Comments posted organically Homepage
Display Order:

Voters Doubt Biden’s Leadership and Favor Trump, Times/Siena Poll Finds
President by HatetheSwamp     March 3, 2024 4:06 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [1 views]

US says Israel has agreed to the framework for a Gaza cease-fire. Hamas must now decide
Military by HatetheSwamp     March 3, 2024 3:30 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [6 views]

The Conservative Justices on the Supreme Court Hold the Record as the World's Most Expensive Whores...
Crime by Ponderer     February 29, 2024 10:35 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (39 comments) [339 views]

James Comer is not sure an impeachment of Biden is warranted
Politics by Curt_Anderson     March 1, 2024 4:25 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (12 comments) [105 views]

James Comer has been big on promises, short on delivery. MAGA is feeling let down.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     March 1, 2024 1:28 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (6 comments) [80 views]

Bad news for the Doddering Old Fool: Polls stagnant since the Hur Report
President by HatetheSwamp     March 2, 2024 4:57 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (4 comments) [27 views]

Rep. Lauren Boebert's son Tyler allegedly made a sex tape with co-defendant
Crime by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 11:24 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (11 comments) [172 views]

Ex-Jim Biden business partner disputes loan testimony before Congress
Crime by HatetheSwamp     March 2, 2024 3:07 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments) [18 views]

So, Curt, can you still say that there's "NO EVIDENCE" that Joe was involved in the Crime Family?
Crime by HatetheSwamp     March 1, 2024 6:33 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (15 comments) [113 views]

Oversight and Judiciary Committees Release Hunter Biden Transcript
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 5:51 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (13 comments) [100 views]

Government selectors, pages, etc.
Recent Declarations of Restraint
By oldedude
July 8, 2023 1:30 pm
Category: Government

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

I know this is a long article. My apologies up front. I'm about 99% sure Lead and curt would be the only ones that would click to read the article. And, I figured if isle could post someone else's thoughts, I would give it a try.

I think this encapsulates the essence of what lead and I have been talking about the days around the recent SCOTUS decisions. Agree or not, this is what half the country believes in, and talks about what the other half wants in our government.

The Supreme Court recently sent shockwaves through the federal bureaucracy. Then on Independence Day, as if possessed by the Spirit of ’76, a federal judge put into place a temporary injunction against the government colluding with social media companies to silence law-abiding citizens. These decisions all add up to a firm assertion, one might even say declaration, that restraint – the governing principle advocated for even by the founding generation’s “big government” crowd – is still the backbone of our society.

The advocates for a stronger central government in 1787 were legends – James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay – making the case that a loose confederation of states simply couldn’t hold together. Their vision seems quaint now. Their arguments for just enough government to unify the states without infringing on individual liberty would, today, be pilloried as hateful, regressive and, in the words of today’s left, Ultra MAGA by progressives who see government as the only solution to address a laundry list of demands.

For one, progressives demand that government police social media not only for illegal behavior, but for mean things being said. Madison, Hamilton, and Jay faced people saying mean things about them too. While not explicitly spelled out in the Federalist Papers, I think their take on mean people saying mean things can be summed up as favoring a “sticks and stones” approach.

The government championed by the founding fathers means to protect freedom, not to arbitrate it, choose sides, or otherwise limit personal liberty. Our Declaration of Independence was made by the colonies to separate from England, but it was also made on behalf of the people against tyranny however manifested — including from the government the founders intended to create out of the ashes. The Constitution sought to mold that ideal into workable government.

Social media would be a better place if people read Madison, Jay, and Hamilton’s Federalist Papers before commenting about politics and government on social media. But it’s not a requirement, and there’s no right that protects citizens from being subjected to mean words. Our system provides for free speech, and demands government restraint just as much as it favors individual liberty. The Courts’ decisions reinforce this at a time when the connection between today’s government and the intent of the founders is growing tenuous.

First, the court struck down affirmative action in college admissions. The 14th amendment’s Equal Protection Clause protects everyone from discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity, religion, etc. At some point the left decided that wasn’t good enough. Government became the only answer. Freedom isn’t the goal, they say. Equality is the goal. They get to define equality and arm the government squash dissent and force corrective action (that is, “good” discrimination) upon its people in its name. The Supreme Court rightly sided with Madison, Jay, and Hamilton.

