Facebook will be the Department of Government Censorshipt

The White House on Wednesday endorsed further regulations on social media tech platforms, in response to testimony from far-left Facebook “whistleblower” Frances Haugen on Capitol Hill.

“The President has long said, as you referenced, that tech platforms must be held accountable for the harms that they cause,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said during the daily press briefing in response to a question about the hearings on Capitol Hill.

Here’s the beginning of the end of social media, especially Facebook, as we have known it. If you think it has been bad for conservatives and libertarians up to now, just wait. The White House, through its threats, makes it easier for Facebook to be the totalitarian monolithic entity its owners so want it to be. The Biden regime will threaten to use force against Facebook until it bans ALL nonleftist speech, across the board. Further, the Biden regime will reward Facebook for turning over dissidents so the government may harass and ultimately jail them under one-sided and subjectively defined “anti-domestic terrorism” policies. Will Facebook buckle under? Of course. This leftist, one party totalitarian dictatorship is what they always wanted.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

It’s Official: Biden Ends Free Speech

The moment Big Tech companies openly ally themselves with the federal government to censor speech is the moment we no longer have a First Amendment. That’s precisely what’s happening. Biden’s spokeswoman proudly and openly acknowledged that senior White House officials are telling Facebook and other social media companies which social media posts to censor, and who should be punished. THIS IS ACTUAL, DIRECT CENSORSHIP by the federal government. It’s no longer an issue of “private companies may kick off whomever they wish” BECAUSE ONCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ORDERS FACEBOOK AND TWITTER TO CENSOR posts, it’s the government doing the censoring.

Not only did Psaki triple down on her assertion that the Biden regime has every “right” to do this. She also brazenly claims that the government may direct ALL social media companies, not just Facebook, Google and Twitter, to take down posts. It would be like ordering CNN, MSNBC, Fox and Breitbart all to take down stories the “administration” does not like. Clearly, only Fox and Breitbart would be taking down stories, not CNN. THIS IS CENSORSHIP, plain and simple. These modern-day, irredeemably evil savages are doing it defiantly and openly. Literally, all that’s left are arrests and detainment of anyone the Biden regime considers as “spreading misinformation” — with misinformation defined as anything they don’t like. They hope to avoid that, of course, by counting on the totalitarian-minded Big Tech companies to support them in it. But the precedent has been established that a federal regime may order any posts, commentaries or stories arbitrarily deemed “misinformation” taken down. Will the Supreme Court eventually step in? Not if their zero support for election integrity is any guide.

Congratulations. You lived to see America become a dictatorship. This is not a republic. It’s an authoritarian regime literally at war with its own people.

Fox News 7/16/21: “The White House is courting intense criticism again Friday after press secretary Jen Psaki said that once users are banned from one social media platform for spreading coronavirus “misinformation,” they should be expelled from all others as well.” [Rest of the story here]

“Intense criticism”? It’s the literal end of free speech in America.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Censorship Makes Us Stupid

Censorship FEEDS irrationality and conspiracy theories. When selective facts are not permitted to be considered, and certain conclusions may not be drawn, or certain hypotheses may not be uttered … you shut down the capacity of the mind to do its job: to THINK. Many correct and brilliant conclusions are littered with half-baked or contradictory ideas along the way. This is how the process of thinking operates. The efforts of Facebook, Twitter, Google, the Bidenistas and others to outright shut down and even legally prosecute human thinking (as with the Arizona recount) are not only grotesquely unjust. They are stupid. And they are policies that will make us stupid. What else could be their intention?

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

The Wussification Of The West: Shall We Ban Shakespeare For Othello And Shylock?

The Dr. Seuss book-burning gave a guest on Tucker Carlson’s eponymous show the giggles: “It’s total distraction from the real issues,” claimed one Chadwick Moore. So wrong.

Come to think of it, our much-loved TV host’s defense of the purged Dr. Seuss books fell short of freedom’s standards: “Dr. Seuss was not a racist” was the gist of it.

But before deconstructing Tucker’s defeatist and defensive argument—here is the latest in the saga of Dr. Seuss and the wussification of the West, for lack of a better word.

The New York Times reports that, “Six Dr. Seuss books will no longer be published because of their use of offensive imagery.”

