Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

Silicon Valley is getting what it paid for. It’s getting a president of its very own. Anyone who paid attention to the presidential election knows that Silicon Valley put their elbow on the scales of justice to get a president it can call its own. Silicon Valley Democrats now litter Joe Biden’s transition staff.

That’s what they’ve gotten thus far. What they’ll get next will be much more expensive. Silicon Valley’s billionaire Democrats expect Joe Biden’s protection from Republicans like Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz. That’s why Biden picked Kamala Harris. This article explains much:

Joe Biden has built his long career in government on the back of large corporations and obviously plans to pack his transition team with those who have worked closely with the monopolies in Silicon Valley. Moreover, the Big Tech industry has had nothing but support from California Attorney General Harris during its recent rise and it is clear that the vice president-elect will do nothing to disturb Big Tech. Harris has even publicly stated that she is against breaking up monopolies like Facebook and Google. Ultimately, this is the fate leftists chose when they decided to back Biden as the Democratic candidate with the hopes of pushing his policies left.

That’s just part of it. Here’s more:

The teams are charged with planning for the incoming presidency, holding sway over thousands of political and staff appointments, including positions atop the Federal Trade Commission, Federal Communications Commission, and leading the Justice Department’s antitrust division. Facebook is fending off regulatory action by the FTC, with Google fighting off the Department of Justice.

“Big Tech understands the executive branch. They know that beyond antitrust and communications policy, from trade law to defense contracting and beyond, Big Tech has an enormous amount at stake with how Biden chooses to staff his administration and what initial policies it implements,” the Revolving Door Project’s Jeff Hauser told the Washington Examiner.

Tucker Carlson spent lots of time explaining what this means to the Biden administration. In this segment, Candace Owens helped him explain things:

This is one of the segments on Outnumbered. It’s self-explanatory:

Dropbox Head of Public Policy Ted Dean has joined the Commerce Department team, where he spent three years as deputy assistant secretary and acting assistant secretary working on digital trade, privacy, and data issues, according to a biography. Dean is the former chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce in China, where he ran a tech, media, and telecom consulting firm for 16 years advising U.S. companies.

Will Fields, a senior associate at Sidewalk Labs, a technology and “urban innovation” firm owned by Google parent company Alphabet, and Nicole Isaac, a senior public policy director at LinkedIn, are on the Treasury Department teams.

Amazon’s director of international tax planning, Tom Sullivan, has joined the State Department team, while Mark Schwartz, enterprise strategist for Amazon Web Services, is on the Office of Management and Budget team. Last month, the transition quietly added four new Facebook and Google employees to its agency review teams, Politico reported.

The Biden-Harris administration is bought and paid for. Silicon Valley wins. Democrat censors win. These oligarchs will do their best to make sure that conservatives lose. That’s the plan.

This Politico article is long on chutzpah and short on verifiable facts. The article opens by saying “Since the election, President Donald Trump and his allies have faced fact-checks, condemnation and restrictions when trying to spread inconclusive evidence of voter fraud and leftist violence on social media.”

These ‘fact-checks’ aren’t credible. Usually, the ‘fact-checkers’ are media outlets like CNN and MSDNC. These media outlets spent the past 3+ years interviewing people like Carl ‘Worse than Watergate’ Bernstein, Michael Avenatti and John ‘The walls are closing in’ Brennan. During the impeachment hearings, we heard the night before that the next day’s witness would provide “bombshell testimony.” After the opening statement from each witness, a Republican would cross-examine the witness. In no time flat, the bombshell testimony would be utterly discredited. This was my favorite cross-examination:

But I digress. The article continues with this:

But over on Parler, there’s a new, millions-strong MAGA universe where conservatives are freely spreading these claims and reinforcing their belief that Democrats have stolen the election from Trump.