The court also re-affirmed free speech under the First Amendment. The government, the court ruled, cannot force a private citizen to hold or promote a view. If you don’t want to make a wedding website for a couple because of your closely held beliefs – you don’t have to do so. If the Kaepernick Bakery doesn’t want to make a Betsy Ross flag cake, it too has the right to refuse. The beauty of the federal court’s social media injunction is that we can even call business owners names on social media and the government can’t stop us. Another win for government restraint.

Finally, the court ruled that the President can’t ignore Congress. Congress requires students who take loans to pay them back. Joe Biden sought to bypass Congress and transfer much of that debt from the students to taxpayers. The separation of powers is a pretty fundamental concept in our system. President Biden would defend his position as necessary to help indebted college graduates, but it’s not necessary. Working within the bounds of the Constitution — practicing restraint — is necessary.

The problem with a big government ideology is that there are endless real and perceived injustices which seem to justify a governmental response. People using social media to attack others are bad people. Restraint isn’t easy. It’s natural to want to do something about it, to use the government as a proactive tool — often a hammer. Each individual act by the government is an isolated strike on a nail in the name of equality, the little man, or whomever else is deemed the beneficiary. Taken together, it’s government-run-amok and it sets us on the dark path towards tyranny.

The Federalist Papers were written by three guys in favor of just enough central government. We’re way past just enough today with self-labeled blue-ribbon, inter-agency commissions built to justify whatever it is the government is trying to do. Or worse yet, unelected bureaucrats and federal law enforcement seeking to collude with social media platforms to limit speech without even trying to make a case for it being right. We should be thankful for Federal Judges and the Justices of the Supreme Court, but we need even more Madison’s, Jay’s, and Hamilton’s today; or perhaps another Jefferson to write a new declaration – of restraint.

Cited and related links:


Comments Start Below

The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Recent Declarations of Restraint":

  1. by Curt_Anderson on July 8, 2023 2:33 pm
    What you and Matt Dole call "colluding" is the government suggesting that social media not publish certain claims. Obviously some social and other media ignored the governments advice. I have not read that any government agency was heavy-handed or threatened any media. I believe this was about anti-vaxxer claims regarding COVID. But what if it were about military secrets, ongoing police investigations or matters involving the intelligence community? Is there never a time that government for the public good might suggest to media organizations that they exercise restraint in what they publish?

    The awful quadruple homicide of college students in Moscow Idaho comes to mind. The police there pretended they didn't have a lead or a clue as to who their prime suspect was. In fact, the guy (Kohlberger?) was being tracked all the way back to Pennsylvania. I can imagine the police chief requesting that the local newspaper not report it, even if their investigation progress was leaked.

    It's up to media companies whether to ignore the government's advice or not. But the news and social media has the responsibility to be good citizens.

    Paradoxically, the judge (representing the government) is in fact stifling free speech by telling governmental agencies what they can and cannot say and to whom. Even the government has First Amendment rights.

  2. by HatetheSwamp on July 8, 2023 2:38 pm

    Thanks, OD. Good stuff.

    The people griping about the recent controversial decisions don't seem to care about individual liberties. What's more, they want the President...when the President is a be free to function as a dictator and DC bureaucrats to execute progressive whim, without restraint.

    They like to claim this is a democracy but don't try to legislate. They groove on presidential, bureaucratic and judicial foisting, no matter what the will of the people may be.

    For the moment, we're in good hands with this Court defending the Constitution, protecting individual liberty and limiting governmental intrusion into our lives.

  3. by Indy! on July 8, 2023 3:00 pm

    Call me when the Supreme Clowns step in to make all those PPP recipients in Congress (and some family members of the Clowns themselves if memory serves) pay back their "loans" too. The fact the MAGAts feel the need to start writing apology articles for the Clowns because of all their lopsided Constitutionally faulty decisions since the rapist and the other unqualified poseurs infected our nation's formally highest Court tells us everybody including the clueless right knows what a sham that "institution" has become.

  4. by oldedude on July 8, 2023 3:55 pm
    curt- Paradoxically, the judge (representing the government) is in fact stifling free speech by telling governmental agencies what they can and cannot say and to whom. Even the government has First Amendment rights.

    In the cases of not telling news agencies information on a case. That is a valid argument. Classified information is "Classified" by definition. If its released to the public still classified and non-redacted, that's the fault of the person that released/ leaked it and that event should be handled as the law states.

    The government doesn't have the right to censure individuals. This would include what the government might consider "misinformation." The biden administration has stated they are going after those spreading "misinformation." “In terms of actions […] that we have taken or we’re working to take, I should say, from the federal government. We’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General’s Office. We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation,” said Ms. Psaki.

