On Censorship

If you're reading this, G_d knows how you found me.  I don't show up on any searches.  I'm a politically incorrect, conservative, Trump Republican.  I discontinued this blog for about 2 years, starting in 2018.  While it was discontinued, I was getting about 100 hits a week.  Once I restarted, hits went down to zero and stayed there.
 

The world in general, and the US in particular, has a free speech problem.  The left has decided that it alone is the arbiter of truth.  Any opinions that socialists don't agree with are not only mistaken, they are factually wrong and evil.  Rather than try to argue their points, the left has decided to simply suppress any facts and opinions they don't like.
 

Suppression of free speech, and freedom of the press, is pervasive.  By starting  small, with community standards on social media and slanting news coverage in the media,  the left can now block almost anything, almost anywhere.  True believers can block medical discussion of a pandemic lockdown that caused a large recession.   They can black out a scandal about a major party presidential candidate's son for over 2 weeks before a general election.
 

The motive for suppressing  free speech is mainly political.  The left's arguments are so poor, they need protection from counter arguments.  The left takes for itself a monopoly on "truth" that proclaims dissenters not just possibly mistaken, but willfully evil.  Armed with pseudo religious certainty, the left feels morally justified in rooting out heresy.
 

Even the Wall Street Journal has a "monitoring team" for comments, with no written rules.  I lost about a dozen comments in one evening without warning, no reason ever given.  The censorship was clearly political.  One comment that vanished in 30 seconds was, "As we say in Chicago, what's a little vote fraud among friends?"  That's the entire comment.  The censorship was based on the official position that no vote fraud occurred in 2020.

 

Since I've been openly complaining, the WSJ little red guards have gotten slightly better.

 
If anything deserves resistance, efforts to suppress free speech do.  Please fight this any way you can

Reversing Citizens United: The End of Free Speech

Block all of the free speech you find irredeemable. Once Hillary packs the Supreme Court and it reverses the Citizens United decision, then this will be standard operating procedure on a national scale. If you want to know how that will work out, just look at the amendment to the Bill of Rights that Democrats proposed in 2013. The Democrats actually proposed an amendment to the Constitution that would allow Congress to regulate free speech. Here’s the most important part of the text: “Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections.” This amendment, S. J. Res. 19, was introduced by Tom Udall on June 18, 2013. It had 43 co-sponsors, all Democrats, in the Senate. Harry Reid enthusiastically supported the proposed amendment. Basically the Democrats have a problem with political spending by any incorporated group. The amendment also says, “Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.” If passed, this amendment would mean that Congress would enact legislation that would define corporations that agree with them, like the New York Times, as “The Press.” In turn they could legislatively define the communications of other corporations, like for example Citizens United, as “speech.” So Congress could use legislation to muzzle opposition “speech” while allowing friendly opinions to appear in “The Press.” If this was enacted, say goodbye to Freedom of Speech. Even low information voters should be able to understand this. This proposed amendment to the Bill of Rights was the Democrats' reaction to the Citizens United decision. It shows you exactly where Democrats want to go if Citizens United is overturned.

The text of the amendment

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113sjres19is/pdf/BILLS-113sjres19is.pdf

Free Speech Don't Get No Respect

Fact is that free speech is not as respected as it used to be by most people. In September of 2014, 43 Senate Democrats voted for a Constitutional Amendment that would have allowed Congress to regulate campaign spending by all corporations except licensed news companies. This would have allowed a federal commission to say the employees of the New York Times are journalists, while the employees of Citizens United are not.

On college campuses, discussions must avoid trigger words, micro aggression and politically incorrect topics. Professors are reliving the terror periods of the French and Russian Revolutions. They can be denounced by any student and fired as a result. Not quite the guillotine or a firing squad, but certainly not free speech either.

And now we have Trump trying to use loosened libel laws to reach the same ends. It's hard enough to fight this manure from the left. Why would anyone on the right buy this BS? Trump's big talent is mouthing off to the press. This is his world class way of setting himself apart from other Republican presidential candidates. Given how poorly the Republicans have defended their ideas, it's a welcome relief from the usual mumbling against outright lies from the Pravda Press. But this only works if it's a fair fight, Trump versus the media. Using the government to punish your enemies is an Obama thing. Using the government to suppress the press is a Putin thing. I really don't want to leave my 6 grandchildren an America without free speech. I will fight both people on the left and people on the right who are trying to limit free speech for temporary personal advantage.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432037/donald-trump-libel-first-amendment

The Difference Between Free Speech and Buying Votes

There’s a big difference between buying ads to explain your political positions and buying elections.  To help you understand this, let me explain how elections are actually bought. It's by literally bribing voters to vote for you.

