 She's an expert on online disinformation. She was formerly a disinformation fellow at the Wilson Center. She's testified before Congress, as well as the United Kingdom and European Parliament, advising Ukrainian foreign minister, particularly relevant in this moment, under the auspices of a Fulbright public policy fellowship and overseeing Russia and Belarus programs at the National Democratic Institute. Any hiring decisions are up to the Department of Homeland Security, but this is a person with extensive qualifications. How do you feel about the Ministry of Truth? This is the kind of thing that you see in dictatorship. This Ministry of Truth, this Department of Propaganda that the Biden administration has just stood up. And the reason why you see this in dictatorship is because they're afraid of us. They're afraid of the people. They're afraid that we might actually think for ourselves. And so now they've created this body that will do two things. Number one, it'll use taxpayer dollars to work through the mainstream media and flood the airwaves with whatever their propaganda narrative is that they're pushing at any given time and try to drown out anyone with alternate views. And number two, they will silence dissenting voices through intimidation. I think the thing to recognize with this, just real quick, is that this isn't something new. This is something that they have already been doing. That's happening right now. The only difference is they're formalizing it, making it official, which if there's a silver lining in this, it is they're revealing exactly who they are and why they're doing it, what they're trying to accomplish. And it allows us, the American people, to stand up and say, hey, you know what? We're not going to let you get away with this crap. We will take a stand. We will reject it. And we will throw out of office those who are continuing to push and propagate this undemocratic anti-free speech mission. Hello, everyone, Dylan Schumacher, Citadel Defense, and we're going to talk about liberty today. By this point, I am sure that you have heard that the government is establishing, has established a disinformation governance board under the Department of Homeland Security. And like many of you, I, of course, have some thoughts about that. So without overstating the obvious, this is obviously incredibly tyrannical and horrible and dangerous. And basically what every sci-fi novel ever warned us about. Yet, here we are. And this is the world we live in now where we have to deal with the fact that the government, without an act of Congress, without voting just unilaterally in some bureaucracy, deep in the security state, has decided that they're going to establish a board to determine what information is true and what information is not true. Now, there's a couple questions you should be immediately asking yourself. The first one is, why does the government need to do this, right? And any government in history that's ever done anything like this has only done it, of course, because they want to suppress things that challenge their power and bolster, of course, their general message propaganda, whatever. The second question you should be asking is, okay, well, even if that's what they want to do, don't we already have a press secretary? Don't we already have ways for the government to communicate with the people? Like, let's just pretend for a second that their motives behind this are totally benign and they just actually want to, you know, better clarify information that's out there. Well, the truth is they already have avenues to do that, right? We have press secretaries, we have press releases. The White House has correspondence that are specifically assigned just to the White House from the various news organizations. So there's clearly a way for the government to already get its message out there if that's what it just wanted to do. However, this has been established under the Department of Homeland Security. And the Department of Homeland Security, well, what are they in charge of, right? They were established by George Bush after 9-11. It was a waste of time and money then. It's just as much of a waste of time and money now. And their entire purpose, right, is to protect the homeland. And that's what they've been allegedly, supposedly doing for the past 20-some years. So it should very much concern you that this Board of Disinformation is being established within a internal government policing slash security function. Why would you put a government disinformation governance board or whatever they're calling it? We're just gonna call it the Ministry of Truth for probably the rest of this video. Why would you establish the Ministry of Truth under a policing function in the federal government? Well, there's only one reason that you would actually do that, right? You would establish it under a policing function under a policing bureau within the federal government because you plan on policing it, right? So the only reason that you would establish this under the Department of Homeland Security is because you plan on policing the speech. And that probably means everything you think it means and you're just hoping in nightmares, right? It means making videos like this, not being acceptable. It means your tweets not being acceptable. It means the end of the freedom of speech. And in the long run, if we don't do something now because this is absolutely a hill to die on, if we don't do something now, well then in 10 years we wake up and the First Amendment is treated just like the Second Amendment. I mean, yeah, you know, it says that in the Constitution and it's pretty clear. However, you know, all constitutional rights are have restrictions on them and we need to be reasonable and we need to take into account public safety. And if you're