    The following day, the press secretary elaborated on the White House’s position, saying that users who post “misinformation” should be banned on every social media platform. When asked by a reporter, President Biden even went as far as to accuse Facebook and other social media platforms of “killing people.”

  5. by oldedude on July 8, 2023 3:58 pm
    The issue with the student loan repayments is that pedojoe spent a huge amount of money without getting the money from congress, where it has to come from. Nothing else.

  6. by Curt_Anderson on July 8, 2023 4:18 pm
    "The government doesn't have the right to censure individuals." --OD

    From what I read, the government did not censor anybody. They apparently suggested, maybe even strongly suggested, that social media not promote or publish what the government deemed to be falsehoods. But the offending information was not censored.

    There are laws against prank 911 calls and against "swatting". The punishment is prison and a fine. That is censorship. Book banning is censorship if the government puts teeth behind it (firing librarians and teachers, cutting off school funds, etc.)

    I predict that we have not heard the end of this. I expect it will be appealed and the case will be heard in another court.

  7. by oldedude on July 8, 2023 5:34 pm
    Taking people off social media for "disinformation" IS censorship. When the oversight agency that has the ability and authority to make life very difficult for you to operate tells you to put this in your algorithm, you do it.

    Read above. Psaki acknowledged they were doing it.

  8. by Curt_Anderson on July 8, 2023 6:10 pm
    The government didn’t make life miserable for any social media. Social media responded in different ways and to different degrees as to what misinformation they allowed. Twitter reverted to anything goes. Some never stopped misinformation

    So where is the censorship?

  9. by Curt_Anderson on July 8, 2023 6:30 pm
    The judge's ruling says it all. The CDC and NIH cannot even "encourage" the "reduction" of misinformation in the interest of the public good. What is next? The health department cannot tell the public about an outbreak of food poisoning with a certain food product?

    In the ruling, Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana said that parts of the government, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, could not talk to social media companies for "the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech."

  10. by Indy! on July 8, 2023 7:41 pm

    Actually twitter just reversed course when Musk took over. Instead of kicking off the Trumpers, they're kicking off the lefties because Musk is a MAGAt.

  11. by oldedude on July 8, 2023 8:22 pm
    Missouri Attorney General Releases More Documents Exposing White House's Social Media Censorship Scheme
    i>Exhibits include:

  12. • The White House asks Twitter to censor Robert Kennedy, Jr., a known critic of the White House’s COVID-19 narrative
  13. • The White House directs Facebook to shut down conservative voices Tucker Carlson and Tomi Lahren
  14. • White House Digital Director Flaherty scolds Facebook, saying that he “really couldn’t care less about products unless they’re having measurable impact” at suppressing speech
  15. • Flaherty informs Facebook that “misinformation around the vaccine” is “a concern shared at the highest (and I mean highest) level of the WH”
  16. • Flaherty demands that Facebook to step up its operations of “removing bad information” on vaccines
  17. • In regard to “anti-vax” posts, Flaherty tells Facebook that “slowing it down seems reasonable”
  18. • Facebook assures Flaherty that “in addition to removing vaccine misinformation, we have been focused on reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation,” including “often-true content”
  19. • Flaherty vehemently disagrees with Facebook’s decision not to take down a Tucker Carlson video on COVID-19 vaccines, stating “not for nothing but last time we did this dance, it ended in an insurrection”
  20. • Flaherty tells Twitter that “if your product is appending misinformation to our tweets that seems like a pretty fundamental issue”
  21. • Facebook assures Flaherty that they “remove claims public health authorities tell us have been debunked or are unsupported by evidence”
  22. • Flaherty accuses Twitter of “Total Calvinball” and “bending over backwards” to tolerate disfavored speech after Twitter refuses to comply with White House demands to censor a video.

    Missouri v. Biden was filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana on May 5, 2022. They filed for a Motion for Expedited Preliminary Injunction-Related Discovery on June 17, 2022, and that motion was granted on July 12, 2022, clearing the way for Missouri and Louisiana to gather discovery and documents from Biden Administration and social media companies.<

    From the National Archives Records of the Office of Censorship

    CNN: Elon Musk says Twitter has ‘no actual choice’ about government censorship requests

    Bloomberg columnist Matthew Yglesias on Sunday tweeted an article suggesting that Twitter has complied with a majority of government takedown requests since Musk took over as the platform’s owner. Musk replied: “Please point out where we had an actual choice and we will reverse it.”

