Everyone everywhere, from the Feds to the World Health Organization to Persian cat-stroking supervillains like Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates, has it in for us, from our right to free speech, to travel, to informed consent, and even privacy.
Our inherent right to privacy has been under attack from all corners with nary a word from New Hampshire’s executive branch, which should have something to say considering the state’s Constitutional Privacy Amendment. So far, not a peep. And you won’t get one unless they can find a way to score a huge payout. That’s how justice works around here.
It says live free or die on the license plate, but “Collect a Fee to Thrive” might be more appropriate. Our political elites are not much different from the swamp denizens inside the DC Beltway regarding money laundering. Their New Hampshire Advantage is using the enrich the ruling class. So I don’t expect much pushback on this, not even from those devout constitutional defenders in the city of Dover.
Barry Soetero (dba, Barak Obama) says we need mandatory digital fingerprints “to help authorities censor so-called “misinformation.” It’s a constitutional rights double tap. He’s going after privacy and free speech.
In a new interview, Obama suggested the development of new technology to track and identify people online to combat “disinformation.” He argues that such a move would help to remove “misleading” news from the Internet and provide consumers with only “true” information.
B-B-B-But Barry. We already have that. The peasants need only look to the alphabet. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WP… I think you can see where I’m going. And this isn’t me playing partisan political politics. They were wrong about everything. That Covington Kid, COVID, vaccines, the laptop (Hunter, not Weiner), your Sec-O-State’s illicit server (which you knew about and then lied), and almost everything they wrote or said about anyone named Biden is misinformation.
The sources you argue are trustworthy put the “lie” in reliable, as in we can count on them to ignore the truth in favor of the next partisan narrative. A practice protected by the First Amendment when they do it as long as it doesn’t stumble across the trip wires of defamation or incitement, two fine lines that are hard to find even given the most blatant of instances.
You have to prove intent and awareness. They knew the truth but chose to lie anyway. You’d be familiar with that, Barry. We remember the early days of your digital presidency. The Democrats had Obama Truth Squads with canned responses to any expression to which they objected. You had a federal version, while local and state Demolition parties had their own information Stasi. If you rat out your neighbors or snitch on your Facebook friends, the truth squad might swoop in and carpet-bomb them into silence.
And then, out of nowhere, you and the Obamanauts introduced Attack Watch.
If you’ve forgotten what AttackWatch was, back in mid September Jim Messina and the Obama team concocted it as a place for people to identify and report opposition commentary about the President so they could “set the record straight.” This isn’t Nabisco asking people to let them know if something is wrong with the crackers. This is the office of a man basted in the corrupt Chicago Political Machine, charged with enforcing the nations laws as he sees fit, and technically the most powerful chief executive on the planet, asking people to report dissenters. Chilling.
You were not the first digital president, but you were the guy who repeatedly tried to use digital intimidation and censorship to silence political opponents.
You also weaponized the bureaucratic surveillance state, began arming Executive branch Departments, encouraged local PD to buy military street vehicles, and now this—digital fingerprints—the next level in message control with the potential to violate privacy and silence dissent.
No one is surprised, but I’d love to hear what the Constitutional oath takers in Democrat Dover, New Hampshire, have to say. Rumor has it they loathe this sort of censorship.