Hashtags on Parler denoting Trump’s favorite conspiracy theories — #Dominion, #Sharpiegate, #QAnon — trend freely, without the restrictions Twitter and Facebook have instituted to suppress them. Stories from fringe sites pushing baseless allegations of voter fraud are not flagged as disinformation, as they often are elsewhere. Videos from the Million MAGA March depicting heated confrontations between MAGA supporters, counterprotesters and D.C. police are shared as evidence of rampant antifa violence, omitting necessary context that would show otherwise.

I just looked at the trending hashtags on Parler. “#Dominion, #Sharpiegate and #QAnon” aren’t trending. Politico is doing today what other Democrats did during impeachment. Politico is demolishing their credibility with this BS. Trusting CNN and MSDNC as fact-checkers is foolishness on steroids. Portraying President Trump’s MAGA followers on Parler as conspiracy theory enthusiasts is outright dishonesty. It doesn’t have anything to do with the truth. This is my other favorite cross-examination of an impeachment witness:

From later in the Politico article:

“It’s fitting that it offers disaffected Trump supporters the allure of the safest of safe spaces,” said Angelo Carusone, the president of the progressive-leaning group Media Matters, which monitors far-right media across platforms. “It’s perfect because Parler provides a place free from constraint and heavily stocked-up on like-minded [MAGA] heads.”

Politico didn’t hesitate in using a Media Matters quote in their article to bolster their quote. That’s breathtakingly stupid. That quote further distracts from the Democrats’ article.

Conservatives left Twitter, myself included, because Twitter didn’t hesitate to censor conservatives. The tipping point came when Twitter locked the NYPost’s account over their Hunter Biden article.

PS- My Parler account ID is Gmg425 for those wishing to follow me.

Censorship right here in River City?

By John W. Palmer

“There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you.” — MAYA ANGELOU

By ignoring the much given advice to not enter into a dispute with an organization that buys ink by the barrel, the author knows he may suffer at the hands of the ink buyers.

Facebook and Twitter are doing it. The New York Times and the Washington Post do it. Most of the cable news networks do it. The “it” is censorship by omission. A few hot off the press stories are offered as examples in the next few paragraphs. Then a developing story that has no final chapter will conclude this story.

From the Powerline Blog POSTED ON OCTOBER 25, 2020 BY SCOTT JOHNSON titled IN MOVIES:

I watched the film (The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in US History)
on Amazon Prime last week. I gave it a five-star rating and wrote the following review: When I sought to post my review, it was rejected with the following notice:

“We apologize but Amazon is not accepting reviews on this product from this account.” I have written Amazon to ask why.

From the Washington Examiner The big Trump rallies you don’t see by Byron York, Chief Political Correspondent | | October 25, 2020 07:36 PM

WASHINGTON, Pennsylvania — “I can’t believe there aren’t any newspeople here,” said Linda of Greene County, Pennsylvania, as she stood among hundreds of cars and
pickup trucks idling in long parallel lines in a vast big-box-store parking lot Saturday, waiting to join the Interstate 70 Trump Train. Indeed, although there were carloads of Trump supporters as far as one could see, and many more on the way from Ohio and West Virginia, and this enormous political event was happening less than two weeks before the presidential election, as far as I could tell, I was the only newsperson there.

Early this month an advertisement began running on KYES a radio station owned by the Catholic diocese of St. Cloud. The ad was designed to convince listeners that former Vice President Joe Biden was a faithful Catholic. Knowing that you can not be a faithful Catholic and be pro abortion, pro gay marriage, and a supporter of the transgender movement, I contacted the manager of KYES to lodge a complaint. Here is what I wrote:

Truth is a core value that KYES was founded upon. The ad you are running on behalf of disobedient “Catholic” presidential candidate Joe Biden is deceptive. VP Biden’s support of abortion on demand, homosexual “marriage” and gender fluidity are mortal sins. In order for the sacrament of reconciliation to be effective, the sinner must promise to avoid sinning in the future. Biden’s behavior is consistently sinful. When KYES runs the false ad you provide material support for Biden’s sins.

