Dems Try to Censor Trump
Democratic presidential candidates are trying to censor President Trump and his spokesman, Rudy Giuliani, to prevent Trump from communicating with the American people. Kamala Harris is demanding that Trump’s Twitter account be suspended.
A half-century ago liberals pretended to be supporters of free speech, but now they are its biggest enemy. “His Twitter account should be suspended,” Democratic presidential wannabe Kamala Harris told CNN on September 30th.
“I think there is plenty of new evidence to suggest that he is irresponsible with his words in a way that could result in harm to other people. And so the privilege of using those words in that way should probably be taken from him,” she added.
Censorship is central to the liberal playbook to try to regain power, and then reshape America as the Far Left wants. Harris is echoing the views of Big Tech in California, which already censors ordinary Americans expressing conservative views.
Joe Biden just took that liberal censorship a step further by demanding that television networks refuse to allow Rudy Giuliani to speak in favor of Trump anymore. Even the leftwing Daily Beast admits that “rarely, if ever, has one campaign made an affirmative demand that a top aide to a rival candidate no longer be given a platform,” as Biden desperately insists.
Giuliani tweeted in response, “Think of the Biden arrogance and entitlement to protection. They believe they own the media and they are demanding that they silence me.”
“They know I have incriminating facts, not hearsay, because they know what they did in selling Joe’s office to a Ukrainian crook,” he added in reference to Biden, who has the most to lose in this brouhaha.
President Trump released the transcript of his phone call with the President of Ukraine, and yet Joe Biden continues to hide behind the concealment of transcripts of his conversations with Ukraine officials during which he may have improperly intervened on behalf of his son Hunter.
The Republican National Committee has called on Biden to release his call transcripts, so that the public can decide for itself how Biden misused his position of power for financial gain for his family. But there is no transparency by the Left while it demands answers by others.
Ukraine, which has been independent for more than a quarter century, should no longer be referred to as “the Ukraine” as though it were still a vassal state of the communist Soviet Union. Ukraine’s president has fully exonerated President Trump amid the false accusations by House Democrats.
But Trump is receiving less due process and constitutional rights here at home. “Like every American, I deserve to meet my accuser, especially when this accuser, the so-called ‘Whistleblower,’ represented a perfect conversation with a foreign leader in a totally inaccurate and fraudulent way,” he tweeted.
The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees the basic right of an accused to confront someone who makes accusations against him. Yet Trump is being denied this fundamental right while the Deep State circles its wagons to attain its goal of bringing down the president.
It does not matter to the Trump haters that a nothing- burger is at the center of this phony scandal. In this power struggle, Trump’s enemies care little about what the facts are, and instead try to use the process to swing public opinion in their direction.
But Trump’s political base remains rock solid, and smears from the Left are not going to alienate his longtime supporters. Trump himself shows no signs of backing down, and he is often at his best when under political attack.
The liberal Democrats have given Trump the means by which he can galvanize the American people, who are already fed up with the inside-the-Beltway mentality that prevails in the halls of Congress. Trump tweeted out a map of American counties which voted for him in 2016, and it is a massive sea of red showing his broad support.
Yet little can stop the insatiable desire of a lynch mob, which is what House Democrats have become. Ironically the biggest victim of their renewed witch hunt may be the only person thought to have a chance to defeat Trump next year: Joe Biden.
Biden’s political fortunes are being badly sullied by the mud that splatters backward onto him. It is a sign of desperation that his campaign feels the need to censor Rudy Giuliani on television, lest he embarrass Biden further with revelations about Biden’s misconduct in connection with Ukraine.
Giuliani is making up for all his prior missteps in fending off the same sharks who previously circled Trump for prior non-issues. Censorship of one’s political opponents is not something Trump would ever do, but his Democratic rivals think that censorship is the only way they can win.
Trump Debunks Globalism at UN
President Trump’s third speech to the United Nations in as many years was a stirring rebuke of globalism. He made the compelling case for an end to the push for a borderless world.
At the 74th United Nations General Assembly in New York, Trump explained how nationalism is good for everyone. By focusing on the people within their own countries, leaders around the globe can bring prosperity worldwide while preserving what is cherished about each nation.
“The future does not belong to globalists – the future belongs to patriots,” Trump explained. “The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors, and honor the differences that make each country special and unique.”
He is the first American President to call out the pernicious influence of globalism: “Globalism exerted a religious pull over past leaders, causing them to ignore their own national interests.” That harmful pull by the “religion” of globalism has misguided past Democratic and Republican presidents alike, he could have added.
One of the harms of globalism, Trump explained, has been the support for perpetual or endless wars. Instead, he observed, “The United States has never believed in permanent enemies.”
“Many of America’s closest friends today were once our gravest foes.” Included in the list of the “gravest foes” would be England, Germany and Japan, all of which are now among our closest allies.
Trump lambasted mass migration, by which illegal immigrants flood a peaceful nation and overrun it with crime, demands for entitlements, and hardships. “Mass illegal migration is unfair, unsafe, and unsustainable for everyone involved,” Trump pointed out.
