Editor,

It used to be nice to able to express my opinions online and to learn from the responses I got. It felt like my feelings mattered. It felt like freedom. But times have changed and censorship is growing more common. People used to be able to decide for themselves whether or not to believe what they heard or read. Now the major social media platforms have taken it upon themselves to remove content which questions the election results. As an additional punishment, several retailers have terminated business relations with the MyPillow brand because of the MyPillow inventor’s political ties to former President Trump and for daring to make a video which provides proof of election fraud (absolute proof).

Some opinions hold that this is an attempt at “overturning the election” and even “advocating for sedition” but then shouldn't all of those who challenged the 2016 results also be similarly demonized? Definitely not because the disappearance of dissenting opinion is a sign of living in a dictatorship. Even those who disagree with Mike Lindell don’t want that ... I hope.

William Campbell

San Mateo

Recommended for you

(49) comments

Terence Y

Happy Presidents Day to our great President Trump, who unsurprisingly, was acquitted from another sham impeachment. For those partaking in social media, don't forget to wish Trump a Happy Presidents Day. For tipplers, raise a glass in honor of Trump.

Tafhdyd

Terence,

Now that Trump has left the White House I will wait and send him a welcome letter when he gets to the "Big House". BTW, here are a couple of tidbits for your Presidents Day celebration.

Brenda Wineapple, author of a book on another impeached president, Andrew Johnson, said the Senate trial demonstrated that Trump was willing to pressure officials into breaking the law and permit violence to stay in office – an unprecedented abuse of executive power.

"Trump moved from demagoguery to tyranny," she said.

Many historians had already said Trump would rank low for a tumultuous single term that included the COVID-19 pandemic, a previous impeachment, lies about his actions and those of others, business conflicts of interest and alienation of global allies.

Then came his election loss to Joe Biden and the aftermath.

Trump's unprecedented efforts to reverse the results, his demands that supporters "fight" before the attack Jan. 6 on the U.S. Capitol, the resulting second impeachment and the Senate trial solidified Trump's probable rank in the lower tier of the nation's 46 presidents, political analysts and historians said.

"It will always be remembered by how it ended," presidential historian Alvin Felzenberg said. "It will also be remembered for its divisiveness and his personal attacks and his lack of respect for political institutions." I will drink to that.

Ray Fowler

Not so sure Brenda is quite the expert one would quote with respect to the impeachment. While she is an accomplished author, it doesn't look like politics is her bailiwick. Alvin is a much better source. However, given the state of the media's left leaning bias, could there be any other perspective from academia and the press that did not paint the Donald's four years in such a negative light?

Tafhdyd

Ray,

That very well could be but you know that a bad day fishing is better than a good day working.

Terence Y

Taffy – why would I give Ms. Wineapple’s or Mr. Felzenberg’s opinion any more credibility than you or the guy across the street? If you watched the sham impeachment hearing, you’ll know that their statements, if correctly quoted, are based on lies. If they had proof, why didn’t they send it to the incompetent Democrat impeachment managers? BTW, if you missed the Florida parade in honor of our great President Trump, you can catch it online. Spoiler alert, Trump makes an appearance. Don’t forget to raise a glass, or two, in honor of Trump.

Ray Fowler

One word... Swalwell

DavidKristofferson

I see below that Tafhdyd below tried and failed to find Lindell’s “Absolute Proof” video. Have any of our conservative friends on this discussion had success yet?

DavidKristofferson

Thanks for several detailed replies about McConnell’s speech.

In a time when anonymous death threats to public figures on all sides of the political debate are flying around the Internet, I remain impressed that McConnell stuck his neck out and attacked Trump at such length, whatever his ulterior motive might have been (and there have been many motives imputed to him in this forum 😉).

DavidKristofferson

I invite my conservative friends to listen to the following and respond:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4946114/minority-leader-mcconnell-impeachment-acquittal-president-trump

Terence Y

Mr. Kristofferson - thanks for the link but I don’t plan to watch. I can’t speak for all Trump supporters, but I’m well aware of McConnell and what interests he represents – and they don’t necessarily align with our great President Trump. The importance of McConnell was to confirm Trump’s judges. McConnell decided to vote not guilty – but he’s probably playing both sides of the fence in case he gets impeached. Our favorite childish-temper-tantrum-tosser, Pelosi, unsurprisingly, still lashed out at McConnell. Thanks to impeachment votes, we now have a definitive list of who should be replaced.