My wife, Ellen, and I have been longtime listeners and financial supporters of KYES. Unless you pull the false ad we will no longer provide financial support or verbal support for KYES. We have stopped listening to KYES, we will continue to listen to Relevant Radio via the internet, to avoid hearing the offensive ad. Please advise us if you pull the ad.

What follows are the messages exchanged between the station manager and myself beginning with the initial response to what I wrote:

Hi John,
Thank you so much for sharing your concerns regarding the “Biden for President’ ads. Even though I agree with you K-yes is regulated by the Federal Government.
Due to Federal government mandates, K-yes is required by law to carry advertising for political candidates running for federal office. The views expressed in these advertisements are not necessarily those of K-yes or Relevant Radio or its sponsors, and may not reflect the teachings of the Catholic Church. Please continue to pray for our Church and our Nation!
God Bless.

My response:

How about running that disclaimer (The views expressed in these advertisements are not necessarily those of K-yes or Relevant Radio or its sponsors, and may not reflect the teachings of the Catholic Church.) when the ad runs?

The station did run the disclaimer but I continued to hear concern that Presidential candidate Biden was trying to pass as faithful Catholic and that Spirit 92 was also running the offensive ad. Both Spirit 92 and KYES overlap with the St. Cloud Times market area I decided to write this letter to the St. Cloud Times:

With over 70% of Minnesotans self identifying as Christians and the largest single denomination is Catholic. https://www.minnpost.com/data/2015/12/how-religious-areminnesotans/ and with the Catholic diocese surrounding St. Cloud having a combined Catholic population of over 133,000. http://stcdio.org/about/facts_about_the_diocese/

Thought the St. Cloud Times you’d be eager to run a letter to the editor that addressed Christian and Catholic readers. Far from being eager to run the letter to the editor what I got back was a run around and no specific answer to a simple question. The letter to the editor was submitted to the Times on Monday October 12th. The deception Biden ad had already been running for a week in the St. Cloud listing area. When no answer acknowledging receipt of the letter to the editor arrived the letter was resubmitted with the follow message on Wednesday Oct 14th:

Since I have not heard from you I am sending this email that includes the letter with documentation. The documentation included but it is offered as proof of accuracy and is not part of the letter.

The letter:

Presidential candidate, Joe Biden, asks us to respect his religious views even when his actions are contrary to the teaching of the faith he claims to follow. Why should you respect someone who claims one thing and does another?

Joe Biden claims to be Catholic. However, one of the fundamental teachings of the Catholic faith is that all human life is precious and to enable the taking of human life is always a mortal sin. Biden wants Congress to pass a law to extend the court decision that legalized abortion and make legal abortion “the law of the land.”* He even wants to force you and me to be complicit in abortion by making us fund abortions with our tax dollars.

Joe Biden’s consistent support of abortion and his intention to force taxpayers to financial support abortion places him in the category of unrepentant sinner. For an unrepentant sinner to claim he is a faithful believer (bearing false witness) compounds their sinful status.

In order for us to respect Joe Biden’s religious views he needs to do what Jesus taught sinners to do. He needs to repent his sin, and sin no more. Until candidate Biden declares his sin and his desire to sin no more (an unlikely possibility) our nation’s unborn children lives will be in grave danger. Fortunately for our nation we have a strong pro-life candidate.

We will be voting for that candidate.
Sincerely, John and Ellen Palmer

________________________________________
*Documentation: Biden called on Congress to make abortion “the law of the land” in a speech to Planned Parenthood, June 22, 2019 and again in a NBC town hall
meeting on Oct. 5, 2020. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-roe-v-wade-lawland-supreme-court-supporters/ He stated his support for taxpayer funding of abortion in the 2019 Planned Parenthood speech and at an event in Atlanta June 6, 2019 https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/07/joe-biden-says-he-now-supports-federalfunding-of-abortion.html

This is the response received on October 15th:

Hello,
Thank you for submitting your letter to the St. Cloud Times. Your letter has been added to the queue, and we will let you know if we plan to publish it.

