Donald Trump for President?

Herein follows a blog post that I never wanted to write. A lot of people who follow me are also big Trump supporters. I most humbly beg your forgiveness but I have some questions.

Yes. Yes. Yes. I know there are going to be some people who object to this post. What I'm asking here is that you please consider what I'm saying and decide accordingly. If you support Donald Trump, I have to emphatically say that this is not personal; I'm not here to bash your guy or take him down. It's about the Constitution and it is very important.

There are some things of importance in recent election cycles that I think the American People have lost track of. I consider it my duty as a sworn defender of the Constitution to point some of them out.

The Constitution defines the maximum limits of the federal government's power. That is most of what it is. The elected representatives, president, and Supreme Court, are supposed to keep the government operating within those powers specifically named within it. It is in their very job description and part of their oaths. In order to qualify for that job they should have to show reasonable experience and talent for or concern for doing so. By constitutional limits the current federal government should be maybe one hundredth of the size and power that it currently is. The federal government, as the Constitution was originally written, had almost no constitutional power to interfere in the lives of any individual. They couldn’t even directly tax the People or their businesses.

The Tenth Amendment unequivocally states that the federal government can't take any powers that are not specifically named within the Constitution. By that standard I also operate under the belief that a lot of Amendments are unconstitutional because they were illegally enacted. For the government to expand their powers in such a way is a violation of your rights as an American citizen.

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government any authority or power to do anything about anybody's healthcare; for example. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip. If the supreme law of the land were to be understood and followed, it would quickly be realized that it is none of the federal government's authority, responsibility, or business, to decide how you should be taken care of or how you should take care of yourself. This very rarely spoken of concept is called, "individual freedom." I would suggest that the American People take some time to get reacquainted with it.

There are so many things the federal government is doing, that they have no authority for, it just boggles my mind. Even more mind boggling is the simple fact that the American People have come to passively accept it as the status quo. It's like the Constitution's limits on federal power don't even exist anymore. And by any practical measure that is exactly the way it is for both Demoncraps and Republicans.

I have mentioned frequently enough before that I hold no hope for the Demoncrap Party to even vaguely uphold the Constitution. Of the two viable political parties currently operating there is only some slight hope of even the Republicans attempting to restore the Constitution.

Thus we come to the basis of my objections to Donald Trump as president. It also happens to be the basis of my objections to anybody within the Demoncrap Party.

Take a moment and imagine this. You could have the greatest and wisest king of them all, with power absolute, who knows everything and does everything exactly right and through his wisdom and power everybody could be free and happy. Everything would be perfect...for a while. This is the problem with a president who rules as a king. The president will someday not be the president and his successor will take over and act as the king, with the same absolute powers.

In a fantasy world we could have the best president ever, forever, and give him absolute power and all would be good and well. Unfortunately we live in reality and that is something we cannot ignore. This is precisely why even a benevolent monarchy cannot succeed in the long term. Oh! Things go great…right up until the next guy comes along. Then…well, we are where we are.

This is why I'm a big fan of George Washington. Okay, I know that his record was not perfect. There are some things, which from the perspective of the cushy seat of my reclining chair, that I can say he could have done better. However we live in a reality where people are still people and all of them have flaws.

The thing I admire most about President Washington is that three times he was in a position of being able to gain absolute control of this country. Three times he turned it down so that he could go back to his farming. He clearly, as demonstrated by his actions, understood the problems of any person, even himself, holding too much power. So he, partly through his own example and partly through government action, took steps he thought would prevent anybody else from getting that kind of power any time soon.

There are three things I’m thinking about here: 1) It takes a giant man to hold a lot of power and wield it with wisdom and restraint. 2) It takes a bigger one to walk away from that kind of power without the slightest temptation of using it for personal gain. 3) It takes a person of great foresight and understanding of human nature to make certain any power which can be abused is dispersed so that nobody else can use it.

Many people have made arguments that Donald Trump might be number one. I won't argue that point here. He's been quite a success and there is no denying that. However, I can find no evidence of number two or three within him. Quite the contrary, I find a lot of proof that he might be the opposite.

As mentioned before, it is the job of the president by oath, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." The more detailed explanation of his job is outlined in Article Two of that founding document. A quick index of how someone would do in that capacity might be, rather crudely, decided simply by the number of times he or she mentions it. If a guy talks about the Constitution a lot it is obvious that it means something to him. Based on that he might also be expressing his understanding and desire to see it upheld. 

When the 2016 nomination was down to two remaining candidates I went to their websites and surveyed them, counting the number of times they mentioned the Constitution. Fortunately for this article I had preserved the text of my observations. These sites may still exist somewhere; I’ll leave that to the more curious researchers out there.

From President Trump's website there were five mentions of the Constitution in his "Positions." Two of them were under the category of Second Amendment Rights. Three of them were under Immigration Reform. Total mentions of the Constitution; five.

From Cruz's website under a heading titled "Issues" there was an entire section dedicated to "Restore the Constitution," inside of which were nine mentions of the Constitution. One mention was in the section regarding the 2nd Amendment. Two were under "Religious Liberty." Two were under "Life Marriage and Family." Total; fourteen.

But this was just a simple survey of the number of times for the occurrence of the word. It did not suppose that all mentions of the word would be in a context that would comply with the Constitution. It also did not take into consideration that any other things mentioned on the pages have anything to do with the Constitution.

Moving past the history of their respective 2016 web sites, which I gave for comparison, we have four years behind us a Trump presidency where the numbers of times I’ve heard him even say the word “Constitution” was disappointingly miniscule. Rightly or wrongly it is my own observation that people talk a lot about things they really care about and barely mention things which are of only a passing interest.

Certainly the Demoncraps and other leftists have their issues with him. Certainly Trump Derangement Syndrome is real. But I’m not talking about the things the left has dreamed up out of their delusional minds as reasons to oppose him. I’m talking about the standard of his ability to live up to his oath to the Constitution.

This is one of the problems I’ve had with President Trump from the very beginning. He doesn’t seem at all concerned with following the Constitution or making sure the rest of the federal government lives up to it. Some of the things he’d suggested while as a candidate in 2016, his stance on universal government healthcare for example, was grossly unconstitutional. Incidentally, as a constitutionalist, this was the exact point where I decided I could not support him.

