta’s leaders internally said that they needed to change policy because they had “bigger fish to fry with the Administration.” YouTube claimed it needed to keep Biden officials happy since they wanted to “work closely with the administration on multiple policy fronts.” Amazon moved to “accelerate” its policy changes ahead of a call with Biden officials. Thankfully, the Supreme Court did at least uphold the principle that jawboning is wrong and unconstitutional in another case, NRA v. Vullo. 

Today, the Trump administration appears to be invoking Murthy as cover for its own pressure campaigns against online platforms. Apple removed an app that allowed users to report sightings of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers in real time. After complaints from Attorney General Pam Bondi, Meta removed a Facebook group that shared information about ICE agents. Now, the DHS says it is communicating with social media companies about supposed immigration misinformation. It would be naive to suppose it hasn’t applied any pressure during those talks.

It is entirely possible that the government can point to specific acts of illegality. It’s also possible that some of this content violates platform policies. For example, Meta claimed it removed the Facebook page with information on ICE agents for violating its “policies against coordinated harm.” It is possible this group was persistently violating this policy. But as long as these companies remain vulnerable to government pressure, we cannot simply trust officials who insist their demands are legitimate.

Keep reading

Father and son terrorists were armed to the teeth with SIX guns when they launched their deadly Bondi Beach rampage, killing 15 and injuring dozens more – as police reveal they were ALL legally-owned

The father and son terrorists who opened fire onto a crowd of innocent people, killing 15 at Bondi Beach had six guns with them at the scene, police have said.

The older gunman Sajid Akram, 50, was shot dead by police while his son Naveed Akram, 24, suffered critical injuries and remains in hospital under police guard following the horrific shooting at a Jewish Hannukkah celebration on Sunday night.

NSW Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon confirmed the 50-year-old, who is yet to be formally identified, held a gun licence and all firearms registered to him were legally owned. 

Police have since seized all six firearms linked to him which are understood to have been at the scene of the terrifying shooting.

‘He has six firearms licensed to him. We are satisfied that we have six firearms from the scene yesterday, but also as a result of the search warrant at the Campsie address,’ Mr Lanyon said.

‘Ballistics and forensic investigation will determine those six firearms are the six that were licensed to that man, but also they were used in the offence yesterday at Bondi.

‘We will continue to investigate this matter thoroughly.’ 

ASIO has also admitted that one of the shooters was on their radar.

Keep reading

The Siren Song of War

In October of 2002, I shocked many in my Congressional District and beyond by voting against giving President George W. Bush authorization to use military force in Iraq.

The night before that vote, my older sister told me a Knoxville television station had conducted a poll which found that in its viewing area 74 percent were for the war, 9 percent were against, and 17 percent were undecided.

When I pushed the button at about 3:00 the next day to cast that vote, I wondered if I might be ending my political career. My vote was so highly publicized that it was clearly the most unpopular thing I had ever done.

However, after three or four years and much to my amazement, that vote became the most popular of the more than 16,000 I cast during my 30 years in the U.S. House.

Unfortunately, the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) that the Congress passed then is once again relevant because President Trump and his advisers seem to think it gives them authority to go to war in Venezuela without the declaration by Congress called for in our Constitution.

When we went to war in Iraq in 2003, Saddam Hussein’s total military budget was about 2/10 of one percent of ours. Venezuela’s is even less. Neither of those two countries were or are capable of attacking us in any serious way. Neither has even threatened to do so.

Two polls in late November by CBS News/YouGov and Reuters/Ipsos both showed that about 70 percent of the American people were opposed to going to war in Venezuela, and probably most of the other 30 percent did not really want such a war but just did not want to oppose President Trump.

While the overwhelming majority of the American people do not want more dangerous illegal drugs coming into this Country, far more drugs are coming from China and Mexico and various other places. If we take action against Venezuela, which country is next?

Just before we went to war against Iraq, U.S. News & World Report had a story headlined “Why The Rush To War?” We should be asking the same thing today.

