Connect with us

Published

on

Work on the Biden administration’s controversial Disinformation Governance Board was paused about three weeks after it was announced by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) amid concerns that the board would be weaponized by the administration against dissenting voices.

Nina Jankowicz, who was tapped by the White House to be in charge of the newly created board, told news outlets on May 18 that she’s submitted her resignation. In that statement, Jankowicz also confirmed that the board’s “work [is] paused” and “its future uncertain.”

After it was learned that the board would be led by Jankowicz—who the administration claimed was an expert in online disinformation—a number of users found posts she’d made on Twitter that claimed the Hunter Biden laptop was part of a Russian disinformation campaign. She also made posts touting the discredited “Steele dossier,” which was used to smear former President Donald Trump. The dossier was later discredited while the laptop and messages about Biden’s overseas business deals were authenticated.

“After six years dedicated to the study of disinformation and best practices in responding to it, I joined the Department of Homeland Security to be the executive director of the Disinformation Governance Board with the intention of supporting the department’s important work addressing disinformation that affects the homeland,” Jankowicz said in a statement to news outlets.

Later, DHS issued a statement confirming that the board “will not convene and its work will be paused,” although officials will carry out “critical work across several administrations to address disinformation that threatens the security of our country” in the meantime.

A spokesperson for DHS told The Washington Post that Jankowicz was allegedly “subjected to unjustified and vile personal attacks and physical threats,” without elaborating. The Epoch Times has contacted the agency for comment.

“In congressional hearings and in media interviews, the secretary has repeatedly defended her as eminently qualified and underscored the importance of the department’s disinformation work, and he will continue to do so,” the spokesperson said, referring to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

Meanwhile, White House deputy press secretary Andrew Bates said that Jankowicz was “smeared by bad-faith, right-wing actors against a deeply qualified expert and against efforts to better combat human smuggling and domestic terrorism.”

“Neither Nina Jankowicz nor the board have anything to do with censorship or with removing content from anywhere. Their role is to ensure that national security officials are updated on how misinformation is affecting the threat environment. She has strong credentials and a history of calling out misinformation from both the left and the right,” Bates told the Washington Examiner.

Neither the DHS spokesperson nor Bates addressed concerns that the Disinformation Governance Board would monitor U.S. citizens. Republicans and other critics described it as the “Ministry of Truth,” as referenced in George Orwell’s novel “1984,” and expressed fears that the panel would attempt to further stifle conservative viewpoints and individuals with views outside the mainstream. On May 9, one senator said its creation was likely illegal under the provisions of the Antideficiency Act.

Mayorkas previously said that the panel wouldn’t be used to surveil Americans, telling CNN that the “board does not have any operational authority or capability.” And in its Wednesday statement, DHS said that the board was “grossly and intentionally mischaracterized,” although Mayorkas and other administration officials have so far offered few details about what the panel will actually do.

The creation of the panel happened just days after Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Twitter’s board announced he would purchase the influential social media platform for $44 billion. In response to a post from commentator Steven Crowder earlier this month, Musk wrote on Twitter that the panel’s creation was “discomforting.”

Advertisement
13 Comments
  • Whoombug says:

    If Nina Jancowicz were concerned about “disinformation that affects the security of our country” (her words), her pronouncements would become the opposite of those up to the present.

  • Lawrence Tate says:

    So, what can this so-called board actually do? What actions can it take?

  • Barb says:

    Since females are being designated as possible applicants for the job, any of those democratic witches would be good at that job since they’re so great at manipulating and lying through their teeth like kamela, ocasio, pelosi, bidens wife……trudau

  • News

    U.S. Supreme Court Takes Case That Could Impact Future Elections

    Published

    on

    In a groundbreaking move that could upend future federal elections, the U.S. Supreme Court announced Thursday that it would take up a case out of North Carolina that could potentially give state legislatures nationwide control over their states’ elections. After the court returns from summer break, it will hear Moore v. Harper, a case that emerged out of North Carolina’s latest redistricting cycle. The case saw the state Supreme Court’s Democratic majority reject voting maps drawn by the state’s Republican-led General Assembly.

