All errors should be reported to

Sunday, August 19, 2018

Trump stands up for free speech. Newspapers don't

On Thursday, 350 newspapers blasted President Trump for daring to call the news media out on its lies. The editorials were worthless. None of the newspapers endorsed him. Only 20 newspapers -- out of 1,286 daily newspapers in the USA. That's the power of the press.

While they were masturbating about an importance they no longer have, they ignored a real threat to our Republic: Internet oligarchs censoring  people.

For all their braying about their rights, newspapers refused to stand up for the rights of others, which is the real test of one's commitment to liberty.

A week ago, I did with "We must defend Alex Jones."

Google flagged it as a possible violation of its advertising policy. That is one way to silence critics.

Here's my reply: Alex Jones, Alex Jones, Alex Jones.

As I noted in the post, "I have never heard or watched Alex Jones, although I may have read a few stories on his site that Drudge linked. As long as he made money for these companies, they have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to keep him on."

You see, they are not private companies. They are publicly held. Zuckerberg doesn't own Facebook. He is an employee. When companies put politics over profits, shareholders lose.

But enough about me. Let's talk about President Trump standing up for the right of his critics to call him a ape, buffoon, clown, Drumpf, and all the way down the alphabet.

When the New York Daily News depicted him as a pile of shit on its front page, President Trump did not shut the newspaper down.

When Time-Warner through its employee, Samantha Bee, called his daughter the C-word, he did not shut down the corporation -- or even the show.

On Saturday, our president did what the newspapers failed to do; he spoke up against censorship.

Social Media is totally discriminating against Republican/Conservative voices. Speaking loudly and clearly for the Trump Administration, we won’t let that happen. They are closing down the opinions of many people on the RIGHT, while at the same time doing nothing to others.......

.....Censorship is a very dangerous thing & absolutely impossible to police. If you are weeding out Fake News, there is nothing so Fake as CNN & MSNBC, & yet I do not ask that their sick behavior be removed. I get used to it and watch with a grain of salt, or don’t watch at all..

....Too many voices are being destroyed, some good & some bad, and that cannot be allowed to happen. Who is making the choices, because I can already tell you that too many mistakes are being made. Let everybody participate, good & bad, and we will all just have to figure it out!

That is leadership. That is being an American. Anyone who would take away the freedom of a law-abiding American does not belong in this country.

The president has every right to speak out against Fake News. It is the enemy of the people.

But the newspapers have the duty to stand up for free speech.

They failed.

As they have done for decades.

Which is why they have no power here.


Please enjoy my books in paperback and on Kindle.

Trump the Press covers the nomination.

Trump the Establishment covers the election.

Fake News Follies of 2017 covers his first year as president.

For autographed copies, write me at


  1. Here's what I have to add:

    Alex Jones. Alex Jones. Alex Jones. A L E X J O N E S.

    That's all.

    Oh wait. One more thing:

    Me and Mr. Alex Jones. We've got a Google. Goin' on.


  2. Breitbart pulled a nice one this morning...referred to CNN as “the far-left CNN.” Good tactic. Here on, I shall refer to CNN as “the far-left CNN” in all of my writings and utterances. When I get really fired up, it will be “the far-left conspiracy theory channel CNN.”

  3. It's not just ALEX JONES.

    Prager University on YouTube was shut down, then "oh, that was a mistake".

    And this one is chilling. Doug Wead is a legit historian who predicted the Trump victory early. He's a frequent guest on various TV shows. He wrote a book on Hillary vs Trump 2016 which I got from my local library and recommend.

    Not a wild-eyed guy at all. Yet a chat with Wead and Fox's Trish Regan got banned--

    "Google employees appeared to be baffled. Could they call me back tomorrow, they asked? The next day, Nurse Ratched at Google finally emerged. I was never given her name, but conversations with her employees indicated her sex. It was nothing that I or Regan had said in the video, her team explained. Huh?

    No, no, the problem, I was told, was in the “crawler of words along the bottom of the video.” It was a quote of Trump declaring that the Robert Mueller investigation was a “witch hunt.” This was apparently hate speech."