His stance on the 2nd Amendment is also problematic. As president he, by executive order, banned bump stocks. The ATF estimated that 520,000 people owned bump stocks before the executive order. The owners of these stocks were given 90 days to turn them in or destroy them, without compensation, hitting at both the Second and Fifth Amendments. While a lot of people seem to think he did more good than bad, setting political rhetoric aside, as the guy in charge over the ATF his numbers of investigations and convictions were actually more severe than Obama’s. I encourage you to check out the Tenth Amendment Center’s article on this.

While I could write hundreds of thousands of words on all of the things he did that were constitutionally suspect, none of them would even come close to the magnitude of his allowing the government to spend our money. Obama was rightly criticized for running up the national debt by almost nine trillion dollars in eight years. Yet president Trump ran up the national debt by slightly more than Obama in only four years. In the wake of all of this profligate spending one of his last acts as president was to sign a Covid relief bill sending ten million dollars to Pakistan for gender studies. That’s just one small example of a bill that no Constitution loving president should ever let past his desk without receiving the big red “VETO!!!” stamp.

He always very vocally objected to spending bills like this. He always said he’d never sign another one like it. Then he almost always signed the next one while very vocally objecting to it. One may be tempted to make the excuse that it is not his fault because Congress writes up the spending bills. Yet he still signed them.

And then there’s this; “[Hillary] is going to go down at a minimum as a great senator.” “And I think Bill Clinton was a great president.” “She’s [Hillary] also a very nice person.” Apparently he liked the Clintons enough to invite them to his wedding.

And this; “Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”—12/4/22

His record just goes on and on like this. Questions, questions and more questions. All of mine leaning right up against his understanding that he’s supposed to follow the Constitution.

If you accept the position that the Constitution does not matter or does not specifically limit the power of a president or the federal government, most of what he says sounds great from a lot of different perspectives. Which is why a lot of people support him. I might even be persuaded to the idea that some of it makes sense from our current position from a businessman’s perspective. But really, if “the highest law in the land doesn't matter that much” is the consideration, the people, realizing it or not, are trying to elect a monarch because they are expecting the president will do what they want him to.

The problem with the federal government is that they have too much power that they are not supposed to have and are using it to our detriment. Now we have Trump, who if elected again is going to use the power that he's not supposed to have, again, because that’s what he did before, to our supposed benefit.

The job of the president is not supposed to be to use existing federal power to anybody's benefit or detriment. The president is specifically, by his oath, supposed to keep the federal government operating within Constitutional limits, so that there is no power there to be used for anybody's benefit or detriment in the first place.

Donald Trump has never shown any sign that he understands the limits that the federal government is supposed to have; nor has he ever shown any sign that he will bring the federal government back within the powers it is supposed to be limited to under the Constitution. Thus he, as well as the rest of them, are operating on the false premise that the federal government can pretty much do whatever they want, in spite of constitutional limitations, as long as they think they can justify it.

A lot of things were demonstrably better in his first term. Hell, I have a half rotten potato in my cupboard that would make a better president than Biden. The problem is that if President Trump is reelected, baring assassination or natural death, he will be gone in four years. Trump’s successors will then inherit whatever power the People allowed Trump to use. And as demonstrated by the results of the end of his first term segueing into Biden’s presidency the results can be catastrophic. The government will still be oppressively giant, too powerful and corrupt.

The president of the United States is supposed to make absolutely certain that the federal government operates within the parameters of the Constitution. Almost all problems the country is having at the federal level stem only from them not following the highest law of the land, and taking and using power they shouldn't have had in the first place. The focus of any candidate, in my mind, should be to bring the federal government back within its limits.

If we define government corruption as "using the power of the government, that it's not supposed to have or use, to the end result of select groups of supporters getting what they want, in compensation for money, votes or political power," then what is the long term benefit of voting for somebody who comes up with great plans for using the power he's not supposed to have in the first place? Several years down the road we'll just be right back in the soup again.

That's the same kind of problem as with a monarchy. There have been great and benevolent kings throughout history under which the countries and people have flourished and prospered. No matter who the great and compassionate king is now, his successors will sooner or later really suck. And they will suck with the same absolute power as their predecessors.  And when the monarch is elected and called, "Mr. President," the results can be pretty much expected to be the same.

There is such a thing as tomorrow.

Your Liberal Education

Truth being told I am not particularly a fan of most conspiracy theories. I do listen to the tin foil hats from time to time because occasionally someone who thinks outside the box asks some very good questions. The problem with thinking too far outside the box tends to remove one’s thoughts from obvious reality when defending their pet theories. When the theory becomes more important than the facts it becomes the dividing line between what actually is real and paranoid delusion.

So imagine the surprise when I was first called a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist, and brutally mocked, for pointing out that the educational system was overrun by leftist ideologues in league with the government to rewrite the text books and dictionaries at the behest of the federal government in order to keep the American People in line with their agenda.

Okay. Stated as I just did it does sound like a conspiracy theory and that is how I meant it to sound. What differentiates this from a typical conspiracy theory is that I didn’t say that there is one omni-powerful person acting behind the scenes to control our very lives and the education system is just one of the means to that end.

The basic difference is that I have no first hand evidence of the latter while the former is demonstrable directly from our own first hand observations and common sense.

I don't want to go down the tin foil hat conspiracy line but there are some things that are obviously true. To verify they are indeed happening you don't have to go much further than visiting a local school or reading an average history textbook. And it involves a bit of thinking.

If I were to say that “almost all spiders build webs of some sort” it is not a conspiracy theory on spiders. There is not some omni-powerful masterful super dictatorial spider working behind the scenes forcing other spiders to behave according to his sole will. It’s just a commentary on what they demonstrably do. There is no collusion between spiders on building webs because there doesn’t have to be. It’s just written into their code.

If we were to split humanity in half and call the side who just like government to leave them alone, conservative, then call the other half, who believes the government should control everything and tell everybody what is right and wrong according to their beliefs, liberals, then we would have what we have. Two groups of people who believe what they believe, vying for power. It is in the human code that they both try to expand their belief system to other people because that’s just what people demonstrably do.

It is a simple fact that people with liberal ideologies currently run the government. Let’s face it, they've taken over. This is not a conspiracy. It's just what people do as an intrinsic part of their nature. They try of their own accord to get other people to think as they do, just as everybody does.

The next demonstrable fact is that they have been running the school systems for a very long time. It is not a conspiracy theory to believe that there is a thing called the Department of Education. It is not my delusional mind that creates the idea that the Department of Education is an agency of the federal government that sets the uniform standards for the States as to what is supposed to be taught in all of the public schools.