    On March 17, 2022, North Carolina’s GOP lawmakers petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to get involved and rule that—because of a critical clause in the U.S. Constitution that defines the independent state legislature theory—state courts do not have the power to reject congressional voting maps. Republican lawmakers want to resurrect the map that the state courts struck down. Meanwhile, a court-drawn map is being used for the 2022 midterms.

    The issue has surfaced repeatedly in cases from North Carolina and Pennsylvania, where Democratic majorities on the states’ highest courts have invoked voting protections in their state constitutions to thwart the plans of Republican-dominated legislatures.

    On March 7, 2022, ten days prior to the filing of the petition by North Carolina legislative leaders, the U.S. Supreme Court had voted, 6-3, to reject an emergency petition, which could have blocked the current election map from being used for 2022 U.S. House elections.

    At the time, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said it was too close to the balloting to force North Carolina to change its districts again. However, he indicated he agreed with dissenting Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito that the Court should address the issue of the state court’s role in managing state legislatures’ decisions about redistricting. It takes “yes” from four of the nine Justices to agree to hear a case, and there is no deadline for them to reach a decision.

    Opposing briefs filed on May 20 by the legislature’s critic, left-leaning Common Cause—a group that has challenged the election maps drawn by the Republican-led General Assembly for the past decade—asked the Supreme Court not to take the case. Besides Common Cause, those against the Supreme Court’s review of the case include the League of Conservation Voters, the group “Harper Plaintiffs,” and Democratic N.C. Attorney General Josh Stein’s state Justice Department. Common Cause stated in its brief:

    “The way they see it, because the Constitution refers to ‘the Legislature’ of a State setting the time, place, and manner of congressional elections, it precludes state courts from reviewing whether such election-related legislation complies with the state’s own constitution. Instead, Petitioners would have this Court say that a state legislature has carte blanche in this context—unrestrained by state constitutional limitations and unable to incorporate state courts into the process, even if it passes a statute attempting to do so. As a matter of text, structure, history, precedent, and long-established practice in this country, that is flatly wrong.”

    Undoubtedly, Thursday’s announcement touched a nerve with those who spent years crafting the “shadow campaign” that plagued the 2020 general election. The frantic mainstream headlines reacting to the news are predictable, with one outlet calling it “the biggest threat to U.S. democracy since January 6.” Deep-state-funded organizations like the Brennan Center for Justice describe the independent state legislature theory and the potential SCOTUS ruling on the case as “the nightmare scenario” which would “radically change our elections” and open the door to throw out the results of presidential elections.

    Still, those closely involved in Moore v. Harper indicate they are hoping for a ruling that gives state legislatures the final word on congressional election maps, not a rule to address presidential elector slates. North Carolina Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger, who is part of the case, said in a statement on Thursday, “I don’t see what we’re asking the Supreme Court to take up as being that broad.” Berger stated that the case was vital to election integrity in North Carolina. Likewise, he said it has implications for the security of elections across the nation. He continued, adding:

    “On the heels of another victory at the U.S. Supreme Court, I am confident that this court recognizes what our State Supreme Court failed to recognize— that the United States Constitution explicitly gives the General Assembly authority to draw districts and that authority must be recognized.”

    State Republican leaders view the case as a way to prevent the state courts from seizing legislative authority. They argue that the elections clause of the U.S. Constitution is explicit when it says:

    “The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.”

    In asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case on March 17, 2022, lawmakers acknowledged that in “limited circumstances a state legislature’s election rules are subject to review or invalidation by entities other than Congress,” but only if the legislature’s decisions conflict with some other provision of the U.S. Constitution. The Petitioners—who state the issue will not go away until the Court resolves it—argued that is not the case here, writing:

    “No such enumerated, federal constitutional right is at issue here. Instead, the state supreme court justified its nullification of the General Assembly’s regulation of the manner of congressional elections by pointing to a hodgepodge of state constitutional provisions.