Here is my response sent October 15th:

Thank you. FYI I have surgery Thursday to remove a subdermal hematoma located between the protective membrane of the brain and my skull. I share this so you know that in the next few days my wife and I will not be able to respond to your question(s) about our letter. I hope this will not prevent your publication of our letter in a timely manner.

Sent on October 19th:

My surgery went well and I have been home recuperating since Sat afternoon. I have not see my LTE in the paper and I wonder how much the LTE has moved up in the queue. I have noticed serval LTE have been published on parallel matters to my LTE and in today’s electronic version of the paper Dr. VanBuren had a column on a related topic to my LTE. When do you think my letter will be published?

Time’s response on October 20th:

Hi John,
I’m glad to hear you’re doing well. Your letter is still in the queue. This week and next week will be dedicated to local and state endorsement letters.

My October 20th response:

Does this mean the letter will not appear before the election?

Time’s Response:

I’m going to try to fit as many election-related letters as possible into next Sunday’s edition, so I can let you know next week.

My Response October 25th:

I notice my letter did not get published today and you said you would let me know next week. It is next week and with only a week before the election I need to know when or if you are going to publish my letter.

Time’s Response October 25th:

The plan right now is to get all election letters published on Sunday. I can let you know if that changes.

You now have my story. We might have a case of censorship by omission right here in St. Cloud. Your guess is as good as mine concerning publication of the letter. My wife half joking said the Times won’t run a LTE from us because you have been a victim of the cancel culture. Your guess can be noted by making a comment to this posting after the election I will let you know what happened.

Jason Whitlock’s op-ed is something celebrities, especially athletes, should read. Primarily, it calls out Nike and LeBron James. It doesn’t stop there, though. It calls out “Colin Kaepernick, Megan Rapinoe and all the social justice reformers”, too.

In the article’s second paragraph, Whitlock wrote “Demand Nike, Adidas, Under Armour, etc., bring a significant portion of their manufacturing jobs back to the United States.” In the third paragraph, Whitlock continued, writing “I don’t trust athletes and celebrities to fix the criminal justice system, community policing or other problems well outside their area of expertise.” From there, Whitlock gets into the heavy lifting of the article:

We’re making a mistake allowing athletes and celebrity influencers to set the agenda for the kind of reform and change we want to see in America. Professional athletes and Hollywood elites answer directly to their corporate overlords. They’ve lived inside an elitist bubble since they were teenagers and they don’t care to know what they don’t know. They’re paid handsomely to represent the desires of corporate America.

That’s exactly right. Anyone that thinks LeBron James or Colin Kaepernick have dealt with social justice issues on a personal level is kidding themselves.

From there, Whitlock calls out LeBron James:

LeBron James’ primary employer is Nike, not the NBA. LeBron’s shoe contract is worth more than $1 billion. Every calculated move LeBron makes related to social justice reform, from the Ahmaud Arbery tweets to the Equality T-shirts to the school his foundation partially funds to his decision to remain silent on the Hong Kong protesters, is made with Nike in mind.

Let’s get serious something straight. LeBron James isn’t a patriot. He sided with China because that’s where the shoes that he endorses are made with child labor. That isn’t my definition of a patriot.

Let’s be clear about this. Tweeting about Ahmaud Arbery while making hundreds of millions of dollars off the backs of child labor isn’t making this nation great. It’s playing a lead role in China’s propaganda fight.

Racial unrest in America leading into this presidential election cycle is good for Nike and great for Nike’s primary business market, China. Nike and China are aligned in their dislike of President Trump and his America First mantra.