None other than Dr. Seuss Enterprises, “the business that oversees the estate of the children’s author and illustrator,” “had decided last year to end publication and licensing of” the following titles:

  • “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street” (1937)
  • “If I Ran the Zoo” (1950)
  • “McElligot’s Pool”
  • “On Beyond Zebra!”
  • “Scrambled Eggs Super!”
  • “The Cat’s Quizzer”

These custodians of Theodor Seuss Geisel’s work simply rolled over. They conceded to cancelling their own books after consulting with the educational idiocrasy.

It took panels of ponderous oafs to conclude that the “whimsical stories [that] have entertained millions of children and adults worldwide” “revealed strong racial undertones.”

Some parents were aflutter, too.

The following headline perfectly captures the “wussification“—that fretful melding of “wimps” and “p-ssies,” en masse—that makes for a Wussy Nation:

Parents grapple with racist images in Dr. Seuss books.”

Grown-ups “grapple” with things like, let’s see, food and medicine shortages; with the fact that the educational idiocracy that is depriving kids of the literary canon has failed to teach them to read, write and speak English properly.

Or, picture this: Video footage of Kamala Harris being swallowed whole by a python has surfaced. She is being subjected to the crushing peristaltic movements of the giant reptile, as he digests her. You “grapple” with that:

To pull or to publish these ostensibly upsetting images, that is the question. (Adult-humor alert for Wussy Nation.)

But grownups do not “grapple” with Dr. Seuss content!

Tucker’s mistake was his contents-driven defense of these kiddie books:

“Dr. Seuss was not a racist. He was an evangelist against bigotry,” pleaded Tucker. “He wrote an entire shelf of books against racism, and not in a subtle way. They were clearly, explicitly against racism. That was the whole point of writing them, to teach children not to be racist.”

Yawn.

Even if Dr. Seuss was the pedagogic, sanctimonious bore Tucker makes him out to be—actual racism in the targeted literature should be a peripheral issue, or no issue at all.

The Argument from Freedom means arguing process, not content.

Whether he intended it or not, the premise of Tucker’s defense of Dr. Seuss is that if we do detect “legitimate” racism in literature—there is a case for banning it. (Now, Tucker might not have meant it that way, but, this is what the structure of his argument portends.)

By contrast, freedom makes the case for an unfettered free market in ideas, good and bad. Freedom argues for politically impolite books to be published and read freely.

Banning books, moreover, assumes a lack of choice and agency among individual human beings. It’s also predicated on a higher authority that decides for the rest of us which cultural products are fit for our consumption.

The Argument from Freedom means arguing not over the contents of Mein Kampf or McElligot’s Pool, but for their publication irrespective of their content.

Which is why I say freedom’s argument is an argument from process, and not content.

Mein Kampf, and any offensive literature, needs to be available in a free society to free men and women who want it. And not because of history; so that we don’t forget it or repeat it (blah, blah, blah, as I heard it enunciated by Seattle’s radio mouth, Jason Rantz, the other day).

Alas, in the face of the cancellation of people and publications, cancelled conservatives just keep these logically weak and, frankly, loser mea culpas coming. Like the Argument from Hitler, which is a kind of “WhatAboutism”:

“Amazon and eBay sell Mein Kampf, why not Dr. Seuss? I want what Hitler got, Amazon and eBay. Me too. Boo-hoo.”

Tweeted “Musil Protégé”: “Conservatives [inadvertently] condone presentism. As Audrey says in Whit Stillman’s Metropolitan: ‘Has it ever occurred to you that our world judged by the standards of Jane Austen’s time would (look ridiculous)?’”

Most great literature doesn’t meet the sub-intelligent standards of the woke illiterati, who control the intellectual means of production—the schools (primary, secondary, tertiary), the press, publishing houses, think tanks, Deep Tech and the Deep State.

In some of the axed Dr. Seuss books, the typically cartoonish illustrations exaggerate the physical characteristics of a “Chinaman” and one or two African islanders. You know, just the kind of characteristics that, once-upon-a-time, made books about faraway places and people so exciting to kids.

Much of the Western literary canon—indisputably the greatest works of literature ever—is guaranteed to violate woke racial dogma.