    If a redistricting process more starkly contrary to the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause exists, it is hard to imagine it. By its plain text, the Elections Clause creates the power to regulate the times, places, and manner of federal elections and then vests that power in ‘the legislature’ of each state. It does not leave the states free to limit the legislature’s constitutionally vested power.”

    The U.S. Supreme Court announcement shines hope on the future of election integrity and comes off the heels of recent decisions that have the support of many patriotic Americans. Declaring it is time for the Court to decide once and for all if state legislatures are the final authority at the state level for drawing congressional maps, Berger noted that state courts have long ignored the U.S. Constitution and redrawn congressional district maps to suit their political agenda. Echoing the positive potential of the court hearing the case, Jason Snead, Executive Director of Honest Election Project, proclaimed:

    “We applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to take this case out of North Carolina, Moore v. Harper. The Constitution plainly empowers legislatures, not courts or executives, to write the rules of our elections. “Dark money” fueled left-wing lawyers have misused the courts to manipulate election laws and undermine commonsense voting safeguards for political gain. In the process, these lawsuits cause chaos and confusion, and damage trust in the election system. The Supreme Court now has the chance to uphold the Constitution, preserve the rule of law, and ensure that future elections have safeguards that make it easier to vote and harder to cheat.”

    Continue Reading

    News

    JP Morgan Makes Dire and Terrifying Prediction on Future Oil Prices

    Published

    on

    If you think gas is expensive now, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

    The price of a barrel of oil, which now hovers around $111, could more than triple to a staggering $380 if Russia decides to cut its output, analysts at JP Morgan Chase are warning. With the price of a gallon of gas in America now topping $5 in many areas, such a dramatic increase in oil costs would be catastrophic to the economy.

    “It is likely that the government could retaliate by cutting output as a way to inflict pain on the West,” analysts wrote. “The tightness of the global oil market is on Russia’s side.”

    The West is putting the squeeze on Moscow over its war in Ukraine, but Russia, which supplies much of Europe with oil for heating and gasoline, could easily flip the script by cutting output. Cutting production by 3 million barrels a day would push global prices to $190, and a worst-case scenario of a 5-million-per-day cut would send the price of a single barrel to $380, analyst Natasha Kaneva wrote.

    Western countries are dependent on Russian oil, yet want to limit how profitible production is to Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Group of Seven leading industrial nations are trying to hammer out a complex plan to cap the price Russia can fetch from oil sales to non G-7 countries as part of a menu of sanctions aimed at Russia.

    “The goal here is to starve Russia — starve Putin of his main source of cash and force down the price of Russian oil to help blunt the impact of Putin’s war at the pump,” a senior Biden administration official

    Told reporters. “The dual objectives of G7 leaders have been to take direct aim at Putin’s revenues, particularly through energy, but also to minimize the spillovers and the impact on the G7 economies and the rest of the world.”

    But such a cap could end up leaving Putin with more leverage than he currently has, according to the bank’s experts.

    “The most obvious and likely risk with a price cap is that Russia might choose not to participate and instead retaliate by reducing exports,” the analysts wrote.

    President Joe Biden acknowledged earlier this week that oil prices are on a rapid upward trajectory. When asked how long Americans should expect to pay high prices, he offered little room for optimism.

    “As long as it takes so Russia cannot in fact defeat Ukraine and move beyond Ukraine,” Biden told reporters in Europe Thursday. “This is a critical, critical position for the world. Here we are. Why do we have NATO? I told Putin that in fact, if he were to move, we would move to strengthen NATO. We would move to strengthen NATO across the board.”

    White House Director of the National Economic Council Brian Deese told CNN Thursday afternoon that American families must take the high price of gasoline in stride.

    “This is about the future of the liberal world order, and we have to stand firm,” he said.

