Filed under: Politics
Well. actually, it’s not the new name for lies, it’s an attempt to get rid of speech you don’t like or agree with by giving it a more formal cutesy name “disinformation” indeed! You are not supposed to disapprove publicly with what your government thinks is, at the moment, a good idea, and they want you to stop it immediately…You are not supposed to disapprove! At least not publicly where others might get the idea. Alejandro Mayorkas, the Cuban-American Secretary of Homeland Security really, really doesn’t want anyone to think that his “Disinformation Board” set up to control American speech and thought might possibly infringe on free speech or monitor Americans. Perish the thought!
You will find it under Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America:
Amendment One
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That’s why I recommend that you have a little copy of the Constitution in your desk drawer. Just because they got appointed to a federal office doesn’t clearly indicate that they have even read it of are in the least familiar with its provisions. No, Secretary Mayorkas, you don’t get to have a “Disinformation Board” intended specifically to infringe on free speech and monitor Americans. Nor someone in charge of “Disinformation”. Not just a profoundly dumb idea, but quite unconstitutional. You should know better.
5 Comments so far
Leave a comment
American Elephants 
Well here’s the seminal story for the new board: who and why does the SCOTUS abortion draft leak benefit?
IMO, It certainly doesn’t benefit conservatives but it does benefit extreme liberals. I don’t believe any “current” serving Justice would do this. Chief Justice Roberts has jealously defended all the “current” Justices as non partisan. The same can be said for the “current” clerks.
That leaves the new soon to be sworn in Ms Jackson or her personal staff she may have brought in. I would note that Ms Jackson had taken most unusual action by setting up her office before the swearing in and before Justice Breyer’s retirement. This means she or her personal staff had potential access to the draft document. So that’s the who.
The why: The abortion decision was coming out next month in June, so why leak it early when the same result of partisan upset would occur anyway? The leak is not going to change any votes by the Justices given they all know the fire storm was going to occur. What’s happening in May that requires such a distraction to risk Ms Jackson’s reputation and the SCOTUS itself? Would that be the ending of Title 42 when the border is going to be rushed by 100s of thousands? The month of May was and is going to be month Biden is going to be politically crushed when the full scale border run is going to occur.
IMO, given the appalling lack of anger much less concern over violating the integrity of the Court’s non political standing by Pelosi, Schumer and Biden, but instead beating the political war drums to whip up the frenzy, this tells me that all 3 of them were in on this political black ops. They knew at minimum but probably approved it due to their desperation over the midterms.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Comment by dscott8186 May 3, 2022 @ 10:35 amYou are very probably right, but I hate to think so. One keeps hoping that things will be done for the good of the American people, but….
As usual, it’s just the grasp for power.
LikeLike
Comment by The Elephant's Child May 3, 2022 @ 1:09 pmStill no answer on the leaker. This leads me to conclude none of the clerks did it. The process of elimination leaves us with just Ms Jackson as the prime suspect.
Chief Juctice Roberts is now between a rock and a hard place. Does he or does he not swear in the person who infamously damaged the reputation of the SCOTUS?
LikeLike
Comment by dscott8186 May 22, 2022 @ 4:35 amMs. Jackson? Did you mean Ginny Thomas? Highly unlikely. Admirable woman, politically active, but very unlikely to be doing political leaks
LikeLike
Comment by The Elephant's Child May 22, 2022 @ 1:34 pmYes, Ketanji Brown Jackson
https://moonbattery.com/why-ketanji-brown-jackson-is-not-qualified-for-supreme-court/
Let’s review:
1. She doesn’t know how to define a female.
2. Believes that CRT ideology ought to influence sentencing, presumably meaning that whites should have harsher sentences and blacks more lenient ones on the basis of their race.
3. she was also inspired by the 1619 Project, which endeavors to replace American history with a fictional account promoted by the New York Times, in which the Revolutionary War was fought not to preserve liberty but to suppress it on behalf of slavery.
4. Claims she is shocked by the leak but will not condemn demonstrations at Justice’s residences?
A person who would believe this nonsense is more than likely to leak sensitive information for political purposes. She should be the prime suspect.
LikeLike
Comment by dscott8186 May 23, 2022 @ 12:17 pm