First a Comment …YOU the American taxpaying Citizen are Cognitive “Infrastructure”…ie your Thinking is the Property of Homeland Security

Yesterday, not surprisingly, the Judge in the Missouri v. Biden case denied the government’s motion to stay the injunction forbidding it from censoring Americans. He’s being careful; he typed up a well-drafted, thirteen-page order. In this new order, in showing that the government was likely to lose, Judge Doughty provided examples of clear censorship from each of the following federal agencies: the White House, the Surgeon General and his staff, the CDC, the NIAID, the FBI, the CISA, and the State Department.

The government’s misconduct was so widespread, one wonders what the federal government was doing during the pandemic apart from censoring Americans.

Sometimes it only takes reading one sentence in an order to tell which way the Court plans to go. Here’s that one sentence from this order:

CISA Director Jen Easterly views the word “infrastructure” [expansively] to include our “cognitive infrastructure,” which deals with the way people acquire knowledge and understanding.
Easterly’s remark was not just a throwaway line. CISA is part of Homeland Security, which has jurisdiction over the Nation’s “critical infrastructure.” Easterly meant that “cognitive infrastructure” — our collective brains and the thoughts in them — are part of the country’s critical infrastructure and thus subject to HomeSec oversight and control.

Orwell himself would never have believed that a real, unelected, unaccountable government official said something that sinister.

Federal court rules required the government to try to seek a stay from Judge Doughty first. Now that he’s denied the stay, they can try again at the Fifth Circuit. As I’ve noted before, the Plaintiffs picked possibly the very best circuit in the country to bring this once-in-a-lifetime civil rights case, since the Fifth Circuit was reliably pro-freedom during the difficult cases of the pandemic.

Judge Doughty’s new order sort of summarizes his previous 100+-page order, so if you want to get a quick sense of the case, read this one (it’s double spaced)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.301.0_1.pdf

Haha, while the government’s lawyers in Missouri v. Biden were busy arguing that no censorship occurred, in a recent podcast interview, Meta/Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted straight out that government censorship went too far and undermined trust in the institutions. In part:

“There hadn’t been time to vet a lot of the scientific assumptions, and, you know, unfortunately I think a lot of the kind of establishment on that, um, kind of waffled on a bunch of the facts, and you know, asked for a bunch of things to be censored, that in retrospect wound up being more debatable, or true, and that stuff is really tough, right, and really undermines trust.”

Zuck didn’t say, not explicitly, but WHO has the juice to ask Facebook “for a bunch of things to be censored?” It wasn’t my Aunt Sally. Unless Jen Easterly is my Aunt Sally. Which she isn’t. So.