Yet, even by Wokepedia’s telling, “Shakespeare is regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world’s greatest dramatist.”

What next? Shall we ban Shakespeare due to Othello and Shylock?

Ilana Mercer, UNZ review

The Cancellation of Dr. Seuss Should Disturb You, Because You’re Next

Dr. Seuss has been cancelled. Some of his work has been deemed racist, and we can’t have that. On Tuesday, the entity that oversees the estate of Theodor Seuss Geisel announced it would no longer publish six of Geisel’s books because they “portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong.”

Among the works now deemed unfit for children are Geisel’s first book under the pen name Dr. Seuss, “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street,” published in 1937, and the much-beloved, “If I Ran the Zoo,” published in 1950. The former depicts a “Chinaman” character and the latter shows two men from “the African island of Yerka” in native garb.

There’s not much point in quibbling over whether these and other such illustrations in the condemned Dr. Seuss books are in fact racist or bigoted, or whether Geisel held racist or xenophobic views. By all accounts he was a liberal-minded and tolerant man who hated Nazis and, as a political cartoonist, mocked the antisemitism that was all-too-common in America during World War II.

He was also a man of his era. Later in life, he regretted some of his political work during the war that stereotyped Japanese Americans, which, as jarring as it might seem today, nevertheless reflected attitudes that were commonplace at the time.

But context and nuance don’t factor into the inexorable logic of the woke left, which flattens and refashions the past into a weapon for the culture wars of the present. What’s important to understand is that this isn’t simply about banning six Dr. Seuss books. All of Geisel’s work is, in the judgment of left-wing academia, an exercise in “White supremacy, paternalism, conformity, and assimilation.” It might be easy for conservatives to laugh that off as nonsense, but they shouldn’t, because this isn’t really even about Geisel.

The Left Is Carrying Out a Cultural Revolution

To grasp how a man known as much for his messages of tolerance as for his artistic genius could be canceled for racism, you have to understand what’s actually happening here. The left’s war on the past, on long-dead authors like Geisel, isn’t really about the past, it’s about the future. It’s about who gets to rule, and under what terms.

There’s a predictable pattern to what we’re seeing now. It’s predictable because it has happened before in much the same way it’s happening now. During China’s Cultural Revolution in the 1960s and ‘70s, the Chinese Communist Party, at the direction of Mao Zedong, called for the destruction of the “Four Olds”: old customs, old culture, old habits, old ideas. All of these stood in the way of Mao’s socialist ideology, so they had to be destroyed.

Children and students were encouraged by the communist government to inform on their parents and elders, to shame and condemn them in public. The guilty were forced to recant in “struggle sessions,” during which they were mocked and humiliated, sometimes tortured, sometimes murdered. Before it was over, millions were dead.

We’re obviously not there yet, but the woke revolutionaries who now run our elite institutions and exert outsized influence in the corridors of power are following this same pattern.

First, they come for the monuments, destroying the icons of the past and re-writing history to turn even our national heroes and Founding Fathers into enemies. The animating ethos of the mobs pulling down Confederate statues is the same as The New York Times editors who gave us the 1619 Project. And because there is no limiting principle to iconoclasm, they have moved on from Confederates.

The City of Charlottesville, for example, having removed or tried to remove every last Confederate monument, is now pleading for someone, anyone, to haul away a giant statue of explorers Meriwether Lewis and William Clark. The 18-foot-tall bronze statue, which was erected in 1919 and depicts Lewis and Clark with Sacajawea crouched behind them, is free for anyone who can prove he knows how to move it safely—although at this point it’s a wonder the city doesn’t just dynamite the thing to rubble, Taliban-style.

Then they come for the books, destroying any ideas or literature that challenges their ideology—like Ryan Anderson’s 2018 book on the dangers of transgenderism, which Amazon summarily canceled last month. Even seemingly unobjectionable books can be targeted, if not for their content then for the race of their author. Just ask Jeanine Cummins, whose novel “American Dirt” drew the ire of the left last year simply because Cummins, who is white, wrote a book about Mexican drug cartels. The list goes on and on.

So much for statues and books. At some point, the left will come for actual people, because the ideology of revolution demands that dissent—and therefore dissidents—be silenced, by force if necessary.

