Rising violence & chaos are rapidly killing the hoary demand by progressive activists that we deny the reality of addiction/mental illness in causing homelessness
Nobody lives in open drug scene "homeless encampments" because they can't afford the rent
"When you see somebody passed out in their own vomit or covered in feces, and there are needles, that’s not a manifestation of poverty or a housing shortage. That’s mental illness & drug addiction, and it’s scary. People are suffering and the situation is dangerous for everyone."
As the illusion that homelessness is a problem of high rents evaporates, progressives are now retreating to the position that homelessness is "bidirectional."
Well of course it is. Everybody knows that. But it's addiction/mental illness that causes people to live on the street.
"A common assumption is that there is a unidirectional causal pathway between drug use and homelessness," writes @KellyMDoran in JAMA.
No, not it's not, which is why Doran presents precisely zero evidence for her claim.
Nobody denies homelessness makes addiction worse — that's a straw man.
And it appears to serve the purpose of misdirecting attention from the fact that progressive academics/activists/journalists have denied that addiction *causes* homelessness for 40 years.
Doran & her coauthors reveal their ideological motivations in the very next sentence:
"This misconception places the blame on the individuals and away from the root structural contributors to homelessness as well as perpetuates stigma and points to the wrong solutions."
Having acknowledged that addiction causes homelessness, and then having constructed a straw man out of the idea that anyone denies homelessness making it worse, Doran et al go *assert* without evidence that "the root cause of homelessness... is lack of affordable housing"! 🤨
All of this is progressive fancy-dancing to get around the fact that they have misled policymakers, journalists, and the public for 40 years in their active and willful denial of addiction & untreated mental illness as the primary cause of homelessness.
Why now? Because drug deaths reached 100,000 last year. Because obviously psychotic homeless people are more visible. And because people like @SoledadUrsua are calling bullshit on the Big Homelessness Lie
The addiction/mental illness homeless problem is all major American cities & worse on West Coast. What starts in the West moves East.
Miami has done comparatively well in reducing unsheltered homeless but I just saw dozens of homeless addicts, many psychotic, in Miami Beach
We don't have a clear view. Homeless counts have always been inaccurate and many have not happened or happened unscientifically and in an unstandardized way over the last two years of the pandemic. But nobody denies the problem grew much worse everywhere.
And the real problem to addressing the problem isn't lack of precision about how many people are on the streets and how many in shelters, RVs, and encampments. The real problem is overcoming the longstanding denial of the nature of the problem so we can move on to fixing it.
America is more divided than ever but I have found significant bipartisan agreement among reasonable Ds & Rs on homelessness in part because everywhere in the civilized world the problem is addressed in the same basic way: Shelter First, Treatment First, Housing Earned.
The drug death and homelessness crisis result from the same things: untreated mental illness, open drug scenes/markets, and namby-pamby treatment of addicts
Just as addiction requires intervention, so too do our cities, our states, and our whole country
In addressing the existential threat to cities posed by out-of-control drug-induced homelessness chaos is creating, we have the opportunity to come together around a policy that is neither liberal nor conservative but rather wholly practical and humane.
The mechanics of Shelter First, Treatment First, and Housing Earned are simple. Universal congregate shelters. Psych/addiction evals & care. Centralized/efficient case management. Camping bans. Housing as a reward for sobriety. Mandatory treatment as alternative to jail.
What all of that requires is simply facing reality. Progressives are right that we need universal psychiatric care, treatment on demand, and universal shelter. Conservatives are right that we must enforce laws, have rewards/punishment to change behavior, and contain costs.
When traditional progressive and conservative demands on drugs and mental illness are combined they are right. When they exist in opposition to one another, they are wrong. I'm not advocating a compromise. I'm advocating a combination.
We have three choices: 1. Let addicts/mentally ill living on the street in increasingly dangerous ways. 2. Lock them all up without regard for their civil rights or our shared humanity. 3. Treat them using the same tools every civilized society in the world uses.