“The sending countries and the depleted countries – and they’ve become depleted very fast – their youth is not taken care of and human capital goes to waste,” he added. In the United States, “we have taken very unprecedented action to stop the flow of illegal immigration.”
Trump sent a strong message against migration as prior presidents of both parties should have stood for, but none did. “To anyone considering crossing our border illegally, please hear these words: Do not pay the smugglers.”
Trump’s political foes already mischaracterize his speech as somehow being “aggressive” or “red meat” for Trump’s base, as Politico.com put it. But there was nothing aggressive or politicized about Trump’s remarks, which reflect his long-held views and what he was elected to do.
The Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, profusely praised Trump at a massive rally of 50,000 people in a football stadium in Houston on September 22. Modi is one of many world leaders who support Trump.
Trump’s rejection of globalism included a warning to China about how it handles unrest in Hong Kong. “How China chooses to handle the situation will say a great deal about its role in the world in the future.”
Likewise, Trump mentioned the despair in Venezuela as an illustration “that socialism and communism are not about justice, they are not about equality, they are not about lifting up the poor, and they are certainly not about the good of the nation. Socialism and Communism are about one thing only: power for the ruling class.”
The largest neighbor of Venezuela is Brazil, which is led by another outspoken supporter of Trump. Jair Bolsonaro, who addressed the UN before Trump, has previously praised Trump’s opposition to illegal immigration and wants “to have a great Brazil just like Trump wants to have a great America.”
Trump found time during his speech to call out the media and liberal universities. “Media and academic institutions push flat-out assaults on our histories, traditions and values,” Trump rightly observed.
Trump again exceeded expectations by being the finest advocate for the unborn to ever reside in the White House. He told the UN that “Americans will also never tire of defending innocent life,” and criticized how “many United Nations projects have attempted to assert a global right to taxpayer-funded abortion on demand – right up until the moment of delivery.”
While Trump says and does what he promised as a candidate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has meanwhile caved into the far left of the Democratic Party. The same day Trump was speaking to world leaders at the UN, Pelosi opened an impeachment investigation to improperly try to weaken his authority.
The timing of Pelosi’s unpatriotic act could not have been more inappropriate. She chose the same day as Trump’s speech to the UN to try to undermine him with the politically motivated impeachment inquiry.
Globalism is a stepchild of communism, and neither should be the future. All nations should take Trump’s words to heart about making their own countries great again, and some already are.
Statehood for the Swamp?
Constitution Day, September 17, marks the day in 1787 when representatives of the newly independent states along the Atlantic seacoast agreed to form a new Constitution on behalf of “We the People of the United States.” George Washington, who had presided over the contentious convention in Independence Hall in Philadelphia, transmitted the finished document to the states for ratification.
A 2005 federal law sponsored by the most senior Democrat in the Senate, Robert C. Byrd, requires all federal agencies and schools that receive federal funds to teach about the Constitution on this day. Yet many agencies and schools have defied that law by criticizing, attacking and undermining the fundamental document that was dedicated “to form a more perfect union.”
One such lawless federal agency is the District of Columbia itself, the wholly owned enclave on the Potomac River which comprises the seat of our national government. The mayor, delegate, and other officials, whose high salaries are indirectly paid by taxpayers throughout the nation, are celebrating Constitution Day by trying to overturn the very provision that created Washington, D.C.
H.R. 51, a bill to make the District of Columbia the 51st state, was introduced on the first day of the new Democrat-controlled Congress by Eleanor Holmes Norton, who has been D.C.’s non-voting Delegate for the past 29 years. The House Oversight and Reform Committee, chaired by Elijah Cummings of Baltimore, plans to hear testimony from Mayor Muriel Bowser and other D.C. officials.
The partisan purpose of such a move is to give Democrats in Congress two new liberal senators and one new seat in the House. The territory cast 93 percent of its votes for Hillary Clinton and only 4 percent for Donald Trump, and the Democratic Party would ensure that only very liberal politicians would represent it in Congress.
The decision to put our national government in its own separate territory, outside the boundaries of any state, was one of the pivotal compromises essential to reaching agreement at the Philadelphia convention in 1787. Perhaps James Madison foresaw the dangers of giving the “swamp” power when he wrote in Federalist No. 43 that it was an “indispensable necessity” to prevent U.S. government officials from becoming dependent on local residents who would wield too much influence.
Statehood for D.C. is not a new idea. One prior effort sought to rename D.C. as the State of New Columbia, but political correctness today prevents naming anything after Christopher Columbus anymore!
As the longstanding “delegate” from D.C. to Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton can already serve on committees and speak on the House floor. She has federally funded offices and an official website at house.gov just like the real congressmen who represent the 50 states.
She already calls herself a “Congresswoman” and she takes positions on pending legislation, such as working against a pro-life bill introduced by Congressman Chris Smith to limit the funding of abortion in D.C. Her background includes signing the “Black Woman’s Manifesto,” which in 1970 expressed views of radical feminism and blamed capitalism for oppressing women and minorities.
