47 votes

Why Your Husband Was Banned from the Daily Paul

Originally titled: Why was my husband banned from the Daily Paul?

Tonight my husband, Brent Hartman, commented on the "Super Boycott of A&E already at 1,100,000+ likes..." thread. His subject line read, "Homosexuals are Clearly Confused." The body of his comment read,

On one hand they petition to have Christians fired for their religious views. On the other hand they sue Christians to force them to do business with them. A little consistency would be nice.

My husband then linked to two stories, one in the Washington Post, and one by Breitbart, which discussed a Christian photographer and a Christian baker that lost lawsuits for refusing to provide services to gay weddings.

My husband has been a member of the Daily Paul for nearly 6 years. Why would his comment get him banned? Was it wrong to point out that Christians have been forced to contract with gays? Is that not relevant to the discussion about the Duck Dynasty guy? Can the moderators here please provide us with an explanation?

- - - - -

Site Owner Nystrom's Response:

While I have addressed this below, my comments are likely to get buried as other comments pile up, so I will leave my response here:

I cannot take responsibility for other people's opinions, but as the owner of this site I can take responsibility for who is allowed to post here.

With regards to the specific comment:

Characterizing "homosexuals" as a kind of collectivist group is wrong-headed and shows a lack of understanding for the basic tenants of Liberty. What Ron Paul taught, and what those of us here should be aware of as a result, is that all people are individuals. To collectivize "homosexuals," or any other collection of individuals as such and ask that they behave in a consistent manner is not a position I wish to encourage or support.

Asking for some kind of "consistency" from a falsely created group is ridiculous. It would be like someone saying "Christians claim to be pro life, so why do Christians assassinate doctors who perform abortions? Some consistency would be nice."

Such reasoning sets up a false argument, a false choice, and I'm tired of this kind of low level divide-and-conquer, "culture wars" discussion on the Daily Paul. It is not interesting to me. I do not wish to participate in it, nor do I wish to subsidize it.

Before I make a ban, I always look at posting history, try to get an idea what this user is about, where he or she is coming from. What stood out when I reviewed your husband's posting history was this post:

Is Mitt Romney A Servant of Satan?

Somehow this post was missed by me and the moderators during election season. When I found it, I immediately unpublished it for the same reasons as stated above: This is not the kind of content I wish to use my time, resources and money to subsidize or support. I have since republished it not because I agree with it, but only as further illustration as to why I banned your husband.

A post like that speaks of a mindset. And a collectivizing comment like that speaks of a mindset. I have been running interactive web forums for over a decade, and I'm very familiar with where that type of a mindset leads and what it attracts. I've been there, done that, and don't wish to do it again, thanks.

If your husband comes from that mindset, that is his business. Fine. This is America. It is a free country. People can believe what they want. But to reiterate: It doesn't mean that I have to subsidize it with my time, money and labor, which is what the Daily Paul represents. I personally do no find this kind of MSM, divide-and-conquer, culture wars BS interesting or relevant, and do not wish to associate with it.

That is why I banned your husband from making further posts at the Daily Paul.

This site supports Liberty, but not some abstract concept of it. It supports Liberty in the very concrete sense, beginning with my own. I'll manage it and prune it as I see fit. On my property I'll associate with whom I choose.

If people don't like it, or think that I'm too heavy handed, fine. That is your opinion and your right. You can go elsewhere. I don't have a problem with that, and I think it that is best for everyone.

Because I'm not going anywhere.

The Daily Paul is private property, it is not a public utility, available freely on an equal basis to everyone to (and abuse). Posting here is a privilege, not a right, as the posting guidelines clearly point out.

Obviously I reserve the right, and I do discriminate as to who I choose to associate with.

I hope this answers your question.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Civility goes a long ways!

Being rude is a very lonely road to travel on.

www.SpiderWebbs.com (Take Your Bookmarks Wherever You Go!)

Being rude?

I'm not the one who unreasonably kicked out a 6 year member from a liberty forum for giving his opinion on a specific issue.

