
Off with their tongues…


Former White House senior COVID-19 adviser Andy Slavitt said Thursday on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360” that President Joe Biden needed to get “very aggressive” and advocate that schools, businesses and government agencies require daily negative coronavirus tests results from the unvaccinated for which they pay.
Cooper said, “Fifty-seven percent of those eligible are fully vaccinated in the United States. Now given those percentages and the vigor of the Delta variant, what more does the administration need to be doing right now?”
Slavitt said, “It was great to see the town hall last night that President Biden is not willing to quit. Not willing to leave any American behind. And willing to continue to make the case. Now it’s going to take more than him to make the case. It’s going to take getting very aggressive about particularly younger people. People under 25. I think as they return to school, presumably at full FDA approval, we should be really seriously considering whether schools, workplaces, government agencies ought to be saying, ‘Hey, if you’re coming here, you need to be vaccinated. If you’re not, you need to show you have a negative test every single day.”
In his address on the administration’s concerns about online health “misinformation” surrounding the pandemic, Biden’s Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said the misinformation concerns were focused on “equity.”
The White House has come under fire for its plans for a direct approach regarding online censorship, especially when it emerged that it was flagging posts on Facebook.
“Misinformation is a threat to our health, and the speed, scale and sophistication with which it is spreading is unprecedented,” Murthy said in the Thursday morning address. “I will not hesitate to say that and to call for greater accountability and action to address health misinformation.”
“A word about equity though,” he continued. “We recognize that equity must be at the center of our work to confront health misinformation. Here’s why: Because unequal access to the health care system, education and technology, means that some people have less access to accurate health information than others. And when those people instead encounter health misinformation, it can worsen their health outcomes, which exacerbates health inequity in what becomes a vicious cycle.”
This is chilling. We have seen over the past several months the Biden administration putting out continuous dog whistles about “white supremacy,” going so far as to claim that “domestic white extremism” is the biggest threat to our country since…well since forever.
Newly discovered information however shows to what extent the administration and the Pentagon are going in trying to “root out” alleged extremism.
According to numerous sources including Fox News, the Pentagon is apparently working with a company, Moonshot CVE which has ties to—surprise, surprise—the Obama Foundation—is currently working on data which would provide military leaders which military bases and branches have the most troops searching for so-called “domestic extremist” content.
So what does Moonshot consider to be a “search for domestic extremist content?” How about if you put the following into your web browser: “The truth about Black Lives Matter.”
According to Moonshot, that along with a number of other seemingly innocent searches shows signs of either interest in or engagement with white supremacism, according to Defense One.
In June, Moonshot released a report in collaboration with the far-left Anti-Defamation League in which they identified so-called “white supremacy trends in the United States.”
Moonshot, based in the U.K. noted it “monitored a list of almost 1,600 indicators of interest in or engagement with white supremacism, focused specifically on anti-black and anti-Semitic narratives used by extremist groups.
Other “problematic” search phrases included “George Floyd deserved to die,” “Jews will not replace us” and “the truth about black lives matter.”
The latter in particular got the attention of Moonshot, which noted that: “This search suggests that the BLM movement has nefarious motives and is a disinformation narrative perpetuated by white supremacist groups to weaponize anti-BLM sentiment.”
It would seem the fact that the founders of BLM, who are admitted Marxists might draw the attention of people who care about the country, especially given the fact that politicians and businesses have allowed themselves to be shaken down by BLM.
Moreover, questions about the organization’s finances are fair game, especially since one of the founders, Patrisse Cullors has managed to acquire for herself a tidy little real estate portfolio.
A new initiative launched by cybersecurity experts encourages companies to create a system that makes it easier for people to be reported to their employers for “online abuse.”
The new program is called Respect in Security and was created by Trend Micro’s Rik Ferguson and Red Goat Cyber Security’s Lisa Forte.
According to Forte, the current system, which is largely based on a combination of AI and human reviewers working for social media companies, is a “no man’s land” and not very effective.
“The best solution we have, if the culprit is identifiable, is to approach their employer,” she argues.
According to Ferguson, companies currently only deal with “abuse” that happens internally and are ill-equipped to monitor what their staff are saying online.
Companies who sign up for the initiative are required to agree to seven principles and create a public reporting system that encourages employees to keep tabs on each other’s behavior.
“If you know your organization has made that commitment, it may make you think twice about doing it,” Ferguson said. “We need to take action.”
One morning in late January 2019, Rhogena Nicholas texted a prayer to her mother, Jo Ann Nicholas, just as she did every day. A widow in her eighties, Jo Ann could no longer make the four-hour drive from Natchitoches, Louisiana, to visit her daughter and her son-in-law, Dennis Tuttle, at their bungalow in the Pecan Park neighborhood of southeast Houston, but the family remained close, texting and speaking on the phone regularly. Rhogena, 58, worked as a bookkeeper, among other jobs. That afternoon, on January 28, she called Jo Ann to warn her against venturing outside in the icy weather gripping central Louisiana. Then she said goodbye, telling her mother that she and Tuttle were going to take a nap.
Less than an hour later, eleven armed Houston Police Department officers broke down the door of 7815 Harding Street and killed Rhogena, Tuttle, and their dog in a fusillade of bullets; autopsies would reveal that police shot Rhogena three times and Tuttle nine times. Four officers were also shot, allegedly by Tuttle, a 59-year-old disabled Navy veteran.
At a press conference that evening, Houston police chief Art Acevedo said that a neighbor had tipped off officers that heroin was being sold at the Harding Street home, leading a judge to issue a search warrant. Then Joe Gamaldi, the 37-year-old president of the Houston Police Officers’ Union, stepped up to the microphones.
A native of Long Island who started his career in the New York Police Department, Gamaldi has a slender build and short stature—his former NYPD partner affectionately calls him a “good little man”—that belie his street fighter instincts. And on this night, with four of his officers in the hospital, he was ready for a brawl.
“We are sick and tired of having dirtbags trying to take our lives,” Gamaldi announced in his reedy New York accent, jabbing his forefinger at the assembled reporters. “And if you’re the ones that are out there spreading the rhetoric that police officers are the enemy—well, just know, we’ve all got your number now.” To Gamaldi, the deadly Harding Street raid was the latest skirmish in what he considers a war on cops being waged by a panoply of sinister left-wing groups.


Recommendations unveiled by the UK’s Law Commission are seeking to establish a new offense by criminalizing communications that could cause “likely psychological harms.”
Another offense that is recommended in the document concerns “knowingly false communications.” This is a serious threat to freedom of expression, and a chance for the authorities to get the last word on what is perceived as true and false.
The recommendation defines “harm” as something that causes “serious distress,” while “psychological harm” is also being mentioned. As for defining “serious distress” – the Commission refers to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
The proposed reforms are aimed at protecting victims of online abuse, but there are fears that the vague language and prioritizing subjective perception of speech over objective content could have dangerous consequences.
And the fact that identity and characteristics of the recipient of a communication is also given center stage leaves the door wide open for censorship based on identity politics.

You must be logged in to post a comment.