DavidKristofferson

Terence - I spent 30 minutes yesterday watching what was portrayed to me as Mike Lindell’s proof. Will you please extend a smaller courtesy to me and invest 20 minutes in listening to Mr McConnell’s speech? I am not a fan of his, but I learned a lot by listening to the unfiltered speech on C-Span. I would really like to hear your response, but I would also like to know that you have at least taken the time to listen to someone with whom you disagree. Saying that one already knows what they are going to say is too easy of an out. I certainly was surprised by this speech and I consider myself at least somewhat informed on current events.

Terence Y

Mr. Kristofferson, I’ve listened to some of McConnell’s speech (time I’ll never get back) and my thoughts have not changed, but my respect for him has decreased, so maybe it wasn’t a complete waste of time. Remember, McConnell was never a popular Republican Senator, for good reason, and he was comparable to Pierre Delecto. At times in McConnell’s speech, it sounds like he reiterates lies from the Dem impeachment letter. I wouldn’t be surprised if Pelosi have helped McConnell on his speech. For more information, review Jeffrey Lord’s, “The Democrats 75 Impeachment Lies” article from last week and if you care to, you can compare against McConnell’s speech. I only wish witnesses could have been called at the sham impeachment – an exposure of Dem leader hypocrisy and a glorious end to this political theater. BTW, I never said I knew what McConnell was going to say, I just said that I’m aware of where his interests lie.

Ray Fowler

Hi, Dave

Hmmm... I guess I'm not as stalwart as I thought. I still feel a little "off" but I wanted to respond to your invitation to comment on Mitch McConnell's remarks. Here goes...

Mitch McConnell’s comments captured on C-Span after the Senate’s vote on Saturday were vintage Mitch. He was doing advance damage control for future criticism of his Senate legacy. Future detractors will claim that Mitch was an obstructionist bent on shaping a conservative judiciary. Yes, he did so… but he did nothing that a Democrat would not have done to move the judiciary further to the left if roles had been reversed. So, years from now… when McConnell is criticized for not accepting Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland but pushing through Donald Trump’s nominations of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, his defenders will point to his remarks on the Senate floor following the Senate’s vote to acquit Donald Trump and suggest that he did not support the former president.

The online teasers say McConnell considers Trump’s actions on Jan. 6 unconscionable then adds that the Senate’s consideration of those actions was unconstitutional. Mitch describes the former president’s words and actions on Jan. 6 as a “dereliction of duty” and reckless hyperbole. That sounds like weighty criticism coming from the Senate’s leading Republican… but is it? He continues with his legal argument why the Senate’s vote was improper. Mitch describes his belief that the Senate’s vote is limited to a president still in office. Donald Trump is no longer president so he cannot be convicted by the Senate. He said, “If removal becomes impossible, conviction becomes insensible.” He then lays responsibility for the Jan. 6 violence squarely at the feet of “hundreds” of rioters in the Capitol not Donald Trump’s 74 million supporters.

While Mitch acknowledges that Donald Trump is still liable for his actions in both the criminal and civil court systems, he suggested that Donald Trump did not criminally incite the actions of the riotous mob. That is a safe position. He is telling Democrats that Donald Trump could still face legal action while assuring Republicans that it is not likely. Mitch concludes by saying the Senate’s acquittal does not mean the Senate condones what happened on Jan. 6, however, it does show that the Senate did what Donald Trump failed to do… and that was to carry out its Constitutional duty. As a result, Mitch can always say he condemned Donald Trump’s words and actions on Jan. 6 while at the same time defending his steering conservative jurists to the federal judiciary. Can Mitch have it both ways? He is trying… Like I said, Mitch McConnell’s comments captured on C-Span after the Senate’s vote on Saturday were vintage Mitch.

DavidKristofferson

Interesting summary, Ray. I tend to agree with a lot of what you say above, but me thinks thou art a tad too cynical. But perhaps that is just my naiveté showing through 😉.

Ray Fowler

Cynical or skeptical?

I was a Poli Sci major as an undergrad (minor in History). You can't help but come away from studying political institutions without concluding they are committed to seizing power then holding on to that power. The same could be said of persons operating within those institutions.

And good ol' Mitch is standing should to shoulder with Chuck...

DavidKristofferson

Ray, when you get a chance please take a look back at our first discussion at https://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/just-the-beginning/article_b3cb3924-681e-11eb-aedb-53ec7e835fdd.html

There are still a few items to wrap up there. Thanks.