I'll start with this historical example. Originally, Senators were chosen by state legislators. In 1899, William A. Clark, a millionaire "Copper King," bribed the Montana state legislature to elect him as US Senator. That's buying an election. It's also a big part of why voters, rather than legislatures, select Senators.

The traditional Chicago election includes a lot of "walking around money," which is used to bribe voters directly or to bribe people who have a lot of influence on voters. The classical direct vote buying method was chain voting. The man with the money hands the voter a marked ballot. The voter goes into the polling place, gets an unmarked ballot and puts the marked ballot in the voting box. Outside the polling place the voter hands the man with the money an unmarked ballot and gets paid.

What Sheldon Adelson does is the same thing George Soros, Tom Steyer or the AFLCIO does. They buy political ads, pay for political pamphlets and pay staffers to make phone calls and walk door to door to get out the vote. All of this is free speech, whether you agree with the message or not. If you don't like it, back the Democrat's attempt to amend the Bill of Rights.

Legal Trash Talk: Liberal Reaction to The Letter

There is a lot of legal trash talk this week about “The Letter.”  Liberals called the 47 Republican Senators “Traitors” in big headlines.  The Pravda Press said that the letter was a violation of the Logan Act.  The commentators said the letter violated the Constitution’s allocation of all foreign negotiations to the president.  All of this was hogwash.

Just so everyone is clear on this, the Constitution defines treason:  "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."  I know liberals don't read the Constitution because it reminds them of the Tea Party, but it really helps to occasionally know what you're talking about. 

The Logan act was passed in 1799.  It outlawed negotiations between private parties and foreign governments.  The last and only prosecution under the Logan Act was in 1803.  It did not result in a conviction.  Since the Republican Senators did not negotiate and since they are Senators and not private individuals, the Logan Act doesn’t seem to apply.  Low information voters don’t know any of this, so the smear worked.

Since Barry the Brilliant said he would veto any attempt by Congress to advise him on negotiations with Iran and then consent to any agreement, the person ignoring the Constitution was the president, not the Senate Republicans who wrote the letter.  Treaties are supposed to be made with the advice and consent of the Senate, according to the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.  As with many other things, our Dear Leader is ignoring the Constitution in this regard also.  Since no remedy is specified, 47 Republican Senators chose to help themselves by writing an open letter to the Iranians to remind everybody, the Iranians, the president and the public that agreements which happen without the advice and consent of the Senate are not binding.  If one side is ignoring the Constitution, you can hardly complain when in reaction the other side fails to preserve decorum. 

I think any agreement President Obama signs will have exactly the same binding power on the next administration as the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 has had on the Obama Administration, in other words none.  The Budapest Memorandum, signed by the Clinton administration, guaranteed the territorial integrity of the Ukraine in return for the surrender of 1,800 ex-Soviet nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory. It was signed by the US, UK and Russia. The UK has special forces in the Ukraine right now training Ukrainian forces. Obama sent MREs (meals ready to eat).  According to the German ambassador to the US, Obama told Angela Merkel that the US would not send military aid to the Ukraine. So the US is not helping the Ukraine defend itself from piecemeal annexation by Russia at all.

Liberals seem to go to the Lewis Carroll school of legal interpretation.   I need to quote Mr. Carroll extensively so you understand how this really works.

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

In simpler terms, heads means liberals win, tails means conservatives lose. Liberals are to be the master. There are no laws any more, just liberal interpretations to suit liberal convenience.   The Constitution is to be interpreted out of existence.  It seems the liberal elite prefers a dictatorship of the liberal elite to the rule of law.  The trash talk is just there to justify their actions to the low information voters who don’t know any better.