None of us would be here...

If it wasn't for Michael. Show some respect.

wrong, the daily paul is the

wrong, the daily paul is the USERS not the site location.

you comment is equally wrong to stating: if Nikola Tesla was never born we would have never had radio or electricity.

you're a bit too arrogant.

Support the Daily Paul by using this link when you visit Amazon.com... http://www.amazon.com/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=bullnotbull-20&lin...

Daily Paul will earn a commission on all of your purchases.

I think the problem with the collective

lies in being dumb enough to think that GLAAD speaks for all gays, or the NAACP speaks for all black people, or that the Pope speaks for all people of faith, or that the 'terrawrist' of the day speaks for all Muslims. The NAACP and GLAAD only exist to stir the pot, live off of other peoples money, and scream "hate speech" every time someone doesn't agree with them.

Ron Paul tells us to put away that wide brush of ignorance. We are all individuals and groups like the NAACP and GLAAD speak for themselves, not everyone who happens to be black or gay. Treat people as individuals, and judge simply on the fruits that the individual bears.

Judging people as a collective, such as gay, black, Muslim, Christian, and so forth is just about as anti-liberty as one can get.

I haven't gone through all the comments, but yours . . .

gets a high score in *my* "book".

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

The reason that happens is because

groups have a culture built around certain similarities. Terms like "the Gay community" are bandied about in the media, and are studied by sociologist.

To deny that humans are social animals that function in groups would be silly.

The problem is deciding what things represent that community, and not over doing association based judgements that often prove wrong - the story of the good samaratin is a great example someone mentioned.

Once again, Brent and I are Mormon.

Just like Mitt Romney. The fact is, there has been no shortage of truly anti-Mormon post on the Daily Paul. I've spent hours this morning collecting them to share with my Mormon friends and family. If you continue back through my husbands comment history you will find many instances where he defended our religion with no help from your moderators. Why is that?

Also, if you read past the title you would see that Brent was just holding Mitt accountable to scriptures that we hold sacred. Did you actually read the post, or did you just make a knee jerk reaction based on the question in the title? I encourage everyone to read it and find out for yourselves if it is so horrible. You act as if Brent had a sordid history of posting horrible things but that just isn't true.

The reality is that Brent got banned for a post that didn't say anything derogatory about gays. Gay activist did petition the courts to force Christians to contract with them. Gay activist did petition A&E to fire Phil Robertson. Is repeating these facts anti-gay? Did all gays do this? Of course not! But many did support these activities. Forgive Brent for not naming them all individually. Brent actively campaigned when we lived in Arizona against Prop. 102. He supports gay rights. He defended Gary Johnson on this very issue on the Daily Paul. I didn't want to read through pages and pages of search results, but here are a few examples:




What were you saying about him being a "bigot"? lol You have the right to ban Brent for his dastardly comment on gays in order to protect the "collective" known as the Daily Paul. You certainly wouldn't want an individual scewing that up anymore than has already been done. Those that slander my husband as a bigot have no idea what you are talking about. That is demonstrably untrue.

I am a devout Christian--

and you will find that when Christianity is attacked, I do not defend.


God does not need defending, and defensiveness is just another kind of warfare--

what an insult to a Perfect Being to think that He needs to be defended from puny humans!

I want to hear what fair atheists, Christians of ALL stripes, Bhuddists, Hindus, Muslims and Jews, all of them, if they are truly honest in their beliefs and not collectivists--

have to say--

and if "someone" attacks Christianity, I find myself wondering what sort of person they met who did not behave in a Christlike way--

who purported to be a Christian--

so that they felt they needed to attack.

Jesus did say that we were not to turn again; He said that we were to turn the other cheek. Truly Godly people in ALL scriptures talk about not turning and 'reviling' again. Don't revile; just don't do it. Defensiveness can be the same as reviling. I'm not saying that people who have been, otherwise, very faithful have not reviled or defended. I am just saying that it doesn't work, and it doesn't please God. If it pleased God, He would not have said, "turn the other cheek"--

Defending a particular religion that is not one's own is--

a form of collectivism--

I will defend someone else's religion when I feel that that person is outnumbered, but never my own.