    Continue Reading

    News

    Uvalde Schools Police Chief Resigns After Botched Response to Mass Shooting at Robb Elementary School

    Published

    on

    The Uvalde school district’s police chief has stepped down from his position in the City Council just weeks after being sworn in following allegations he erred in his response to the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School that left 19 students and two teachers dead.

    Chief Pete Arredondo told the Uvalde Leader-News on Friday that has decided to step down for the good of the city administration. He was elected to the District 3 council position on May 7 and was sworn in on May 31, just a week after the massacre.

    “After much consideration, I regret to inform those who voted for me that I have decided to step down as a member of the city council for District 3. The mayor, the city council, and the city staff must continue to move forward without distractions. I feel this is the best decision for Uvalde,” Arredondo said.

    Arredondo has been on administrative leave from the school district since June 22.

    Col. Steven McCraw, director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, told a state Senate hearing last month that Arredondo made “terrible decisions” as the massacre unfolded on May 24 , and that the police response was an “abject failure.”

    Three minutes after 18-year-old Salvador Ramos entered the school, sufficient armed law enforcement were on scene to stop the gunman, McCraw testified. Yet police officers armed with rifles stood and waited in a school hallway for more than an hour while the gunman carried out the massacre. The classroom door could not be locked from the inside, but there is no indication officers tried to open the door while the gunman was inside, McCraw said.

    McCraw has said parents begged police outside the school to move in and students inside the classroom repeatedly pleaded with 911 operators for help while more than a dozen officers waited in a hallway. Officers from other agencies urged Arredondo to let them move in because children were in danger.

    “The only thing stopping a hallway of dedicated officers from entering room 111 and 112 was the on-scene commander who decided to place the lives of officers before the lives of children,” McCraw said.

    Arredondo has tried to defend his actions, telling the Texas Tribune that he didn’t consider himself the commander in charge of operations and that he assumed someone else had taken control of the law enforcement response. He said he didn’t have his police and campus radios but that he used his cellphone to call for tactical gear, a sniper and the classroom keys.

    It’s still not clear why it took so long for police to enter the classroom, how they communicated with each other during the attack, and what their body cameras show.

    Officials have declined to release more details, citing the investigation.

    Arredondo, 50, grew up in Uvalde and spent much of his nearly 30-year career in law enforcement in the city.

    Continue Reading

    News

    It’s Official: Gender Fluid Drag Queen Now Serves in Biden’s Energy Department’s Office of Nuclear Energy

    Published

    on

    It’s official.

    Sam Brinton, a genderqueer drag queen into BDSM, has been appointed to oversee the US’s nuclear power plants.

    “Sam Brinton will be the deputy assistant secretary of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition in the Energy Department’s Office of Nuclear Energy.” – Politico reported earlier this year.

    Brinton is a “non-binary” drag queen into “kink” with “they/them” pronouns.

    Sam Brinton this week announced he is now officially serving as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition in the Office of Nuclear Energy in the Department of Energy.

    Brinton posted a photo of himself wearing a red jumpsuit and American flag high heels.

    Brinton said he held off on making the announcement because of all the death threats he received.

    Brinton bragged about being the “very first genderfluid individuals in federal government leadership.”

    A 2017 article in the newspaper at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute said Brinton has a history of sexual fetishes and kinks with dog-role-playing.

    “Throughout the entire talk, Brinton was open about his experiences, the kinks he partakes in, and the nature of his relationships,” the article reads. “He left us with countless anecdotes, like how he enjoys tying up his significant other like a table, and eating his dinner on him while he watches Star Trek.”

    Our enemies are laughing at us.

    Continue Reading

    News

    Brit Hume Delivers Scorching Rebuke of Jan. 6 Committee, Says He’s Never Seen Anything Like This in His 50 Years Covering DC

    Published

    on

    Brit Hume delivered a scathing rebuke of the January 6 committee this week. The Fox News senior political analyst noted that in 50 years of covering Washington, D.C. politics, he’s “never seen a committee all of whose members were chosen by one party.”

    Hume was responding to a tweet by Washington Examiner chief political correspondent Byron York.