The only reason we're not doing #3 is because both Ds & Rs are stuck in outdated paradigms. Progressives dominate the issue, and are thus the main obstacle. But that creates an opportunity for moderate Ds & Rs to demand Shelter First, Treatment First, Housing Earned.
I should have said "just" because they can't afford the rent.
They can't afford the rent bc their addiction/mental illness leads them to not work and they are using the money they have to buy drugs
Many stop paying rent and live with family and friends until they are kicked out
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Marco Rubio is the most powerful Secretary of State since Kissinger. As such, it is significant that he believes the US has recovered alien tech and given it to private military contractors. A senior Rubio advisor says, “We’re headed toward massive disclosure.”
Since May of this year, Marco Rubio has served in a dual role as President Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. The National Security Advisor is the President’s principal in-house advisor on all national security matters, chairs the National Security Council, coordinates the interagency process across the government, and briefs the President daily.
As Secretary of State, Rubio negotiates treaties, appoints and directs ambassadors, controls the $84 billion State Department and USAID budget, oversees 80,000 employees at more than 270 diplomatic posts worldwide, and has direct authority over diplomatic security, intelligence sharing, sanctions enforcement, and emergency evacuations of U.S. citizens abroad.
The last official to hold both such positions was Henry Kissinger from 1973 to 1975. For Rubio, who was also the former ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and vice-chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, to play both roles reflects President Trump’s high confidence in him.
As such, it is significant that Rubio believes that elements within the US government have recovered technology from a nonhuman intelligence, reverse-engineered it, and let private military contractors take control of it in ways that could be undermining national security and result in a Pearl Harbor-like event.
“The real risk in transferring technology that is not useful to us today to a corporate entity over decades,” says Rubio, “is that the corporate entity comes to basically possess and control access to it for their own purposes, not for the purposes of national security.”
Nick Pope, who investigated Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) for the UK Ministry of Defence, said, “It’s hard to overstate the significance of [Rubio’s] statement. Rubio’s remarks are so forthright that one could speculate they’re officially-authorized prelude to Disclosure, to test the waters ahead of an official, Presidential announcement.”
The State Department declined to provide an on-the-record comment to Public for this story. A spokesperson for the Department of War said it had no “verifiable information to substantiate claims that any U.S. government or private company programs regarding the possession or reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial materials and technology have existed in the past or exist currently...."
Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism and to read the full article!
Any true skeptic of this issue should want significantly more government transparency and disclosure on UAP. Anyone arguing against greater transparency and disclosure is telling you that they want to continue the cover-up.
If you belive that this is all a dangerous delusion and social contagion resulting from years of government disinfo to cover up secret weapons programs, which has now infected the highest levels of government, then you should be the loudest advocate for UAP transparency and disclosure in the world.
The secrecy has gone on for too long. It is destablizing for our highest security, defense, and intelligence officials say one thing to journalists and filmmakers and for the DOD to say something completely different. The State Department, CIA, ODNI, and White House all declined to comment publicly for my piece. We need our government officials to be honest about what is going on.
There is no security justification for this level of secrecy. We are free people governed by a constitution that protects us against unaccountable government actors. We must fight to maintain that status.
We can trust Oracle to centralize our data in a single place to create digital IDs, says Larry Ellison. We can't. Thanks to a "previously unknown & widespread vulnerability" in Oracle's "E-Business Suite software" thousands of us recently had our personal data stolen.
"The Washington Post... didn’t explain why it took almost a month to determine the amount of data stolen and has not responded to multiple requests for comment." @JeffBezos @CyberScoopNews
@JeffBezos @CyberScoopNews "Oracle quietly admits data breach, days after lawsuit accused it of cover-up"
New Epstein files show Rep. @StaceyPlaskett got real-time help via text messages from Jeffrey Epstein on how to hurt Trump during 2019 congressional hearing with former Trump attorney. Plaskett is the person who smeared us during Twitter Files hearing & falsely accused @mtaibbi
From WaPo:
"At 10:02 a.m., Epstein texted Plaskett: 'Great outfit'
'You look great,' he added at 10:22 a.m. 'Thanks!' she replied shortly afterward.