  4. Dear TwitterAppleGoogleFacebookYouTube;

    Would you please pretend we're John Brennan so we can have free speech again?

    Thanks, you Nazi Control Freaks

  5. Donald Trump has no particular reverence for the First Amendment. He may not even understand it very well. During the campaign, Trump said he would “open up” libel law so that newspapers could more easily be sued. As president-elect, he tweeted that those who burn the American flag should be stripped of their citizenship and jailed. These threats are constitutional nonstarters.

    There is more to be read in the article but Trumpers aren't interested.

    1. No, I’m not. And likewise, you are not interested in Antifa chanting “No Ice, No Wall, No USA at All.” Selah.

    2. Yeah, I read the whole article dated 2 days before Trump was inaugurated, written by an ACLU executive on a far left website forecasting what Trump was going to do based on his own wish-casting. What exactly in all those conditional words and statements has come to fruition, or even close, during Trump's presidency? And, by the way, do you think the media deserves absolute immunity from libel, jurisdiction issue aside?

      Is Trump not entitled to his opinion, re: flag burning or whatever, or is that reserved for weasels in the increasingly far left taxpayer funded ACLU? This guy is proud of his role in the freedom to burn the flag litigation, so tell me again whose side the ACLU was on in the Masterpiece Cakeshop First Amendment case.

      BTW, every group mentioned in that article was a decidedly liberal group including the ABA that was allegedly intimidated from posting an article about Trump. If they were so sure of the law why pull it?

      Are you one of the two thinkers that commented on that article? If so, the only thing missing was: #resist, #imwithher, #notmypresident or any those other juvenile group-think hashtags, and if it was updated it could have like a dozen of those stupid blue wave icons.

    3. Hey Z, Gadfly loves the antifarts stuff on the news. He gets his face on the tube for all to see, and it is the only time he crawls out of mommy's basement.

  6. Geez i guess i missed their little tantrum while watching the trump djia skyrocket 400+ last thursday.

  7. We need an internet Supreme Court. Simple thing, The President Selects one member to serve at his pleasure. Each Governor selects one member to serve at their pleasure for a total of fifty one members. Those members would then be divided into ten teams of five to hear cases. They would not have the ability to shut any one down. Instead, what they would have is the power to hear grievances and order goopoo farcebook etc to restore pages and content they banned unless the content meets a very strict standard of hate speech such as an incitement to rebellion or such content as child porn or other things which would be clearly illegal.
    I would say make it a liar err lawyer free group. The purpose of the 51st member would be in case some one was unable to sit, or if two groups hearing nearly identical cases and arriving at different conclusions were to ever happen, he would join making an eleven member group which would then decide the fate of the cases.
    Any appeals would be heard by the full 51 members. No oral arguments, the evidence as to why the person or group was banned would all be submitted to the court, and the justices would review each case and render an individual verdict either ban upheld, or ban reversed and any commentary they felt was essential. Each judge would review the opinions expressed, then render a final verdict and the result would be announced. The internet Supreme court would not have power to levy fines, but would have the power to order restitution, especially in cases where people were demonetized.

    Right now the leftist extremists control content on many sites. A naysayer on a liberal site is banned and blocked that doesn't happen much on conservative sites, even the kook gadfly is allowed to spout his half baked drivel all day long... At least here.

  8. No need for all of that.

    Just begin prosecuting any and all that deny the 1st in any way, shape or form, and this shyte will end in short order.

    Start with the ckueless clown CEO of Twitter. He admitted what he is doing publicly.

    Then watch the other scramble for cover. We hardly need the first "new" law. We need proper enforcement of the myriad of laws we already have.

  9. a perfect world your thoughts would hold merit and as such in a perfect world we wouldn't even need a 51 member oversight.
    What you may be overlooking is a thing called lobbying of members and of course that old saw called human foibles.
    I believe that the founding fathers had a good plan and to their credit they tried to foresee the pitfalls. AS honorable men as they truly were, they were shackled by the glaring fact that in order for it to work, all men have to be honorable.
    Therein lies the rub.