Keep reading

French Public Broadcaster Claims Christmas Markets Are a Tradition Tied to the Nazis

A French public broadcaster has been accused of spreading anti-Christian messaging by saying that the tradition of Christmas markets is tied to Adolph Hitler and the Nazis.

This week, taxpayer-funded Franceinfo published a video titled “Christmas markets, a tradition rehabilitated by the Nazis” on social media, which, according to Le Figaro, opened with the question: “Did you know there’s a link between the Nazis and our beloved Christmas markets?”

The broadcaster went on to claim that the tradition was “largely revived” by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party under Adolph Hitler in the 1930s as a means of promoting economic growth by encouraging the purchase of goods made in Germany at Christmas markets.

While Franceinfo journalist Antoine Milan Depeuille acknowledged that Christmas markets predate the formation of the Nazi party by hundreds of years during the Holy Roman Empire and spread widely across the continent during the Industrial Revolution, he claimed that they made a “strong comeback” in Hitler’s Germany in the 1930s after being pushed to the periphery of cities by “elites”.

“With the Nazi dictatorship, Christmas became a nationalist holiday. Christmas markets helped promote German heritage,” and “stimulate the economy with products made in Germany,” he said, claiming that the Nazis “decided to reinstate Christmas markets in city centres”.

Amid steep backlash on social media, with the broadcaster facing accusations of anti-Christian bias, Franceinfo removed the video from its accounts.

The public broadcaster’s move to tie Christmas markets to the Nazis was hailed by the French Communist Party-aligned L’Humanité newspaper, which declared: “Franceinfo is right: our Christmas markets do indeed have a link with the Nazis! Much to the dismay of the far right, which seeks to rewrite history while also attacking public service in the process.”

Keep reading

Top Biden Official Belatedly Admits Ukraine War Truth Bombshell

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is way behind the times. On Sunday he very belatedly expressed willingness to drop Ukraine’s bid to join NATO. In place of this, he’s seeking robust security guarantees. “We are talking about bilateral security guarantees between Ukraine and the United States — namely, Article 5-like guarantees … as well as security guarantees for us from our European partners and from other countries such as Canada, Japan and others,” Zelensky told journalists in a group chat, as reported in Financial Times.

“These security guarantees are an opportunity to prevent another wave of Russian aggression,” he said. “And this is already a compromise on our part.” But this should have been taken off the table all the way back in February of 2022, on the eve of the Russian invasion, or even well before. He’s much too late ‘offering’ this ‘concession’ just as White House envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner are meeting Sunday in Berlin with Zelensky, and then separately with the national security advisers of Germany, France and the UK.

The open secret has for years been that the Washington and EU establishments know full well that it was historic and recent constant NATO expansion which led to this horrific, grinding war. This reality is so well understood that in their private, non-official commentary even former top Biden officials fully admit the fact. Yet these same Biden officials had while in government pursued policies fueling the Ukrainian proxy war as they wanted to ‘weaken’ Russia. They considered the issue of NATO expansion as a prime rationale of Russia’s invasion to be an off-limits talking point. Indeed for any sincere, independent commentators… to so much as raise the issue would get them smeared as a “Putin apologist”. But watch this recent and highly revealing clip below of Joe Biden’s top official for Europe and former national security official Amanda Sloat admitting the truth…

Keep reading

Brown University Shooting Suspect Who “Yelled Something Unique” Before Attack On Jewish Studies Classroom Traveled From Wisconsin

It has been nearly 24 hours since a gunman stormed a Brown University classroom taught by Jewish professor Rachel Friedberg, who teaches the intersection of economics and Jewish studies, and reportedly “yelled something unique” before using a handgun and unleashing a hail of bullets in the classroom.

The suspect was apprehended earlier today, but authorities have not released the suspect’s name or a front-facing photograph. Given that Brown is one of the most heavily surveilled campuses in the nation, with more than 800 cameras, the absence of released footage raises questions, especially since the suspect reportedly “yelled something unique” before killing two people and injuring nine others in a Jewish econ-studies classroom.

