Jim Robinson & FR accused of censorship

WhatReallyHappened.com ^ | 4 January 2002 | WRH.com goobers

[madfly]

This could be ironic, but I spent a lot of time on a post saying alot of nice things about JR and this place...And it is gone. Did it get deleted?

Say it isn't so.... madfly

[Buckeroo]

Mike posted limited material on FR to minimise the way the FR server(s) operate with regard to BW restraints. You folks that say Mike spammed FR are not thinking clearly. He predates most of you folks on FR when FR maintained limited BW and respected Jim's policy all the time that I saw.

[Bullish]

So sorry! I see that my post was misdirected. My mistake.

you are doing a great job.

[madfly]

My mistake, what a goof.

Sorry, please delete my blunder.

[goodieD]

"not an objective reporter" ?? Sorry freak, this isn't a newspaper or a tv news station, it's a website, Jim Robinson's website to be exact, and he can CHOOSE (big word with freaks) to allow or disallow any darn thing he pleases. This site isn't here for anyone's approval. Like it or leave it.

[nolu chan]

Of course, Jim Robinson has it wrong. We're not at war. Only Congress can state otherwise and there has been no formal declaration of war by anyone. - Article

My understanding was that if we are attacked on our own soil that no declaration of war is needed. I have heard this said many times by military spokesmen and congressmen. - sweetliberty

Score: sweetliberty 1 Article 0

The Supreme Court spoke to this issue in 1862.

U.S. Supreme Court
THE AMY WARWICK, 67 U.S. 635 (1862)
67 U.S. 635 (Black)
THE BRIG AMY WARWICK.
THE SCHOONER CRENSHAW.
THE BARQUE HIAWATHA.
THE SCHOONER BRILLIANTE.
December Term, 1862

(excerpt)

It is contended that the President cannot exercise war powers until Congress shall first have 'declared war,' or, at least, done some act recognizing that a case exists for the exercise of war powers, and of what war powers.

There is nothing in the distribution of powers under our Constitution which makes the exercise of this war power illegal, by reason of the authority under which this capture was made.

I. It is not necessary to the exercise of war powers by the President, in a case of foreign war, that there should be a preceding act of Congress declaring war.

The Constitution gives to Congress the power to 'declare war.'

But there are two parties to a war. War is a state of things, and not an act of legislative will. If a foreign power springs a war upon us by sea and land, during a recess of Congress, exercising all belligerent rights of capture, the question is, whether the President can repel war with war, and make prisoners and prizes by the army, navy and militia which he has called into service and employed to repel the invasion, in pursuance of general acts of Congress, before Congress can meet? or whether that would be illegal?

In the case of the Mexican war, there was only a subsequent [67 U.S. 635, 660] recognition of a state of war by Congress; yet all the prior acts of the President were lawful acts of war.

[abigkahuna]

Since Mr. Robinson owns the site (although donations are taken to keep it running), I guess he can do anything with it he wants.

So Jim supports the War and the President. I guess for some thats a big revelation. Jim says he will delete posts he thinks detracts from the forum. And....so...

I am probably like a lot here of FR. I come here to read about the latest news from a variety of sources worldwide. For me the commentary can be secondary, or sometimes primary...as a story develops and FR's experts weigh in...

Censorship? This is not the wall of the lavatory where anything can be scribbled.

I have to be honest, I never heard of "What Really Happended Dot Com"--are they big, are they important?

Jeez....sounds like Larry whatever got his noodles overboiled...

[tophat9000]

Michael Rivero is famous for asserting something as fact with out researching if what he states is true, then using it leaping to the most illogic conclusions and sighting it as conclusive proof of some grand conspiracy

Some years ago he would have some good things but in the last couple years he seem to go off the deep end

I had a few go arounds with him myself; If a Mig 29 was shot in Yugoslavia, Stringer, TWA800, to name a few

[Justa]

"...I regard Michael Rivero to be one of the most interesting posters to ever post to Free Republic.... always challenged me to think a bit harder and deeper about unfolding events, and to question the official truth....

So you think a person who runs a website called "What Really Happened" would be objective and open-minded?

"I regard his banishment and the nuking of his collective contributions to Free Republic to be a tragic loss, not only to this forum, but to our nation...."

