Just last week, Obama was making statements about being opposed to so-called disinformation. Now we know why. The Department of Homeland Security has announced that it is forming the “Disinformation Governance Board.” Reading the infographics that they are producing(pdf warning), this is some truly dystopian, scary stuff. This new board is deeming anything that doesn’t come from “trusted sources” to be potential disinformation. The page also links to a page that focuses on “Election Infrastructure Security.” This indicates to me that the election in November is directly in the crosshairs.
I don’t think it’s any coincidence that this was announced the same week that Musk bought Twitter and is saying he will stop censoring those on the right. Read from the statement:
Disinformation and misinformation propagated and disseminated by both domestic and foreign actors were listed as the first key factors influencing the heightened threat environment, with grievances stoked by unsubstantiated widespread election fraud conspiracy theories and COVID-19 mis/disinformation noted as inspiring violent extremist attacks during 2021.
So job one is going to be the silencing those who are calling shenanigans on COVID restrictions and election fraud. According to a statement made to the AP, “The spread of disinformation can affect border security, Americans’ safety during disasters, and public trust in our democratic institutions.”
I broke this blog away from blogger and onto my own server because I was pretty sure that the left’s big push was going to be centered on silencing those of us who would oppose this takeover of our government. It looks like that will be happening, and they are going nuclear with this sooner than I thought.
Expect sources of information that don’t fit the officially approved narrative to begin disappearing, and voices opposing the government to be silenced. Last year, I reported that the Biden administration endorses the “Christchurch Call,” a series of sweeping regulations to “eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online.”
Scary times, indeed. I don’t think that this election is going to go the way that the polls indicate.
A group of five constituents of Marjorie Taylor Greene filed a lawsuit aimed at disqualifying the Georgia Republican from running for re-election over her role at the U.S. Capitol last January. The lawsuit argues that Greene is ineligible to run for federal office under a provision of the 14th Amendment that was ratified after the Civil War. They argue that J6 was an insurrection that bars anyone involved from holding office again.
A Federal judge that was appointed to the bench by Obama is allowing the lawsuit to move forward. If the lawsuit is successful, you can expect it to be used against DJT. To me, this entire thing is a violation of Greene’s Constitutional rights because Greene hasn’t been convicted of taking part in any insurrection, and this lawsuit is then violating her right to due process.
Back in February of 2021, I posted a copy of a video showing Capitol police letting J6 protesters into the building. At best, this eliminated the chances that this was a crime, at worst it is evidence of entrapment.
Matthew Martin produced a similar video as a part of his defense to the charges he was facing from the J6 protest. The judge in the case found that he “reasonably believed” that police officers let him into the US Capitol during the Jan. 6 breach, finding defendant Matthew Martin not guilty of all charges. Let’s review that video again:
The verdict represents an early test of efforts by some Jan. 6 defendants to argue that police allowed them to enter the Capitol, or that they believed they had permission because no officer told them to stop. The crux of Martin’s defense was that, in his own words, he was “let in” by two US Capitol Police officers who were standing in the doorway when he entered and made no attempt to stop him. He argued that one of the officers waved him through. Looking at the video above, it’s hard to argue that no one entered the Capitol building with permission.
This, one thousand times, this.
The sudden interest in the ineptitude of the current resident of the Whitehouse by the US press seems to indicate that they are ready to discard him. American thinker has an interesting take on Obama trying to make a comeback.
My initial thought on Obama getting a third term was “the 22nd Amendment says that a person can’t be President more than twice.” Except that, as the article points out, that isn’t what it says.
Twenty-Second Amendment Annotated
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.22nd Amendment, emphasis added
If Obama is appointed to be the VP to replace Kamala, then Biden is also removed from office, Obama could serve out the remainder of the current term.
How would they remove Harris? What if she were assassinated by a Trump supporting, AR wielding bitter clinger?
“Free Speech” means that you can say whatever you wish without fear of government reprisal. It doesn’t free you from all consequences. Twitter is well within their rights to lock you out of their service.
