The Communist-in-Chief, Barack Obama, whose scandal-plagued Administration has materially damaged the United States, calls for more censorship.

The progressive communist democrats need the media moguls and tech tyrants to engage in greater censorship to keep American voters in the dark about what the progressive communist Democrats have done to America.

While Obama is infinitely more likable than Hillary Clinton, he is equally as corrupt and manipulative – and infinitely more dangerous to our freedoms because he hides behind a friendly façade, protected from scrutiny and criticism by his race.

It is no wonder that Obama’s suddenly found new passion is fighting the type of “disinformation” that could destroy the Democrat Party, highlight the criminality of his administration, expose the nefarious nature of all those who have sold out America to its enemies, corrupted our electoral system, engaged in an attempt to interfere with a presidential election, promoted an authoritarian regime, and are destroying what little there might be left of his legacy.

Think about Obama’s definition of disinformation…

“The way I define disinformation is if you have a systematic effort to either promote false information or to suppress true information for the purpose of political gain, financial gain, and suppressing others,” Obama said at the University of Chicago.

And ask yourself, was this disinformation?

How many people remember Obama saying “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” when pitching the misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) initiative?

What if that was said today, and the media moguls and tech tyrants censored or canceled dissent? Even PolitiFact awarded Obama’s assertion their 2013 “Lie of the Year” award. And, it sure meets Obama’s definition of disinformation.

How many people remember Obama’s National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes openly bragging about creating a media “echo chamber” of spin that supported a “largely manufactured” narrative about the one-sided Iran nuclear deal that bypassed the Senate Treaty process. Ben Rhodes is a featured panelist discussing “THE THREAT OF DIGITAL AUTHORITARIANISM: What are the most effective ways to defend open democratic systems in a global digitized world?”

Or when Obama's Ambassador to the United Nations  Susan Rice went on all five Sunday morning news programs to say that the attack in Benghazi, Libya was a protest over a YouTube video … which was a narrative ginned up the night of the attack -- and finally exposed by the WikiLeaks revelation of John Podesta's emails.

Once again, we see a political charade…

Notice how the progressive communist democrats confuse and conflate the necessity to harden our communications platforms against cyberthreats with their attempt to control information flow using these communications channels.

I agree that we should have a mechanism for suppressing the illegal entry of unauthorized individuals, organizations, and state actors into our platforms – whether to surveil subjects, steal intellectual property or insert false information into a trusted system. However, this does not equate with allowing those with legitimate access to these systems to be censored, or their access canceled when they deviate or challenge the regime’s narrative of the day.

Speech highlights…

“Tech companies need to be more transparent about how they operate.”

[OCS: Like the tech tyrants want to expose their proprietary algorithms, the root of their power?]

“So much of the conversation around disinformation is focused on what people post. The bigger issue is what content these platforms promote.”

[OCS: The blame falls on the posters, and it must be the platform's responsibility to censor content or cancel accounts. Proof positive that platform operators have become publishers and Section 230 “platform” protections against legal action for libel, slander, and defamation is a scam.]

“People like Putin, and Steve Bannon for that matter, understand it’s not necessary for people to believe this information in order to weaken democratic institutions. You just have to flood a country’s public square with enough raw sewage. You just have to raise enough questions, spread enough dirt, plant enough conspiracy theorizing that citizens no longer know what to believe.”

[OCS:  Notice the attempt to equate Russian dictator, and now war criminal, Putin with Bannon, an outspoken conservative voice?

This methodology appears to be the Democrat’s upcoming defense against Hunter Biden’s laptop information. They will flood the media and social media with wild claims from crazy-making nut-jobs; thus, the credibility of any legitimate information looks unreliable and is no longer credible to the public. This is what happened with the hard information on voter fraud.]

If you want to watch Obama’s hour-long keynote speech, “Challenges to Democracy in the Digital Information Realm,” or some of the panel discussions, they can be found on the Stanford Cyber Policy Center website.

Questions…

(1)  Why do the progressive communist democrats claim they support the Constitution’s First Amendment freedoms and then attempt to limit these freedoms by demanding one accept the regime’s narrative at face value without critical analysis?

(2)  Why do the progressive communist democrats fear a healthy debate over subjects that deeply affect Americans? Even limiting minority participation in Congressional investigations?

(3)  Who is to determine the truthfulness of contradictory narratives? The government? A hyper-politicized partisan “activist” group? George Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth?” A private organization claiming to b a neutral non-partisan watchdog like the Obama Foundation?

(4)  When did the press, the so-called “Fourth Estate” that purports to speak truth to power turn into political propagandists and substitute a narrative or commentary for straight news reporting? Can they even be trusted today?

Where progressive communist democrats are going...

The queen of disinformation, Hillary Clinton, is pushing a global censorship initiative. Is it a coincidence that Obama is promoting the same initiative but must first soften up America to accept an international agency that supersedes America's sovereignty?

Where Obama is going...

Look forward to Obama using his foundation to get into the news business, either as a consultant, content provider, or, most likely, some type of news watchdog. You will be able to judge the level of partisanship by seeing if the Obama crew is willing to attack such blatant disinformation sites as CNN, NBC, MSNBC, the DailyMail, the Huffington Post, the Daily Beast, or similar progressive propaganda sites? Will Obama adhere to his definition of disinformation even when dealing with progressive communist democrats? 

Bear in mind that Obama is essentially a grifter looking for a free ride and big bucks. 

Bottom line…

There is no doubt in my mind that President Barack Obama, his cadre of acolytes, and especially high-ranking members of his administration, are unindicted felons who are guilty of materially damaging America. 

Likewise, there is no doubt in my mind that the progressive communist democrats must keep the truth from Americans lest they vote a thoroughly corrupt and compromised Democrat Party out of power.

Perhaps no better example exists than the suppression of information about Hunter Biden’s laptop, the corruption of the Biden family, and the lack of information about Joe Biden’s mental fitness for office, which could have altered an election.

Followed by the propagation of false and misleading information related to the pandemic. Followed by the suppression of information about electoral fraud. Followed by the various attempts to demonize and attack Donald Trump. Followed by the dismal failure of the Administration’s domestic and foreign policies.

The American people still do not have definitive information on Benghazi, Iran, Afghanistan, Ukraine – and the list grows longer each day.

The Democrats have no platform, they only have cover-ups and hatred for their opposition. That's why Republicans may not have all of the answers or be able to solve all problems, but the Democrats remain the proximate cause of the majority of these problems.

We are so screwed.

-- steve