If you think that’s an exaggeration, recall what happened all across the country last summer when Black Lives Matter “protesters” took to the streets. They didn’t just march and chant, they rioted. They attacked businesses, destroyed entire city blocks, and carried out a campaign of intimidation, harassing, and in some cases attacking random people if they didn’t kneel and repeat the slogans of the revolution. Dozens of people lost their lives in the chaos and violence that ensued.

The people behind the statue-toppling, the digital book burnings, and the street violence won’t stop until all three of these things—history, ideas, and dissidents—have been destroyed. These are all impediments to their cultural revolution, and they mean to eliminate them.

So forget about Dr. Seuss. Forget about the statues and the books. Those things are just the beginning. It could easily get much worse. The woke revolutionaries of the left can’t be bargained with or appeased. They believe this is a zero-sum game, that one side will win and one side will lose. And they’re right.

John Daniel Davidson, The Federalist

Censorship Isn’t Funny; But Censors Are

Censorship isn’t funny. But censors ARE. Think about the mentality of a person who wants censorship. It’s absurd.

“Let’s get Donald Trump off Twitter. When he’s gone, he can’t incite violence and hatred anymore.”

Donald Trump doesn’t incite hatred or violence, of course. He celebrates freedom and decries socialism. But that’s not the point. The point is: Censors think people’s minds will change when they no longer have the ability to speak.

Censors ignore that Donald Trump, Rush Limbaugh and anyone with a strong point-of-view exists because THEY SAY THINGS THAT MANY PEOPLE AGREE WITH, AND LIKE TO HEAR.

Censors reverse cause-and-effect. They think Donald Trump supporters exist because Donald Trump exists. It’s the other way around. Donald Trump exists because there are people who agree with him, and they’re constantly looking for a voice.

Censors tend to only talk to one another. It makes them gullible and naive. It leads them to think that if you can just obliterate something from their minds, it will go away. Kind of like a three-year-old, when you play “peek-a-boo.” The censor, like the three-year-old, thinks you disappear when you stop talking, and when the censor covers his eyes.

If censorship worked, there never would have been an Age of Reason and Enlightment, which followed the repressed Middle Ages. Without an Age of Reason and Enlightment, there would have been no resurgence of Aristotle, no John Locke and therefore no Thomas Jefferson or James Madison to create a civilization and a republic based on rights, for a time.

Censorship fails as badly as socialism fails. The fools who think ideas can be WISHED into or out of existence are the same fools who think that prosperity, wealth and technology can be WISHED into existence.

Shutting up Donald Trump will not change the minds of people who like what he says. Neither would impeaching him 50 times, jailing him or killing him. All of these things just make 75 million people like him more.

Donald Trump was saying things that for years, millions of Americans wished a presidential candidate or President would say — and mean. That desire — whatever you think of it — cannot disappear merely because you stifle their leader. If anything, the desire will grow stronger.

Look how intense the feelings of Donald Trump opponents grew during the Trump years. Those feelings culminated in months-long rioting by people, like Black Lives Matter, who shared their views, and whom the police were not permitted to arrest when they burned down businesses, homes and police stations. Donald Trump did not censor them, but they felt censored merely by his existence. And look how angry they became. What makes them think it won’t happen in reverse?

When you repress the ideas, views and feelings of people, those ideas, views and feelings do not go away. They intensify.

Censors are playing with fire. It’s not funny. But the way they smugly congratulate themselves and each other for what they’re doing … well, that’s quite hilarious.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Fascistbook Strikes Again

Facebook has announced that it will remove all content that mentions “Stop the Steal,” a phrase in reference to the 2020 U.S. presidential election that is popular among supporters of President Donald Trump.

Somebody has to give Facebook a psychology 101 lesson: WHEN YOU CUT OFF THE ABILITY TO SPEAK OR COMMUNICATE, YOU FOSTER MORE RAGE, NOT LESS. I guess it’s not really violence they’re worried about; it’s dissenting opinion.

In the words of Solzhenitsyn, a famous Soviet dissident: “Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything, but not with any help from me.”

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Parler is Gone — And With It, All Remaining Dissension

Parler gone. Take a moment of silence. THIS is what civil war — and dictatorship — look like in the former American republic.