"'Cohen brought up RONA - keeper of the secrets,' Epstein texted, misspelling Graff’s first name."
“'RONA??'” Plaskett responded. “'Quick I’m up next is that an acronym,' she added, suggesting she would question Cohen soon."
In 2022, Obama gave a speech at Stanford Cyber Policy Center advocating sweeping censorship of the Internet. Now, Public has discovered the same Center last month hosted a secret meeting with EU, UK, Brazil, & Australia officials to plot global censorship — including of the US.
In the spring of 2022, former President Barack Obama gave a major policy addressat Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center, where he laid out a sweeping proposal for government censorship of social media platforms through the Platform Accountability and Transparency Act. Six days later, President Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security announced that it had created a “Disinformation Governance Board” to serve as an Orwellian Ministry of Truth with the clear goal of controlling the information Americans could access online.
At the heart of Obama’s vision for Internet censorship was legislation that would have authorized the US government’s National Science Foundation to authorize and fund supposedly independent NGOs to censor the Internet. The DHS and Stanford Internet Observatory, which was part of the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, pioneered this censorship-by-proxy strategy as a way to get around the First Amendment in 2020 with posts raising concerns about the 2020 elections and in 2021 with “narratives” expressing concern about the Covid vaccine.
The 2024 election of President Donald Trump significantly reduced the threat of Obama, DHS, and NSF censoring the American people. Trump defunded much of the Censorship Industrial Complex. The Platform Accountability Act is going nowhere in Congress. Elon Musk fired most of the censorship staff at Twitter and has allowed a significantly wider range of speech on the platform. And even before Trump’s election, Stanford donor Frank McCourt stopped funding the Stanford Internet Observatory after Public, Racket News, and House Weaponization Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan exposed its central role in the DHS censorship-by-proxy scheme.
But now, foreign governments, including Europe, the UK, Brazil, Australia, and others are demanding censorship, including of the American people. The risk is that US tech companies will find it significantly less expensive to have a single global censorship regime and just go along with foreign censorship requests. Facebook complied with Biden administration demands to censor because it needed Biden’s help in dealing with European censorship officials. And the Brazilian government forced Elon Musk to continue censoring the Brazilian people after it froze Starlink’s assets.
And Public has discovered that the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, which is led by Obama’s former ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, is at the heart of a new, secretive, and possibly illegal censorship initiative that appears even more ambitious than the one Obama proposed in 2022.
On September 24, the Cyber Policy Center hosted a secret dinner between its leaders and top censorship officials from Europe, UK, Brazil, California and Australia. The meeting was titled “Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.” Frank McCourt, the same person behind the Stanford Internet Observatory, financed the gathering through his “Project Liberty Institute,” (PLI), toward which he gave $500 million to “strengthen democracy” and “foster responsible technology.”
Public emailed all 21 participants and organizers and only heard from four, PLI, the Australian government, the UK government, and the European Union, which declined to comment because, even though Public gave it over 24 hours, a spokesperson said, “We would need several days.”
The UK government said, “The legal framework gives Ofcom power to enforce the duties in the Act which are related to securing protections for people in the UK; it does not give Ofcom powers to enforce under any other legal regimes…. Ofcom has always engaged with various international forums and networks across all of the sectors we regulate, including online safety, spectrum, telecommunications, post, and broadcast and media. Regulators around the world regularly exchange insights, experience, and best practice.”
A spokesperson for PLI said it “has made unrestricted gifts to several academic research programs, including Stanford University” and that “PLI does not receive funding from governments, intergovernmental organizations, or large technology companies.”
