Sept 20, 2009
An Electronic Press Violates the Constitution
"Nothing could be more irrational
than to give the people power,
and to withhold from them information
without which power is abused.
A people who mean to be their own governors
must arm themselves
with power
which knowledge gives."
-- President Madison
Reason #1 :
An Electronic Media
violates the Constitution
as a Matter of Practice
You know that the right to vote means nothing if you do not have full, complete and truthful information before you cast your vote.
You know that an electronic media completely in the hands of one side cannot accurately present the other side even if they wanted to.
Even Obama supporters know there was much more they needed to know about Obama before they voted for him.
Even Obama supporters know there was much more about Obama that could have and should have been reported on Obama before the election.
Nevertheless, you know the major electronic news distorts the truth, emphasizes what it wants and minimizes what it does not want.
You know the electronic media will never accurately report this article you are reading now, if they ever report it.
You know in your heart that there is a virtual media-monopoly on the news in this country.
Hence, you know in your heart that there is not a free press in this country.
Hence, without a free press, we are deprived of our Constitutional right to vote, where we clearly know the issues and decide for ourselves which we prefer.
James Madison said as much in his quote above.
Therefore, the electronic media-monopoly is un-Constitutional as a matter of practice.
You can see it in practice this last election cycle and know it is not fulfilling its Constitutional role.
But we will now prove that the electronic media-monopoly is un-Constitutional on its face.
Reason #2 :
An Electronic Media
violates the Constitution
on it Face
From any rudimentary reading of a Constitutional court case, you are immediately struck by the fact that court cases are decided by the "intent" of the Founding Fathers.
But I promise you that you can not you tell me what the "intent" of the Founding Fathers would be to a situation where one man can sit in front of an electronic device called a microphone, for 30 minutes every night of the year, for decades at a time, and his words and image show up in the living rooms of every single American on another device we call a television?
No you can't!
And any judge who says he know the intent should be impeached.
For the first time in American history, an Amendment to the Constitution is actually NEEDED! It is REQUIRED!
This is no longer a country of free speech, where the meaning of free speech is talking to your next door neighbor, standing in front of a crowd of no more than two or three hundred for a speech, or publishing a written pamphlet to distribute in your town of 500.
This is a country of controlled speech, where a very small group of men can dictate the policy of this country, by brainwashing the electorate with very expensive electronically produced campaign ads they have bought for their political puppet inserted into a "Matrix Media" enveloping our world of information and entertainment.
This is a country where a media monopoly infinitely repeats all the sins of Hitler,
but never tells a single sin of Stalin.
This is a country where a media monopoly always ridicules the majority,
while always praising each and every minority.
This is a country where a media monopoly is constantly demonizing the majority Christian religion,
while worshipping no religion or any other religion.
This is a country where a media monopoly looks out for the interest of all other countries, especially Israel,
but never looks out for America's interest.
No one can say that the destruction of the United States of America is an intent of the Founding Fathers.
Centralized power in the hands of a few is an undeniable direct violation of the intent or reason for the creation of the Constitution.
A microphone that simultaneously speaks to 300 million citizens is on its face, unconstitutional.
So now I will get straight to the solution to the media monopoly up front and leave the detailed analysis of the problem with the media monopoly toward the end.
Buyout Solution
One could argue that there is no need for a Constitutional Amendment to achieve a free press.
The majority could have a free press, if only we implemented an electronic press the way GE, Viacon, Disney, Microsoft, Time Warner, and News Corp did -- just buy it.
In a democratic way, the majority of Americans could simply buy the mass media and put in their own democratically elected reporters and editors.
Sounds practical, but let's see if we can do this.
Media Companies and their Market Capitalization
GE (NBC) --------------------- 175 Billion
Viacon (CBS) ------------------ 17 Billion
Disney (ABC) ------------------ 53 Billion
Microsoft (MSNBC) ------------ 225 Billion
Time Warner (CNN) ------------- 35 Billion
News Corporation (Fox News) --- 32 Billion
Google ----------------------- 155 Billion
Yahoo ------------------------- 24 Billion
Total ------------------------ 717 Billion
(Over $7,000 per each of 100 million families)
It would take around seven thousand dollars per Christian family (generously assuming there are even close to 100 million Christian families) to buy up 100% controlling interest in all the major media conglomerates.
However, the average family has been so sucked dry that they could not afford to do so even if they could be convinced it was in their best interests to do so.
On a more modest level, a much smaller number of dedicated patriotic Christians could organize enough money to make it worth the while of the General Electrics and Microsofts to sell just their media assets, but these monster corporations will refuse to sell -- for that is the base of their power.