The moment we say somebody’s IDEAS forced someone else to be violent is the moment we have abandoned free speech. When we start pretending that someone’s choice to be violent isn’t a choice, we blame the ideas we dislike as an excuse to silence those ideas. “Incitement” to violence is the claim dictators make — not because they care about anyone’s safety; but because they care about CONTROL.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

The Ultimate Betrayal

Western Christians commemorate Jan. 6 as Epiphany, the day Jesus Christ became known to the world through the Three Wise Men, according to tradition. One definition of “epiphany,” per the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is “an illuminating discovery, realization, or disclosure.”

So the timing was perfect for Americans to receive just such a powerful revelation about their government. It is a revelation both nauseating and frightening.

What is that revelation? The people Americans elected and trusted to run their government are incorrigibly and irredeemably corrupt.

Congress certified Joe Biden as President in the dead of night Jan. 7 with the rest of Washington, D.C. under curfew and despite massive evidence of electoral fraud in his favor.

Congress thus wrote the latest act of a two-month drama that featured judges in starring roles. Those judges – including Supreme Court justices — arbitrarily used technicalities to deny President Donald Trump the chance to make his legal case as an aggrieved party victimized by fraud.

The only reason — the only reason – for those authorities’ behavior was their own contempt for Trump.

The implications are stunning, and go far beyond any one man or Presidential election. Now, every American — regardless of race, creed, class, gender or any other category — can become a target for the capricious disregard of due process if that American is unpopular with the powers-that-be.

Americans have seen this before. They saw it in Judge Emmet Sullivan’s unprofessional behavior during Gen. Michael Flynn’s trial. They see it now in the lockdowns and mandates issued solely by executive fiat and based on medical quackery, despite scientific evidence showing that masks and social distancing create more harm than good.

But the events of Jan. 6 in Washington drained the last remaining drops of formaldehyde from the nation’s political corpse.

As Congress met to decide Biden’s fate, as Trump rallied thousands of supporters to demand a fair hearing, several protesters breached Capitol security. As a result, Congress had to be recessed and Congressional offices evacuated.

Many entered without resistance because Capitol security — which Congress directly oversees — allowed them to enter. Protesters walked through passages marked by security cords and acted with carte blanche in the empty building.

Regardless of who these protesters were or what cause they represented, people with local experience believe the episode was an inside job — especially given the heavy security normally protecting the Capitol.

“My dad worked for both DOD and Homeland Security,” Chris James tweeted. “You can’t just take over a federal building, and do what we saw today without some help from the inside. This was orchestrated by members of the Senate and members of the capital police.”

“Cosign,” Lisa Edouard tweeted in response to a different comment. “Worked on the Hill. I barely remembered where my Member’s hideaway was located. Total inside job.”

If it was an inside job, it had its desired effect.

At 2:40 p.m., about two hours after the incident started, Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser ordered a 12-hour curfew starting at 6 p.m. The overwhelming majority of Trump’s supporters dispersed without incident.

At 6:55 p.m., Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, announced Congress would continue certification. At 8:10 p.m., Sen. Mitch McConnell announced the Senate resumed debate.

Conducting such activity during a curfew meant that not only legislators received special dispensations. So did their staff members, security guards, journalists and any required support personnel.

Besides, the Constitution does not demand that Congress certify a Presidential election in one day. The situation warranted an audit, regardless of any protesters’ behavior.

Though the Electoral Count Act requires Congress to start tabulating electoral votes on Jan. 6, the counting “need not end that day,” said Michael Thorning, the Bipartisan Policy Center’s associate director.

“The statute recognizes that this process could be lengthy and imagines the process could take in excess of five days in some cases,” Thorning said. “The statute does not provide a deadline to complete the counting but requires that the joint session not be dissolved until then and until the results are announced. Even if the counting went beyond January 20th, when a president and vice president’s term would end, the presidential line of succession would be activated.”

But once Congress reconvened, several Republicans who planned to challenge electors from six states where fraud dramatically influenced the results announced that they changed their minds. Only electors from Arizona and Pennsylvania received challenges, and Congress rejected both challenges decisively.

Under such conditions did Congress certify Biden as the winner at 3:41 a.m. Jan. 7.