    “There’s a long tradition of adversarial process in congressional hearings/investigations,” York wrote on Friday. “You don’t have to compare it to a trial to know something is wrong with the J6 committee.”

    Hume tacked on to York’s post, “I’ve covered Washington for more than 50 years, including 11 years covering Congress specifically. I’ve never seen a committee all of whose members were chosen by one party, and where there is no cross-examination or any attempt to present both sides.”

    Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) pushed back against Hume’s assertation.

    “Hey Brit. It’s been all Republicans testifying. Definitely one-sided, just not in how you think it is,” the “never-Trump” Republican tweeted. “And as you well know, Kevin McCarthy took his ball and went home. You all sound nervous.”

    Hume had previously hammered the Jan. 6 committee for being partisan.

    On July 1, the Fox News commentator criticized the Jan. 6 committee and media, “Hyping the events to increase interest, knowing most of the media will eagerly play along is what this committee does best.” He included a link to an article written by York titled: “The Jan. 6 committee charade.”

    On June 11, Hume labeled the primetime hearing as an “utterly one-sided presentation.”

    On June 13, Hume belittled the Jan. 6 committee as “a televised press release with soundbites.”

    “I’ve never seen anything quite like it in my life, and I certainly never imagined back in the day when I was working for one of the broadcast networks’ news divisions, that such an event would ever be put on primetime television by one of the networks,” he declared during a Fox News appearance. “And in this case, it was done by all of them. Quite remarkable.”

    On June 7, he tweeted, “It is not normal for a supposedly bipartisan committee to have its members all chosen by one party.”

    Hume included a video clip of his appearance on Fox News’ “Special Report.”

    Hume pointed out that the Jan. 6 committee is comprised of Democrats Adam Schiff, Jamie Raskin, Bennie Thompson, Zoe Lofgren, Pete Aguilar, Stephanie Murphy, and Elaine Luria. He also noted that the “one-sided” committee had anti-Trump Republicans Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger hand-selected by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

    Hume called Cheney and Kinzinger are “Republican members who could be counted on to agree with the conclusions already reached by” Pelosi.

    “This is very much a partisan hearing, which is not to say that interesting facts won’t come out and they won’t make an interesting presentation in primetime but, look, this is only partially a hearing to determine the facts,” Hume told host Brett Baier. “It is as much as anything else an effort to give the Democrats an issue that they can run on when nearly all the other issues that people care about are working against them.”

    Rasmussen Reports noted that the Capitol riot or the January 6 committee did not make the top nine midterm issues for U.S. voters. However, issues that are hurting Democrats make up the top four: rising gas prices, inflation, the economy, and violent crime.

    Hume conceded that President Donald Trump’s behavior following the 2020 election was “outrageous” and “utterly disgraceful.” However, he doesn’t believe that the Jan. 6 committee will be able to prove that the United States was close to losing its democracy, as Democrats have blustered.

    Hume said on June 23, “The 1/6 committee is pounding home the point that Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election. He certainly did. But the testimony has not come close to establishing Chairman Bennie Thompson’s claim that we came ‘critically close to losing our democracy’ that day.”

    “That’s because, as the testimony has shown, Trump’s scheme was utterly half-assed,” he continued. “The legal theory on which it rested was ridiculous. Its linchpin was refusal by vice president Pence to refuse to count the 2020 electoral votes showing Joe Biden the winner. When Pence refused, the scheme collapsed.”

    “All this happened in the context of an ugly riot, which Trump had triggered, not by what he said on 1/6 but by the stolen-election bs he had been feeding his supporters for two months,” he stated. “In the end, the electoral vote count was delayed for several hours, but went forward that day. Outrageous behavior by a president unable to admit error or defeat to be sure. But the near-death of American democracy? Not even close.”

    Last July, Pelosi rejected two appointees chosen by Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to serve on the House Select Committee to investigate the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. In response to Pelosi rejecting House Judiciary Committee ranking member Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), McCarthy yanked all five of the Republicans he had selected to sit on the January 6 committee.

