GOP women in Vermont, nationwide attack Homeland Security bulletin, immigration failure

By Guy Page

On Feb. 7, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security led by Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued a startling bulletin declaring a crackdown on online speech in an apparent effort to prevent domestic terrorism.

The bulletin characterizes some American online speech about Covid-19, election fraud, and 5G technology as mis- dis- and mal-information or “MDM.” These online communications by “domestic threat actors” threaten US critical infrastructure and undermine public trust in government institutions, the bulletin said.

state of Vermont

Rep. Vicki Strong, R-Albany: “I was recently alarmed and felt disbelief when I read that our own US Department of Homeland Security stated that certain beliefs and opinions held by American citizens are considered ‘domestic threats’ to our country.”

The bulletin elicited criticism from Marcia Blackburn, U.S. senator from Tennessee: “The Department of Homeland Security appears to endorse particular narratives regarding controversial issues that are at the center of our national political conversation. By identifying dissenting beliefs as ‘key factors contributing to the current heightened threat environment,’ the Department comes dangerously close to suggesting that publicly disagreeing with the current administration is akin to domestic terrorism.”

The bulletin invites state and local governments to participate in the crackdown with the help of federally-funded grants. On Friday, Feb. 10 and again on the Friday, Feb. 17, Vermont Daily Chronicle asked Vermont legislators if they would accept this proffered DHS funding.

Vermont officialdom’s response has been, to say the least, muted. Gov. Phil Scott professed ignorance of the bulletin when asked about it at a press conference a week later, despite having met just days prior with Homeland Security officials. Only two responses have been received from legislators, both Republicans in the Northeast Kingdom.

“I was against the creation of Homeland Security to begin with, as I considered it an overreaction to the fear of the moment and an unnecessary expansion of government given we already had the FBI and CIA.  So of course I’m nervous about any expansion of its powers,” Sen. Joe Benning (R-Caledonia) said. “I hesitate to commit for or against any unknown proposals with respect to your question about state involvement, but my track record is pretty clear that I am opposed to blurring the lines between state and federal jurisdiction. This is especially true when it comes to police expansion and/or financial incentives that invite mischief around those lines of demarcation.”

Rep. Vicki Strong (R-Albany) took a more direct stance in opposition.

“I was recently alarmed and felt disbelief when I read that our own US Department of Homeland Security stated that certain beliefs and opinions held by American citizens are considered “domestic threats” to our country. What has happened to open and honest dialogue and to our Constitutional right of freedom of speech? Even when we don’t agree with the opinions and beliefs of others, don’t they have the right to express them?

“More and more I have witnessed the suppression of differing beliefs in every sector of our society. If we allow this suppression and oppression of freedom to continue we will see this precious gift erode and be extinguished.  Our right to this fundamental freedom is paramount to freedom itself, and to the flow of all information, discussion, and debate in our country. It is what has always made us stronger and more compassionate in our search for answers and solutions in the problems we face in our country.

“If we stay silent, those who have fought to give us this freedom would have done so in vain.  Let’s each have courage from their example to stand up to face anything that seeks to diminish our most basic right of free speech.  This is a right that needs to be exercised sometimes during great pressure and stress, or we will risk the fate of losing it.”

While zealously targeting free speech of U.S. citizens, Mayorkas is being criticized for slack protection of U.S. citizens from the consequences of a porous southern border. A Feb. 22 letter from 14 state attorneys general ( but not Vermont’s TJ Donovan) demands he resign. Authored by Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody, the letter alleges that Mayorkas has allowed:

  • Smuggling of enough fentanyl to kill every American six times over;
  • Illegal entry of 213% more arrested sex offenders;
  • Deportations to fall 70%.

Vermont Daily Chronicle will gladly publish any response from a Vermont legislator, regardless of gender or party, on the DHS bulletin.

Guy Page is publisher of the Vermont Daily Chronicle. Reprinted with permission.

Images courtesy of DHS and state of Vermont
Spread the love

10 thoughts on “GOP women in Vermont, nationwide attack Homeland Security bulletin, immigration failure

  1. Senator Dick McCormack, Senator Alison Clarke , Senator Alice Nitka , Rep Kristi and Rep Emmons were ALL emailed by me on the subject of that horrific DHS memo.

    That was 2.5 weeks ago. Only Senator Dick replied and it wasn’t cordial .

  2. Not only that, but HHS is now going after supposed medical misinformation. https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/reports-and-publications/health-misinformation/index.html

    This would leave the CDC as the final arbiter of medical truth. Yet the CDC, as a BMJ (medical journal) piece pointed out several years ago, is a compromised agency that often appears to work for the private, not the public, good (“Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: protecting the private good?”)