In my own church, my beliefs about this are considered strange and even unacceptable.

A person shows his/her devotion to God by defending God and truth, correct?

No, a person shows his/her devotion to God by following God, and there is no scripture, found anywhere, where God commands *us* to defend our religion.

Defending families, yes--

nations, yes, probably--

but not religion--

IF a person wants to defend a religion, his/her best way of doing that is to live it, completely, without hypocrisy or guile.

Yes, there have been noted Christians, even Mormons, who believed in defending their religion; it always ended/ends badly.

I know.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

"... and there is no

"... and there is no scripture, found anywhere, where God commands *us* to defend our religion."
Perhaps not, but there is this one from 1st Peter: "14 But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled, 15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; 16 and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame."

I don't necessarily blame "Cino's" (Christian In Name Only) for everyone who attacks the faith, though that is a problem. We can't say that every hateful word spoken against the faith would never have occurred if all Christians were sincere and faithful. Peter even warns that will not be the case. These verses do call us to answer legit questions and to correct misunderstandings. The same Greek word used in this verse is also offered in Acts when Paul rose to give his 'apologia' or defense against false accusations. We are called to defend the faith, but in a particular way and within a particular frame of mind.

I think it is important to keep in mind the behavior of the early church in Acts and the Epistles. Paul is spoken of in Acts as disputing for the faith. His custom was to enter local synagogues to speak with fellow Jews, and these talks often became debates as seen by both Paul's reaction and the response of some in attendance. In fact, many of the Epistles could be said to be defenses of the faith - correcting not only errors in theology and practice, but condemning heresies in very stark terms.

And this contending for the faith is also seen in less religious settings, such as Paul's speech on Mars Hill in Athens where he was heard by philosophers of his day.

deacon's picture

Your words resonate

truth. I like that.by the worlds standards for measuring
what a christian is,I am not sure I fall into that category.
Maybe I am,but am looking for a deeper meaning to it all
I have been raked over the coals by self professing christians
here and at church,How dare I question any church,or bring to light
inconsistencies in the bible,this tells them all,I am a hater,a non believer
a deceiver,And I was once told,I will get what I deserved for questioning
Thank you for them words you chose to use

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence


Someone has an old wound that has yet to heal, and the OP touched it.
Give them time.

Stay True

wolfe's picture

To be fair.

While I do think you both seemed to be fairly well reasoned and not bigoted at all (from the brief stuff I have seen associated with this post)....

Your comment about defending against Mormon attacks here, is not a fair complaint. Many of us defended against the anti-Mormon stuff in comments and posts. Many of us did indeed request mods to kill threads that did in fact die. And all of us made the same argument, "Leave religion out of it. That's his choice and is irrelevant, etc etc."

But then there is that post against Romney based solely on his religion. So he/you lost any moral high ground in defending a religious sect, the second that you used that same sect to attack someone with purely religious arguments.

For the record, I am an atheist (who dabbles in Buddhism), and find most religions, including yours, destructive to mankind, but I defend your right to hold your beliefs, as I would for anyone of any belief so long as it does not directly harm another person.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

Brent wasn't attacking Mormonism.

He was holding Romney accountable to our shared Mormon beliefs. That's different that saying "Mormons will rot in hell".

wolfe's picture

You are missing the point.

Attacking Romney using your "sacred text" instead of on logic and reason, makes you no better or worse than others attacking you based on "their sacred text".

Further, it added fuel to the religious obsessed, which in theory should have been what you were fighting against if you were truly defending against anti-Mormonism. You should have been defending his right to his beliefs and not that "mormons are ok".

Now, I gave you pass for the post because it was by Mormons, about a Mormon, using Mormon texts. So there was nothing inherently wrong with the post, except that it was feeding the anti-Mormon frenzy, and that it was using something other than logic to make a point.