    Continue Reading

    News

    Three Cops, Police K9 Dead in Shootout with Kentucky ‘Terrorist on a Mission’

    Published

    on

    Three Kentucky police officers and a police canine were killed and at least four other officers were hurt in a shootout at a home of what cops called a “terrorist on a mission.”

    Lance Storz, 49, was taken into custody after an almost five hour standoff with officers who had showed up at his door in rural Prestonsburg with a warrant for his arrest in a domestic violence incident, according to reports.

    Storz, who was armed with a rifle, opened fire and hit two officers in the Thursday evening incident, Kentucky State Police said.

    Prestonsburg Police Capt. Ralph Frasure and Deputy William Petry were killed, along with one Sheriff’s K9 named Drago and a police department Canine Handler named Jacob Chaffins, authorities said.

    The situation escalated quickly, as Storz barricaded himself inside the home with his wife and daughter and kept firing at responding officers, cops said.

    The deputies called for backup and several agencies responded, including state police, officers from neighboring counties and a SWAT team.

    “They encountered … pure hell when they arrived. They had no chance,” Floyd County Sheriff John Hunt told reporters. Deputies had not even made contact with the suspected shooter when the gunfire began, he noted.

    The shooter apparently had a plan and “pretty much executed that plan almost to precision,” Hunt said, adding it took several hours to figure out where the gunman was firing from.

    “(The suspect) was a sheer terrorist … he was just a terrorist on a mission,” the sheriff said.

    Floyd County Attorney Keith Bartley said Friday morning: “These are human beings. These are people with children, spouses, moms and dads, their world will never be the same.”

    The standoff ended with the suspect being taken into police custody, WMDJ reported. His wife and daughter were unharmed.

    One deputy who took cover under a running patrol vehicle ended up with carbon monoxide poisoning.

    Multiple officers from different agencies were shot and brought to local hospitals. Four to six officers were shot in total, according to local reports.

    Storz, who is in jail in Pike County, is next due in court July 11.

    Continue Reading

    News

    ‘Our Country’s Gone to Hell’: 100-Year Old WWII Veteran Breaks Down in Tears in Heartbreaking Interview

    Published

    on

    This is hard to watch.

    A 100-year old World War II veteran was brought to tears discussing the decline of the United States in an interview.

    Florida WTVT-TV profiled Carl Dekel in late June, interviewing the Marine Corps veteran on the occasion of his 100th birthday.

    Dekel discussed his lifelong optimism in the interview, describing how his focus on the bright side helped him reach his advanced age.

    The Plant City, Florida native described his World War II service as the honor of a lifetime.

    Drekel described serving in the Battle of Guadalcanal in 1942, one of the most intense battles in the Pacific Theater of the war.

    “Most important thing in my life was serving my country. I don’t think I could take away from that,” said Drekel.

    When the topic of conversation shifted to the condition of the United States, Drekel became upset.

    “Nowadays … I am so upset that the things we did, the things we fought for, and the boys that died for it — It’s all gone down the drain.”

    “Our country’s gone to hell in a handbasket. We haven’t got the country we had when I was raised. Not at all.”

    Dekel expressed his sadness that future generations of Americans won’t have the opportunities he did.

    “Nobody will have had the fun I had. Nobody will have had the opportunity I had.”

    The Marine broke down in tears when he spoke of the men who died in combat.

    “It’s not the same. That’s not what our boys — that‘s not what they died for.”

    The World War II veteran didn’t get into greater detail on his view of American decline, instead encouraging the public to embrace the optimism that had defined his own life.

    “You just remember everything’s beautiful. And live every day to the fullest. Just enjoy everything as much as you possibly can.”

    Americans who lived in Dekel’s prime witnessed a nation that had higher levels of social trust, economic mobility and community cohesion.

    The Greatest Generation is steadily fading away. The last American service member who was awarded the Medal of Honor for heroism in World War II died earlier this week.

    Continue Reading

    Trending Today

    >