Senator Cotton Speaks Truth to Power

How dare Senator Cotton speak truth to power!  Just because everything in the letter was completely true is no excuse.  Senator Cotton has interrupted delicate negotiations which were to conclude with an agreement that could never command even a majority in the Senate, let alone a 2/3 vote needed to ratify a treaty.  It was very rude of him and his 46 colleagues to notice that Emperor Barry the Brilliant can't bind the United States to a deal without ratification.  Who does Senator Cotton think he is anyway, a Senator or something? 

I think Conservatives and Liberals differ greatly in our views of the Iranian regime.  When Iranians chant "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," I believe them.  Since 1979, the Mad Mullahs have said they are at war with America.  And they have backed it up with acts of war starting with taking our embassy in 1979 and then continuing with the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut in 1983 and the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996.  More recently, Iran was the major supplier of the deadliest IEDs used against US troops in Iraq.  I do not believe for a minute that the Iranian government wants peace.  I believe they want world domination, because that's what they say all the time.

Every Liberal press flack in creation is attacking Senator Tom Cotton personally as a stupid war monger. Senator Cotton has a Bachelor of Arts degree magna cum laude from Harvard.  He also has a Harvard Law degree.  One of his professors was Elizabeth Warren. His academic record is better that Obama’s, or at least what we know of it.  Cotton is not an ignorant hick.  Tom Cotton is a US Army combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan.  He was awarded a Bronze Star for heroism under fire in Afghanistan.  He does not take war lightly.  As a Vietnam Era veteran, I find personal attacks on Senator Cotton's motivation for writing the letter to be extremely offensive.

The letter that everyone is complaining about was entirely accurate.  There were no lies in the letter, as even John Kerry was forced to admit that executive agreements do not have any binding power on future administrations.  The letter inconveniently pointed out that Emperor Barry the Brilliant had no clothes, that he can’t deliver what he was promising the Iranians without a Senate vote.  The timing might not have been what liberals would have preferred, but free speech is valid all the time whether you're a Republican or Democrat, Senator or President.

The agreement in prospect will remove economic sanctions against Iran.  The letter writers want sanctions to continue and actually to get stronger.  I also want the sanctions to be strengthened.  I think the sanctions combined with the current price of oil would be extremely effective.

The fall in the price of oil puts Iran in a very bad position economically.  Oil is at about $55 a barrel.  Iran needs oil at over $100 a barrel to fund all of their terrorism, wars and centrifuges.  They have a huge military and internal security structure which is very expensive.  The have large internal subsidies for food and energy.  The Iranian inflation rate is 30.3% according to the Iran central bank.  They are broke.  Continued sanctions could lead to a much better Iran arms deal.  Continued sanctions might even lead to the collapse of the current regime. 

One way to keep the price of oil low would be to allow American crude oil to be exported.  In the US, existing oil storage tanks are almost completely full.  Right now the difference between West Texas Intermediate, the American benchmark oil price, and Brent Crude, the international price, is about $10 a barrel.  The prices would be roughly the same if the US could sell crude on the international market.  Right now, that’s illegal.  

Signing the current deal as it's described in the press is much more likely to lead to was than continuing the sanctions.  In reaction, Saudi Arabia signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with South Korea.  The Saudis have also made it clear that if they need to, they can purchase nuclear weapons from Pakistan.

The Israelis have no way to attack Iranian centrifuges in the deeply buried concrete bunkers with conventional weapons.  The Israelis would have to use multiple nuclear ground bursts to do the job.  There would be a lot of radioactive dirt thrown into the air.  If the Iranians look like they are about to break out with nuclear weapons, there is a strong possibility of Israeli preemptive attack.

My conclusion is that the deal in prospect is more dangerous than no deal at all.  The letter was a legitimate exercise in free speech by a decorated combat veteran and Senators whose duty to the country was to head off what they saw as a very bad deal by reminding everyone of the obvious.  Without Senate approval, the deal is not binding.

