Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

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

Published

9 months ago

13 minute read

From Reclaim The Net

By Christina Maas

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.

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
Crime / 7 hours ago

Tucker Carlson: US intelligence is shielding Epstein network, not President Trump

Freedom Convoy / 7 hours ago

Court Orders Bank Freezing Records in Freedom Convoy Case

Alberta / 11 hours ago

‘Far too serious for such uninformed, careless journalism’: Complaint filed against Globe and Mail article challenging Alberta’s gender surgery law

Automotive

Federal government should swiftly axe foolish EV mandate

Published on July 9, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Two recent events exemplify the fundamental irrationality that is Canada’s electric vehicle (EV) policy.

First, the Carney government re-committed to Justin Trudeau’s EV transition mandate that by 2035 all (that’s 100 per cent) of new car sales in Canada consist of “zero emission vehicles” including battery EVs, plug-in hybrid EVs and fuel-cell powered vehicles (which are virtually non-existent in today’s market). This policy has been a foolish idea since inception. The mass of car-buyers in Canada showed little desire to buy them in 2022, when the government announced the plan, and they still don’t want them.

Second, President Trump’s “Big Beautiful” budget bill has slashed taxpayer subsidies for buying new and used EVs, ended federal support for EV charging stations, and limited the ability of states to use fuel standards to force EVs onto the sales lot. Of course, Canada should not craft policy to simply match U.S. policy, but in light of policy changes south of the border Canadian policymakers would be wise to give their own EV policies a rethink.

And in this case, a rethink—that is, scrapping Ottawa’s mandate—would only benefit most Canadians. Indeed, most Canadians disapprove of the mandate; most do not want to buy EVs; most can’t afford to buy EVs (which are more expensive than traditional internal combustion vehicles and more expensive to insure and repair); and if they do manage to swing the cost of an EV, most will likely find it difficult to find public charging stations.

Also, consider this. Globally, the mining sector likely lacks the ability to keep up with the supply of metals needed to produce EVs and satisfy government mandates like we have in Canada, potentially further driving up production costs and ultimately sticker prices.

Finally, if you’re worried about losing the climate and environmental benefits of an EV transition, you should, well, not worry that much. The benefits of vehicle electrification for climate/environmental risk reduction have been oversold. In some circumstances EVs can help reduce GHG emissions—in others, they can make them worse. It depends on the fuel used to generate electricity used to charge them. And EVs have environmental negatives of their own—their fancy tires cause a lot of fine particulate pollution, one of the more harmful types of air pollution that can affect our health. And when they burst into flames (which they do with disturbing regularity) they spew toxic metals and plastics into the air with abandon.

So, to sum up in point form. Prime Minister Carney’s government has re-upped its commitment to the Trudeau-era 2035 EV mandate even while Canadians have shown for years that most don’t want to buy them. EVs don’t provide meaningful environmental benefits. They represent the worst of public policy (picking winning or losing technologies in mass markets). They are unjust (tax-robbing people who can’t afford them to subsidize those who can). And taxpayer-funded “investments” in EVs and EV-battery technology will likely be wasted in light of the diminishing U.S. market for Canadian EV tech.

If ever there was a policy so justifiably axed on its failed merits, it’s Ottawa’s EV mandate. Hopefully, the pragmatists we’ve heard much about since Carney’s election victory will acknowledge EV reality.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

Prime minister can make good on campaign promise by reforming Canada Health Act

Published on July 8, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail

While running for the job of leading the country, Prime Minister Carney promised to defend the Canada Health Act (CHA) and build a health-care system Canadians can be proud of. Unfortunately, to have any hope of accomplishing the latter promise, he must break the former and reform the CHA.

As long as Ottawa upholds and maintains the CHA in its current form, Canadians will not have a timely, accessible and high-quality universal health-care system they can be proud of.

Consider for a moment the remarkably poor state of health care in Canada today. According to international comparisons of universal health-care systems, Canadians endure some of the lowest access to physicians, medical technologies and hospital beds in the developed world, and wait in queues for health care that routinely rank among the longest in the developed world. This is all happening despite Canadians paying for one of the developed world’s most expensive universal-access health-care systems.

None of this is new. Canada’s poor ranking in the availability of services—despite high spending—reaches back at least two decades. And wait times for health care have nearly tripled since the early 1990s. Back then, in 1993, Canadians could expect to wait 9.3 weeks for medical treatment after GP referral compared to 30 weeks in 2024.

But fortunately, we can find the solutions to our health-care woes in other countries such as Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Australia, which all provide more timely access to quality universal care. Every one of these countries requires patient cost-sharing for physician and hospital services, and allows private competition in the delivery of universally accessible services with money following patients to hospitals and surgical clinics. And all these countries allow private purchases of health care, as this reduces the burden on the publicly-funded system and creates a valuable pressure valve for it.

And this brings us back to the CHA, which contains the federal government’s requirements for provincial policymaking. To receive their full federal cash transfers for health care from Ottawa (totalling nearly $55 billion in 2025/26) provinces must abide by CHA rules and regulations.

And therein lies the rub—the CHA expressly disallows requiring patients to share the cost of treatment while the CHA’s often vaguely defined terms and conditions have been used by federal governments to discourage a larger role for the private sector in the delivery of health-care services.

Clearly, it’s time for Ottawa’s approach to reflect a more contemporary understanding of how to structure a truly world-class universal health-care system.

Prime Minister Carney can begin by learning from the federal government’s own welfare reforms in the 1990s, which reduced federal transfers and allowed provinces more flexibility with policymaking. The resulting period of provincial policy innovation reduced welfare dependency and government spending on social assistance (i.e. savings for taxpayers). When Ottawa stepped back and allowed the provinces to vary policy to their unique circumstances, Canadians got improved outcomes for fewer dollars.

We need that same approach for health care today, and it begins with the federal government reforming the CHA to expressly allow provinces the ability to explore alternate policy approaches, while maintaining the foundational principles of universality.

Next, the Carney government should either hold cash transfers for health care constant (in nominal terms), reduce them or eliminate them entirely with a concordant reduction in federal taxes. By reducing (or eliminating) the pool of cash tied to the strings of the CHA, provinces would have greater freedom to pursue reform policies they consider to be in the best interests of their residents without federal intervention.

After more than four decades of effectively mandating failing health policy, it’s high time to remove ambiguity and minimize uncertainty—and the potential for politically motivated interpretations—in the CHA. If Prime Minister Carney wants Canadians to finally have a world-class health-care system then can be proud of, he should allow the provinces to choose their own set of universal health-care policies. The first step is to fix, rather than defend, the 40-year-old legislation holding the provinces back.

Continue Reading

Trending

X