New details from CNN, citing multiple law enforcement sources with knowledge of the investigation, say the suspect apprehended earlier today traveled from Wisconsin.

Keep reading

Psychedelic treatments show promise for OCD while cannabis doesn’t, review finds

A recent review of alternative treatments for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) indicates that psychedelic treatments show promise for the disorder while cannabis does not.

Dr Michael Van Ameringen, a psychiatry professor at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada and lead author of the review published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, said that 40-60 % of OCD patients get either partial or no relief with available treatments, including SSRIs and exposure and response prevention therapy.

While psychedelics and cannabinoids have become part of the conversation surrounding OCD – a disorder characterized by intrusive, obsessive thoughts and/or compulsive behaviors – there is a much larger body of published evidence on the efficacy of these substances for more common conditions, like depression and anxiety.

“We wanted to hone down and really understand, is there evidence for these things that have been talked about to be used as the next step treatments?” Van Ameringen explained.

Given the paucity of existing literature, Van Ameringen said he didn’t know what to expect. To make up for the lack of published information, he included conference presentations and preliminary, unpublished findings in the review paper.

Upon compiling available evidence, Van Ameringen and his team found “stronger signals” for the efficacy of psychedelics, specifically psilocybin (the psychoactive component of “magic mushrooms,”) than for cannabinoids like THC and CBD.

Van Ameringen theorizes that the difference is related to how these substances interact with areas of the brain related to OCD. While cannabinoids activate the brain’s CB1 receptors, which regulate symptoms like compulsions and anxiety, available evidence shows they don’t offer lasting relief from OCD symptoms.

Psilocybin, on the other hand, can reduce connectivity in the brain’s default mode network, which “essentially is involved in self referential thinking and rumination. The default mode network is really activated in OCD”, he says.

A difference in the methodology of cannabis and psilocybin studies might also have contributed to the different results, says Dr Mohamed Sherif, a psychiatrist and computational neuroscientist at Brown University who will lead a future clinical trial on psilocybin for OCD. Psychedelic clinical trials, like the one Sherif is planning, tend to offer patients not only medication but also encouragement to frame their experience as a therapeutic “journey”.

“This was not done in cannabinoids [studies,]” Sherif explained.

Dr Terrence Ching, a clinical psychologist at the Yale School of Medicine, similarly wondered if the way people use cannabis versus psilocybin might explain the different outcomes. While people tend to use cannabis for temporary relief, psilocybin can help facilitate actual changes in the brain and in patients’ perception of their OCD.

“One could use cannabis for the same therapeutic reason, of confronting something deeper about their OCD or their obsessive fears. But conventionally, people tend to use cannabis for an avoidance function,” Ching explained.

Preliminary results from Ching’s clinical trial on a single dose of psilocybin for OCD were included in Van Ameringen’s review paper, and showed that psilocybin was effective for OCD symptoms compared to placebo. Ching is now preparing the results of the trial for publication, and planning a second clinical trial where OCD patients will receive two doses of psilocybin at different times.

Keep reading

Let’s talk about…the Bondi Beach attack

Earlier today, two gunmen allegedly opened fire on attendees of a Chanukah by the Sea event on Bondi Beach in Sydney.

So far, authorities have claimed 12 people are dead, eleven civilians and one gunman, with a further twenty nine in hospital, includ8ng the second alleged gunman.

One suspect has been named as Naveed Akram, a 24 year old living in Sydney. Authorities also claim to have discovered an “explosive device” in a car “linked to” the attacker.

It’s only been a few hours, but the Independent has a personal opinion piece headlined:

Bondi was my safe haven – after today, Australia will never be the same

This is a common sentiment. Surprisingly common.

That feels like narrative talking point to me. But, assuming this is psy-op on some level, what might the final aim be?

It can’t be guns, because Australia’s guns are long gone.

If it’s about anti-Muslim sentiment, it’s a finely modulated game since one of the heroes of the hour is also a Muslim immigrant.

