When is the truth more important than a politically correct form of censorship called moderation? Censorship of any form is an injustice no matter how polite it is touted to be. Censorship controls opinion and is a tool of the court used to preserve the opinions of a jury by removing all but presented evidence. That is how powerful a tool censorship is.

 Who ought be allowed to censor and still be legitimate? It certainly isn't the province of any media to alter content or reject it utterly unless it contains useless foul language. The free press isn't free if it secretly censors itself, is it?  It isn't the province of our elected officials either as John Adams wisely remarked " Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have... a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the characters and conduct of their rulers.". So why is censorship tolerated by any of them?

 If it is an insult so great it is considered a danger to liberty for the people to be denied knowledge of such character and conduct it is no small wonder that the founders and all the states agreed that there would be a certain few requirements of openness placed in the constitution. Article 2 section 1 is one such law requiring disclosure as our only real protection from these dangers one might successfully secret from the public,

 " No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

While it is not readily apparent why these two preconditions be met, it is the supreme law as it stands and it must be fulfilled faithfully as the oath to office of every president, elected official, federal justice and cabinet members requires. Any censorship, by any of them, of any constitutional law requirement is illegal, period.

The presidents oath;  "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Senators and representatives, annually at the beginning of congress, and also taken by the Vice President, members of the Cabinet, and all other civil and military officers and federal employees; "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Federal justices; "I do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution, and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Who is censoring information? It is reported that the president has paid $1.8 million dollars to secret his birth documents from the satisfaction of the constitution. Many court cases aimed at satisfying the law of the land have met dismissals by, you guessed it, sworn federal justices. One, Justice David O. Carter, remarked "The “general right” of “every citizen, to require that the government be administered according to law” is insufficient to establish standing." Now if that isn't censorship I don't know what is. The court was asked many things but what was sought was the official birth certificate for review as to whether or not the constitution had been satisfied. The court refused to hear the case because it did not want to rule on a constitutional question of compliance and evaded it as a question of interpretation of the law not the following of it. A jury could have easily determined the validity of a birth document and at that point a dismissal would have been appropriate since the evidence proving a constitutional interpretation would be required. The judge simply denied the people the removal of the secret document into the open so "we the people" would have evidence to go to the supreme court with. Did he effectively aid in censoring the proof to meet a constitutional requirement ?

The whitehouse itself is involved; The Los Angeles Times published an article by Peter Nichols on November 8th 2009, " Democratic consultant says he got a warning from White House after appearing on Fox News" . Is this censorship?

Douglas Hagmann, director of the Northeast Intelligence Network and longtime private investigator, and Judi McLeod, a prolific journalist and the managing editor of Canada Free Press, published an investigation concluding the following;