    EL PAÍS (English)
    Since Elon Musk acquired Twitter in a tumultuous $44 billion deal completed last October, the social network has turned down very few requests for content restriction or censorship from countries like Turkey and India, which have recently passed laws limiting freedom of speech and the press.

  23. by Curt_Anderson on July 8, 2023 8:41 pm
    Conservatives are such fragile snowflakes if they think these benign requests are censorship.
    "The White House asks Twitter", "Flaherty tells Twitter", "Flaherty vehemently disagrees with Facebook", "Flaherty tells Facebook", "Flaherty informs Facebook", "Flaherty scolds Facebook"...

  24. by oldedude on July 8, 2023 9:01 pm
    Did you put your jackboots on just to say that? You really need a new writer. This one is boring. He has ZERO originality and is just able to parrot what others tell him to. You might want to buy a brain.

  25. by Curt_Anderson on July 8, 2023 9:46 pm
    Judge Doughty is not only likely to have his ruling overturned, he is a hypocrite. He is guilty of suppressing of what he claimed was "misleading and false information".

    Judge Doughty tries to discredit newspapers' reports
    In a recent complaint with a body that investigates complaints against lawyers, Fifth Judicial District Court Judge Terry Doughty claimed controversy stemming from his role in two lawsuits only came to light in The Franklin Sun because a Monroe attorney was involved in writing the news reports and publishing them.

    Doughty specifically claimed that news reports in The Franklin Sun and its sister newspaper, The Ouachita Citizen in West Monroe, included "misleading and false information" in spite of the newspapers's observing proceedings in open court, obtaining public records from local clerk of court offices and Doughty's own testimony in court.

    Doughty's accusations against the two newspapers formed part of an ethical conduct complaint against Sedric Banks, an attorney in Monroe. Doughty wants the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board to bring charges against Banks, who has argued two separate cases in the Fifth Judicial District and sought to recuse Doughty from presiding over both of them.

  26. by Indy! on July 8, 2023 9:48 pm

    Comical that the MAGAts are concerned about "censorship" when all news is controlled by their people and outside of some harmless divide and conquer issues like gay rights, leftist views are totally verboten in the major media. Even the "furthest left" like AOC (snicker) are not even allowed to say the words "universal healthcare" or "medicare for all" anymore. There is absolutely no negative viewpoints on Ukraine allowed to be discussed at any time, anywhere. A 20 year war was shut down, which we lost in absolutely DRAMATIC faashion and we left behind billions in unattended arms that could be used by any terrorist group in the world - and there has been not a peep of discussion about anyone "failing" or losing their job for the biggest foreign policy blunder in history. Sidebar - this is what "responsibility", "hard work" and "being held accountable" amounts to in the military - words that mean absolutely nothing. Yet OD and the other MAGAts are concerned about twitter and Facebook possibly restricting meaningless chit-chat about RFK - a candidate they would never want to see elected in a million years. Go on, tell me how important this is, OD -write another 1000 words about nothing of import. Your fake meth lab stories are more far more relevant in the scheme of things. 🙄

  27. by oldedude on July 8, 2023 10:07 pm
    It's more fun to talk about your mom.

  28. by Indy! on July 9, 2023 12:32 am

    Welfare queen says what?

  29. by HatetheSwamp on July 9, 2023 3:31 am

    Amusing exchange guys but, Curt?

    Even the government has First Amendment rights.

    See!!!! This is what I mean when I say sometimes I don't know if you're joshin. In this case, I hope you are.

    The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to define liberties individuals have from governmental intrusion into their lives. The government has no First Amendment rights. That's, as po'd say, the effin point.


    C'mon buddy!

  30. by oldedude on July 9, 2023 5:32 am
    Neither one of them understands the difference between the government's right to hold classified information and stomping on the rights of citizens (and non-citizens) in their rights to speech and religion. It's all okay until they get their eye poked out.

    Right now I'm just considering their sources of make-believe information. This is very much like the brown shirts going in and destroying printing presses producing things the government didn't "approve" of.

  31. by Curt_Anderson on July 9, 2023 8:55 am
    I wonder if you are joshing or not when you claim not to know or grasp simple constitutional concepts.

    “Under Supreme Court First Amendment precedent, government speech is a relatively simple doctrine. In short, government can say whatever it wants. (In other words, the Free Speech Clause does not restrict government speech).”

  32. by HatetheSwamp on July 9, 2023 9:35 am

    That's not the same thing. The First Amendment guarantees individual freedom from government intrusion.

    It restricts government. The government receives no rights from the First Amendment.