It is also not a conspiracy theory that according to the Department of Education standards, they are the ones who have made the decisions as to what education the students have.

It is also within reason that some of those students grow up to become educators themselves. Some of them run local school boards. Some of them join up with their own state’s departments of education. Some of them even rise to the lofty heights of working within the Department of Education.

Is it crazy to think that some of those people then write textbooks and dictionaries according to how they themselves have been educated? I don’t think that’s even a stretch of imagination. Someone who is educated writes those books, and after all, those books are pretty real. You can even pick them up and beat the teachers over the heads with them in outrage for the lines of pure BS that they contain.

Summing it all up, after the educators have been educated according to the Department of Education standards, the educators write the text books, including the dictionaries, and they do so according to how they've been educated themselves. This they then teach to the students and so the process continues for another generation. It has a ring of obvious sense to it that doesn’t fit well within the tin foil hat circle of conspiracy theories. It’s just people believing what they believe and doing what they do.

Let’s go back to the top of the pile here. Pick a subject, any subject you please, in which you think the government of the United States is wrong. Now think for a second that those people within the federal government, who you think are wrong, have their hands in deciding how the children of the country are going to be educated. Now ask yourself which is more likely; are they going to make those decisions according to how you think they are wrong or will they make those decisions according to how they think that they are right? It’s not crazy to say that they are going to choose the latter. Every. Single. Time.

After these things get taught as truth in the school system, they get echoed in the media, social media and common culture, as if they were true. The person who doesn’t know them and agree with them is looked on as somewhat of a pariah and regarded as uneducated. For example as a long time constitutional purist I cannot even begin to count the number of times that I’ve been told how sad it is that I failed my civics class. I’m comfortable with it because I would rather know the truth, as I see it, speak the truth and be spurned for it, than live in ignorance or blindly accept lies. Some people would call it lunacy but I call it integrity.

Personal integrity is knowing what you know. What you know is what you know and to have the courage to know and say what you have observed. There is no other integrity.

So if the government is liberal and wrong, the schools are also going to be liberal and wrong. If the schools are liberal and wrong, it follows that the books written by the educators are also liberal and wrong. The information you've gotten from them during your own education, of course, has to be regarded with suspicion.

As a matter of philosophical belief I think we should question all things that are suspected to be incorrect information in our lives. We should also challenge ourselves to look for things within our beliefs that may not be true. Inconsistencies in some narrations of history and government, particularly, most certainly exist. It is not wrong to explore what the motivations for such errors are.

We must take all of the available facts and create a theory that matches those facts. Don't create a theory and then seek facts to prove it while rejecting facts that are inconsistent. That’s how you earn your tin foil hat. If anything you find places your theory in doubt and can't be disproved, your theory is wrong and needs to be updated. Hey, we all want to be right. That’s just the way we are wired. The challenge is to be big enough to think that what you believe could possibly be wrong and needs to be revised. This does not make you wrong. It makes you more right.

So from this point on, this article will explore some of the things I have seen in my own education that have proven in my mind to not be true. All of the following things are also still being commonly taught.

The first of these is so common these days that it can’t be an accident. And it’s repeated over and over again; ad nauseam. The United States is a democracy. Democracy is a good thing because it means “power to the people.” It is always a democracy when people vote. The majority should rule because it is a representation of the will of the People. This kind of thing goes on and on. The examples in which this is manifested in society are seemingly endless.

So what are the facts that contravene this enough that forced me to reevaluate my education regarding them? See, I used to believe the above and agree with it but I couldn’t help noticing some problems.

Democracy, rather than being the right to vote, is defined as majority rules over the minority. What protections does democracy have for the minorities? None. That’s something that I have a problem with.

There is also my frequently commented on text of the United States Constitution, Article Four, Section Four, which states; “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” This occasionally elicits a snarky and disrespectful response that “a republic is a kind of democracy because people vote so it represents the will of the people, moron.”

Well…yeah. Right. According to your liberal education, and generally bad attitude, I can know what I’m dealing with.

I’ve written more on this subject in this article but there is a simple way to tell the difference between a democracy and republic. If you vote directly on federal issues you live in a democracy. If you vote on people to represent you and they in turn vote on federal issues on your behalf you live in a republic. The two are mutually exclusive. Sometimes people will say that there is direct democracy versus indirect democracy, because there are representatives who are elected, but that just changes the form of government from a democracy to a republic. That’s what republic means; representative government.

Next on my list of educational horrors is that the Pledge of Allegiance is patriotic. That’s what we are taught anyway. I’ve recently written about this and don’t care to duplicate it here. So you can just browse on over to this article, The Pledge of Allegiance, and read about it there.

Moving on to the next subject we have the ever demonstrable fact that history is written by the victor so that the victor looks much better than they really were and the defeated look much worse.

Lincoln fought to free slaves and the Emancipation Proclamation is proof of that. Lincoln’s overreach was necessary to save the Union and the United States wouldn’t exist without him. Lincoln was honest and all of his actions were above reproach, even to the point of being personally endorsed by God Himself—yes, someone did once make that argument to me. States aren't constitutionally allowed to secede. The federal government has to control everything otherwise the States will forget about the rights of the People, so slavery would have continued forever without the "Civil War."

Counter to these educational points are the Emancipation Proclamation, which it is taught that Lincoln wrote in order to declare all slaves as free. To this I can easily say that you should actually read it. Contained within it is a list of all of the areas of the country which were exempted from it. Those areas include four States from the North that still held slaves, Washington DC, as well as any other part of the country and US territories abroad where the Union was still in control. It only freed the slaves in parts of the country in which he was not in control. So the Emancipation Proclamation, even according to some of his own cabinet members, Salmon P. Chase for example, freed nobody.

Continuing on that point is a little thing I call “Lincoln’s Paradox.” If it is wrong for a person to use force to hold another person in subservience to them against his will, as with slavery, how is it right for a nation to use force to hold entire States of people in subservience to them against their will? The best argument I’ve ever gotten on this point is the statement, “I believe that’s what God told him to do.”

The Fourth Debate with Douglas—September 18, 1858; just read the first statements by Lincoln in this debate. Is anybody here in favor of white supremacy? I can unambiguously say that I am not. But Lincoln, by his own words literally said that he was.

It is difficult to doubt how great a man Lincoln was. Just look. His likeness graces two forms of our currency, statues and monuments uncountable and even the faces of mountains. Just remember that people used to build monuments to Stalin as well.

Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address is full of inconsistencies with what the schools are teaching. You should read it for yourself.

The idea that Lincoln’s unconstitutional overreach was necessary to “save the Union” and yet somehow still he supported the Constitution is an obvious contradiction. As Ayn Rand so helpfully pointed out, “Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”

Speaking of things that are wrong, hundreds of countries have ended slavery. It is folly to think that the United States wouldn’t have done the same thing considering how unpopular slavery rightfully is. And there are dozens of historical examples of states leaving countries which continued to exist. Our very own and honorable State of Texas seceding from Mexico is just one of many examples. Here’s a news flash; Texas and Mexico—I know this is a surprise to some—still exist. So does Portugal and Spain. I’ll leave it to you to research the rest.

After that we have the idea from leftist Political Science professors that fascism is a right wing form of government and communism is left wing. This makes no sense. One is a big and powerful form of government telling people how to live, as being distinctly different from the other, which is a big…and…powerful…form…of…government…telling…people…how…to…live. See the difference? Neither do I, except in their methods of forcing the will of big government on the People.

Next is that the First Amendment applies to everybody in government. So logically a teacher telling a class or student to quiet down is a violation of the First because Congress established the Department of Education. The problem is that over stretching the First in such a way creates the opposite effect, limiting the free speech of the people involved in government itself. So we have the lunacy from the Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional for students and teachers to read their Bible or pray while at school, because, God forbid, someone might say something that endorses a religion. And we just can’t have people who are in the government saying what they want. See?

Speaking of the Supreme Court, we are taught that the Supreme Court has the authority to decide what is and is not constitutional. Imagine how I felt when I discovered that I’d been betrayed by none other than Schoolhouse Rock! Sigh…

Part of this stems from the idea taught to us that the Constitution is beyond any possible understanding of ours. If you are not a judge or constitutional scholar you cannot possibly understand what the Constitution means. It seems you need a secret Cracker Jack decoder ring to be able to glean the secret meanings of the occult passages written therein. It's too bad the Founding Fathers never got together and wrote down in a simple document of some sort what they clearly meant about how they wanted the government to be run. If they had, then the people in the government could all swear to follow it, by oath, and then everything would just be okie-dokie. Right?

Well? That is what some of you think isn’t it?

Look, the Constitution is simple. That’s why in my spare time I make videos like this. If you don’t believe me just read it. Sure, some of the words you’re going to have to work a bit to get a good understanding of. And the grammar is really quite dated. But you can get over it. You have it within your ability to understand what it says directly and for yourself. After that you cannot be lied to about its contents.

Well, it is said in frequent arguments to me that such and such court says this, that and some other thing about what the Constitution means so.... Yeah, well, so your case is that a bunch of tyrants got together and disagreed with me because I refuse to agree with them about the virtues of tyranny. Other than that, what's the point? I unambiguously and openly speak about the benefits of freedom under a constitutional government, as defined within the actual text of the document itself, and they surreptitiously speak about why they should be in control of everything. In spite of what tyrants in courts say, right is still right and wrong is still wrong. The bottom line is if something isn’t in the Constitution it isn’t in the Constitution. And far too frequently we are told that things that aren’t in it are in it, while things that are actually in it somehow don’t mean what they say. This is seriously very dangerous to our freedom, which I write more about right here.

The above is not at all completely comprehensive. These are the ones that I think are most dangerous because they all work to prevent us from restoring our constitutional republic and the freedoms gained therein. Even in speaking them or committing my thoughts, thusly and in writing, I am taking part in heresy against the powers of the United States federal government. Maybe I’ll even make the potential terrorist list.

There are many things we have been taught that are simply not true. Some are just honest mistakes or misunderstandings on the part of educators. Even were I to assume that these are made in innocence, I still would have to suspect everything because you can’t predict where the mistakes are or what the outcome of misunderstandings will be. In the area of politics and history I am highly suspicious of everything I’ve been taught. There is a lot to gain or lose based on what we have been told to think of as true.

It is within the nature of propaganda to change the story and even redefine words. The United States and the People therein are not immune to this effect.

This does not make it a conspiracy. It makes it observably true.

The Pledge of Allegiance

There is a certain category of things which over the years and through common use have become thought of in the minds of the American People as patriotic. I’m all for true patriotism when it is something that is supported by the ideas expressed within the Constitution.

There can be problems when something comes up that sounds patriotic to one’s country which is in actuality contrary to the principles in which that country was founded. The problem can be further exacerbated when the contrary idea is preached over and over again, into the minds of the people, as a legitimate principle of what the country is. Again we come across the old Joseph Goebbels idea that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth; not in actuality but at least in the minds of the people repeating the lie. Consequently I look for the kinds of things that we say over and over, without thinking them through, and often enough I find that there is some subtle mistruth embedded within.

Just to be clear about what I’m talking about I offer for the sake of discussion the definition of patriotism as being loyal to one’s country and its principles in actions or words.

I may be somewhat unusual in my thinking of what the United States is. Most people will look at a map and see there the shape of the United States outlined and point to it. Most people will look at the place where they are standing, point around them and say “this is part of the United States.”

While what is called the United States can be pointed to on a map, today, it is not consistent with the passing of time. The United States of 1791, for example, is not the same United States of 1959. You can look at a map of Alaska and Hawaii circa 1958 and they are still there, still the same shape, just not part of the United States. So every time a State was added the United States changed shape and grew.

Since 1959 the United States has not grown. The unpleasant side of this is that nothing in nature is ever static; staying the same, neither growing nor shrinking. The United States has stopped growing. Why and how this happened is another topic which I have already covered in this article. It’s a simple and predictable fact of nature that if it doesn’t start growing again it will at sometime begin to collapse. States can and will leave the Union, again. The United States will again change size and shape.

To me the real United States is not a position on a map surrounded by borders. I think of the ideas within the original Constitution plus the first twelve amendments as the real United States. There are some problems with many of the amendments after the Twelfth Amendment which I’ve written about in these four articles.

As a military man my oath was not to a president, nor a country, nor a government, nor a position on a map.

It was to defend a specifically defined set of principles outlined and enumerated within the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

I took that oath of my own free will, knowing full well what it was that I was swearing my loyalty to. I was as very clear on that point then as I am on it now. This is the way that oaths should be administered.

Just to be clear what I am talking about here, the definition of an oath per Oxford is: “a solemn promise, often invoking a divine witness, regarding one's future action or behavior.”