This alone should be reason enough to vote for President Trump. If China is for something, we should oppose them. The Chinese Communist Party wants to eventually dominate the world. God forbid that happens. If it happens, China will censor anything it doesn’t want in public. But why would LeBron care? He’ll still be rich. He won’t have to worry about the annoying things that the little people will be burdened with obeying. This will get Whitlock virtual universal condemnation from the elitist haters:

As I have stated in previous columns, I do not vote and I have not involved myself in politics. But I will admit President Trump’s America First mantra is consistent with my values. Let me explain.

My mother was a 32-year union factory worker for AT&T’s Western Electric in Indianapolis and Kansas City. Her mother, my grandmother, was a 35-year union factory worker for General Electric’s RCA Corporation in Indianapolis. My father started as a union factory worker for Chrysler Motors in Indianapolis before owning and operating three neighborhood taverns that catered to union factory workers.

Then there’s this:

Global corporations have shipped the values taught and the opportunities provided by manufacturing labor overseas.

My dad didn’t graduate high school. My mom started working in a factory shortly after graduating high school. On the back of factory labor, they raised two sons who graduated from college, have never been in legal trouble, built professional careers and own homes. That’s the American Dream.

LeBron James won’t hesitate in selling the US out if it means extra millions in his bank account. I don’t begrudge a person for making fists full of money. I only begrudge it when he sells out the US of A.

Jason Whitlock is a patriot through and through. LeBron James never will be a patriot. LeBron is what’s wrong with America.

Despite what her Praetorian guard say, this hasn’t been a good week for the Swamp Mistress, aka Nancy Pelosi. It just got much worse. This morning, Ms. Pelosi decided that impeaching a president who didn’t commit a crime without producing a single piece of proof that would be admitted in a court of law wasn’t enough. She’s decided that she’s taking the ‘full tyrant’ route by censoring House Republicans. Nothing says solemnity like a black dress and a week of censorship. Nothing says ‘I love the Constitution’ more than violating House Republicans’ First Amendment rights.

Under the current rules, members are allowed five minute speeches in the morning. The leadership on each side are allowed a full hour each at the end of the day and then each side is given two half hour slots. No floor speeches are allowed past 10 pm even if everyone has not had a chance to speak. In January, the House passed a rule that allows members only one Special Order speaking slot per week.

Pelosi not only shut down end-of-the-day special order speeches, on Thursday, she also cancelled the five minute speaking slots in the morning, effectively barring the Minority from speaking out against the biased and unfair impeachment process after the vote.

Saying that this has Louie Gohmert fired up is understatement:

According to the rules, the Minority is supposed to be allowed to have their own witness hearing before an impeachment vote, but Chairman Nadler (D-NY) denied them that right. Gohmert said that the majority could have voted to change the rules, but they didn’t even bother to do that much. They just straight-out violated the rules in their haste to impeach the president.

Gohmert also said he was going to point out the hypocrisy of Democrats who have been claiming that the rushed process was warranted because “time was of the essence.” If impeaching the president was such an urgent matter, why isn’t the Speaker sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, Gohmert wanted to ask on the House floor.

Democrats don’t have an answer for Rep. Gohmert’s questions. That’s proof that the Democrats’ impeachment wasn’t fair, wasn’t thorough and didn’t meet the Constitution’s criteria for impeachment.

Rep. Gohmert was already fired up after this:

At times yesterday, Jerry Nadler tried needling Republicans. Mr. Nadler isn’t bright enough to win that fight. He got excoriated multiple times by Rep. Doug Collins, the Republicans’ floor manager yesterday, and by other Republicans, including Mr. Gohmert.

I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat it again. This wasn’t a fair fight despite the fact that the Democrats tilted the rules in their favor. Republicans proved themselves to be people of gravitas. Democrats proved themselves to be intellectual lightweights incapable of sustaining a coherent fight. Here’s one of the Republicans with gravitas:

Here’s another Republican with gravitas:

Here’s another Republican with gravitas:

It’s apparent that the City Council doesn’t value transparency. They talk a good game but their words are empty at best. First, the City Council changed the rules governing the open forum section of the meeting. Instead of letting a maximum of 5 people speak up to 3 minutes each on the topic of their choosing at the end of the meeting, the City Council changed the rules to adjourn the meeting first, then host the open forum after the cameras have been turned off.