I'll take it then that you're in with Rivero and believe, like OKC, that the explosions of 9/11 were merely carefully-orchestrated diversions carried out by government agents to provide cover for the pre-installed, secret-government demolition charges which really caused the buildings to collapse. You know, "what really happened" and all. Yuh, that's what got Michael banned.

Psst, paranoia feeds off itself Arator. No wonder you miss him.

[Republican_Strategist]

He has a job. Rivero’s job consists of anti-American propaganda…I wonder how much he costs? Better ask bin Laden.

[Republican_Strategist]

You have to love Rivero’s evidence such as depictions of America’s enemy as small Afghan children apparently unharmed wrapped in bandages and photo taken by Taliban. Yeah, accuse Americas military men & women of attacking innocent children and then doctoring pictures to fool people into thinking the bin Laden tape was fake.

[BlackElk]

Actually, a couple of centuries ago, one commentator, describing the law itself, gave us the best word picture to describe the likes of Michael Rivero and Justin Raimundo: Each is "a ass, a idiot," or Shakespeare might have described each as "sound and fury signifying nothing." Constitution worship, as such, or republic worship, as such, is not conservatism. It is not even a love of freedom. The idea of a "republic" was also the goal of the notorious French Revolution. Burke had no trouble distinguishing between our revolution which he supported even as a member of Parliament and the French Revolution. The Soviet Union also had a constitution and it guaranteed free speech and freedom of religion and what not. Wise subjects of the Soviets knew better than to take those guaarantees seriously. As long as Roe vs. Wade is the "law of the land" courtesy of the US Supremes (our ongoing extralegal constitutional convention in no apparent need of ratification), we have no republic and we have no constitution.

All that having been said, may God bless Dubya with every success in his ongoing and impressive effort to search out and destroy the SOB's who were responsible for the 9/11 attack on our nation and its citizens. May the neo-isolationist poseurs or neo-ostriches such as Rivero and Raimundo obtain the obscurity they so richly deserve. May they soon be gone and be forgotten with the rest of their ilk.

And finally, puhleeze give a rest to the bilge that those who support the current military effort are somehow dupes of a vast conspiracy or inferior intellects because they do not agree with little Justin and Rivero.

[Justa]

Theres a difference between someone benefitting from an act and knowing about it beforehand or even committing the act. A big difference. I'll let you consider the evidence needed to prove someone had specific apriori knowledge of any of these attacks. That's one of the lamest indictments going.

Secondly, even if prior knowledge is proven (most unlikely) that doesn't absolve the perpetrators. Should the U.S. have not made a Declaration of War against the Japanese? Should we not have liberated Kuwait? Should we not conduct the WOT?

Try your reasoning on yourself: if you failed to buckle your seatbelt before driving your car and got in an accident would you like it if your insurance agent told you they weren't going to honor the claim because by not wearing the belt it showed you had prior knowledge and therefore got in the accident on purpose? It's just stupid reasoning dude. It's wild, speculative crap. And we don't base our freedoms or our government on stupid stuff like that.

[BlackbirdSST]

TOUGH SH*T, go find some other website to post your opinion on.
I was going to stay out of this fray, but, as long as views agreeing with yours are posted, then OK, otherwise hit the road. Real conservative of you. Since JR is the owner of the site, it's true he "can" control content, does that mean he "should".? When a Moderator deletes a post or someones response, where does that spark debate? Frankly, alot of stuff I read here should be pulled but isn't. I think what folks get concerned over is more a lack of consistency than anything else. When a post is deleted out of hand, how can you or anyone other than the deleter know of the content, and whether or not it deserved to be pulled? I would think it better to leave the post and let grownups decide for themselves, or did I miss something in relating conservatism with personal responsibility. There is no lack of pinning someones butt to the wall here at FR, let the post stand or fall on it's own merits. Blackbird.

[Arator]

As my last post has been pulled, it is obvious that any further argument or discussion along these lines will not be permitted. Hence, it would be futile and pointless for me to pursue it.

Perhaps if we should meet at another forum, we could continue this exchange. Until then...

[Republican_Strategist]

By Johnny Jihad. Don’t let the bullets mow you down on your way out.

[Howlin]

Shouldn't you be somewhere in the mist?

[xm177e2]

If you don't want your posts pulled, why don't you post to JimRob's "Censored Republic" thread, where he promised not to pull anything?

[Jim Robinson]

Because he's been told that if he continues down that road his privileges will be yanked. Thought he'd already left anyway.