However, people are responsible for the things that they say. A great example of this is slander, libel, and defamation of character. If I make a statement as if it were a fact, yet I know to be false, and I made that statement with the intent of harming the person who is the subject of that statement, I am liable for that. Even if I made that statement with a careless disregard for any harm it would cause or a disregard for the truth of that statement, I am still liable.
For example, let’s say that I make the statement that someone is a pedophile. At the time I made the statement, I didn’t know or care whether or not it was true. If the community heard that statement and his business, career, or reputation is harmed, I am now open to being sued by him.
The reason why the press can publish stories about people is they make every effort to ensure its veracity. The truth is an absolute defense. This is why news organizations retract false statements publicly as soon as they realize it was false. Or at least why they used to.
The reason why sites like Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites don’t get sued is that they have claimed to be a virtual town square where the site doesn’t have anything to do with the content, and are merely serving as a vehicle for free speech.
As soon as Social Media sites began controlling and eliminating speech that they disagreed with, they became editors who ensured that anything posted on their site was something with which they agreed. At this point, the statement is essentially their statement and not simply a posting of someone else’s statement. They are trying to avoid this by calling it “fact checking” and dodging their responsibilities. I think this is a fig leaf that should be eliminated, but we know how the courts are going to go.
I just don’t believe in our legal system or its courts. Heck, I no longer believe in our entire government. Sadly, it has been completely subverted.
In the case of Musk blocking people, he isn’t eliminating their ability to speak. He is simply refusing to listen to them, and that doesn’t violate anything.
Having learned absolutely nothing from the Patriot Act debacle, the Republicans are supporting a law that would fine social media for not banning terrorists from their websites.
This law totally won’t be used to shut down sites like the Conservative Treehouse, this blog, or be used to silence anyone who protests the results of an election. We pinky swear.
A judge in California ruled that President Donald Trump likely broke the law when he “corruptly” attempted to obstruct the confirmation of President Joe Biden’s Electoral College win by Congress on Jan. 6, 2021.
Now this judge, nominated by Democrat Sex Addict Bill Clinton in 1998 made his ruling by strictly following the law, facts, and Constitution, and not because he is a partisan hack who is located in one of the most liberal circuits in the most liberal district of the US court system.
Nevermind that this is the same judge who issued a 110 page ruling that required LA to provide housing for all homeless people on skid row, a ruling that was later overturned by the Ninth Circuit as being too liberal of a ruling.
This is also the same judge that dismissed the lawsuits against Obama’s presidential campaign when voters demanded that he provide proof that he was eligible to run for office, claiming that voters do not have standing to demand proof of eligibility for office.
Nope. The judiciary is completely above things like politics, even though this judge has carried Democrat water for decades.
The left is claiming that SCOTUS Justice Thomas’ wife is no longer eligible to be considered human, because she believes that Biden stole the election. Further, this even disqualifies her husband from bein on the court:
The revelations that Ginni Thomas advocated for the overthrow of our democracy are disqualifying – not just for her as a human being of any decency, but for her husband Supreme Court Justice Clarence ThomasWomen’s March Executive Director Rachael O’Leary Carmona
The left is going insane because the court isn’t tilted in their favor, so they will do whatever it takes to tilt the court in their favor.
Impeaching a justice or packing the court will be a sign that the end is near. Our government will have ceased to exist. All pretense of a Constitutional Republic will have been abandoned.
The FBI still has another 350 that they would like to arrest for the J6 protests, and they are asking the public for help in identifying them. How many millions of dollars and man hours have gone into this? This isn’t about investigating crime, this is the political persecution of those who would dare oppose the takeover of our elections.
So far, over 1200 people have been charged with crimes over the J6 protests. 224 of them have pled guilty to some sort of crime, 195 misdemeanors and 29 felonies, with 50 of them receiving jail time.
I wonder what the cost per conviction is. I also wonder about the conviction rate of those who refuse to take a plea deal.