Ray Fowler

"From the Beginning" Emerson, Lake and Palmer

Immigration… yes, President Biden’s reversal of immigration policies is short sighted. Most Americans want meaningful immigration reform with a sensible path to citizenship for persons who want to migrate to the US. However, opening the borders and not taking strides toward the kind of reform most Americans want… which transcends party affiliation… is short sighted. Q. Why didn’t Barack move forward with immigration reform when he had a majority in Congress? A. “Obama’s number one priority was health care reform and he spent all of his political capital getting that done in the first two years.” Skrrrrip! (stylus on vinyl) The president does not get to choose a pet project at the expense of forsaking other vital issues. During his first term, about the time MIT’s Jonathan Gruber was shaping the Affordable Care Act, Barack was winning a Nobel Prize, pushing an economic stimulus package, starting to normalize relations with Cuba, chasing (and eventually catching) Osama bin Laden, creating the framework for the Iran nuclear deal, and repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” So, Obama Care and all this other stuff got in the way of substantive immigration reform? I was born at night but it wasn’t last night. Democrats don’t want to solve the immigration problem. They need this issue. Republicans won’t solve it either. But now we have Joe Biden in the Oval Office… and instead of trying to implement the kind of reform most Americans want, we get a flurry of executive orders instead.

Obama was “faced with a hostile Republican party that did everything possible to defeat him.” Oh, yeah… that’s in great contrast to the collaborative and helpful Democrats in Congress during Donald Trump’s first term. You know… Democrats… the party of unity.

Not sure how McKinsey Consulting dovetails into the immigration discussion, but they are crooks of the highest order… and now they may benefit from the settlement requiring them to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to fund drug rehab programs. The settlement money will come right back to them… they’re crooks.

David Frum… his piece in The Atlantic seems to me to be more like “drive by” journalism than meaningful commentary. He mentions Gretchen Whitmer being targeted by a right wing domestic terrorist group. Then suggests not only was the former president OK with the terrorists’ kidnapping plot but that he may have… wait for it… incited the plot. Frum later compares Trump to Orville [sic] Faubus. Where is the context for that comparison? Curiously, when discussing political violence, Frum avoids mention of Antifa and the attempt to shoot and kill Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) at baseball practice. It matters none that Frum was a speechwriter for G.W. Bush… Tucker Carlson once wrote for The New York Times Magazine.

US Navy… the Navy, more than any other branch of the military, is an extension of foreign policy. The Air Force needs thousands of feet of multiple runways to operate their strike aircraft, and the Army must stage its assets near a potential conflict before raining steel on the bad guys. But the Navy can patrol the largest portion of the globe without interference from non-Allied forces and strike targets in a matter of hours not days or weeks.

I read Se Young Lee’s Reuters article, published a week ago, re: US carrier ops in the South China Sea. According to Lee, “China has been infuriated by repeated U.S. sailings near the islands it occupies and controls in the South China Sea. China says it has irrefutable sovereignty and has accused the United States of deliberately stoking tension.”

Those exercises were planned well before Jan. 20 and Joe Biden’s ascendancy to the Oval Office. Now, there have been times when exercises in that region led to heightened tensions, but the CCP published its usual protests as a test. I think Biden passed. He did not cancel the warships’ movements while at the same time hinting that such exercises will take place in the future.

Afghanistan… You asked, what is “the proper balance between our international obligations in places like Afghanistan and Taiwan versus America’s pressing domestic needs?” Well, I’m not in the habit of doing homework any more so I didn’t watch the PBS video, but I will say this… our interests and obligations in Afghanistan may be too different to include them in the same breath while discussing Taiwan. You have to account for the subcontinent when talking about Afghanistan. Is it 1975 redux? Or is it a 1989 redux Soviet style? Maybe a little of both and a little of neither… We cannot defeat a real insurgency in Afghanistan without the people supporting surgical strikes against the bad guys. But even if suppressing the Taliban was possible, would Afghanistan travel the same path to success blazed by Vietnam on their own? We could abandon Afghanistan like Gorbachev did… and nothing changes. The Russians were there for nearly ten years… they only altered the landscape by leaving military equipment behind.

This is a tough question because just like the 1960s, our current international entanglements and our domestic needs are on different tracks. Maybe that suggests there can be no “proper balance.” It wounds my heart to see and hear stories of young American men and women being killed and maimed in Afghanistan. It’s time to get out. And just like Vietnam, our nation will suffer a huge moral injury upon leaving Afghanistan… however, this time, it will not be grappling with the morality of fighting a war thousands of miles away for little if any gain… it will be the moral struggle wrought by abandoning the helpless… especially women and children… to the tyranny and oppression that has prevailed there for a long, long time.