Citizens were told that they wanted to do that to protect people who didn’t want to speak in front of the cameras. That’s total BS. That’s been part of the full meeting for years. Those citizens know that they’re being videotaped. From the times that I’ve spoken during that segment, I’ve never seen anyone who looked uncomfortable. Frankly, there aren’t that many people watching the City Council meetings so it isn’t like these citizens have reason to be frightened. That doesn’t mean that the things discussed during this part of the meeting are insignificant. It’s just that the viewing audience was that big.

Next, censuring a person doesn’t mean a thing. It has the impact of a resolution. It’s totally non-binding. Why should city councilpeople get upset when they’re criticized for the votes they’ve made? If you can’t stand the heat, don’t visit the kitchen.

I contacted Councilman Hontos to see if he’d like to make a statement for this post. He graciously accepted the invitation. Here’s his statement, published verbatim and without editing of any sort:

I pride myself as being a respectful, engaged council member who listens.
I am disappointed at the Council’s decision, which says more about it than me.
Providing factual information to the public about the Council’s decisions to the media is not a violation.
A Council is not a corporate board, America is built on the vigorous debate of ideas.
Our City faces many important issues, jobs, housing, diversity. The Council should stay focused on these issues and not distractions.
Furthermore, the first amendment gives everyone the freedom of speech. Just as our Supreme Court makes a ruling usually a dissenting opinion is written and published.
I will continue to represent the constituents of St. Cloud as I have been doing for 18 years. I want to thank all the positive feedback I have received. The people elected me for almost two decades now to ask the hard questions and to tackle tough issues.
George Hontos

Councilman Hontos is right. The Council’s decision says more about them than it says about him. What it says about them isn’t flattering, in my opinion.

Councilman Hontos is also right in stating that “America is built on the vigorous debate of ideas.” The day our elected people can’t stand transparency and vigorous, substantive debate is the day we’d need a major overhaul of our government. Hopefully, that won’t be required. This paragraph frightens me a little:

Conway cited rule No. 6, which states council members “respect the majority vote of the council, and do not undermine or sabotage implementation of ordinances, policies and rules passed by the majority.”

If that’s the total content of Rule # 6, then that rule needs to be eliminated. That sounds more like a speech code for collegiate snowflakes on campus. If one of the councilmembers disagrees with someone, then that councilmember should have the right to express that disagreement in any forum whatsoever. If the council has made a mistake and the individual highlights that mistake, then the individual councilmember has done the city a favor. (Yes, that means that the majority is sometimes wrong.)

If Councilman Hontos runs for re-election, he’ll have my vote. Councilman Hontos is one of 3 at-large councilmembers that represent the entire city. Now that Councilman Johnson has left the Council, the need for someone that “ask[s] the hard questions and … tackle[s] tough issues” is needed now more than ever.

In conclusion, I’ll simply state that it’s my opinion that the only reason for putting in a rule like that is to protect spineless councilmembers. It isn’t to keep confidential information confidential.

Just when you thought that the loony left couldn’t get loonier, up pops articles like this one. Transylvania University’s Young Americans for Freedom were approached by “Transylvania University Vice President for Enrollment and Student Life Holly Sheilley and Dean of Students Michael Covert” because they set up a table “to get students to sign a petition in support of the university adopting the Chicago Statement, upheld as the golden standard by many free speech activists, Sheilley approached them and told them to leave.”

Transylvania University isn’t in the business of treating each individual the same:

As heard in the audio recordings, Drury alleges that although he, Jacob Burnam, and Lucas Reed were shut down within minutes, the Young Democratic Socialists of America chapter tabled in the same area the day before for more than an hour.