The definition of a pledge, again per Oxford, is: “a solemn promise or undertaking.”

It is clear from these definitions that we are in fact talking about the same class of thing.

The wrong way to administer an oath is to have a bunch of people, especially really young ones, mindlessly chant it, day after day, without them understanding what it is that they are making their solemn promise to uphold, support or defend. That’s not the administration of an oath or pledge. It’s brainwashing.

How can someone who doesn’t even understand the words of the pledge, or the history and principles of the country which they are given, promise solemnly to support it?

I think there’s something else at work here which has nothing to do with actual analytical understanding. Putting on the tin foil hat I would say that there is something that someone is after here and they want it reflexively understood in knee-jerk fashion rather than through any kind of well thought out principle.

Let me take this opportunity to introduce to you the author of the Pledge of Allegiance. Here we have Francis Julius Bellamy born on May 18, 1855, in Mount Morris, New York. There is an awful lot of “blah, blah, blah” history that I could duplicate here but that would be very boring and quite beside the point.

What I’m going to do here, for the sake of brevity, is copy the following paragraph from the Wikipedia page for him. (This, because Wiki frequently changes, is current as of 12/17/22.)

“Bellamy was a Christian socialist who ‘championed “'the rights of working people and the equal distribution of economic resources, which he believed was inherent in the teachings of Jesus.”' In 1891, Bellamy was ‘forced from his Boston pulpit for preaching against the evils of capitalism’, and eventually stopped attending church altogether after moving to Florida, reportedly because of the racism he witnessed there. Francis's career as a preacher ended because of his tendency to describe Jesus as a socialist. In the 21st century, Bellamy is considered an early American democratic socialist.”

For the purposes of this article is all we really need to know about him.

The author of the Pledge of Allegiance was a card carrying hard core Socialist. AOC and Bernie have nothing on him as self professed followers of Marx. The author of the Pledge of Allegiance has more in common with Nancy Pelosi than George Washington.

The Pledge of Allegiance as written by him was, “I pledge Allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.” He had written this and it was published in September of 1892.

In 1923 “the flag of the United States” was added. The words “of America” were added in 1924.

In 1942 the Pledge was formally included in the US Flag Code. The official name was added in 1945 along with the words “under God.”

Setting aside the fact that the words of the Pledge have been thoroughly ingrained into the American consciousness by the use of techniques that are covered in the style of Orwellian fiction, what are the problems that I have with it?

The first is that a flag is a symbol of a country, not the country itself, nor the founding principles of the country. Let’s say for the sake of example that a flag is commissioned to be the symbol of a fictitious country called “Fictitioustan.” The constitution of the newly founded country, Fictitioustan, says that everybody has the right to freedom. So naturally everybody takes a pledge to support the flag of Fictitioustan, rather than the real estate or the constitution on which and under which Fictitioustan was founded. Fifty years later the government of Fictitioustan is infiltrated and overthrown by communists, a Soviet style dictatorship is formed, the constitution is rewritten but the flag and the borders of the country remain the same.

What is it the people of that country are then swearing allegiance to when they pledge to their flag? The previous country and all of its principles are gone, history, finis. Now they are sworn to uphold what? Well, their communist dictator of course!

Since countries change size and shape and governments, all of the time, all over the world, shouldn’t an oath or pledge be devoted to a given set of principles? That way they are always attached to the same thing and are much less likely to be interchanged covertly or overtly with something else.

This is the very reason the military oaths and presidential oaths are written the way that they are. They are to the fixed set of principles in the Constitution.

The second of my objections is that “one nation” is in direct contradiction to the Constitution. The United States, under the Constitution as originally ratified (plus the first twelve amendments) was not one country. It was the individual States as independent and sovereign nations under a federal republic called the United States.

The idea of “one nation” under the Constitution didn’t happen until sometime shortly before Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox. There was once a document call the “Articles of Confederation” under which the original thirteen colonies formed in opposition to the British Empire. That document did contain the words that “the union shall be perpetual” but those words were debated and dropped at the Constitutional Convention.

This leads me right up to my third objection; indivisible with liberty is a contradiction of terms.

The word liberty means the quality or state of being free and doing as one pleases. This would include as a fundamental right the freedom to leave or disassociate from someone or something.

Indivisible means “unable to be divided or separated.”

Certainly they sound all good and patriotic in an emotional sort of way, largely because we have repeated them over and over again until they are practically etched on the inside of our skulls, but indivisible with liberty cannot happen in a logical universe.

If somebody does something that is objectionable to you then you have every right to leave them. If half a country does something that is objectionable to you then the other half has every right to leave them. It is a human right to associate or disassociate with someone. It’s a unique thing in this universe, recently discovered and rarely found, and it is called freedom.

I’m not particularly fond of conspiracy theories but sometimes things just fit too well to be ignored.

Within fifteen years of the end of the Reconstruction Era of United States history, and when Marxism was really beginning to take hold in the world, a Socialist writes a pledge telling us all that we have to believe that the country is represented by a flag that we all have to swear to, rather than any fixed set of principles. We are one nation in spite of what the Constitution and US history have to say about it and we somehow have liberty without being able or allowed to declare our independence when that country starts stepping on our individual and State’s rights. Then as grade school children we are all practically forced by law to recite these words over and over again, every day, without understanding their meaning or the meaning of the words of the Constitution that really represent the country that we live in.

These are irrefutable and well documented facts.

Also, all these years later, an irrefutable fact is that those supporting socialism are trying to overtake the United States, and it could be said that they are largely succeeding.

Well that kind of change doesn’t happen overnight. It takes a long time and a very clever campaign to talk people out of their freedom. Part of the trick is to make the slow change sound wise and patriotic.

How would one reverse such a trend?

Currently it is my thinking to learn and teach the Constitution as a set of principles that we are supposed to follow when engaging in political life. That would include challenging any principle contradicting the Constitution and removing it from public discourse wherever possible.

For me I refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance as it was originally written and as it is recited today. I, if I had my own way, wouldn’t allow it to be mandated in school even if the contradictions were corrected. I would however recommend that schools encourage it to be recited, after the contradictions are corrected, and even then only after its words are completely understood by the students and the students have passed a course on the Constitution which teaches directly from the Constitution itself.

Speaking of correcting the Pledge of Allegiance, here’s how I would rewrite it.

“I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it defines, a nation of sovereign States, under God, with liberty and justice for all.”