    Why is this happening? Perhaps it’s an attempt to maintain control of the narrative as the truth about Covid-19, treatments, and the vaccines comes out.

    For example, not many people know that the Pfizer Covid vaccine trial had more people die in the vaccine arm than in the placebo arm (see 3/5/22 Naomi Wolf interview with Edward Dowd.) This doesn’t mean the vaccine was responsible for these additional deaths, but it’s a red flag that should have stopped Operation Warp Speed. Also, that the FDA wanted to wait 75 years before releasing Pfizer trial data, when it took the FDA less than a year to review that data, is another red flag.

    Insurance companies are reporting higher mortality rates beginning in 2021; mortality rates stay relatively constant and were only a slight blip up in 2020. Some insurance companies are projecting excess deaths in 2022. These things point to something the vaccines might be doing. Then we have the issue of healthy young people getting myocarditis. This isn’t to say most people didn’t do fine with the vaccines, but most people did fine with Covid, too. The question is, did the vaccines kill/damage more people than they saved? Was Warp Speed a mistake?

    Perhaps the most damning thing about the mismanagement of Covid-19 is that we should have used safe drugs like hydroxychloroquine to manage Covid, but there was a concerted, world-wide effort to demonize this safe drug. This was medical malpractice that led to many deaths.

    If we call the above “misinformation,” and if we get the authority of DHS behind it and legally go after those spreading so-called misinformation, then this would go a long way toward keeping the truth about the past two years from being exposed. It seems that we’re all being taught to forget Covid, and a war in Ukraine helps to focus out attention elsewhere. After all, if Biden had any desire to prevent war, all he had to say was, “we agree on Ukrainian neutrality.” But he didn’t.

    • Not to hog too much space on this issue, but I find this recent presentation on the Ukraine war by Mearsheimer and McGovern (and others) very illuminating (first four minutes somewhat garbled.) It’s not what the media is telling us, so the relevance to the top post is: will this take on things be considered part of misinformation and subject to censorship? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppD_bhWODDc

  3. Re: “I agree with our esteemed leaders advocating for censorship, and on this there can be no debate.”

    Would you be kind enough to clarify this statement. Are you being sarcastic?

    • Jay, what do you think?

      Sorry, I find things so unbelievably bizarre that I can’t quite take them seriously. Yes, sarcasm. I suppose one of my ways of dealing with insanity.

      But I later realized that perhaps some were taking me seriously … because they don’t understand what Federalist #10 was about. Worse, they might not bother to find out. Federalist #10 is about not allowing any one faction to take control of our government. So I (purposely) butchered Federalist #10 thinking that most people would understand that what I claimed about #10 was the opposite of its intent.

      I trust that most readers of TNR got it. I hope.

      • I know what James Madison wrote in Federalist #10. But I have no idea what someone is thinking, or their state of mind. That’s why I asked.

        Re: “I trust that most readers of TNR got it. I hope.”

        Trust – but verify.

        TNR Readers: If you’re unsure, read Federalist #10. It won’t be a waste of your time.

      • “what distinguished the Third Reich from all previous dictatorships was its use of all the means of communication to sustain itself AND TO DEPRIVE ITS OBJECTS OF THE POWER OF INDEPENDENT THOUGHT.” – Albert Speer

  4. I think we should be very wary of allowing disinformation/misinformation.

    After all, in Federalist #10, Madison warns of allowing factions to promote disinformation and stated that the aim of controlling narratives was so that the best faction would rise to the top and control the government and the thinking of the people. This is in-line with other constitutional guarantees of “true speech” unhindered by specious arguments and the promise of “safe spaces” free from all infectious agents.

    Perhaps we might extend this idea of freedom from infectious agents to freedom from “infectious thoughts” as well? I, for one, would much prefer to walk on streets where I knew everyone thought pretty much the same as I did. It makes things much tidier.

    I agree with our esteemed leaders advocating for censorship, and on this there can be no debate. I further advocate for labeling all dissent from consensus science as “misinformation.”

    Thanks for listening. And remember: stay safe. It’s the new freedom.

    • What a tangled web we weave much. Hello Mr Freitag…looks ya forgot which account you’re commenting from…Jim is your red-pilled sock lol…also didn’t clarify as sarc so find claim dubious as there are partisan views of #10 and I’m not even sure I’m a fan of its intent regardless

Comments are closed.