The Trump administration took a step forward in its fight against tech censorship.

Proposed draft legislation sent to Congress by the Justice Department on Wednesday takes aim at social media platforms by modifying Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, seeking to narrow the scope of the liability protections granted by the act and eliminate the protection altogether for platforms that facilitate illegal activities.

Attorney General William Barr said in a statement:

"For too long Section 230 has provided a shield for online platforms to operate with impunity. Ensuring that the internet is a safe, but also vibrant, open and competitive environment is vitally important to America. We therefore urge Congress to make these necessary reforms to Section 230 and begin to hold online platforms accountable both when they unlawfully censor speech and when they knowingly facilitate criminal activity online."

The Justice Department argued that online platforms have used the immunity from liability to censor certain types of lawful speech, and its proposal would revise and clarify the existing language while also providing greater guidance to platforms, users, and courts. In particular, the Trump administration seeks to add the statutory definition of "good faith" with regard to the way platforms will censor their users. The Justice Department also proposed changing language from "otherwise objectionable" content to "unlawful" and "promotes terrorism," which the agency argued would prevent platforms from removing content that they simply dislike.

Joe Biden was slammed as "unhinged" by critics following an interview in which he compared US President Donald Trump to both Fidel Castro and infamous Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels in the space of less than a minute.

Asked by MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle about voters believing Trump's frequent accusations that Biden will push a socialist agenda as president, the former vice-president said he wasn't sure if there was anyone voting for Trump who hadn't already made up their mind.

"But who knows. He's sort of like Goebbels. You say the lie long enough, keep repeating it, repeating it, repeating it, it becomes common knowledge," he said, arguing that Trump was using the "socialist" attacks to "scare and distract" voters. He also accused him of "embracing dictators around the world" and then compared him to the late Fidel Castro.

"He's more Castro than Churchill," Biden declared.

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday that Americans might not know the winner of the November presidential election for months due to disputes over mail ballots, building on his criticism of a method that could be used by half of U.S. voters this year.

Election experts have said it might take several days after the Nov. 3 election until a winner is known as officials will need time to count mail ballots that arrive after election day.

Speaking at a rally in Newport News, Virginia, Trump said he would prefer to find out quickly whether he won or lost, rather than wait for the mail ballots to come in.

"I like watching television and have, 'The winner is', right? You might not hear it for months, because this is a mess. It's very unlikely that you're going to hear a winner that night. I could be leading and then they'll just keep getting ballots, and ballots, and ballots and ballots. Because now they're saying the ballots can come in late."

Early in the morning of September 27, Azerbaijan began an intensive shelling of settlements in Nagorno-Karabakh, including the capital of the republic of Stepanakert, going on the offensive along the entire line of contact.

To date, it is known that the Azerbaijani side has lost four helicopters, ten tanks and fourteen unmanned aerial vehicles.


Baku reported the destruction of 12 Armenian Osa anti-aircraft missile systems. There are casualties on both sides.


The Armenian military continues to shoot down Azerbaijani military equipment, the Armenian Defense Ministry reports. Another video with the destruction of enemy equipment is being published by the press secretary of the department Shushan Stepanyan.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden leads President Trump by 10 points in an ABC News-Washington Post poll released Sunday.

Biden leads Trump 54 percent to 44 percent in a head-to-head match-up, but his lead drops to 49 percent to 43 percent when the Libertarian and Green Party candidates are included.

The survey found the president's overall approval at a relatively steady 44 percent. A majority of voters, 52 percent, continue to approve of Trump's handling of the economy. Forty percent approve of his handling of the coronavirus pandemic versus 58 percent who disapprove. Biden leads on who voters trust to handle the pandemic. However, his wider lead over the summer has contracted, from 54 percent to 34 percent in mid-July to 51 percent to 40 percent in September.

If you're reading this column, it's highly likely you're familiar with "false flag" terrorism. You've at least heard the term before, right?

As I've had cause to note in my work in the past, the 2013 Atlantic Wire article, republished by Yahoo! News under the headline "What is a 'False Flag' Attack — and Was Boston One?" was, for me, a clear sign that the 9/11 Truth movement had accomplished at least one extremely important thing. Namely, it inserted the term "false flag" into the public conversation about terrorism so effectively that the mainstream was forced to address it.