It’s not an instant fix. There is no such thing as an instant fix. However if we rid ourselves of things that are not in keeping with the Constitution and encourage that same thinking with other people the current trend of this country will eventually reverse.

Then maybe the United States will begin to grow again.

The Premise of the Enemy: Part 4, Republics and Democracies

And so here begins the fourth of my series of articles regarding the undesirable effects of accepting the premise of the enemy and trying to fight them on their own terms. I could short-cut the entire article and say, “you’re a fool if you try to relate to them on their own terms because there is no way to make sense out of pure gibberish,” but that would kind of defeat the point of writing an article for my weekly blog post.

You may sense some frustration from me in this post and I want you to know that it is not your imagination. There are few political philosophy subjects that frustrate me more than having to explain to someone who claims to be a conservative republican, the difference between a republic and democracy. The term “democracy” as applied to the United States is so endlessly and relentlessly hammered into us that many people have become emotionally attached to the term as a knee-jerk reaction rather than a series of logical intellectual thoughts built on rational premises. Thus you have the effect of when you point out that the United States is a republic, not a democracy, even by professed conservatives, you get called an idiot.

Well, whether or not I am an idiot—and given the relative nature of thought and human interaction both are possibilities—is not the subject. The form of the United States government is the subject. As a side note you can be fairly certain that when a person with whom you’re having a conversation begins to go down the road of ad hominem comments, they have nothing left of analytical thought to contribute to the conversation and are left with only base insults.

In fact just yesterday I said to someone, “I'm trying my very hardest to respectfully point out to you the disadvantages of calling a republic a democracy. Especially in consideration of US Constitution Article Four, Section Four. You're undercutting the Constitution that I've sworn to defend.” The response from this self proclaimed titan of intellectual and conservative thought was, “That is such a dumb tweet.”

Mmmm…liberals pretending to be conservatives. You can’t live with them and they aren’t funny enough to rent out as circus clowns.

Okay, so more to the point of this post we have the ever infamous and popular Constitution of the United States of America. This Constitution is composed of several articles that explain the duties and limits of the United States federal government along with a smattering of clauses that restrict the States. Among these various articles you will find the following which is the first clause of Article Four, Section Four. It reads, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”

Now I expect the Demoncraps and other forms of liberals to have a foaming at the mouth fit when I point this out to them. I expect them to be miseducated, somewhat stupid and hostile. However it never ceases to amaze me how much anger, hate and resentment I get from so-called conservative republicans for pointing this out. It always surprises me a bit. It shouldn’t by now but still for someone to proclaim that they support the Constitution then give a guy grief for pointing out that the United States is not a democracy. That it is a republic. Then give them the exact reference from the Constitution that proves it and have them then break out into personal insults because they can’t support their argument by logical means, well, that’s something different.

You would think that a person proclaiming themselves as a MAGA Patriot would take a stand for what the Constitution actually says and not fight back against someone for supporting it.

The thing that is happening here is the educational system has been corrupted by liberals; particularly in the areas of Political Science and history. They are doing their level best to undermine and misteach the history of the country and the meaning of the Constitution. And they are very good at it.

One of the techniques that is commonly used as propaganda to sway public opinion is called, “Propaganda by Redefinition of Words.” A Google search on this term this morning yields more than a million and a half hits. The short description of this technique is that you define a word as something that it isn’t, yet in a way that supports your cause, then you repeat it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, until it becomes commonly accepted, in spite of the fact that to any thinking person it doesn’t make any kind of sense. They are just so used to hearing it that that is what it must be and someone who disagrees is just stupid. This was what Joseph Goebbels meant when he said “if you repeat a lie often enough people think it is the truth.”

A more practical demonstration of this technique presents itself in the modern political arena.

The word “republic” comes from the Latin words “res” which means “entity, concern” and “publicus” which means “of the people, public.” Combining them we have the word “republic” which means literally “an entity, concerned with the people or public.”

The word representative means to stand or act in the place of, as a substitute, proxy or agent does and to speak and act for by delegated authority.

An entity who is concerned with the people is a representative of the people. A republic, by definition, has people who stand in and vote on behalf of other people whose interests they represent in the government at large.

The word “democracy” comes from a Greek word “demos” meaning “the people” and “kratia” which means “power.” The basic idea of a democracy is that the power lies directly in the hands of the people without representation or any kind of go-between between them and the national government.

That people vote is not the defining characteristic of a democracy. There are many forms of government in which people vote. Even Saddam Hussein had elections.

The defining characteristic of a democracy is majority rules.

In a republic sometimes the majority does not rule. This is most obvious and evident in the United States by the way the presidents are chosen by the States. There have been several cases where the Electoral College has elected a president in spite of the popular vote of the people supporting the opponent. Hayes over Tilden in 1876 where the popular vote favored Tilden. Harrison over Cleveland in 1888 where the popular vote favored Cleveland. Bush over Gore in 2000 where the popular vote favored Gore. Trump over Killery Clinton in 2016 where the popular vote favored Killery.

How did this happen? Representatives of the People of the States, because the United States is a republic, known as the Electoral College, voted for someone different than who would have been elected if, as in a democracy, the majority ruled.

That is the difference between a democracy and a republic.

People tend to conflate voting with democracy because as with both voting and democracy the majority rules.

In order to separate the two concepts that these words represent in our minds we have to go to the highest ability to distinguish between differences and similarities. Voting seems like democracy because as I just said, in both the majority rules. That’s a similarity between democracy and voting.

However two things being similar does not mean that they are the same thing. The difference is between what they are. Voting is a process of more than one person making decisions. Voting is not a form of government. Democracy is a form of government wherein the majority always rules.

Even totalitarianism dictators have elections and voting. Sure they are not free and fair because the choice is often between “Candidate A” and “please torture me and kill my family.” The point remains; voting does not make a democracy. Even if a tyrant stands up and declares his country to be a democracy because he got a 99.997% in the election outcome.

And speaking of tyranny there is this old phrase, “tyranny of the majority” wherein only the majority of people have the rights, all at the expense of the minority. Majority rules do not care about the minority. The majority, simply by being the largest number, can take whatever they want from the minority and set all of the rules of their lives.

So the liberal dunderheads who teach political science would have us believe that anyplace that has voting is a democracy, just because, well, you know, people vote. “Every place where people can vote for anything is a democracy,” they would have you believe. Therefore the United States is a form of “representative democracy” because we have representatives and we vote; right? And so a republic is a form of democracy; right?

Wrong.