She has been a supporter of legislation expanding abortion and even prohibiting states from limiting it. She has received the endorsement of EMILY’s List, a PAC that supports the election of politicians who want unrestricted, taxpayer-funded access to abortion.
Eleanor Holmes Norton is not a full voting member of Congress, at least not yet. But she would probably become one, perhaps even in the U.S. Senate, if H.R. 51 ever became law.
More than 200 congressmen, all Democrats, co- sponsor her bill to create a new state called the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth. The proposed name does not even sound like a real state, but political correctness run amok.
Many of the arguments for making D.C. a new state could apply to Puerto Rico and other commonwealths and territories of the United States. But the case for D.C. statehood is much weaker, because the Constitution specifically envisioned a neutral location for the federal government.
Washington’s 68 square miles were voluntarily conceded by Maryland to the United States for use as our nation’s capital, not to create a new state having equal power as itself. If the real desire is to provide representation in Congress for those who live within D.C., then the Maryland delegation could represent the people of D.C., too.
Following the admission of Hawaii and Alaska as states, the Democratic senators from Hawaii are offset by Republican senators from Alaska. Empowering the Swamp with two partisan Democratic senators by making D.C. a state is both unconstitutional and contrary to the interests of all 50 states.
Break Up the Tech Behemoths
Monopoly is the popular board game where players win by monopolizing property and overcharging rivals who land there. A monopoly in business has a similar effect by stamping out competition which would benefit consumers.
Google has more than 92% of the worldwide market for internet searches, far above what constitutes a monopoly. Most people on the internet see only what Google puts before them.
Google’s monopoly power is greater than that of John D. Rockefeller’s oil trust of a century ago, and in some ways worse because of its control of information. The landmark Sherman Act, passed by a Republican Congress in 1890, is the tool that authorized busting up the Rockefeller trust and modern ones like it.
If you’re wondering what happened to your daily newspaper or your access to online conservative videos and websites, the reason is Google and its Silicon Valley neighbor, Facebook. Those two companies, which also own YouTube and Instagram, soak up advertiser dollars that once supported thousands of independent newspapers and magazines.
The 1911 breakup of John D. Rockefeller’s monopoly over the oil business boosted our economy, creating competition among over a dozen newly formed rivals. Record-breaking prosperity then followed for our country in the Roaring Twenties.
The conservative approach is not to regulate corporations, but to break up monopolies and then get out of their way. Let competition thrive and perform its magic, as it has in driving down airline ticket prices.
Fifty Attorneys General representing 48 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have just launched an overdue, bipartisan probe into Google’s monopoly practices. Google responded, “We have always worked constructively with regulators and we will continue to do so.”
But Google misses the point. Attorneys General do not and should not be looking to regulate Google, but simply to end its monopoly.
When AT&T controlled 80 percent of local telephone service and nearly 100 percent of intercity communications, it was broken into 7 “Baby Bells,” each serving a different region of the country. The spin- offs added up to much more than the whole, and experts were astounded when the regional Baby Bells soon outperformed the original, national telephone company.
Verizon, for example, was one of the Baby Bells which excelled in the growing wireless market, doing better than its parent. Hard work and innovation created rewards for managers and staff alike, which would never have happened if the old “Ma Bell” had not been dissolved.
Similarly, Google and Facebook could be broken into pieces by region or functionality. A southern Google would add healthy competition to the California Google by not discriminating against conservative videos and websites.
James Damore, the talented engineer fired by Google for expressing his conservative views in a manifesto criticizing “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” could then take his innovative ideas to a southern Google and look forward to competing against his former employer. Or Google could be split based on functionality, allowing rivals to compete with it for mapping, consumer reviews, and other services. Advertising dollars could then be spread around, rather than all flowing into a black hole in California.
Dismantling Google and other Big Tech behemoths would enable tech wages to start rising again, after decades of stagnation. Silicon Valley companies had an improper secret agreement not to compete for high-tech talent, which has kept salaries lower than they would be in a competitive market.
Facebook should be dismantled too, after demonstrating that it will censor viewpoints to appease its liberal California base. In early September, eight states plus D.C. declared that they have launched an investigation into possible antitrust violations by Facebook.
Libertarian ideologues cringe at such investigations, arguing that antitrust law is an improper intrusion by government into the free market. But competition is the oxygen for free enterprise, and prohibiting anti- competitive business practices which rob consumers of choices is as important as stopping burglary.
Monopolies like Google cause a vast disparity between the rich and the middle class, a gap which liberals like to criticize everywhere except in their own backyard. Without the suffocating Big Tech monopolies, Texas and other red states have a growing middle class with affordable housing and schools.
Google and Facebook executives openly regretted how their platforms helped to elect Donald Trump in 2016, and they are determined to prevent that from happening again in 2020. We wouldn’t let AT&T control who can use the telephone, and we can’t allow Google and Facebook to shut Trump supporters out of their networks.