just saying these things and these thoughts, well, that's dangerous. You know, years ago I wrote an article for the Truth on Guns. I used to read a lot of the Truth on Guns and I wrote a couple articles that got published there. And this article was a satire article and it was about, you know, what if we treated the First Amendment just like the Second Amendment? And at the time it was good satire because I was saying, you know, you need a permit to say these certain words and you couldn't go certain places and you couldn't say these things in certain places and all this ridiculous nonsense, right? However, that is actual real reality that we are potentially about to be living in if we don't pay attention. So I made this video because I wanted you to think about, look where this is gonna go. They're establishing it under a policing function because they're planning on policing it. And that would mean the end of what we call America because freedom of speech, of course, is the most sacred right that we have in this country and it's the First Amendment for a reason because it's the first important. A lot of people don't think about it but the amendments are actually written in order and the order they're written in is the order of importance that they are, particularly the First 10. At some point they're obviously going to try to outlaw all opposing political parties, right? Because once you come after the First Amendment and the freedom of speech, that's obviously the point where you're gonna say, listen, these other political parties, if anybody else is saying something, it's not true and it's dangerous. It's very dangerous to our democracy so we can't allow these parties to gather anymore because they're not safe for our democracy and so we need to outlaw them, we can't have that. So you watch for that because as this continues to go, that would be the next step. They'll establish a governance board, they'll start policing speech and then they'll start outlawing all political parties except the one political party. You can say, Dylan, how do you know that? Well, I know that because I can read a history book and time and time again, that's always what's happened. Once you outlaw speech, you outlaw all other political parties and you can only be a member of that political party. If you look at China, current day China, there's only one political party in China. It's the Communist Party. You have to belong to the Communist Party to do anything. If you look at the Bolshevik Revolution, right? After the 1917 revolution in Russia, same thing. All other parties were banned. You can only belong to the one party. So you gotta pay attention to history and you can easily see where this is gonna go. So if the First Amendment ends in this nation, that is the end of America that you grew up in. This country will no longer be America. It will be some kind of dystopian sci-fi novel. So I highly urge you to call your federal Congress people today, call your state government people today and tell them that this will not stand. States should of course pass laws and edicts that they will not participate with the federal government in any way, shape or form with this kind of governance board. All of their agents will be rejected at the border to put on planes and sent home and they will have nothing to do with it whatsoever because this needs to be starved out and stomped out immediately. Lastly, I do wanna look at the short video from Nina. I can't pronounce her last name but the lady who's been put in charge of this governance board or as we will refer to her, Umbridge. Let's take a look at this video and see. First of all, color revolutions have nothing to do with race. The term was coined in the early 2000s when countries like the Republic of Georgia and Ukraine had spontaneous peaceful democratic revolutions that had colorful nicknames. In 2003, the Georgian opposition protested the opening of a new session of parliament based on fraudulent election results. They did it while carrying roses, hence the Rose Revolution. In 2004 and 2005, Ukrainians protested their own rigged election. Candidate Viktor Yushenko's campaign branding was orange, hence the Orange Revolution. You get the idea. Color revolutions have earned a bad rap though, mostly thanks to Vladimir Putin because they brought in democratically-minded governments that threatened Russian influence in the region. Putin likes to suggest they are CIA-organized. That is not true. Believe it or not, sometimes people get fed up with having their voices silenced for decades. Putin's narratives intentionally rob protesters of agency. They discount the grievances that brought them to the streets, risking their lives, and ultimately, they undermine the resulting governments. And now we're seeing the same narrative cropping up here in the United States. Here's why it doesn't fit. First of all, in case we've forgotten, protest is a democratic right. You are entitled to it, no matter your opinion. Second of all, color revolutions happen in autocracies. When people are fed up with the indignities of an entrenched regime, while we have witnessed some democratic backsliding here in the United States, we are not in autocracy. We still have checks and balances. We still enjoy democratic rights. Certainly, we are not Georgia in 2003, Ukraine in 2004, or Belarus today. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, these events usually happen in response to a rigged election. Even today, we should still have the confidence that our votes will be counted fairly and accurately. I do. And as a reminder, there's only one candidate who is tweeting about rigged election results. So, in short, color revolutions aren't dirty. They're expressions of democratic will, and they should inspire us all. Okay, I just noticed a handful of things in that video that I wanted to bring to your attention, and I jot down some notes here. Now, I don't know what year this video was made in. I'm assuming sometime before Trump was banned from Twitter, because they talked about him tweeting. So, I'm assuming somewhere kind of in that 2020 timeframe, 2019 timeframe, somewhere in there. So, one of the things she says is all these revolutions weren't CAA organized. That's not true. And my first thought, of course, is how do you know that? Because if they were CAA organized, they'd be classified, I'm sure. And two, the CAA kind of has a history of, doing things exactly like that. Now, she talks about how, you know, this happens when people are fed up with the government, and people are trying to bring that narrative here to the United States, but that doesn't work. And then she lists some reasons why it doesn't work. She says that to protest is a democratic right. Now, I would stop right there, because I would ask, what the hell is a democratic right? You notice she does not say constitutional right. She says democratic right, and you would say, well, why does she say that? And I would argue, she says democratic right, which again, isn't the thing, no idea what that means, because it's a very vague, sounding good concept, right? Well, we have these democratic rights, and you have the right to protest, and of course, that's a democratic right that you have. But she does not say constitutional and enumerated rights, right? Because if you want, we have a document that actually says all of the rights that we have, and it recognizes those, and it lists them out specifically, including the right to protest. But she doesn't want to refer to that document because she doesn't want to be locked in to black and white paper of what something said. This democratic right is kind of this big, amorphous, vague, good feeling, but you can change it anytime you want kind of thing. If you've ever read the Animal Farm, when they keep changing the rules on the wall, that's what's going on here. And it's also very important to point out that the United States of America is not a democracy. It's not, and that's a very, very important distinction. It's not just mincing hairs. A democracy is where all the citizens and the voting members can vote on all the stuff. That's a democracy. We do not have a democracy. We have a constitutional republic. And in a constitutional republic, you have the constitution which frames the parameters of the government, and then you elect representatives in order to make decisions. That's how a constitutional republic is supposed to function. Now you can argue how in or out of whack that is, and I'd gladly have that discussion. However, you need to understand the United States, nor any other modern country that I know of is a democracy. And we need to stop using that word because obviously people have never taken a basic civics class and they have no idea what kind of government we're operating. Democracies, historically, are absolute failures. The prime example being Greek Athens, right? They had a democracy. It was a disaster. It turned into this tyranny by the majority, mob rule mentality, and the founding fathers very specifically rejected democracy as a governmental system because they knew it was trash and garbage and would not protect your rights in the long run. And somehow in the modern era ever since, I don't know, Woodrow Wilson, we have this idea that democracy is a good thing and that we need to spread democracy and that we somehow randomly are a democracy. The United States is not a democracy. Nor should we be, by the way. I'm sure that rant's gonna end me up in the gulag. She also mentions how to protest is your democratic right or your democracy right or whatever term issue that she uses. I wonder what she would say about the protesters on a certain day back in January, a while ago. She makes this point that this only happens in aristocracies and America is not an aristocracy. I can't even, I can't even say it, it's just so much. She talks about this entrenched regime that happens in these countries and you know, we don't have an entrenched regime here in America, right? People that have been in government for, I don't know, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years, that's not a thing in America. She mentions that the United States still has checks and balances to which I would reply that's an absolute lie. It's pretty a blatant lie because you have the CDC saying that nobody had to pay rent in the United States for over a year. The CDC, just some government that's supposed to give advice to doctors on how to approach medical issues, outlawed paying your rent for over a year. So you tell me about these checks and balances that we still have in America. And then of course, the Krem de Krem when she talks about how elections in America are still fair and valid and reasonable to which I would reply, really? I mean, if you've been living in this country for the past two years and you still think elections are completely fair and done correctly, if elections are fair and done correctly, then why is it that one party in this country is very adamant and opposed to the idea that people should have to have an ID, improve citizenship in order to vote? Why would you be opposed to that if you want free and fair elections? Riddle me that. So in totality, this is the reality that we have to live in right now. And I would strongly urge you to think about that and to think about your next steps here and what the hills are you wanna die on because after we lose the freedom of speech and I can't make videos anymore under fear of being arrested, well then we no longer live in America. We have much more in common with Stalin run Russia. Do brave deeds today and endure.