Then what would happen is that the people who received the money from the buyouts would take the money and use it to buy back all the talent we had just bought.
Pretty soon, we would find ourselves in the exact same situation of media-monopoly, but $7,000 poorer.
So, it gets back to our government solution...
Government Solution
Hold on there cowboy!!!
You're not talking about the government breaking up the news monopoly,
are you?
Why that would be a violation of their First Amendment rights!!
Government would be running the news then.
Remember that we are DEMANDED to have a Constitutional Amendment to address this issue?
And no problem if it were done right.
The Founding Fathers never envisioned the invention of electronic communications and they would be the first to gasp at the highly centralized dictatorial control the mass media holds on the information Americans receive.
Our mass media is NOT Constitutional in practice nor on its face.
The demise of Constitutional government and an electronic media who says "I could care less" to the demise is all the proof you need to know that the electronic media we have could never be an intent of the Founding Fathers, who religiously cherished decentralized "Checks and Balances".
However, we cannot hope for a Congress that would break up these vast news monopolies, nor would we want it to do so. -- Congress has a way of making things worst.
In the
Solutions section of
The Christian Solution, there is an outline for a State-led media government, completely independent of the Federal Government, whose only job would be to regulate the mass media for the purpose of guaranteeing a truly free election at both state and federal levels, where a free election is also defined as having "the truth, the whole truth, and at least pointing out what is not the truth".
The importance of doing so cannot be overemphasized.
Many have been saying that mass media is the third estate, so let's recognize it as such.
It is much harder to bribe the legislatures of 50 States, than that of one federal legislature.
Of course, this idea would take a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con), as Congress will not propose a Constitutional Amendment to implement this idea.
Per our new Constitutional Amendment, let the State legislature appoint one representative from each State to a "Media Congress". Let there be a "Media Supreme Court" and let there be a "Media Executive" branch.
Their twin goals would be to guarantee free speech and free elections -- truth, justice and the American way.
As James Madison says above, what good is a right to vote without a corresponding right to hear the honest truth.
Here is my two cents worth about the lousy News Anyway
If the nightly news is just a 30 minute segment out of a 20 hour broadcast day, and the rest of the broadcast day is spent reeling in billions of dollars in advertising dollars, then the nightly news does not have to make a profit.
If it does not have to make a profit then it does not have to deliver what you, the customer, wants to see and hear.
Instead, it delivers what its owners want you to see.
What helps it make profits is its major non-news divisions.
Without going into the fact that Jewish Sadducees own all these media outlets and employ armies of Jewish media-Scribes from the top executive to the lowest cub reporter, let's look at some of the problems associated with our so-called "free press".
ABC News
ABC News is a small part of ABC entertainment, and ABC entertainment is a small part of Disney.
If "post-Walt Disney" Disney hopes to sell cartoon fantasies all over the world, then it would make sure to tailor its movies to not just Americans, but should make sure that it does not push an American Christian worldview onto a non-American, non-Christian world.
Disney would not let this lucrative world market vanish with a tiny ABC News division promoting America and Christianity.
This is not a free press -- an ABC dominated by a concern for not offending the rest of the world.
NBC News
NBC is owned by General Electric.
If GE wants to get government contracts to put in hydroelectric plants in India, then NBC News had better not say anything bad about India persecuting Christians.
This is certainly not a free press -- GE is not in the news business per se, but it has to survive and will do anything to survive, including stifling NBC's free press.
MSNBC News
Same as NBC but now with the addition of the multinational Microsoft corporation to stifle American Christian news.
CBC News
CBS is owned by Viacon and sells content worldwide.
If Viacon wants to sell any music to a communist dictatorial China of 1 billion people, then it had better make sure that CBS goes soft on massive Chinese imports into America which only has 300 million people to sell music to.
This is not a free press, if hard-hitting CBS News is swayed by the bottom-line of their soft-hitting entertainment divisions.
CNN
CNN is owned by AOL/Time-Warner, which is owned to the tune of $2 billion dollars by Muslim Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.
Shall we go into how this is bad for America?
CNN's news bureau in Iraq is known to have biased their reporting of Sadaam in Saddaam's favor, just so that they would not be kicked out.
It was said that truth in news reporting gave way to CNN being able to show you the "Fourth of July" fireworks display as the American Cruise missiles hit their mark in downtown Baghdad.
The real dirty truth? CNN is favored by the Muslims who own them and that is why CNN has a free pass in Muslim countries.
The Muslims may believe CNN is a free press, but as a Christian, I don't believe it is.