To the surprise of absolutely no one, The Atlantic Wire's answer to that headline question was a resounding "No." But that's not important. What matters is that they had to address the topic at all. No longer could the establishment press feign ignorance of the very concept ("buT wHy wOuLd thE goVernMEnt AttAcK iTseLf?"), nor could they pretend that the idea of false flag terrorism was so outlandish and so confined to the fringes of mainstream discourse that it could be safely ignored. No, by 2013 any spectacular terrorist incident was quickly followed by an establishment denial that the event had been staged.

That is a major step. An important tool of control, used to pull the wool over the eyes of the public for centuries, had gone from a laughable fringe "conspiracy theory" to an openly acknowledged (and vigorously denied) conspiracy reality within the space of a decade.

But have we really learnt the lessons of history about false flag terrorism? Do we even really know what that term means? And would we recognize it if that trick was employed again in a different context?

Let's explore these questions with a quick overview of the history of false flag terrorism, its use in the present day, and what we can expect to see as we move into the age of biosecurity.

As the world continues to grapple with coronavirus and the economic catastrophe of lockdown, a disturbing new theory has emerged.
Did China trick the world into committing economic suicide?

As the global community continues to grapple with the fallout from the coronavirus pandemic - and the economic catastrophe caused by the associated "lockdowns" imposed by governments around the world - a chilling new theory has emerged.

It goes like this - China, in an enormous disinformation campaign spread via social media and through compromised voices in Western politics, science and medicine, aggressively pushed for other nations to follow its lead, with the goal of intentionally destroying their economies.


That's according to Michael Senger, a lawyer and researcher based in Atlanta, Georgia. In an article for Tablet Magazine, Senger has laid out a disturbing timeline of evidence that, if true, hints at what could be the most effective and devastating psy-op ever carried out by a world government.


"By promoting fraudulent data, aggressively deploying disinformation, and flexing its institutional clout, Beijing transformed the snake oil of lockdowns into 'science', crippling rival economies, expanding its influence and sowing authoritarian values," Senger writes on Twitter.

Lebanon's prime minister-designate quit on Saturday after trying for almost a month to line up a non-partisan cabinet, failing despite French pressure on sectarian leaders to rally together to deal with the worst crisis since a 1975-1990 civil war.

Mustapha Adib, former ambassador to Berlin, was picked on Aug. 31 to form a cabinet.

He had tried to form a government of specialists in a nation where power is shared between Muslims and Christians and political loyalties tend to follow sectarian lines.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia recently announced that it was providing $204 million in aid for the impoverished and war-ravaged country of Yemen. That sounds generous, but it's the Saudi royals themselves who are responsible for most of the death, destruction, starvation, and disease in Yemen, in which 80 percent of the population, some 24 million, need outside assistance.

Riyadh has spent more than five years conducting a brutal air campaign intended to restore a pliant regime to power. The claim that the Kingdom is generously helping the needy is a bit like a man murdering his parents only to throw himself on the court's mercy since he is an orphan. If Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman wanted to help the Yemeni people, he would simply end the war.

But he won't, at least in part because the Trump administration is underwriting the Saudi government's murderous campaign. Why is the president forcing Americans to assist the Saudi royals, who respect no political or religious liberty and kidnap, imprison, and murder their critics? President Donald Trump appears to be almost bewitched by the licentious and corrupt Saudis.

Washington sold Saudi Arabia planes and munitions used to kill thousands of Yemeni civilians. American personnel serviced and refueled the same planes, as well as providing intelligence to assist in targeting Saudi strikes. That makes U.S. officials complicit in war crimes committed day in and day out for more than five years.

About twenty years ago The Atlantic published a piece by Jeffrey Tayler named "Russia is finished" subtitled "The unstoppable descent of a once great power into social catastrophe and strategic irrelevance." Not a very successful prediction was it? But what he did was fashionable at the time - he described what was happening in Russia in the nineties and made a straight-line projection from there. His error was assuming the continuation of the straight line - and he made the error because he thought Russia was only "Zaire With Permafrost".

My purpose in this essay is to apply the points that the author made about Russia twenty years ago to the United States of America today and adopt a simple straight-line projection based on a corresponding view of American history. This is not so much because I think that America really is finished - after all, as Adam Smith observed, there is a great deal of ruin in a nation, and America has seen hard times before - but in order to illustrate the perilous position America is in today. As the author of the Atlantic piece must now understand, straight-line predictions are always risky because - as happened in Russia - other forces can appear to change the "unstoppable descent". But a straight-line prediction from the American situation as of the autumn of 2020 does point to an "unstoppable descent" into "social catastrophe and strategic irrelevance".