Tafhdyd

Dave,

I am a little late to the discussion but I did take a listen to McConnell’s speech you linked in your earlier post. I am not a conservative by any means but I had only seen the short clips that were on the nightly news. As Ray has mentioned it was typical Mitch. Even with just the short news bites I thought that he was trying to butter his bread on both sides.

McConnell has years of experience and is a master politician in the area of excuses and double speak and trying to change the narrative on the subject. Probably his most often statement is about gun control when there is a terrible shooting, “ Now is not the time to talk gun control, now is the time to mourn our loss”. In his mind apparently it is never time to talk gun control.

Back to the speech. A couple of things that stood out were his comments that Trump’s continual pushing of lies, false statements and conspiracy theories made him practically and morally responsible for the mayhem on Jan. 6th. To bring up morals when talking about the most amoral person in Washington is enough to make you spit out your morning coffee. I have to laugh every time someone says that they want to have Trump testify to something under oath. An oath to him is no more the the dust on the floor. Another item he mentioned was the long explanation that the details in the Constitution say you cannot remove a private citizen, only those in government at the time. Of course he is the one that purposely delayed the trial until after the 20th so Trump would be out of office and thus giving him the opportunity to vote to acquit and at the same time criticize.

Of course all of his speech is typical Mitch as mentioned before. Another example of him being more concerned about his position in power than any concern for the nation. If anything he said was backed by a true sense of duty to the Constitution he should have brought it up before the vote was taken, especially being as he is one of the prime enablers of Trump in the first place.

In closing I will add that the obvious reason for those voting to acquit is that of money, as if that is anything new. As long as Trump can continue his lies and conspiracy bull the gullible will send in their donations to help his possible campaign in the future and those voting acquittal will call and ask for help on their campaigns, that is if Trump hasn’t skimmed all the money off the top by then.

Ray Fowler

Hey, Tafhdyd

The only senator slyer than ol' Mitch would be Lindsey. Did you see him switch his vote yesterday re: calling witnesses? Was that calculated or what? If the trial would have devolved into calling witnesses, Lindsey would have stood tall at the podium reminding everyone that he also voted for calling witnesses just before announcing that the Senate should call Nancy, Chuck, Kamala, et. al into depositions. Don't think so? He is already saying if the Republicans get control of the House in 2022, they may consider impeaching the VP. The vote would be straight down party lines, but even if a Republican or two voted against impeachment, that vote would not be called to the floor until after... wait for it... plenty of witnesses had been called to testify. The possibility of Republicans going down that path may be the only thing that can erase the Veep's permanent smile. I'm not a Harris fan, but the executive branch cannot be expected to look back over its shoulder just because the party opposing the executive becomes the majority party. As Mitch said... impeachment has to be a narrow tool for a narrow purpose.

Tafhdyd

Ray,

I agree that impeachment should be a narrow tool for a narrow purpose. It is just too bad that all the talk about upholding the Constitution, calling out the conspiracies etc. is just BS and bluster after the fact. If it is so important to them, at least the 43 Republicans that voted to acquit, why don't they step forward? Oh, I know, only the 7 Republicans that voted to impeach grew a pair and two of them were women.

Ray Fowler

Hey, Tafhdyd

We're starting to veer a little bit...

In my view, a large part of the impeachment process was just political theater. You know I am not a Biden fan, yet within two days of the election, I had accepted the vote tallies and started addressing Joe Biden as president-elect. Now, it's time for Democrats to move forward. The impeachment is over... accept the vote and get back to the business of the people. The speeches are over... turn to the pandemic, the economy and our country's emotional health. Instead, the Speaker is calling out Senators who voted to acquit. According to her, they are cowards. Well, I disagree. Enough senators believed the Senate did not have jurisdiction to conduct an impeachment trial before the House impeachment managers presented their case against Donald Trump. When they finished, they still had not convinced enough senators that a trial was constitutional. But according to Nancy... those senators are cowards simply because they did not vote the way Nancy wanted them to vote.

Donald Trump's legal entanglements may continue beyond this weekend. If they do, those issues will be independent of the Senate's vote yesterday. However, now we're hearing calls for a Congressional investigation into the events of Jan. 6... isn't that what House Democrats were supposed to do as they prepared their single article of impeachment? Maybe Robert Mueller can come out of retirement... What I would like to see is a discussion of the sheaf of executive orders signed over the past three weeks but that is difficult to do when attention is turned to an impeachment process that has ended and that we must now forever describe in the past tense... The curtain has come down on impeachment... no more theater.

Tafhdyd

Ray,

We agree it is time to turn on the lights and sweep up the popcorn, the curtain is down on the theater. Just a couple of things I see this morning in the news without whipping the poor horse to death. Yes Nancy is dragging things on with calling the senators cowards but it seems the right is wrong in that regard also. They can't leave things alone either. The Republican party leaders are calling the 7 that voted to impeach cowards for not kissing the royal baby's rear end and toeing the party line. Their state committees are voting to censure them among other things.

Lastly, both parties are calling for a full investigation by a 9-11 style commission to get to the basis of the events and see what can be done to prevent it again. I do agree with that idea. Enjoy the ...Holiday? Poor Abe and George.

Ray Fowler

Maybe not apples and oranges... maybe Granny Smiths and Galas...

Hey, Nancy can whip up House Dems... it is not only her prerogative but probably an obligation on her part. I'm OK with her exhorting Dems with, "C'mon, guys and gals! We'll get 'em next time! Keep the faith!" (I know... way too many exclamation points. I think she also used to work at Pendant Publishing.) But the curtain re: impeachment has been drawn... we're done.

If Republicans want to excoriate the Magnificent Seven... let 'em. It's their party. However, just like Nancy... someone should tell Lindsey to back off. Lay off the Veep. Same message to the Sandlapper... the curtain re: impeachment has been drawn... we're done.

Tafhdyd

Ray,

One of the things I find useful or at least entertaining reading the comments and LTEs is the occasional tidbit of information I either never knew or have long forgotten. Sandlapper is a new one for me. The only sand something referring to a person I knew of is not permissible in public press and would be censored.

Ray Fowler

Tafydyd

Sandlapper is a nickname for a South Carolinian who hails from that state's coastal region. Lindsey grew up far into SC's interior, but now that he represents the whole state, I was guessing it would be OK to refer to him as a sandlapper. I don't think he would mind.

DavidKristofferson

Thanks for your thoughts, Tafhdyd. I am not a Trump or McConnell fan by any means, but, as I stated above, I still think that he could have tread much more softly on Trump than he did, if we are talking about cynical motives, so I give him credit for speaking up when many other Republicans did nothing other than tow the Trump party line.

DavidKristofferson

I watched the first 30 minutes of the Youtube video for which Ray posted a link and that is not the one unfortunately. Mike Lindell was the third guest on the show and stated that he was still working on the video at that time, so I stopped.

Since the letter author above and others keep quoting this incontrovertible proof and I have already spent a half hour of my time listening to this, i believe that it is the conservative side of the debate which has the responsibility to track down their evidence, not me. Otherwise these highly emphatic claims are little more than an unsubstantiated claim if this was a court of law.

As to the first 30 minutes of the video that I watched, the broadcast is from a conservative religious organization and it takes positions that seem reasonable from their perspective.

****The problem is that this is the ONLY perspective that is presented!****

This is a great illustration of one of our biggest national problems right now, and the reason that I started writing both here and also created a Public Affairs discussion group on Nextdoor. *** People of opposing views do not talk civilly to each other! ***

As I listened to the host’s opening monologue, there were so many places where I wanted to stop him and present counter-arguments, but obviously could not do so.

There is simply no way that I could take the time and write up all of that debate here. However, I will reply to one of the issues that I thought was particularly egregious.

Several people on the show mentioned that they received death threats for stating their opinions!! There was a sentiment that Christians were being persecuted just as they were in the days of Rome.

The sad thing is that the same has happened to people on the left. Take AOC, one of Fox News’ favorite targets. She gets death, rape and torture threats constantly.

If one looks at Twitter feeds, it is readily apparent how toxic the online environment has become. My own wife expressed fears in this regards when I was starting the Nextdoor group, and I have heard privately from others that they are also afraid to speak.

Is this still America ??????

Please, everyone, we need to turn down the heat, stop the use of extreme rhetoric (I am not talking censorship, but instead simply trying to make one’s point without inflammatory language.), and start remembering that we are all citizens of this country.

We will never agree completely, but, if we stop yelling and start listening, we may find that we have much more in common than we currently believe.

