1. BARREL, are Social Media companies censoring conservatives?

2. YES, PORK. They are censoring conservatives and in some instances liberals as well.

3. What should be done about it?

4. The president is serious.

5. He signed the Executive Order clamping down on Social Media Companies.

6. They would be wise to straighten up and get out of the politics business and let conservatives and liberals speak their minds.

7. Social Media companies like Facebook, Twitter, Google blogging platform, Microsoft blogging platform, and others, will be wise to protect their immunity.

8. They can do so simply by eliminating their banning, blocking, limiting the reach of conservatives.

9. Everyone deserves the right to speak their minds so long as they don’t commit criminal speech.

10. Leave people alone. 

11. Stop trying to affect the outcome of elections by censoring conservatives.


Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship


 Issued on: May 28, 2020



By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy.  Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution.  The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet.  This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic.  When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power.  They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.

The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology.  Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms.  As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.

As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes.  It is essential to sustaining our democracy.

Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse.  Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.

Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias.  As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet.  As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets.  Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China.  One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance.  It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military.  Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights.  They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice.  We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.

Sec. 2.  Protections Against Online Censorship.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet.  Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)).  47 U.S.C. 230(c).  It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation.  As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content.  In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material.  The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.”  47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3).  The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.

In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.”  It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree.  Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike.  When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct.  It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

(b)  To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard.  In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:

(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;

(ii)  the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:

(A)  deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or

(B)  taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and

(iii)  any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.

Sec. 3.  Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech.  (a)  The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms.  Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.

(b)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

(c)  The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.

Sec. 4.  Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech.  The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.”  Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017).  Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders.  These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate.  CfPruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).

(b)  In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship.  In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints.  The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

(c)  The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code.  Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.

(d)  For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order.  The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.

Sec. 5.  State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws.  (a)  The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices.  The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:

(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;

(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;

(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;

(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and

(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.

Sec. 6.  Legislation.  The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.

Sec. 7.  Definition.  For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.

Sec. 8.  General Provisions. (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)    the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)   the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Honor POTUS Trump and FLOTUS Trump! BARREL & PORK.

BARREL, I have come up with this three part description honoring POTUS Trump and FLOTUS Trump, and this same description is a blueprint for every country leader in the world.

What is it, PORK?

BARREL, if POTUS Trump and FLOTUS Trump continue on track, keeping their promises to us, building the wall, stopping the invasion, generating jobs, lowering taxes, prosecuting those who have abused their elected or paid offices, history will show that POTUS Trump and FLOTUS Trump are two of the greatest most honorable national and world leaders.

1. FREE. These two great and honorable leaders are focused [including a strong military] on helping us enjoy INDEPENDENCE AND FREEDOM – freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to travel, freedom to bear arms, freedom of religion – letting the people worship how where or what they may so long as they don’t force others to worship as they do.

2. SAFE. These two great and honorable leaders are focused on helping us and our children and unborn be SAFE – safe from terrorism, safe from crime, safe from invasion, safe from war, safe from abortion, safe from human trafficking, safe from predator politicians, safe from physical or emotional or intellectual or sexual or other abuse.

3. PROSPEROUS. These two great and honorable leaders are focused on helping us be PROSPEROUS with adequate health care, education, entrepreneurial opportunities, manufacturing in country, minimal taxation, and jobs.


  1. What do you think of BREXIT, PORK?

    BARREL, every country should be free and independent. I have 52 REASONS Why the United Kingdom should leave the European Union and regain its “INDEPENDENCE,” “FREEDOM,” and “SOVEREIGNTY” AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE, and if the current PM won’t or is incapable of making it happen, then vote in a new one who will help the people be FREE, SAFE, and PROSPEROUS, BARREL.