Keep reading

Gunman Who Killed Three Americans in Syria Was Member of Syrian Government’s Security Forces

The gunman who killed two members of the Iowa National Guard and an American civilian interpreter in an attack in Palmyra, central Syria, on Saturday was a member of the Syrian government’s security forces, according to the Syrian Interior Ministry.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) first reported that the attacker was a member of the security forces and called for the Syrian government, which is led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, an offshoot of al-Qaeda, to get rid of members who have an “ISIS ideology.”

The Syrian Interior Ministry claimed that, before the attack, Syrian authorities had “decided to fire him” for having “extremist Islamist ideology” and had planned to do so on Sunday. “We discovered him in December and were going to dismiss him, but we didn’t make it in time because it was a holiday,” said ministry spokesman Nour al-Din al-Baba, according to The Cradle.

A Syrian security official told AFP that the attacker had been in the security forces “for more than 10 months and was posted to several cities before being transferred to Palmyra.”

According to Wael Essam, a Palestinian journalist who has covered the conflict in Syria for many years, the perpetrator has been identified as Tariq Satouf al-Hamd from the Aleppo countryside. Essam said that al-Hamd was previously a member of ISIS, but after the fall of former President Bashar al-Assad, he traveled to Idlib, the former home base of HTS, and joined the General Security.

The attack occurred when US military officers were meeting with Syrian Interior Ministry officials while US and Syrian troops stood guard at a base near the city of Palmyra. According to The Wall Street Journal, a lone gunman appeared in a window and opened fire on the US and Syrian soldiers, and he was pursued by Syrian troops and killed. However, according to Essam’s report, the attacker blew himself up.

“The attacker tried to reach the meeting room in the headquarters of the General Security in Palmyra (formerly the Military Security headquarters) where senior officers are present, and in the corridor he clashed with the American guards and the translator and blew himself up,” Essam wrote on X.

Essam also suggested that other members of the Syrian security forces were involved in the attack. “Security sources confirmed to me that Syrian intelligence, along with the Coalition forces, arrested six elements from the General Security at the headquarters in Palmyra, accused of coordinating the operation with him, and it is said that they are from the group that moved with him from the desert to the General Security in Idlib,” he said.

He added that Syrian authorities were “unable to identify his previous affiliation with the organization (ISIS), and there are hundreds like him, due to the large numbers who joined and which the security apparatus needed after the fall of the regime.”

President Trump and other US officials have called the incident an “ISIS attack” and have left out the detail that the perpetrator was a member of the Syrian military, which the US has allied itself with despite HTS’s al-Qaeda past, and as of Sunday, ISIS hasn’t taken credit for the shooting.

“This was an ISIS attack against the US, and Syria, in a very dangerous part of Syria, that is not fully controlled by them,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

He added that Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa is “extremely angry” about the attack. Trump recently hosted Sharaa at the White House despite his past as an al-Qaeda leader and ally of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the founder of ISIS.

Keep reading

UFO Transparency Stalls Again as Congressional Leaders Fail to Act Despite Growing Attention

Congressional leadership has abandoned full enactment of the proposed Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act (UAPDA) after it was not included in the final National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2026, due to be signed by President Trump.

Liberation Times understands that the proposed legislation—first introduced in 2023 by then-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (Democrat) and Senator Mike Rounds (Republican), a member of the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services Committees—now faces an uncertain future.

After initial resistance in 2023—reportedly from some in House and Senate leadership—a mostly gutted version of the UAPDA was ultimately enacted via the 2024 NDAA. 

In response, Senators Schumer and Rounds entered into a colloquy on the Senate floor expressing their disappointment with House Republicans and pledged to continue pursuing the full legislation, including the creation of an independent Review Board: a nine-member panel of U.S. citizens appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate. 

Under the proposal, the Board would have authority to assess and advise on the public release of UAP-related information and records, alongside provisions requiring the government to secure possession of any recovered UAP material and related biological evidence that may have been transferred to private entities—potentially placing it beyond the reach of Congress and the American public.

Keep reading