Terence Y

Sorry, Mr. Kristofferson, but I take issue with, “… it is the conservative side of the debate which has the responsibility to track down their evidence…” as it implies that fake news is the law of the land and it is accepted before the truth. Evidence is in the form of affidavits and video evidence, along with numerous lawsuits still in the courts. As for your complaint that there is only one perspective that is presented, what about the millions of articles from the lamestream media that do not present an opposite, pro-Trump perspective? I guess if you accept fake news as the law of the land, the truth, or any opposing viewpoint doesn’t matter.

I agree we need to turn down the heat and stop the use of extreme rhetoric. Please first ask letter writers and a usual cast of daily commenters, along with a cyber stalker (you’ll easily recognize these commenters and the stalker) to stop their personal attacks along with their spewing of hatred and divisiveness. After all, why would we listen to them? TDS has been running rampant for years and there doesn’t appear to be a cure but I do admire your optimism.

DavidKristofferson

Terence, My comment about the conservative side of the debate was only in regards to the people involved in this discussion, not the media in general. I spent a half hour of my time listening to what was possibly Mike Lindell’s “absolute proof” only to find it wasn’t in that video. I am merely awaiting one of the other participants to furnish the appropriate link since they announced that Lindell had absolute proof. Following Mitch McConnell’s speech this afternoon (I posted the C-Span link above), I am even more skeptical that Lindell is correct.

I do not disagree with you that many branches of the media on both the left and the right are echo chambers. My highlighted point was simply “****The problem is that this is the ONLY perspective that is presented!****” and “*** People of opposing views do not talk civilly to each other! ***” I was not trying to say that only conservatives make this mistake, and I apologize if I was unclear on this point. I was dealing with the video link at hand which was to a conservative Christian broadcast, but my comments reflect a national problem that impacts all sides of these debates.

Finally, sorry, but I am not sure what your TDS abbreviation refers to. I have not read these comment sections that frequently in the past and you are referring to a cast of characters with which I am unfamiliar.

Terence Y

Mr. Kristofferson - TDS refers to Trump Derangement Syndrome. And don’t worry, as long as you’ve read comments in the past week, you’ll easily determine the cast of characters I’ve referenced. Regarding your highlighted point, I understood the context and perhaps I didn’t need to point out this bias predominantly occurs in the mainstream media.

As an aside, in this day and age, do you really think the mainstream media will ever be able to resume a policy of journalistic integrity? Journalistic integrity, and personal integrity (especially by politicians), have been on severe decline, as evidenced by the Kavanaugh hearings and the two sham impeachments. Surprise, surprise, all initiated by rabid Dems whose hate replaced their integrity. Fortunately, we have alternative media sites that will continue to grow as trust in the mainstream media continues to plummet.

Ray Fowler

Hi, Dave

Did you see any wild geese in the video? Sorry, I did not preview the video... I thought it was the documentary mentioned earlier.

Luego

DavidKristofferson

No problem, Ray. I hope that you are on the mend. I posted a few responses to our discussion on the “Just the Beginning” letter and look forward to your reply when you are up to it.

Dave K.

Ray Fowler

Hello, William

There have been some lively debates on this topic. While most readers, from both sides of the political aisle, support the First Amendment, there have been some who lean left that have called for the censorship of a columnist in the DJ. They are wrong.

Some of those same left leaning readers support large retailers cutting off Mike Lindell's company, My Pillow, as a result of his position and statements about the 2020 election. They are correct as the First Amendment does not apply to businesses in the same way it applies to the press.

Why would large retailers stop using Mike's company? Is it possibly just a business decision and an effort to not alienate a portion of their customer base? Perhaps. Remember Target taking the book "Irreversible Damage" by Abigail Shrier about the dramatic increase in high school girls identifying as trans boys off the Target books for sale online list? Target's move was the result, in part, to a reaction stated in some tweets claiming the book was "offensive." I'm sure those tweeters were sincerely offended, and they have the right to express their opinion. But what about Target? Was the book removal possibly just a business decision and an effort to not alienate a portion of their customer base? Probably. Not surprisingly... interest and sales of Shrier's book increased after Target's ban. Target reinstated the book.

Retailers mixing future sales with politics is risky business. If Bed, Bath & Beyond, Kohl's and others make decisions based on politics, they run the risk of becoming Targets (sorry, I could not resist). But can we compare the Target situation to retailers canceling My Pillow? Probably not. Apparently My Pillow sales were already decreasing and the business decision to cancel My Pillow was based on numbers... not a video. The good news is that sales numbers are verifiable. If sales were starting to decrease, no one can blame a business for making changes to the product lines it offers for sale to the public.