It's all quite silly, my sacred text can beat up your sacred text. Defend the generic right to belief, not a specific group as special.

So while there was nothing horribly wrong with the post, there also was nothing right about it, and it did destroy any credibility you had in defending against "anti-Mormon" attacks.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -


but it was you that missed the point.

From our perspective

The text of that scripture is logic and reason. Do you disagree with not following extra-constitutional laws? Do you disagree with renouncing war, and proclaiming peace? Are those unreasoned and illogical statements?

Let me say

it another way, and Michael if you're reading please correct me if I'm wrong:

It's almost fricking 2014 and within America we still have people intolerant of others based on their race, religion, sexual-orientation etc. being different from their own.

Now, as Michael points out, freedom means the ability to think freely, and if you're someone intolerant of others as I outline above I personally find that sad, but that's your right.

BUT when you come here to private property to associate with others attempting to promote and pursue the Liberty our great country, which we all must live in together regardless of views, was founded upon then you'd be wise to keep intolerant type opinions to yourself or risk being banned. Mr. Nystrom doesn't play that.

Michael is within his rights

And we are within our rights to boycott the Daily Paul. Frankly, I wish there were a solid alternative "hub" for the movement, as Michael has made many questionable decisions over the years.

I don't agree with your husband's perspective, but I appreciate his argument about inconsistency when it comes to freedom of association, and I certainly wouldn't be banning him while allowing the Alex Jones loyalists to run roughshod over this site. But again, that's Michael's right. There's a reason I block as many ads from this site as possible and don't use the Amazon referral: I don't want to feed this site. But, for now, it's the best we have.

Very thoughtful and well written response!.

Well written Michael.

www.SpiderWebbs.com (Take Your Bookmarks Wherever You Go!)

I Agree

100% with your response and decision making for this site, Michael!

More analysis -- if you don't mind.

And I wasn't inspired by the transaction. But Michael, I DO compliment you for allowing this thread to be a "live" thread where you personally could be exposed to criticism. That is a noble thing you are allowing to occur. That speaks highly of you, whereas an authoritarian would just completely censor/delete the thread altogether.

But perhaps your logic is exposed?

I ask: How is the member poster "characterizing 'homosexuals' as a kind of collectivist group?" What do you mean by "collectivist" here? That's a strong word to use on this site considering the folks that come here. What that means to awakened Liberty activists is a "person who prefers things to be run by the state vs. letting the individual decide for themselves as long as they don't hurt others' rights to life, liberty, property."

Is it a stretch to assert the banned poster is saying ALL homosexuals are "collectivists"? Where did he say or assert that? That looks like Michael's opinions and not the poster's. And if so, then he's getting banned for something he's not guilty of.

To use that logic, I think a good analogy would be examine this statement: "The Republicans are bought and paid for and a tool of the Powers That Be." Does this "collectivize" /group ALL Republicans? Of course not. Yes, MOST are bought and paid for, as are most Dems, but there are a few who are not, like RP. But should comments like "The Repubs are bought and paid for" be entered as evidence to ban somebody because of a "collectivizing" assertion that may or may not be true?

It looks to me like the 6-year member made a comment that touched an unexpressed nerve of Michael's. And I understand Michael does not need to justify his reasons for banning said member, as this IS Michael's private property. I think we all get that. At the end of the day, it's YOUR decision.

If you're the banned poster, it's hard to argue debate an abstract rationale of, "I have been running interactive web forums for over a decade, and I'm very familiar with where that type of a mindset leads and what it attracts. I've been there, done that..." No concrete reason is given here. It's abstract, more of a hunch, or "trust me, there is thought-crime here, and it WILL play out the way I say it will." Perhaps you're right or would be proven right. But why not logically look at the actual evidence that is before you instead of projecting a future "crime" that you don't want to be associated with?