“I emailed the first time I tabled and I was like, ‘hey do I need to fill out any forms or anything’ and they’re like, ‘no, just grab a table and set up,” one of the YDSA students who tabled Wednesday told Drury, according to an audio recording obtained by Campus Reform. “And then this time, I didn’t even email anyone. I just found a table and set up.”

This is what intellectual midgets sound like:

On Thursday, as Drury, Burnam, and Reed were there tabling, trying to get students to sign a petition in support of the university adopting the Chicago Statement, upheld as the golden standard by many free speech activists, Sheilly approached them and told them to leave.

“I really need y’all to pick up your stuff and go through the process,” Sheilly told the students, according to the audio recording.

When the three men asked Sheilly what the punishment would be for not leaving the area, the vice president for enrollment and student life said, “I don’t know the answer to that. I’m not the dean of students.” Drury, Burnam, and Reed then asked Sheilly about why the YDSA students were allowed to table there the day before for over an hour without anyone asking them to leave.

“I don’t know. I wasn’t here yesterday. I didn’t pass by here, I don’t guess. I mean, I’m telling you the truth. I didn’t see them. [Dean of Students] Covert says he didn’t see them,” Sheilly said.

This administrator should be fired immediately. She clearly doesn’t believe in the principle of equal justice under the law. It’s apparent that she’s ok with censorship, though. What a sad day in academia.

This article is proof that Keith Ellison hates the Constitution, especially the First Amendment. It’s also proof that he’s unfit to be Minnesota’s chief law enforcement officer, aka state Attorney General.

The article notes that Ellison is “demanding that Amazon censor books and other materials produced by organizations listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups.” That’s a frightening insight into Ellison’s thinking on multiple levels. First, it’s disturbing that the man who wants to be Minnesota’s attorney general thinks that censorship is a foundational constitutional principle. Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment except if it incites violence. It doesn’t make much sense to have an attorney general who hates constitutionally protected civil rights.

Next. it’s disturbing, though not surprising, that Ellison thinks that the SPLC is a reputable arbiter of right and wrong. Here’s a couple snippets from Ellison’s censorship letter:

Click to enlarge.

Later in the letter is something that’s definitely chilling:

As stated earlier, Amazon has a strict policy against hateful and racist products on its platform. The availability of all the material listed in the aforementioned report indicates to me that either Amazon is willfully refusing to enforce its own policies against the sale of racist products or its sheer size make it impossible for the company to police itself. In either event, Amazon must immediately cease doing business with groups that promote racist violence.

It’s apparent that Ellison hasn’t hesitated in using his official capabilities to intimidate companies into outright censorship.

Any legal eagle that’s anti-civil rights is disqualified to be Minnesota’s attorney general.

Last night, the St. Cloud City Council disgraced itself by silencing a citizen. Specifically, Councilman John Libert, who is up for re-election this year, objected to Councilman Jeff Johnson recognizing a speaker. If you read my article last night, you know that the speaker Councilman Johnson wanted to recognize is John Palmer, a retired professor at St. Cloud State. Dr. Palmer holds the title of Professor Emeritus.

Last night, a faithful reader of LFR sent me a copy of the changing rules of order for the City Council. Saying that they reflect an autocratic mindset sounds over-the-top. The history and the detailed rules say something else. For instance, Rule No. 16 of the City Council Rules of Order “through August 2017” said “Recognition of Speakers a) Any member may recognize any person for the purpose of addressing the Council. Said recognition shall terminate upon motion passed by a majority vote of members present.”

By the Dec. 11, 2017 Study Session, Rule 16 had morphed into “Recognition of Speakers: a) Any member, at a regular council meeting, may recognize any person for the purpose of providing testimony or addressing the Council on a specific agenda item being considered by Council. Said recognition shall terminate upon motion passed by a majority vote of members present. Such recognition may also be extended at council study sessions with the consent of the majority of members present.”