  33. by Curt_Anderson on July 9, 2023 9:54 am
    The government is comprised of individuals. Those individuals have first amendment rights just like the rest of us. It is not censorship or suppression to simply ask that social media exercise some responsibility in the promotion of misinformation. Judge Doughty said in his decision, which is likely to be overturned, that government cannot even “encourage” social media to do the right thing. That is a classic example of prior constraint.

  34. by oldedude on July 9, 2023 9:54 am
    Lead- completely agree. The onus and responsibility is on the government NOT to restrict the rights of the people. The government's responsibility is to tell the truth to the people.

    Curt- How did you come upon that? You said just the opposite of what SCOTUS said. I'd be interested.

  35. by Curt_Anderson on July 9, 2023 10:08 am
    I cited my sources including the American Bar Association. SCOTUS has not ruled that government cannot even "encourage" the "reduction" of misinformation.

  36. by oldedude on July 9, 2023 10:46 am
    As well you did. My bad. You also didn't read on. I parceled this out for easier reading.

    But the doctrine’s simplicity can be deceiving, especially in the context of some of today’s hot button issues.

    But even though the Free Speech Clause does not restrict government speech, there may be other constitutional restraints on government speech.

    For example, government speech cannot violate the Establishment Clause.
    So while the government can say whatever it wants under the Free Speech Clause, it may be restrained in what it can say under the Establishment Clause (or some other constitutional provision).

    But the government can’t do whatever it wants, not even at a time of great anxiety and insecurity. In fact, there are several things that the government is expressly prohibited from doing under any circumstances.

    The government may not infringe on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” It may not violate the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Nor may it deprive any person “of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

    These are just a few of the explicit limitations on government action—a few of Americans’ core civil liberties—listed in the Bill of Rights. They are not negotiable. Yet many of the legislative proposals that have emerged in recent days run roughshod over these basic constitutional rights.

    One such measure would give law enforcement agencies power to access Americans’ internet browsing history and email metadata—which can be analyzed to reveal intimate details about a person’s life—without a warrant, probable cause, or judicial review by a federal court.

  37. by oldedude on July 9, 2023 10:50 am
    Curt- as you can see, I'm having issues with single click vs double click on the posting. It's an issue with my trackball. Hopefully it'll be fixed soon.

  38. by Curt_Anderson on July 9, 2023 11:31 am
    Do you agree or disagree that even in the interest of the public good, government cannot "encourage" the "reduction" of what they consider false or misinformation.

    Yes, or no and why?

  39. by oldedude on July 9, 2023 1:45 pm
    Do you agree or disagree that even in the interest of the public good, government cannot "encourage" the "reduction" of what they consider false or misinformation.

    The question for me is Do I trust the government enough to let them choose what is "disinformation" and not. My answer is, not in a million years.* I do believe they should put their best information forward, argue the case openly, and speak their defence." I can make up my own mind about many things. They violated religious freedom in the federal, many states and local jurisdictions. That's their choice. What I agree or disagree with are immaterial.

    *COVID proved that. All the things vaxers laughed at have turned out to be pretty much true.
    Distancing was a SWAG and that was it. Zero science behind it.
    The masks they said were "okayed" aren't.
    Masking children put us at least 2 years behind in most school districts.
    Lockdowns were absolutely stupid. Especially where there was lots of sunshine, something known to work, but it was too easy and big pharma didn't make any money from it.

  40. by HatetheSwamp on July 9, 2023 2:05 pm

    Yeah, OD.

    The Founders were less than a decade and a half away from all of the tyranny of the King that created the revolution. Through the Bill of Rights, they gifted our citizens with freedom from the inevitable intrusion of the government.

    And, I'm with them. Wholeheartedly.

  41. by oldedude on July 9, 2023 2:49 pm
    First, curt- I'm pretty sure you'll disagree with me. That's okay, if you could provide me with your example when they should step in, I'll take a look at it.

    Lead, I guess after living in countries where there are none of our freedoms, it makes a huge difference how you look at their lives and ours. What we complain about vs what they DON'E complain about.

  42. by Curt_Anderson on July 9, 2023 3:45 pm
    OD, HtS,
    So your view is that government should not even encourage social media to reduce the spread misinformation. I disagree with you but you have the right to your opinion.

    Trump as president and since has complained about “fake news” going so far as to sue CNN and others. He has strongly discouraged unflattering news reports about him. I don’t recall your complaining he was violating the news media’s first amendment rights.