The second you introduce representatives into a democracy you no longer have the defining characteristic of a democracy; majority rules. What you have then is not a democracy. What you do have is a republic. That’s what that word means. Representatives of the people or public. Republic.

There is an easy way to tell the difference. If you vote directly on all national issues, without representatives, you live in a democracy. If you have representatives who vote on all national issues, regardless of how those representatives are chosen, you live in a republic.

One is not a form of the other. One cannot be a form of the other because they are in fact, by all rules of logic, mutually exclusive of each other.

I will grant anybody the fact that there are plenty of poorly written dictionaries out there which seem to contradict me in the above statements regarding that. At the same time I would invite people who argue with me on the basis of the poorly written definitions commonly found in dictionaries to logically resolve the contradictions in those definitions.

Politics could be defined as a process involving the interactions of two or more people and should involve us all. Even street gangs have politics that are little different than national politics, even if the uniforms and level of play and influence are different. Did you ever wonder why so many people are in apathy and don’t get involved in national politics when there is so much at stake? Look at those definitions and try to make demonstrable sense of them. You can’t do it! Because they don’t make sense!

That right there is the reason why more people aren’t involved in national politics. Even the definitions don’t make sense. Naturally people look at them and say so. So they give it up as a bad job and go and do something that makes more sense.

How does this work into the idea of never accepting the premise of the enemy?

It’s pretty simple really. Every time someone says that they want to “protect our democracy” or “defend our democracy” know what you’re looking at and don’t be fooled by it.

What you are hearing, even from a conservative pundit implying that someone or something is a threat to our democracy, is the outcome of a campaign to redefine the word “republic” into something that it clearly isn’t. I don’t care if it’s Tucker Carlson, “The Doctor of Democracy” Rush Limbaugh or President Trump. What has happened here is that person, even well intended, has bought into the premise of the enemy.

A republic is not a democracy. A democracy is not a republic. It seems rather absurd to have to point this out but that’s why there are two words for the two ideas.

Sometimes you will get a response like, “Oh! I meant little ‘d’ democracy!” or “Oh! I meant big ‘D’ Democracy!” That’s the kind of argument that I would just call big “B” Bullcrap and be done with it.

Here’s a thing you want to give some thought to. A constitutional conservative cites the Constitution because it says what he inherently believes. A liberal interprets it to mean something it doesn’t say because it doesn’t say what he inherently believes.

The Constitution says that the United States is a republic. So why interpret it so that a republic is a democracy; which again can’t happen in a logical universe? Why not just say the Constitution is a republic?

It works just as well in favor of defending the Constitution and country to say “preserve our republic” or “defend our republic” or that someone or something is a threat to “our republic.”

If you say the United States is a democracy and the Constitution says it is a republic aren’t you then working against the Constitution? Wittingly or unwittingly? For saying so I’m occasionally called “Mister Tinfoil Hat,” but have to say that there are definitely people who are trying to work against the Constitution. Some of them have worked their way into very influential places.

If you are a true constitutional conservative this is what I would ask of you. Every single time someone says something about “our democracy” challenge them on it. Even if you reduce it to its minimum and say that by calling the United States a democracy, you are supporting the Democrat Party, it still works out.

Do not passively let it stand. Do not accept the premise of the enemy. Do not advertise for the other side.

The Premise of the Enemy: Part One
The Premise of the Enemy: Part Two
The Premise of the Enemy: Part Three

The First Amendment and Social Media

This is not the article I was prepared to write this morning but because of the eruption on Twitter I had to shift gears. Current events being what they are and all.

From the moment that Elon Musk tweeted “If this isn’t a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment, what is?” I knew that my blog post from this morning was going to be a real shit show to put together. Sometimes it is like that when parts of the Constitution are taken out of context.

Well, as with anything constitutional I have my own take on it and it’s not what most people would think of as contemporarily conservative.

My whole line of thinking after reading the tweet went through a pretty serious period of confusion, during which time my opinion on the subject vacillated back and forth several times, before landing on the current conclusion and steadfastly remaining there for at least several hours now. My method of resolving confusions is rather specific and sometimes painstakingly long and detailed, as well as not being the main subject of this post, but to shorten it up a bit I start with the details I can directly observe and pick one as a major stable datum, then relate other things to it. Most of the time working at it this way any confusion I have will eventually blow.

Well, as part of the Constitution one of the things I do happen to know is the First Amendment; “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 says, “Congress shall make no law….” Got that?

Now from here out you could substitute “any privately owned business” for “Twitter” and still get to the same point.

Twitter is a privately owned business. Twitter is not Congress. Twitter is not the government. Twitter does not make laws. Twitter and their employees enjoy the same First Amendment rights as any others. They can support who they want. They can refuse to support who they don’t want. This is their right. The owners of Twitter can choose who to do business with and who not to do business with. The owners of Twitter do not have to support who they don’t want in office. Twitter has freedom of association. Twitter has the right to assemble.

One of my followers on Twitter gave me this bit of advice; “Always walk away from an opportunity to explain 'freedom of association'.” That may have been the wise advice but I am what I am. And sometimes what I am is a person who goes around kicking hornet’s nests to amuse myself.

Government officials have the same First Amendment rights as the People do. Government officials have freedom of association. Government officials have the right to assemble. Government officials have the right to support who they want and not support who they don’t want.

Twitter and government officials have the freedom to choose to associate with each other or not.

I’ve seen people say that it is treason for Twitter and the government to suppress news that they didn’t want to have getting out, especially when the outcome of an election might have hinged on it.

The Constitution, in Article Three, Section Three, specifically defines what treason is. “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Like it or not, and I assure you I don’t like it, the Demoncrap Party is part of the political system of the United States. A private company favoring the Demoncraps, while not a good decision for the country, is not an act of war against the United States. It is not treason for Twitter to suppress a news story, even if it is true, solely on the basis of it favoring or disfavoring another political party gaining power. If they suppressed a news story involving Moscow’s intention (fictitious at this point) to bomb the United States, when they had solid evidence that the story was true, that would be a different thing.

It is not treason for a government official to ask Twitter to suppress a news story even if it is true. Sure, it’s dishonest. It’s an extremely dangerous Public Relations trick if exposed, as we are currently seeing. However it is not treason.

So government officials can ask Twitter to push or suppress any news story they want. However if they try to strong arm them using government power to do so it would be corruption. There has been, thus far, no suggestion on the part of Twitter that any government official tried to force them to do what they did. They did it without "orders" and of their own free will.