Fox News
Fox News is owned by News Corporation, which is owned by an Australian, who is not even American. (yes he has gotten a green card or he even is a citizen by now)
How's that for free press?
Google
Google does not "make the news" but it finds the news for you and by the way, it made deals with China to censor its news content in order to enter their markets.
Google censored the news for the bottom line.
Any "news source" that censors news is by anyones definition -- not a free press.
Associated Press
Sorry to break your bubble, but hard print newspapers are electronic media also.
Newspapers get their marching orders electronically from a broadcast from the Associated Press (AP), and that information is then often placed into the newspaper verbatim.
Who owns the AP? The ones who own everything else I believe.
FCC Oversight
If all of them want to keep their FCC license, then they had better play ball with the Feds.
There is the possibility of "hate crime" legislation.
And there is the real possibility of re-instituting the "fairness doctrine".
Is this the free press you envision?
Getting in bed with the Government
The Revolving Door
There is the revolving door between people who work for the media and ones who work for government.
Many businesses have anti-compete clauses which disallow former employees to work for the competition for a year or two after leaving.
In fact, George Stephanopoulos left government as President Clinton’s press secretary and immediately hosted an ABC News commentary hour.
Tony Snow left a competing news commentary hour and becomes President Bush’s press secretary.
Media and government are no longer competitors but seem to be playing on the same team, moving players around at will.
Not to mention the fact that these watch dogs don't bark very loud when a person in a government regulator role switches from a regulated role, as in the CEO of Goldman Sachs becoming the treasury Secretary and then insuring that Goldman Sachs was one of the ones who survived the housing crash with government bailout money.
Guess it would make them look like hypocrites to say much.
Our Watch Dogs are being feed by the Intruders
Many have said that the media is our watch dogs.
The media tells us that anytime the government comes stealing around in the dark to confiscate our liberties, the watchdog news-hounds of the press will start barking loudly to wake us up, to keep us free.
If only that were true.
Many Americans are waking up to the fact that the government has used "The Dog Whisperer" techniques of Caesar Millan to show the media dogs who the real leader of the pack is.
As Caesar says,
"Dogs don't bark at their pack leader".
One World Media
The national press has no interest in devolving power back down to the states.
They would then have to report on activities of 50 states.
Too inefficient.
In fact, they want the opposite; they want to grow from a national press corps into multi-national One-World news organizations
Then instead of covering the news from over a hundred countries, they would only have to cover a One World government and they would sell America down the river to achieve that goal.
They definetely would not report this suggestion to let you know how to deal with their monopoly.
Freedom of Speech was intended mainly for Religious Free Speech
Coming from a nation of religiously persecuted souls from Europe, we must never forget that freedom of speech and freedom of religious beliefs are both contained within the exact same Amendment for a reason and for a purpose.
What you religiously believe in your mind and what part of those beliefs you express through speech were both protected from government.
Our Founders absolutely wanted the moral voice of Christianity to moderate the American government.
Separation of Church and State was never designed to have the Church constrain the State, but rather to have the Church provide "Checks and Balances" moral and ethical arguments to constrain the power of the State.
(Get real, when was government ever afraid of crosses or prayers. But people have many times been afraid of the swords and guns of government.)
Hence, freedom of speech has more to do with religious beliefs than any Jewish media-Scribes would ever admit.
Media uses its entertainment arms to soften you up for its hard news
The 60's show
I Dream of Jeannie was a sit-com which depicted an American hero of the day, an astronaut, as having a Jennie he was trying to keep secret, when in actuality, the moral of the story was that he was hiding the fact that he was shacking up with a girl named Jeannie.
The Ultimate moral of the story which the media monopoly left us with?
"If an American hero can shack up with a girl then so can I." And make a girl pregnant outside marriage, and have babies outside marriage, and since I never promised to stay with this girl, I could leave her and her baby; thus make the meaning of marriage worthless.
The 60's show
Three's Company was a sit-com which depicted an adorably funny guy shacking up with two beautiful young ladies and that was not OK, as the landlord was very strict about boys and girls living together -- unless -- the boy was homosexual. The moral of the story of course is that homosexuality was more acceptable than a young man being desirous of a young lady.
The Ultimate moral of the story which th media monopoly left us with?
"Morality is relevant, if homosexuality is sometimes better than heterosexuality, then why can't I marry also?"
The 60's show
Bewitched was a sit-com which depicted a young married woman, who just happens to be a witch, married to an advertising account manager. The story is how an uptight businessman tries to hide the fact that his wife is a witch, especially from a noisy Christian lady whom you would assume would have the witch lady burned at the stake if she ever found out. To keep the peace, he demands that his wife never use her witchcraft powers. The moral of the story was that he was holding down his wife from fulfilling her full potential and capabilities, when in fact, he was a bumbling idiot that could do nothing without her.
