Elon Musk’s X, formerly called Twitter, is one of the few outlets attempting to foster free speech, and a well-connected foreign leftist group has designated it a top target.

“Kill Musk’s Twitter” has been the top item written on the Center for Countering Digital Hate’s (CCDH’s) meeting agendas for months, according to internal documents publicly reported this week by reporters Paul D. Thacker and Matt Taibbi at The Disinformation Chronicle.

CCDH is a tax-exempt part of the global censorship-industrial complex that works to quell free speech, primarily through hiding facts that are inconvenient for leftists, such as that men and women are different and pharmaceuticals have side effects. It also has connections to the Kamala Harris campaign.

Not one to sit quietly, Musk responded Tuesday with a three-word post: “This is war.”

CCDH was founded by Imran Ahmed and Morgan McSweeney, both British Labour Party political strategists. In 2020, CCDH sought to strip Google ad revenue from The Federalist over editor John Daniel Davidson’s article, “The Media Are Lying To You About Everything, Including The Riots,” which calls out dishonest coverage of the 2020 George Floyd riots from legacy media including the New York Times and CNN.

McSweeney attended the Democrat National Convention and has been advising the Harris campaign. Imran has worked with U.S. media to create a narrative about Harris as a victim of mean social media posts, and his stories are picked up by friendly reporters.

McSweeney also founded Labour Together, a leftist U.K. think

The Georgia State Election Board (SEB) recently passed a series of election integrity rules meant to ensure elections would be fair and accurate. But those rules will not be in effect for the upcoming election because the Georgia Supreme Court declined to expedite a Republican-led appeal of a lower court ruling that nullified the election integrity rules.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Thomas Cox ruled last Wednesday that “the SEB lacked constitutional authority to enact” seven rule proposals. Cox argued that it is the state legislature that has the authority to regulate elections despite the SEB being responsible for “promulgating rules and regulations to promote uniformity in election practices … [and] developing rules and regulations about what constitutes a vote that will be counted,” as outlined by the secretary of state’s office.

The Republican National Committee and the Georgia Republican Party appealed the ruling, seeking expedited review of the case before Election Day. Their request for an expedited appeal was denied without any reason.

“When the appeal is docketed in this Court, it will proceed in the ordinary course,” the Georgia Supreme Court said in its decision.

SEB Member Janelle King said in a statement to The Federalist that “despite these challenges” she remains “committed to ensuring transparency and will closely monitor every step of the election process.”

“I believe these rules can be effectively implemented for the upcoming election,” King said. “However, the final decision rests with the courts. Unfortunately, the timing of public notice and the Secretary

Courts in Michigan and North Carolina on Monday rejected separate lawsuits from the Republican National Committee that sought to ensure only individuals who have actually stepped foot in the states can participate in elections there.

The lawsuits, both brought in part by the RNC, took “issue with how the states apply the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), which requires states to allow certain overseas citizens … to register and vote absentee,” as The Federalist previously reported. The lawsuits alleged that election officials in the states are violating their respective constitutions by opening the door for individuals who have never resided in these states to vote there.

In the Michigan case, plaintiffs, including the RNC and the state GOP, specifically challenged what they alleged to be “unlawful instruction” from Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s Election Officials Manual which says that “a United States citizen who has never resided in the United States but who has a parent, legal guardian, or spouse who was last domiciled in Michigan” to vote in the state “as long as the citizen has not registered or voted in another state.”

In her ruling on this case, Michigan Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel essentially argued that plaintiffs filed the suit too late. Patel sided with, as she referred to them, the already “busy” election official defendants, suggesting they should not be expected to “create an entirely new process” to separate ballots “issued to members of the subject group who have
never resided in Michigan and