Is it collusive and conspiratorial for them to do so? Yes. But not unconstitutional. Is it rigging an election? No. Vijaya Gadde, in suppressing the Biden Laptop story, did not rig the election. Rigging an election is where votes are deliberately miscounted or manipulated to favor a particular candidate. Gadde suppressed a news story that she disagreed with on the basis that it did not prefer her poor choice for a candidate. It is her right to be as stupid as her choices in politicians appears to be. Until she is the person actually counting and deliberately throwing the numbers of the votes it is not rigging an election.

It is not a violation of the First Amendment for a government official to ask Twitter to suppress a news story, even if true, because it does not constitute “congress making a law.” This is the same principle as a high school coach praying with the team. If no law was made there is no violation of the First.

Let’s face an unfortunate reality of living in a free society. All political advertising and news stories are a manipulation towards the specific and desired outcome of an election, regardless of who is doing it. That is the entire study of the subject of Political Science. It’s all about how to beat the other guy regardless of any other considerations. All stories published or suppressed involving politics is manipulation towards a specific outcome of an election. All politics leading up to an election is an attempt to manipulate the outcome of the election.

If we were to impose a law that nobody could publish any news items that may favor or disfavor any political party, in any political election news at all, there would be nothing that would be legal to have published, with or without government influence.

Yep. It certainly was dishonest of Twitter to suppress certain news items knowing that stories like Hunter’s Laptop, for example, were true. They, now as former employees of the privately owned company, will have to pay the piper.

The First Amendment applies to the federal government. A private company can’t violate the First Amendment. It was not a violation of the Constitution for Twitter to suppress news stories from users whose opinion they opposed. It may be a violation of other federal laws but in such case I would question their legitimacy under the Constitution.

As the owner of a major social media Elon Musk now wields a lot of power. I would like to ask him, if a Demoncraptic congressman comes to him and asks him to suppress a news story that he thinks is bogus does he have the right to, even if it changes the outcome of an election? Or if a Republican congressman comes to him and asks him to suppress a news story that he thinks is bogus does he have the right to, even if it changes the outcome of an election? Or if a Demoncraptic congressman comes to him and asks him to push a news story that he thinks is valid does he have the right to, even if it changes the outcome of an election? Or if a Republican congressman comes to him and asks him to push a news story that he thinks is valid does he have the right to, even if it changes the outcome of an election?

Well Hells Bells man! What do all political news stories do if they don’t potentially change the outcome of an election? Every. Single. Freakin. One. Of. Them. When it comes right down to it this story, in its entirety, is nothing new and different than any every day news cycle as far as politics are concerned.

Where are the “thou shalt not attempt to affect changes in the outcomes of elections” rules for privately owned companies or People or politicians in this country? Even if they did it at the suggestion of an official of the federal government with whom they agreed? They, as People of the United States, same as you or me, have every right to influence the outcome of elections. That’s what we are all doing in the political game. To say that they don’t have that right, and make that a law, would indeed be a violation of the First Amendment. To say that they don’t have the right to use whatever resources and public relations power that they have to get who they want elected is the same thing as saying that you and I have no right to use whatever resources and public relations power we have to influence the outcome of elections. That, for Christ’s sake, is what politics is by its very definition! Manipulate the public image of people to influence the outcomes of elections. Like it or not, and I most certainly don’t, the Demoncrap Party simply played a better game at this.

Let’s push into the background the fact that by the admission of Matt Taibbi of Twitter both parties had access to the same tools and demonstrably used them. Yes, it was not balanced. By what law do the actions of a private company have to be balanced? Or fair?

And seriously Elon, you really want to have to go to a judge every time you talk to a representative about what happens in your company that might involve an election? With all that you have going on don't you have better things to do?

“Freedom of the press” not only means that they can say or promote whatever they want, it means that they don’t have to say or promote something if they don’t want to. And they don’t need a reason to do it. That’s what freedom is. You can choose one thing or the other. If you can’t choose one thing or the other, of your own determinism, by definition on that subject you are not free.

To say that anybody has to say something, even if they don’t want to, is to say that they have no freedom of speech. Because you’re telling them what they have to say. To say that the owners of Twitter have to publish a story, under any circumstances, is to say that the owners of Twitter have no freedom of speech.

Just because you want Twitter to put your word, whatever it is, out there for public consumption, does not mean that Twitter has to agree to do it. This isn’t a suppression of your right to say whatever you want, because you can still do that. The owners of Twitter have the right to agree with you or not. You have every right to say what you want. What you do not have is the right to force other people to publish and repeat it, true or not, election or not.

The only mistake Twitter made in this is that they knew the story, like the Hunter Biden Laptop story, was true and they covered it up. It was a political Public Relations move in support of a candidate that they liked. It was successful. It was also very dishonest. It was very manipulative. It was very collusive. But that does not make it illegal. It does make it a very poor business choice because such lies, when exposed in the public eye, tend to backfire in the most spectacular of ways through the violation of public trust. Honest people don’t like being lied to.

I look at it like this. When you log into your Twitter account you are in their house. You agree by the Terms of Service Agreement to play by their rules. This is exactly like when you have a guest over to your house, or place of business, they must agree to abide by yours. You may not like their rules while in their house. They may be unfair. They may be totally against your set of personal and philosophic values. But you agreed to follow them by the act of entering. If you get bitch slapped after agreeing to their rules and are now on a tirade of righteous indignation about it, well then, all I can say to you is that you should have seen it coming. Remaining in someone else’s house while subject to the rules therein and claiming that you are being oppressed by their rules is rather silly at best.

“Congress shall make no law….”

It does not say freedom of speech in all circumstances, public or private, or only when they favor your side of a political argument, or as long as it doesn’t influence the outcome of an election. It is a prohibition of the federal government on making laws regarding the restriction of free speech. It also does not say that just because you, as a first party, say something, that all other second parties have to say it too, whether they want to or not. It also doesn’t say that privately owned communications companies can’t restrict you from saying whatever you want while you are using their platform. It also doesn’t say that privately owned communications companies have to be fair to you.

Was I disappointed that Biden won over Trump in 2020? Yes. However I never failed to recognize that Twitter was playing on the side of the Demoncraps the whole time.

We all knew it.

So why is everybody suddenly acting so surprised that they were actually doing what we all thought they were doing now that the actual evidence of them doing so is out?

Bah! Politics as usual.

It’s enough to make a person become a philosopher.