The Ultimate moral of the story which the media monopoly left us with?
"I am woman, hear me roar! I can do any job you can do, better! And don't you dare tell me what to do husband, or hold me back with a baby I don't want yet, or hold me at home taking care of a baby once I decide I do want a baby, or I will divorce you"
Media uses its Constitutional right to strip you of your Constitutional right
If a criminal abused his freedom to keep and bear arms in order to shoot a person in cold blood; thereby depriving them of their right to life, then he would lose his right to freedom or even his right to life.
Not so with the free press.
The media-scribes constantly use their First Amendment free press rights to try to strip you of your Second Amendment gun rights and they are never held accountable for their unconstitutional actions.
And they abuse their free press Constitutional rights by using the technique of brainwashing -- they feed a constant stream of false visual images and false words into the minds of their unwary viewers, until the neurons of their brains are subconsciously hardwired to believe what the news sources want them to believe.
Of course, as Rush Limbaugh constantly points out:
"the press does not just report the news, they make the news."
Example #1
The media-Scribes have tried to disarm Christians by reporting that more than one out of every two murders, is done by someone the victim knew.
In fact, guns are used for defensive purposes an unreported 2.5 million times a year -- A good thing, and none of which are classified as murder.
The media-scribes are lying to you, because you are left to visualize that the “someone you know” is wielding a gun against an innocent family member, friend, neighbor or roommate, instead of wielding a gun in defense of an innocent family member, friend, neighbor or roommate.
The real numbers of innocents murdered are one out of five murders.
Absolute criminals who are murdering absolute strangers such as convenience store clerks, or who are murdering other bad people they know, such as other gang members, other drug pushers, other murderers, etc, do the other four out of five murders that happen in America.
Even for the one in five murders by relatives, friends, neighbors or roommate, the question a good media source would ask to know :
"How many devout Christians were murdered by other devout Christians".
Example #2
The media-Scribes use their free speech given to them by America to agitate for unconstitutional wars in defense of another country, Israel.
This goes into the realm of treason.
Herodian Joseph Farah, owner of WorldNetDaily.com, one of the seemingly staunch pro-America, pro-Christian journalists, still lies and distorts an argument he makes that the "other" American press is anti-Semitic.
How does he propagate such falsehood? -- again with selective reporting which does not get to "the truth and nothing but the truth".
He writes in his book Stop the Presses, pg 232
"Let me ask you this: Do you think the world's news media give Israel a fair shake? I'll prove to you it does not."
Then Mr. Farah details every one of the 14 terrorist attacks the Associated Press (AP) documents in a November 2003 press release. (The AP is a Jewish-owned media Scribe wire service, by the way.)
To complete his indictment of the "anti-Semitic" AP, Mr. Farah quotes:
"Do you notice anything strange about this list? It notes Islamic terrorism all over the world since 1998, but completely disregards all such terrorism directed at the citizens of one country and one country only - Israel."
Well excuse me if I do not believe Joseph Farah that this is proof that the news is anti-Semitic.
Instead, I believe this is exhibit #1 to prove the fact that the AP is pro-Semitic.
Including the attacks on Israel would be counterproductive to winning the hearts and minds of the Christians reading the AP report.
Being a Christian, I am certainly not at all happy about the attacks on anyone including Israelis. However, including the Israeli attacks would completely swamp out the other 14 terrorist attacks around the world and would tend to make the Muslim terrorist attacks look like a problem for the Israelis to solve and not a problem for the world to solve.
And you can believe me when I say that the Israelis want the world to solve
their problem, which
they created when
they plopped
their people down, right in the middle of Muslims lands and ethnically cleansed the Arab Muslims living there.
Conclusion
A free press does not exist in America today and without a free press to properly inform the people before they cast their votes, there cannot be a free government.
The electronic press was entirely unexpected when the Constitution was written and has largely changed the rules of politics; hence, it cannot be Constitutional.
Both in practice as a monopoly and in principle as a ultra lopsided one-way free speech instrument, the electronic media can not be Constitutional.
The only way to deal with this media monopoly is with a Constitutional Amendment.
And the best Constitutional Amendment would be to create a new governmental structure whose sole aim was to regulate electronic voting, electronic media and electronic campaigning.
You can read further at
The Problem.
You can read further at
The Solution.
Article located at:
http://www.thechristiansolution.com/doc2009/249_FreePress.html