Let customers decide with their dollars which product lines should continue, and if they determine a product is unpopular… for whatever reason… they will let retailers know. If retailers cancel a supplier due to the supplier's political views, they can do so... and the DJ's left leaning readers are correct... it's not a First Amendment issue. It may be wrong in the eyes of some but it is permitted.

Tafhdyd

Ray,

Good to see you back today. As you said this topic has been covered top to bottom. A more important question today is whether your procedure did anything to cure the single malt blockage or do I continue to cover for both of us?

Ray Fowler

Unfortunately, I am still off C2H6O. Apologize if my comments today were a bit foggy... still flushing out the anesthetics.

Dirk van Ulden

William - I could not agree with you more on this topic. We need to resist these efforts by the left to drown out opinions that they don't agree with. Our Founding Fathers must must be rolling over in their graves. I don't agree with many writers who have different opinions but they have the same right as I do to state those without repercussions.

Terence Y

Mr. Campbell – those who disagree with Mike Lindell only want their own opinions heard and disseminated. If you’re one of those opinions who agree with Mike Lindell, be prepared to be censored or to be personally attacked. Look at the current sham impeachment against our great President Trump. Idiot Democrats have presented edited video to present a false narrative of Trump. But of course, their deceptively edited video has been easily destroyed, along with their ill-fated case. Everyone knows the case against Treasonous Obama is much stronger and more persuasive.

DavidKristofferson

“Everyone knows the case against the Treasonous Obama ...,” Terrence? Please pardon my gross ignorance and enlighten me!

I’d also appreciate seeing the link to Lindell’s video proving election fraud mentioned elsewhere above.

My recollection was that Lindell was exhorting Trump to declare martial law recently ... not exactly a moderate position...

Terence Y

Mr. Kristoferson, please reference the millions of dollars in suitcases along with pallets of cash that were delivered to Iran. And don’t forget spying on the Trump campaign. Feel free to watch the current sham impeachment for Trump’s lawyers destroying the idiot Democrats efforts to malign Trump. As Mr. Campbell wrote, Mike Lindell’s video is called “Absolute Proof” and although I haven’t watched it, I would assume it can be found on the internet. Not sure about YouTube, as they’ve probably censored it to protect the Dems and keep their sheep from the truth.

DavidKristofferson

Hi Terence, I will be the first to admit that you may have watched far more details publicized in the conservative media about the above than I have since I tend to wallow in “fake news.” Please note though that, to some extent, “fake news” may be in the eye of the beholder because each media side tends to broadcast items that whip up emotional partisan support.

My uninformed understanding is that the cash that pundits on Fox News kept harping about was Iranian assets that were frozen under previous sanctions and were returned to Iran as part of the nuclear deal. I can easily understand that people on the right may have doubted the wisdom of that deal to try to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon without “bombing them back to the Stone Age” and putting thousands of American forces in Iraq at that time in danger of reprisal attacks, but that was the calculation that Obama made in my limited understanding of the details. Calling this “treasonous” strikes me as being rather extreme.

As to the “spying on the Trump campaign,” once again I have not taken the time to research the gory details recently and may just be publicly displaying my ignorance here. My understanding is that the FBI got involved because they received word that the Trump campaign was being approached by the Russians and were legally obligated to investigate potential foreign influence on our election campaigns. Trump himself kept publicly calling for the Russians to find Hillary’s deleted emails. Again, this was four years ago and not something that I have watched complaints about daily on Fox News over that time span, so my recollection of the facts may be in error.

As to the impeachment, I heard some of the Trump rally speeches on Jan 6th and saw the Twitter postings of not only the President, but also numerous right wing organizers that he retweeted such as Amy Kremer, etc., of “Women for Trump” as she bussed her way across America. All of that looked pretty damning to me. I also listened to Trump’s phone calls to the Georgia elections officials and his interviews with Bob Woodward, and his speeches at his rallies on C-Span, etc., trying to give him the benefit of the doubt by not going through media filters when possible, and, while I agreed with some of his policy positions, so much of what I saw was extremely disturbing to me and painted a portrait of an egomaniac who was out for power and willing to, at the very least, “bend the rules” to get it.