  43. by oldedude on July 9, 2023 3:58 pm
    Okay, you took it to another level than I did. He whined about it. The question is, did he take action to censor people. If he did and you can show it, fine. It's that act of censorship I have an issue with. I said the government could (ans should) lay their case out, and give opinions and counters to what they consider misinformation. Whining about it, is the way he does that. But again, if you can show that his whining is libelous according to the law (e.g. who is suing him for him censoring them according to the constitution), go for it.

  44. by Curt_Anderson on July 9, 2023 4:50 pm
    "The question is, did he [Trump] take action to censor people. If he did and you can show it, fine. It's that act of censorship I have an issue with." --OD

    Judge Doughty said in his ruling governmental agencies cannot even "encourage" media to reduce misinformation. Trump certainly has a history of "urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech." Based on Judge Doughty's ruling and apparently your view, Trump was guilty of "censoring" the media. I disagree with that opinion. That is not to say I agree with Trump's constant denigration of the news media. The CDC, NIH or any governmental agency did not do more than ask social media to curtail disinformation. They certainly didn't do any more than Trump with his demands and whining about media.

    "That's okay, if you could provide me with your example when they should step in, I'll take a look at it." --OD

    These are not necessarily examples of when I think government should step in, but they are all relevant.

    White House Asked FBI To Publicly Refute Reports Trump Associates Had Russia Contacts
    The [Trump] administration is pushing back on a CNN report that White House officials "sought the help."

    Senate Republicans push back on Tucker Carlson's claims about Jan. 6 assault: "Just a lie"
    Washington — Senate Republicans on Tuesday refuted Fox News host Tucker Carlson's portrayal of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, saying his characterization of the events as "mostly peaceful" is at odds with the reality they experienced as a mob of former President Donald Trump's supporters breached the building.

    National Guard refutes Russian state media reports that falsely claim Tennessee National Guard members killed in Ukraine
    This afternoon the Russian media outlet “Pravda” falsely reported that three members of the Tennessee National Guard, which it labeled as “mercenaries” were killed while fighting in Ukraine.

    The reporting by “Pravda” is patently false.

    Haverford cops refute ‘predator’ e-mail claim
    HAVERFORD — Police officials are attempting to quell rumors that a “predator” is targeting children in the township. According to Sgt. Michael Glenn, the police department has been inundated with calls concerning an e-mail that has been circulating throughout the township about a man targeting children. “That civilian e-mail is misleading, inaccurate and wrong. The department wants to assure residents that there is not a predator targeting children in the township as that incorrect e-mail has stated,” Glenn said.

  45. by oldedude on July 9, 2023 5:35 pm
    None of those coherse or censor any of those. In addition, I refuted you saying that bitching about what people said is either of those. I believe that all parties in a "debate" have an obligation to voice their stance, even if it's a whiny little butthead.
    Re: the DOJ. As has been proven by the DOJ and FBI the Russian collusion was bullshit. I think it would be proper for them to provide a mea culpa to the American people about them lying to federal judges and illegally obtained evidence and warrants.

  46. by Curt_Anderson on July 9, 2023 6:11 pm
    I don't think any of those are example of censorship either. Those examples, Trump at his whiniest and the agencies mentioned in Judge Doherty's ruling did not do more than "urging, encouraging, pressuring, [and] inducing".

    Do you have examples and evidence that those agencies did any more than whiny Trump and the above examples?

  47. by oldedude on July 9, 2023 7:03 pm
    You only mocked me (et al) about the evidence the AG had subpoenaed. Since those are legal documents, I would have thought you would have cared for them a tad better than what you did.

    Then there was the DOJ that now consider parents who care about their own children as domestic terrorists if you question the school board. Even in the cases of multiple rapes that were covered up. And then arrested the father of the victim for being "out of order" when the school board lied about what they did.

    So what towers are they going to blow up or set to flame (other than your summer of love event).

  48. by Curt_Anderson on July 15, 2023 10:53 am
    NEW ORLEANS — A federal appeals court Friday temporarily paused a lower court's order limiting executive branch officials' communications with social media companies about controversial online posts.

  49. by HatetheSwamp on July 15, 2023 11:14 am

    I'm pretty sure that this will make it to the Supreme Court and it'll be interesting to see what the Court does with this issue. I don't know but, generally, it upholds personal liberty from the intrusion of Big Brother into the lives of people who, simply, wish to live free.

Go To Top

Comment on: "Recent Declarations of Restraint"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact | Advertise on | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:
Report spam & abuse home page