But PLI’s own policy “blueprint” reveals that it is demanding a single total global censorship regime and intends to use the EU’s market power, known as the “Brussels effect,” to force big tech companies to comply. The blueprint calls for governments to “Recommit to a Single, Global Internet,” with “regulatory interoperability and oversight, to achieve a single unified market” and use the large size of the EU market to “drive bilateral and multilateral agendas to formally enshrine reciprocal guarantees.”
A spokesperson for the Australian government said, “Whilst in attendance at Stanford for the 2-day conference, some attendees, including trust and safety researchers, industry, civil society, and government representatives, were also invited to attend an informal evening roundtable event organised by Stanford University entitled, ‘Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.’ This roundtable did not involve any discussion of compliance coordination or regulatory information sharing.”
The Australian spokesperson claimed that “eSafety has no role in regulating hate speech or disinformation. eSafety has no remit or interest in regulating the affairs of other nations, nor does it have any role in diplomatic, trade or other government-to-government relations.”
But it also said, “As the internet is global and functions irrespective of national borders, by necessity eSafety collaborates with law enforcement, other government agencies, and non-government partners around the world, including in the United States.”
The leaked agenda’s stated purpose was to “discuss the state of compliance and enforcement” in order to “identify where data, research, and expertise can enable more effective compliance with and enforcement of existing policy.”
Much of the following two days of the public conference were focused on coordinating government censorship (“regulation”) of social media platforms, and the other nations that attended the meeting are all intensively involved in censoring their citizens and US tech companies.
And, the head of Australia’s eSafety, Julie Inman-Grant, who was a keynote speaker at Stanford’s foreign censorship meeting, is also the head of a global government censorship network that serves as forum, she told the World Economic Forum, “to help us coordinate, build capacity and do just that…. We use the tools that we have, and can be effective, but we know we’re going to be, go, much further, when we work together with other like-minded independent statutory authorities around the globe.”
As such, the people who are demanding censorship are once again spreading disinformation about what they are doing.
All of this is happening in a context of global censorship intensifying. The UK government arrests 30 people per day for “offensive” social media posts, is attempting to censor 4Chan, which has no servers in the UK, and will mandate digital IDs for employment, which may give unprecedented control to politicians and bureaucrats to censor. The Brazilian government has, for year,s been censoring journalists and policymakers, incarcerating people for legal social media content, and threatening prosecution of journalists, including this author. And several European nations are censoring and arresting their citizens, preventing opposition political candidates from running for office, and preparing to implement digital IDs.
Why did Stanford Cyber Policy Center hold this meeting, what is its strategy for global censorship? Who leaked the agenda to Public and why? And what can be done to stop Stanford, Brazil, Australia, the EU and others from realizing their totalitarian censorial vision?
Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigatie journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!
Here is the leaked agenda from the Stanford Cyber Policy Center's secret foreign censorship meeting on September 24, 2025:
Fifty-five percent of people on the Left justify the murder of Trump, five times more liberals than conservatives defend political violence, and not a single high-profile Democrat has called for @jonesjay to drop out. The Left truly can not make its intentions any clearer.
The person whose legacy is most being destroyed by this is @BarackObama . He must demand that @jonesjay step down. Now. And he should take extraordinary efforts to demand the Left back down from its utterly crazed support for violence. This building should not open until he does that.
Mind-blowing. In 2014, VP Biden attacked corrupt developer in Romania who owned land around US embassy. In 2015, Hunter goes to work for the corrupt developer, lobbies US ambassador to pressure Romanians to drop case, then proposes to settle case by cutting in his China client 😳
This appears to have been a straight-up mob-style shakedown by the Biden family done under the auspices of Obama foreign policy and in a way the directly jeopardized US national security.
The lawyers for Hunter’s corrupt developer client first threatened to jeopardize the land upon which the embassy sat, and then proposed a deal whereby prosecutors dropped the case in exchange for the corrupt developer selling nearly half his stake to a state-owned Chinese energy company, that was also Hunter’s client.