The Letter:

http://www.cotton.senate.gov/sites/default/files/150309%20Cotton%20Open%20Letter%20to%20Iranian%20Leaders.pdf

Iranian Inflation

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/06/08/366072/iran-inflation-rate-falls-by-98/

Oil Storage Full:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-12/oil-storage-squeeze-may-lead-to-another-price-crash

43 Senators Want to Change Bill of Rights

There is actually a proposed amendment to the Constitution that would allow Congress to regulate free speech.  Here’s the most important part of the text: “Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections.”  This amendment, S. J. Res. 19, was introduced byTom Udall on June 18, 2013.  It has 43 cosponsors, all Democrats, in the Senate.  Harry Reid enthusiastically supports the proposed amendment.  Basically the Democrats have a problem with political spending by any incorporated group.  The amendment also says, “Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.”  If passed, this amendment would mean that Congress would enact legislation that would define corporations that agree with them, like the New York Times, as “The Press.”  In turn they could legislatively define the communications of other corporations, like for example Citizens United, as “speech.”  So Congress could use legislation to muzzle opposition “speech” while allowing friendly opinions to appear in “The Press.”  If this was enacted, say goodbye to Freedom of Speech. Even low information voters can understand this. It's not that this will ever be enacted. It's the fact that they would seriously propose this that should open everyone's eyes to what they really want to do. 

The text of the amendment

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113sjres19is/pdf/BILLS-113sjres19is.pdf

Article commenting on it

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/378515/oxymoronic-constitutionally-illiterate-udall-amendment-matthew-j-franck

Liberals Want to Amend Free Speech

Democrats hate the Citizens United case, where the Supreme Court said that restrictions on political spending by incorporated groups were unconstitutional.  Democrats say the decision will allow the Koch Brothers to “Buy Elections.”  The One All Liberals Were Waiting For has said we need a Constitutional Amendment to fix the problems created by the Citizens United decision.  In response, Senator Mark Udall (D, Colorado) has introduced a Constitutional Amendment to change the Bill of Rights so Congress can regulate corporate free speech.  Harry Reid, the Democrats' Leader in the Senate, supports the amendment.  Whatever Democrats say or think, Bush never even considered amending the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It does not say except for any organized groups that incorporate. If pornography has to be allowed in order to preserve free speech, and I think it does, then incorporated organizations of all types have to be allowed to buy political ads. If the New York Times (incorporated) is allowed to publish Liberal trash talk as "news," then Citizens United has to be allowed to make movies that rebut the Pravda Press. Anything less is censorship. Liberals seem to believe in censorship, as long as it's the Tea Party and Republicans being censored. The Koch brothers do not buy elections. If they influence elections it's because their arguments make sense to the majority of voters

Let me explain what "Buying Elections" historically means, at least in Chicago.  It means bribing voters to vote your way using "walking around money." It usually involves "Vote early, vote often" fraud where voters cast ballots for people who have died. In the old days, this was done with chain voting. The paid voter is given a marked ballot before entering the poling place. To get paid, he has to bring out a blank ballot. At the next poling place, the party hack marks the blank ballot, then sends the bribed voter to vote again. He brings out a new blank ballot. This continues until all the ghosts have voted. "Buying Elections" does not mean buying ads on radio and TV to explain your reasons for wanting certain political outcomes. Buying ads is Free Speech.  From the Democrats’ comments, it sounds like Liberals don't really believe in Free Speech. They instead believe that the opposition needs to be silenced. Could this be the result of Liberal arguments for "Hope and Change" are no longer fooling the public? 

http://cnsnews.com/news/articl...

Campaign Contribution Prosecution

Dinesh D'Souza is being prosecuted for campaign contribution violations for producing a documentary.  This is really a selective prosecution.  I seem to remember that the Obama campaign website was reputed to have removed the residency check for small contributions by credit card. In other words, they did not check to see if the billing address of the credit card was in the US. However, maybe they were unable to set the website up correctly. After all, they seem to have a lot of trouble with setting up websites.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/370188/dsouzas-case-and-my-role-his-film-stanley-kurtz

Student Body Doesn't Have a Brain

I recently read an article about the loud protests that greeted General David Petraeus when
he showed up on the campus of the The City University Of New York to teach a class.  I went  to college from 1968 to 1972.  It looks like things have not changed a bit since then.  Free speech in a typical university setting, both then and now, is permitted only for those whose leftist political orthodoxy is unquestioned.  Certainly the students are supposed to question only those things that are insufficiently left wing.  Students are graded on their politics, not their knowledge or critical thinking.  The student body, like the Scarecrow in the 
Wizard of Oz, doesn't have a brain.  Which brings up an interesting point.  How scientific 
can socialism be if it won't consider real world results and can't tolerate any dissent? 
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/358394/without-honors-editors