I’ll see if I can find Mike Lindell’s “absolute proof” video (it looks like Ray posted a link), but it will have to be pretty good! I looked at a lot of the stuff that was flying around Twitter earlier, and was not blown away by anything. That in addition to the fact that multiple courts with Republican judges, including the Supreme Court with three Trump appointees and a conservative majority, turned down all of these lawsuits, makes me skeptical with at least a small level of justification.

Terence Y

Thank you for your thoughts, Mr. Kristofferson. I’m sorry, but, “fake news” is not in the eye of the beholder. I don’t think anyone has an issue with items reflecting partisan support, if they are based in fact, but once you include lies and sound bites instead of full context then it becomes fake news.

Regardless of whether you think Obama made a calculation, it doesn’t deflect from his treasonous behavior of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. In regards to spying on the Trump campaign, the FBI received a dossier known to be fake, but still acted upon, and then used as an excuse to go beyond any Russian influence investigation. As for impeachment, please stay current on the current shameful activities that have been utterly destroyed by Trump’s lawyers exposing Democrat hypocrisy and video hijinks. Although some lawsuits have been turned down, multiple lawsuits are still in the courts.

Ray Fowler

This may be it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxYh24Zd0Cs Almost an hour long...

DavidKristofferson

Thanks, Ray. Hopefully he is not squeezing his pillow throughout the entire video 😉!

Christopher Conway

Any relationship with Chris?

DavidKristofferson

Not sure if this question is to me, Mr. Conway. If it is, not that I know of.

Kris Kristofferson did go to San Mateo High School and I received a call one time from someone purporting to be a relative with a similar inquiry. My brother also spoke to him back stage at a concert one time and came to the same conclusion.

I am related to a much more impressive Kristofferson, however, my paternal grandfather. Though little known, he served in the Coast Guard on the Great Lakes, from Chicago all the way up to various locations on Lake Superior. He was involved in many heroic rescue missions, saving people from sinking ships in the middle of bitter winter storms. In particular he was awarded the gold Congressional Life Saving Medal which I understand to be a peace-time equivalent of the Medal of Honor for his efforts in the rescue of the crew of the HMS Runnels which ran aground during a winter storm in Lake Superior. He made three or four trips out to that ship in a Coast Guard surf boat (a wooden boat with oars), was washed out of the boat into freezing water on some of those trips, and helped get everyone off of the ship.

I have visited Lake Superior in the summer time, and the water was so cold even then that I could only go in up to my ankles without it hurting. His heroics still leave me in awe.

And I hasten to add that he was an illegal immigrant to America; he jumped shipped from Sweden to get here...

Tafhdyd

Hello Dave,

I am sure that your clear thinking and concise writing about the items Terence mentioned have fallen on deaf ears. Several commenters in the DJ, including myself, have told him the same thing and his reply is always "fake news". When asked for facts and back up info his reply is always ...you can find it with a simple search as long as you don't look at fake news. Apparently his sources are things like OAN, Newsmax, Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, QAnon, Hannity and his favorite, RSBN. I think you will find, as many others have, that his tinfoil hat is a little too tight.

Terence Y

Mr. Kristofferson, as you can readily see, Taffy is Exhibit Number 1 in the cast of characters I’ve referenced. Hate and personal attacks are strong in this one, as is hypocrisy. Good luck in trying to get this one to turn down the heat but don’t be surprised if you get burned for relating facts against Taffy’s narratives.

DavidKristofferson

Dear Tafhdyd and Terrence,

I did not start writing here to engage in personal attacks. I’ll leave those to the “fine people on both sides” on Twitter. I asked Terrence once again a minute ago to please extend me the courtesy of listening to McConnell’s speech in its entirety on C-Span. I would really like to hear his take *after* he has invested the effort to listen to an opposing viewpoint.

I also await for someone on the conservative side of this particular discussion to send me the link to Mike Lindell’s incontrovertible proof video. I promise that I will take the time to view it (but I will fast forward through any My Pillow commercials...).

My thanks to both of you.

Dave K.

Tafhdyd

Dave,

I tried to find the "Absolute Proof" my pillow guy video myself just for curiosity and only found reference to the OAN page long disclaimer saying that Mike Lindell purchased the time and they have nothing to do with it. One of the lines specifically says "...the claims expressed in this program and presented at this time are opinion only and are not to be taken or interpreted by the viewer as established facts." The other thing I found said that the video was two hours long and I am not going to waste that much time on a bunch of bunk. If OAN goes to that much trouble to disavow something you really have to wonder.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

Please purchase an Enhanced Subscription to continue reading. To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.

We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.

A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!