Last night, a different rule was in place:

Recognition of Speakers: a) Any member, at a regular council meeting, including study sessions, may recognize any person, without objection, for the purpose of providing testimony or addressing the Council on a specific agenda item being considered by Council. Said recognition shall terminate upon motion passed by a majority vote of members present.

The First Amendment guarantees citizens the right to “peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Dr. Palmer had the right to “petition the Government” and address their grievances. Had this happened in August, Dr. Palmer would have had the right to address the Council, though I suspect that Council President Lewis still would have improperly shut him down. She, along with the other ostriches, haven’t hesitated in restricting citizens’ speech rights if it’s speech they don’t agree with. What’s most infuriating is the fact that the rules that were in place last night weren’t approved by the City Council nor were they voted on in this form.

Think about that. Dr. Palmer was silenced by the city council president after she agreed with one of the city councilmembers who cited a rule that wasn’t voted on and that’s likely unconstitutional. Such reckless regard for the rules lead to anarchy like we saw last night. This is what that looked like last night:

Compare the St. Cloud City Council’s behavior with the behavior in this article:

“I feel like justice was finally served,” said Robin Hensel, whose refusal to move her chair at a 2013 Little Falls City Council meeting was at the heart of the court’s decision. Hensel, a grandmother and peace activist who frequently protests at Camp Ripley, said she never thought she would actually get charged when she moved a folding chair to the open space between the public galley and the City Council’s dais.

This is the major takeaway from that incident:

In its ruling Wednesday, the Supreme Court sided with Hensel, saying: “The statute is broad and ambiguous, prohibiting any conduct or speech that ‘disturbs an assembly or meeting,’ whether expressive or not. An individual could violate the statute by, for example, wearing an offensive t-shirt, using harsh words in addressing another person, or even raising one’s voice in a speech.”

The Founding Fathers, aka the men who wrote the Constitution, wanted more speech, not less. They didn’t want speech being oppressed. They rebelled against that in their Declaration of Independence.

When Carol Lewis and John Libert silenced a retired professor, they trampled on a citizen’s right to free speech. What’s most alarming is that they silenced a man even though they didn’t know what he was about to say. It’s time to fire these autocrats the next time they’re up for re-election. It’s time to fire them because they’re autocrats, not constitutionalists.

Finally, Mayor Kleis bears some responsibility, too. As Dr. Palmer highlighted in the comments last night, Mayor Kleis didn’t fight against the constitutional missteps that happened last night. That can’t happen again. There’s never a time when the Constitution shouldn’t be defended. Last night, Mayor Kleis missed an opportunity to defend the Constitution.

Technorati: , , , , ,

The city of Cambridge, MA, has a fight on its hands, thanks to their attempt to silence one of Elizabeth Warren’s opponents. Shiva Ayyadurai is suing the city because “Ayyadurai called the city’s order to remove the signs ‘a political vendetta by city officials who are supporters of Elizabeth Warren.'”

The lawsuit comes after Cambridge’s building inspector said there were a ‘series of anonymous complaints’ about the signs. Branden Vigneault, the inspector, said the signs were posted without permits and violated a zoning ordinance. Ayyadurai faces $300 for each day the signs don’t come down as well as potential legal action. But Ayyadurai said the signs are not going anywhere and tried to make it a matter of free speech.

First and foremost, the fines are likely unenforceable because they violate the First Amendment. Cities, counties and townships have been attempting to silence political speech through ordinances like this for years. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled these impediments unconstitutional because they’re thinly-veiled attempts at censorship.

What touched off this firestorm is this advertising:

Elizabeth Warren frequently complains about how life is rigged against the common man. How isn’t this rigging the system against her opponent? Then again, doesn’t Warren really mean that life isn’t rigged enough to her preference?

This is an attempt at censorship to save Sen. Warren some embarrassment for making dishonest statements. Pocahontas shouldn’t be protected against prior foolish decisions.