But reporters failed to examine the suspicious circumstances surrounding Biden’s certification. Instead, they followed the lead of many officials and blamed Trump for supposedly inciting violence.

Reporters also failed to note two disturbing similarities. It was also in the dead of night when Biden received a sudden vertical spike in votes during the Presidential election. The two Democratic candidates in Georgia’s Senate runoff Jan. 5 also received similar nocturnal spikes.

Such extended subterfuge proves Trump’s assertions about the “deep state” and its allies in the boardroom, the newsroom and the classroom.

Americans now can see that this collection of politicians, bureaucrats and judges is an entitled, professionally-inbred caste of grifters who will suck money and power from lobbyists, foreign nations, corporations, foundations and anything else — and try to preserve their privilege at all costs.

If doing so means sabotaging the Constitution or enslaving their fellow Americans, so be it.

That point became even more apparent immediately after Biden’s certification. Congressional leaders desperately want to remove Trump through impeachment or the 25th Amendment, and to prevent him from seeking office again. Social media corporations rushed frantically to de-platform Trump and his supporters, and suppress any views that contradict the prevailing narrative.

Why the panic? Because the powers-that-be fear that Trump will use any information he might have to expose and destroy them.

The next move is Trump’s. What he might do remains unclear. But one thing is certain:

Unless radical surgery is performed — and soon — the metastasizing cancer of unfettered corruption will kill the American republic.

Joseph Hippolito, frontpagemagazine

The “War on Terrorism” Comes Home

Last week’s massive social media purges – starting with President Trump’s permanent ban from Twitter and other outlets – was shocking and chilling, particularly to those of us who value free expression and the free exchange of ideas. The justifications given for the silencing of wide swaths of public opinion made no sense and the process was anything but transparent. Nowhere in President Trump’s two “offending” Tweets, for example, was a call for violence expressed explicitly or implicitly. It was a classic example of sentence first, verdict later.

Many Americans viewed this assault on social media accounts as a liberal or Democrat attack on conservatives and Republicans, but they are missing the point. The narrowing of allowable opinion in the virtual public square is no conspiracy against conservatives. As progressives like Glenn Greenwald have pointed out, this is a wider assault on any opinion that veers from the acceptable parameters of the mainstream elite, which is made up of both Democrats and Republicans.

Yes, this is partly an attempt to erase the Trump movement from the pages of history, but it is also an attempt to silence any criticism of the emerging political consensus in the coming Biden era that may come from progressive or antiwar circles.

After all, a look at Biden’s incoming “experts” shows that they will be the same failed neoconservative interventionists who gave us weekly kill lists, endless drone attacks and coups overseas, and even US government killing of American citizens abroad. Progressives who complain about this “back to the future” foreign policy are also sure to find their voices silenced.

Those who continue to argue that the social media companies are purely private ventures acting independent of US government interests are ignoring reality. The corporatist merger of “private” US social media companies with US government foreign policy goals has a long history and is deeply steeped in the hyper-interventionism of the Obama/Biden era.

“Big Tech” long ago partnered with the Obama/Biden/Clinton State Department to lend their tools to US “soft power” goals overseas. Whether it was ongoing regime change attempts against Iran, the 2009 coup in Honduras, the disastrous US-led coup in Ukraine, “Arab Spring,” the destruction of Syria and Libya, and so many more, the big US tech firms were happy to partner up with the State Department and US intelligence to provide the tools to empower those the US wanted to seize power and to silence those out of favor.

In short, US government elites have been partnering with “Big Tech” overseas for years to decide who has the right to speak and who must be silenced. What has changed now is that this deployment of “soft power” in the service of Washington’s hard power has come home to roost.

So what is to be done? Even pro-free speech alternative social media outlets are under attack from the Big Tech/government Leviathan. There are no easy solutions. But we must think back to the dissidents in the era of Soviet tyranny. They had no Internet. They had no social media. They had no ability to communicate with thousands and millions of like-minded, freedom lovers. Yet they used incredible creativity in the face of incredible adversity to continue pushing their ideas. Because no army – not even Big Tech partnered with Big Government – can stop an idea whose time has come. And Liberty is that idea. We must move forward with creativity and confidence!

Ron Paul