    1. ANGER WITH PRIME MINISTERS. The British people are angry with David Cameron and Theresa May because they have not been firm in support of the INDEPENDENCE, SOVEREIGNTY, FREEDOM, SAFETY, and PROSPERITY of the British people. Their compromises are problematic to say the least.
    2. ANGER WITH PRIME MINISTERS. Tensions among the British people are at a breaking point regarding the wave of asylum seekers and migrants invading from the Middle East and Africa.
    3. CONTROL. Leaving most if not all onerous control by EU institutions is a primary reason for leaving the EU. Freedom to choose for oneself no matter the consequences is at the heart of BREXIT independence.
    4. CONTROL. The idea that laws governing British citizens are decided by politicians from other nations is troubling at best. The EU polygamous relationships between the countries tends to be counterproductive.
    5. COST OF BELONGING TO THE EU. The budget contribution for the EU is onerous and without commensurate benefits.
    6. CUSTOMS. Remaining in the EU customs union is problematical given EU customs regulations.
    7. ECONOMICS. Economics is a reason. Britain’s privileged position is under threat from Germany and France and others. Contrary to some opinions, competitiveness as between European “states” is often heightened and not mitigated by EU involvement.
    8. ECONOMICS. Financial and economic regulations are onerous.
    9. ECONOMICS. Non-euro currencies (e.g. the pound) are at risk.
    10. ECONOMICS. There are limitations to an EU single market.
    11. ECONOMICS. There is lack of financial control and autonomy.
    12. EU BUREAUCRACY. The European Union’s excessive “German and Belgium and French” globalist bureaucracy is problematical and often antithetical to the values and interests of the UK.
    13. EU CONTROL. The European Union is highly controlling.
    14. EU CONTROLS FRONTIERS. Frontiers of the state of Britain, including fishing waters, are curtailed at a European level.
    15. EU AS GLOBALIST INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTIES. UK National sovereignty is marginalized, minimized, jeopardized by globalist agendas. Nationalism is a virtue not a vice as globalists would have one believe.
    16. EU DYSFUNCTION. The European Union is highly dysfunctional.
    17. EU EURO. The common euro currency threatens the pound.
    19. EU LACK OF DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY. The European Union’s lack of democratic accountability is discomfiting.
    20. EU SUPERSTATE. The British people are suspicious of a political union with the rest of Europe because the thrust and agenda is toward a “global” and “globalist” “European superstate” including an EU military, ostensibly to compete with the United States, or to counter threats from those within or without the EU.
    21. EXPENSE. The expense of participation is onerous without commensurate benefits.
    22. HISTORICAL CONNECTIONS. UK has historical connections with many other parts of the world from its past empire and commonwealth relationships and is quite capable of making its own treaties and trade arrangements.
    23. IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. Asylum seekers are not remaining in the first EU country they enter as promised.
    24. IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. Immigration is increasing while paying lip service to its reduction. The immigration waves have all the earmarks of an invasion of the west.
    25. IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. Immigration policy is unclear and favors open borders, and unvetted cross-country movement, each of which threaten Great Britain’s identity as a people.
    26. IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. Remaining in the EU Single Market and submitting to EU requirements mandating free movement of people from anywhere in the EU without careful vetting is extremely risky, causing more problems than it is worth and makes no sense.
    27. IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. The border-free Schengen area is problematic to say the least. It comprises 26 European states that have abolished passports and all forms of border control. With the movement of peoples unchecked this a recipe for terrorist and military disaster.
    28. IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. The idea and practice of free movement across borders throughout Europe is fraught with perils including conflicts with cultures and religions and economic interests.
    29. IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. The wave of asylum seekers – the EU’s open borders plans to resettle hundreds of thousands of migrants and refugees from the Middle East and Africa – is disturbing and destabilizing.
    30. IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. An invasion of vast numbers of people is moving uncontrolled without proper vetting or control across the continent, with the result that many are taking over enclaves in the UK.
    31. IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. Limits on the number of migrants are discussed but are not implemented.
    32. INDEPENDENCE. Leaving the EU means the UK will jettison the globalist agenda and be more nearly independent and will take responsibility for its own economy, security, and laws.
    33. LANGUAGE BARRIERS. Language difficulties are significant given the unchecked immigration/migration/invasion.
    34. PRINCIPLES. No deal is indeed better than a bad deal. No deal, if it comes to that, simply means Great Britain will be independent.
    35. REGULATIONS. Standardization of everything from labor regulations to the size of olive oil containers threatens Europe with persistent low growth and high unemployment.
    36. REGULATIONS. Article 50 of the 2009 Lisbon Treaty required official notification of the EU by the UK government, and PM May triggered the article on March 29, 2017.
    37. REGULATIONS. Disentangling the UK from EU regulations though difficult is doable and contrary to some opinions is not a major problem in “settling the status of millions of UK citizens residing in the EU and non-EU citizens in the UK”and although it will require present and future UK-EU security cooperation, the final withdrawal deal approved “by a super majority of EU countries” has bearing on the EU and is irrelevant to the European Parliament.” Whoever permits the provision requiring a “super majority approval,” as an excuse for preventing Great Britain from withdrawing, deserves significant opprobrium.
    38. REGULATIONS. EU laws and regulations are onerous. Independence, indeed separateness, and the common law, is a primary source of strength of Great Britain.
    39. REGULATIONS. Opt-outs have failed to protect UK interests.
    40. REGULATIONS. Reduction of EU regulations has not been forthcoming.
    41. REGULATIONS. There is limited ability to negotiate with the EU.
    42. SOVEREIGNTY. “Ever closer union with EU “states”” is antithetical to British independence and sovereignty.
    43. SOVEREIGNTY. Destruction of national sovereignty by the globalist agenda has been a result of getting involved with the EU.
    44. SOVEREIGNTY. Reclaiming independence and sovereignty is a primary reason for leaving the EU.
    45. STATUS of the UK. The UK did not lose the first or second world war and was not invaded during the second world war either. The UK has a unique history having just recently ceded control over large areas of the world. With its penchant for industry, its economic system, and its common law system, it is destined for continued greatness, which is best realized by being independent and by not ceding its options to the EU governing board comprised of Germany, France, Belgium and others.
    46. STATUS of the UK. The UK was not invaded during second world war.
    47. STATUS of the UK. The UK was victorious in second world war. Now territorial ambitions of other actors, including those who lost the second world war, appear to be realized by so-called “peaceful migration” which by any other definition is simple invasion.
    48. TERRORISM. EU nationals traveled to Syria to fight with the self-proclaimed Islamic State and now many have returned with their radical ideas and terrorist activities thereby making the UK vulnerable — jeopardizing the safety and security of British citizens.
    49. TERRORISM. Knife attacks and car and truck attacks in Great Britain have increased in number and this increase can be traced to the immigration/migration/invasion policies of the EU.
    50. TERRORISM. Terrorist attacks in Europe have not been eliminated as promised.
    51. TRADE. There is inability to integrate with the European Coal and Steel Community.
    52. TRADE. There is inability to integrate with the European Economic and Cultural Community. Again, BARREL, Great Britain, and for that matter each country, needs to be independent, sovereign, and free of entanglements.


