Why EU Ministers should resign in shame.

Melissa Fleming, the UN’s under secretary general for global communications, said she was “deeply disturbed” by reports that journalists were being “arbitrarily” suspended from Twitter.

“Media freedom is not a toy,” she said. “A free press is the cornerstone of democratic societies and a key tool in the fight against harmful disinformation.”

Earlier on Friday, EU commissioner Vera Jourova threatened Twitter with sanctions under Europe’s new Digital Services Act which she said requires “the respect of media freedom and fundament rights”.

“Elon Musk should be aware of that. There are red lines. And sanctions, soon,” she added.

Banning Trump and conservatives … NOT a threat to democracy.
Banning DOXers … threat to democracy.

Lefties say private companies can ban whomever they want to … unless its Musk … then it is a political crime.

Is there a Minister of Hypocrisy?

Constitutional Principles on Free Speech

Question: If government agents are directing Twitter and Facebook to implement viewpoint discrimination [as part of government policy] in a public forum (i.e., public is invited to participate for free) does the constitutional guarantee of “equal treatment under the law” apply to their content?

Does meeting weekly with the government to obtain direction of what viewpoints to discriminate against constitute government directed viewpoint discrimination?

Today ACLJ announced they sent attorney to a school board that opened a public forum and then banned the pro-life speakers they had invited. Banned them totally!!! ACLJ attorney explained the law and the board reversed their decision. The government cannot engage in directing the content of speech because it is viewpoint discrimination. SCOTUS has ruled on this many times. Made me wonder about whether this government controlling twitter policy means twitter and facebook fall under the same law as school boards. Do they?

Hillary Denounces America?

News Headline:

Hillary Clinton: Overturning Roe v. Wade Puts US in Company of Sudan, Afghanistan.


Democrats, led by Hillary, would be on the side of Mocklin society on the issue of converting these children without their knowledge. THATS DEMOCRACY AS DEFINED BY HILLARY.

What in the heck is she talking about?

M-O-R-A-L-I-T-Y, thats what.

Lets put it in popular TV terms:

Consider The Orville, a popular TV Star Trek knock-off, complete with social commentary, In The Orville, a major theme was the revolution fought by a female Mocklin underground over the issue of infant female Mocklin babies being forceably converted to be male without their knowledge or consent. The Mocklin underground railroad had developed to rescue them. In the story the humans on the Orville participate in supporting the females who want to rescue natural born female children from this conversion by state actors.

In the story the planet Mocklin seeks to exterminate the females. When humans defended the females Mocklin went to war against the humans. They thought the humans were despicable barbarians (deplorables) for wanting to protect natural born females.

We see this morality play today as extremists claim America is barbarian for defending the innocent and claiming they have human rights that cannot be tread upon by the state. In the Marxist view of socialist democrats the state is all powerful and the state will define what is moral and what is not moral. That is the working definition of democracy according to the leftists.

This is a radical re-definition of what LIBERTY, FREEDOM, and DEMOCRACY actually mean.

The Constitution: Why a Republic?

Ever wonder about that?

Here is a resource on that subject.

Video by Robert George: The Constitution: Why a Republic

OK, I probably need to make a page to discuss what this 5 minute video says. Or I could review it here I guess.

I’m not sure I remember how to make a menu item that takes you to a video page on the topic of say, constitutional law. For right now I wanted to be able to post a link to the video on social media in a “write one post many” fashion.

Readers can watch the video if they wish.

The goal here is to never create content on other social media pages but instead to create it ONCE in my own space with my own commentary. Let facebook censor commentary on wordpress if they will. They might possibly do that. But this is a PUBLISHING PLATFORM not a file sharing platform. It is under FAIR USE rules in law. Facebook resident content is not under fair use law. Or any law. Facebook owns all content.



In Minnesota half the libertarians are athiests who constantly oppose Christian legislators and republican candidates. I don’t know about elsewhere around the country. But this is a form of populism in Minnesota.

Atheist Libertarians are not conservatives and they are anti-Christian. They don’t “shrug”. What they do is defeat conservatives in elections and guarantee marxists on the left side of the democrats get elected. They are a very strong faction in Minnesota. They gave us “marriage – equity” as a state supported institution. They support anything that is against Christian ideas or morals, all the while demanding “you have to be pure”. (Is that morality right there?)

Their core belief : LIBERTY === NO GOD.

Not all Libertarians are atheists. But they glom with them because they don’t understand that


I have been trying to figure out these folks for years:

From Aug 26, 2013:

Jason Lewis is bloviating nonsense again tonight, and he is both right and wrong. He is right about the english common law teaches the foundations of civilization – do what you say you will do (ie, perform on your contracts) and do no harm to others. IE, the golden rule. He is wrong that that is secular – because it is actually Christian. It doesnt exist in many other countries. He is also wrong in his contention it is enough. He went into moral teachings – saying that obligations to fellow humans do not exist, and the government and other institutions are propagating a false sense of moral obligation. He attacked Christianity. What he ignores is the founders (James Madison) taught that humans have a moral obligation (duty) to God (as citizens) , and that God can give them an obligation to their fellow man. His secular religion denies this latter, or at least fails to understand it. The attack on Christianity was particularly obnoxious.