As far as the question he raised about Romney, as an active, practicing Mormon mind you, I can say that Romney appears to be completely ignorant and clueless/ uneducated about Mormon doctrine, and perhaps is just deceived like hundreds of thousands of Mormons about the political/temporal fight for Liberty, OR I can say that he is a tool servant of Satan. I personally think he's an infiltrator, perhaps an Illuminati infiltrator planted to deceive and lead away Mormons from true doctrine. Maybe he's under mind control. There's a real possibility of him being a true servant to Lucifer. But that's another topic. Educated, non-deceived Mormons will immediately recognize that Mormon doctrine is 100% pro Dr. Ron Paul and Libertarianism in general and 100% pro Constitution, as the quoted scripture illustrates. So naturally Lucifer will go to great lengths to confuse or blind and deceive Mormon membership. A Manchurian candidate like Romney makes complete sense. "We'll get my lawyers together and decide if we should go to war", I recall Mitt saying in a debate. My jaw dropped. Is he really clueless, or might he be dedicated to the fight AGAINST Liberty. I think the latter.

In reality, the question of "Is he a servant of Satan" is more of a rhetorical question. OF COURSE Romney serves Satan, AS WE ALL DO, when we sin, whether it be against the light and knowledge given to us (and Romney has been given much light and knowledge as a Mormon), or whether we disobey our God-given consciences.

Finally I ask, does this banned poster's comments rise to the level of "MSM, divide-and-conquer, culture wars BS"?

I thank you Michael for the opportunity to weigh in here. It's your decision, and ultimately none of our business, but in the interest of truth and liberty, it's an important debate as it could affect any of us if we step out of line. That's why I had interest in the decision making.

Hope no offense was given. None intended. I thank you for your website and for your contributions. Merry Christmas!

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

The "Ron Paul is Racist" Accusation

Dr. Paul was called inconsistent and racist because he had support from people who were racist. Many of us were called racist because we supported Ron Paul when he had support from some who were racist.

Well, some people are stupid, and we're all ignorant about some things. I guess the latter is a broad generalization, but I'm not too worried I can't defend it.

It is, indeed, folly to blame groups for the character of individuals, and nowhere is that more clear than when one talks of those in the freedom movement--however, just because it may be less clear in other movements (conservative, liberal, etc.) doesn't mean it's not equally true, there.

I mean, the Samaritans were the worst people on earth, and yet the hero of a parable was chosen from among them as an example of the rule of individual responsibility.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

That would go hand in hand

That would go hand in hand with hate filled liberals posting on the Daily Paul and then blaming them Tea Partiers? Maybe they are the LaRouche folks? Perhaps the ADL or SPLC? Maybe it's MSNBC or that hit job pundit that would pull the race card on Ron Paul or those that would say he is the head speaker at an Anti Semitic rally (Catholics up in Canada)? Maybe its the same hate filled people that badmouthed Nelson Mandela or keep posting about people being GAY.

I've seen these tactics before. And I have seen how they use these tactics during prime time.

Ever hear of the boy that cried wolf?

Be Your Own Media!!!

DakotaKid's picture

Have a Merry Christmas!

The snowflakes are a nice addition to the website! :)

Looks like the issue is not homosexual at all to me.

From what I read its an issue about the collective forcing requiring the individual to contract with individuals they choose not to contract with.

The issue was a private invivudual who ownes a wedding cater biz who choose not to do biz with a gay marrage party.

The Judge made the collective rule about this issue not the wedding cater biz not the person who posted it.

It appears to be a issue of Individualism vs collective

At the end of the day the choice of a web site owner to ban whatever speach from their private site is their choice and dont need no reason or rational.

If you want to repost on your own space no one can ban your post.


Like sands through the

Like sands through the hourglass.....

We are all Human beings.

The End.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Homosexuals are special people

The laws are turned upside down for them, you cannot speak against them. Some States you can even be prosecuted for a hate crime for getting into a fight with one. Fifty years ago you would be jailed for forcing a child to live with one, now adoption readily forces children into the Homo lifestyle. What is child abuse?

I usually stay away from these types of posts, brings back memories of my 12th Birthday I would like to forget.

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe