If you've at all been following the House Subcommittee on Weaponization of Government hearings, anything you hear from the government and the legacy media is probably the real misinformation.
I'm reminded of Vladislav Surkov and tempted to think that the key objective is not simply to censor damaging information. Taking Hunter's laptop as an example, we all saw it with our own eyes. It wasn't censored. Rather, silence from the MSM and DOJ served to demonstrate the breadth and depth of their power, to demoralize the resistance and to disorient casual observers and laymen (as prescribed by Surkovian doctrine).
Communist China was the test environment for this. Presumably, globalist elites are happy with the finished product and intend to roll it out in the West.
They'll work around this. Well-funded criminal organizations, by definition, are spectacularly good at violating rules, finding loopholes and traversing tiny cracks in bureaucratic barriers.
Wake me up when they are building the gallows to punish those who shat all over our Rights.
The Constitution has one glaring problem, it lacks teeth. I don't know if it was an oversight or if the Founders didn't realize it could ever get this bad but they screwed up by not installing teeth in the Constitution.
So, I propose the next Constitutional Amendment give the Constitution actual teeth. At a minimum it should state any politician or government employee who writes, sponsors, votes for, signs into law or enforces any law that is later ruled to be unconstitutional in part or whole and for any reason be immediately removed from office and permanently barred from ever holding any office in government, whether elected, appointed, career or with any entity which conducts business with the government. At maximum, it should result in any person to be able to use as an affirmative defense for having killed that person the fact that they wrote, sponsored, voted for, signed into law or enforced said law which was ruled to be unconstitutional.
I think a happy medium would be to just have the offenders rounded up and executed en masse to avoid tricky crossfires and things of that nature that may hurt the innocent.
Then maybe we can get past the idea of denying God given Rights being an OK thing to do if enough idiots vote for it.
The mental gymnastics employed by the department of homeland security in their technical definition of "malinformation" was hilarious, something in the nature of "a true statement communicated in a fashion likely to be misinterpreted as misinformation" or some such.
Yup, it's pretty simple:
If you've at all been following the House Subcommittee on Weaponization of Government hearings, anything you hear from the government and the legacy media is probably the real misinformation.
Plain and Simple.
I'm reminded of Vladislav Surkov and tempted to think that the key objective is not simply to censor damaging information. Taking Hunter's laptop as an example, we all saw it with our own eyes. It wasn't censored. Rather, silence from the MSM and DOJ served to demonstrate the breadth and depth of their power, to demoralize the resistance and to disorient casual observers and laymen (as prescribed by Surkovian doctrine).
I like this article:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/cnn-host-we-should-yield-government-censorship-demands
Communist China was the test environment for this. Presumably, globalist elites are happy with the finished product and intend to roll it out in the West.
Nice summary of lawsuit here:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/judge-bars-biden-officials-agencies-contacting-social-media-companies
They'll work around this. Well-funded criminal organizations, by definition, are spectacularly good at violating rules, finding loopholes and traversing tiny cracks in bureaucratic barriers.
Nice Article:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/once-you-start-censoring-youre-your-way-dystopia-and-totalitarianism-rfk-jr-wrecks-house
Wake me up when they are building the gallows to punish those who shat all over our Rights.
The Constitution has one glaring problem, it lacks teeth. I don't know if it was an oversight or if the Founders didn't realize it could ever get this bad but they screwed up by not installing teeth in the Constitution.
So, I propose the next Constitutional Amendment give the Constitution actual teeth. At a minimum it should state any politician or government employee who writes, sponsors, votes for, signs into law or enforces any law that is later ruled to be unconstitutional in part or whole and for any reason be immediately removed from office and permanently barred from ever holding any office in government, whether elected, appointed, career or with any entity which conducts business with the government. At maximum, it should result in any person to be able to use as an affirmative defense for having killed that person the fact that they wrote, sponsored, voted for, signed into law or enforced said law which was ruled to be unconstitutional.
I think a happy medium would be to just have the offenders rounded up and executed en masse to avoid tricky crossfires and things of that nature that may hurt the innocent.
Then maybe we can get past the idea of denying God given Rights being an OK thing to do if enough idiots vote for it.
Joe, it has teeth--Liberty's teeth. What we seem to lack is either sufficient reason or courage to bite. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/02/26/firearm/
Temporary weight reduction in party voting power is another punitive option.
The mental gymnastics employed by the department of homeland security in their technical definition of "malinformation" was hilarious, something in the nature of "a true statement communicated in a fashion likely to be misinterpreted as misinformation" or some such.
You'd think they read 1984 or something...
Or maybe it's always been this way ... they just have a better Telescreen today !