Staff Reports
The censorship hearing held by the House Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government turned into a fiery showdown between Republican Florida Representative Matt Gaetz and former Obama-era official Norman Eisen. The subject of their heated exchange was the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) funding of technology grants aimed at combating misinformation. Gaetz raised concerns about one particular grant given to MIT, which allegedly classified individuals in rural communities, military families, and those who consider the Bible and Constitution sacred as easily influenced by disinformation because they do not trust the expertise of Washington, D.C.
Gaetz passionately argued that these grants were unfair and discriminatory, using the example of military families and rural Americans who were being targeted and harmed by government-funded projects. Eisen, on the other hand, attempted to dismiss Gaetz’s claims and insisted on examining the materials in the context of the committee’s broader investigation.
Undeterred, Gaetz pointed out that MIT had specifically presented their case to the NSF, highlighting the susceptibility of people in rural communities and military families who hold the Bible and Constitution sacred. Gaetz believed that these grants were essentially an attempt to control and manipulate the thoughts and behaviors of those who do not think in line with the so-called “expert class” in Washington.
Look at this news article from The Daily Caller: ’May I Answer?’: Censorship Hearing Flies Off The Rails As Matt Gaetz Squabbles With Democrat Norman Eisen https://t.co/HNojn1hiaE
— lucky one USA. (@stewdude59) February 6, 2024
In a dramatic comparison, Gaetz likened the NSF grants to the movie “Minority Report,” where police use futuristic technology to arrest criminals before they even commit a crime. He argued that the government’s funding of predictive analytics to target Americans was akin to a dystopian reality unfolding right before their eyes.
In the end, Gaetz firmly stated that it was not that rural Americans, military families, or people who value the Bible and Constitution are inherently more susceptible or unintelligent. Instead, he believed that they simply think differently from the so-called expert class, which has led to an attempt to program and control their beliefs.
This confrontational hearing highlights the concerns surrounding the NSF’s spending of millions of dollars on projects related to combating misinformation. The agency’s allocation of funds to universities, such as the University of Houston, to create tools to address the alleged “misinformation endemic in America” raises questions about the government’s role in shaping and controlling public discourse.