WE HONOR AND THANK POTUS TRUMP FOR HIS 314+ PROMISES KEPT AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS DURING HIS FIRST 20 MONTHS IN OFFICE. Besides continuing those positive actions, these areas require added energy and focus:

  1. SAFETY. Build the wall yesterday. Make all come through the front door and be vetted and e-verified.
  2. PROSPERITY. Improve disaster prevention, disaster response, and disaster recovery capabilities immediately.
  3. PROSPERITY. Redo our infrastructure as promised and protect and augment our electrical, gas and oil, communications, and internet grids and capabilities.
  4. FREEDOM. Relentlessly continue the fight against terrorism, indict and arrest those who have feloniously violated federal law, and tamp down any hint of domestic mobocracy and violence including efforts by anti-Americans to curtail Constitutional rights to FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, FREEDOM TO BEAR ARMS, FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY.


FREE, SAFE, AND PROSPEROUS. How to tell if POTUS Trump is helping you?

How to tell if POTUS Trump is helping you?

Is what he is saying and signing helping you be more FREE? (Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly, Right to bear arms)

Is what he is saying and signing helping you be more SAFE? (Border security, Extreme vetting of immigrants, Elimination of gangs and crime)

Is what he is saying and signing helping you be more PROSPEROUS? (Jobs, Manufacturing, Tax reduction)