From Aug 28, 2013:

Someone told me tonight that Jason Lewis is the one who started the importation of Ayn Rand into the world of the right wing extremist movement. Can that be true? A left wing fanatic (author of Atlas Shrugged) is the guru and goddess of the libertarian movement? And it’s Jason’s fault? Previously she was not an icon of the movement? I don’t know. Only in Minnesota. Its something in the glaciated water.

Does Ayn Rand really rule the MNGOP?

Red doesnt mean libertarian. Libertarians wont save America.

But on The Patriot (AM 1280) Minnesota libertarians preach that if you are opposed to “The Left” you are libertarian. And America is embracing the libertarian world view. This is based on a false dichotomy.

Jonathon Haight goes to great detail in his book to describe why libertarians have a completely different moral value system than do conservatives. They don’t even recognize conservatives are different than themselves. They think they are conservatives.

What the Am 1500 libertarian preacher said today is if you reject the left you are libertarian. I say, “No. Simply wrong. And naive as can be”.

The founding fathers made it very clear they thought America came to be because of Providence. In other words, God, and God’s provision for the human race. They viewed America as founded on the principles of Christianity.

Jefferson based Virginia laws on the Bible. On the Old Testament.

You are not going to hear that from libertarians or their high priestess Ayn Rand.

What you will hear instead is THE GREAT SILENCE about America’s foundational principles.

Religious freedom is one of the very first principles that gets short-sheeted when libertarians discuss values and world view. But religious freedom is fundamental to the gospel. As any bible believing person knows.

Bible believing people also know that freedom is derived from issues of conscience. And issues of conscience derive from God given religious freedom. This is why libertarian values sound hollow like a drum when they go on and on about “freedom versus oppression.”

The bible tells us that freedom to do whatever you want isn’t freedom at all – instead it is slavery. Slavery to sin and rebellion against God. Which leads to death, both earthly ephemeral and eternal.
How oppressive is that?

That is not in anybody’s “self interest”. Ayn Rand writes prolifically about “rational self interest”, but death ephemeral and death eternal is not in anybody’s rational self interest. In fact, it is completely irrational. And that is the true Achille’s heel of libertarianism.

The MN GOP needs to get a lot smarter about such things. And they need to start discussing world views and the beliefs of the founding fathers. Start with Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia Bills 82-86.

Why I am not a libertarian.

Reason #11727

9 Years ago I wrote the following:

What is a right? A right is a demand that one man makes upon another man who owes him a duty. This idea of rights did not exist in Greek culture. Neither did it exist in Roman culture. It came from Christianity after the Gregorian reform in 1075. Renaissance humanist culture argued against it.”

Then I heard libertarian theorist Jason Lewis preach that no human being owes any moral obligation to any other human being. That is a core tenet of libertarianism. Jason eventually became my local member of the Congress.

It was because of Jason’s belief that I began to reject Libertarianism because Libertarianism is obviously anti-conservative and also anti-inalienable rights. It is the opposite world view of Christianity just like Marxism and socialism are the opposite of Christianity. Libertarianism is the opposite of the teaching of James Madison.

This explains why it is that when a conservative quotes the founding fathers of America that libertarians become violently upset. Their upset was always a mystery to me. But it makes sense.

Libertarians are actually moral nihilists. They are devoid of any meaning or any values except narcissicism. This explains why their political movement focuses on being against others but never lists what they are for. They preach purity and purity tests. But purity only makes sense if you have a value to measure things against. And the only value Libertarians have is self interest, ie, narcissicism.
So they demand everyone must be purely self interested. That is the purity they value. They detest all else.

This is why they worship Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand said her philosophy is based on rational self interest. But that’s just fancy window dressing on self interest. In the end it is not rational to call for morals and rights and simultaneously deny any such thing even exists.

Reason #11728

Commensurate with the above I now realize Francis Schaeffer describes libertarian philosophy.

In Francis Schaeffer’s book The God Who is There Schaeffer describes the fundamental shift in the definition of truth that has led the modern world to despair. He describes the Line of Despair.
Libertarianism is a philosophy that falls below the line of despair. It is an anti-philosophy.

Cannot tell you what they are for?

Below the line of despair philosophies, e.g., anti-philosophies, can be experienced, but they cannot be communicated. They are a bit like an LSD trip. This is another reason why libertarians cannot describe what they are for. It is something that cannot really be described so another human can understand. To ask what they are for is a nonsense question. They do have a word for it. they call it freedom. Or liberty. But their liberty does not mean what a conservative means when she says the word liberty.