Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

Can We Fix Fake News? By Jim Boyer

The business of propaganda or creating false news for the purpose of manipulating public opinion is not new.

Can We Fix Fake News?

Can We Fix Fake News?

By Jim Boyer

Regardless of the arguments attempting to deny the existence of fake news or down play its impact, the truth is that it has infected both journalism and social discourse.

The business of propaganda or creating false news for the purpose of manipulating public opinion is not new. People like Dan Rather have made a career of it, the New York Times built an empire using it and CNN created a worldwide brand, making the use of fake news an accepted format in the process.

We all know the problem exists, to say it doesn’t is foolish. However, simply recognizing it falls short of actually taking action. Leaders and morally responsible legislators are going to have to face the problem at some point since it is obvious that the industry that created it is either unconcerned, or powerless to do so.

Deception does not act on anyone’s behalf, except for those who’s corruption knows no bounds. Recognizing and naming the problem is not enough. We both need and should expect workable ideas on how to combat this journalistic cancer. But what are we to do? Is there anything that should be done – or better yet, is there anything that can be done?

The first amendment guarantees both free speech and freedom of the press. It is fundamental to the preservation of our republic. In the view of most people who respect our constitution, that freedom must not be tampered with. Subsequently, most of us believe preservation of our constitution must be our mission. So, the idea of restricting or altering that freedom is abhorrent to the majority. But, why shouldn’t it be possible to apply some regulatory measures that can function in the spirit of protecting freedom?

I contend that by far the most active purveyors of fake news are the leftists. They reach a large number of people by publishing or broadcasting a false or misleading story line that is automatically picked up by their late-night TV accomplices for distribution to low information and gullible viewers. With this strategy they can politicize any issue and influence the opinions of a good many people who listen to and follow the lead of peer groups they want to be accepted in.

Recognizing that the folks on the left are obsessed with controlling and regulating all of us and all elements of our lives, it could serve us well to take a lesson from them and while avoiding abusive regulation, give a look to what some simple guidelines may do to help us rein them in just a bit.

Over time, we have accepted the idea of testing ability and knowledge of protocol for the purpose of licensing every occupation in our society from selling real estate or building homes to cutting hair. So, it could be argued that it would benefit us to establish guidelines that would encourage good behavior without over regulating activity on the part of the media, too.

As we do with the ratings system for movies, we could implement simple tools for informing the reading and viewing public about the efficacy of those who deliver the news. Restaurants and hotels have a rating of up to five stars with which to judge them, why not media outlets or journalists themselves?

A simple star rating under the name style of a newspaper or following the name of a reporter would be an easy identifier to display both accuracy and honesty. The same would apply to television news stations whose star rating could become a tagline addition to their brand logo.


I suggest that every journalistic endeavor could have the ability to maintain a five-star display. But with stories that must be retracted, sources that are discredited, lies that are exposed and films, pictures or soundbites that are fraudulently edited, stars would be taken away. A noted number of small misstatements could result in the loss of maybe just one-half star while a knowingly false report, unsourced lie or doctored photo could result in the immediate loss of a full star, or more.

Understandably, a reporter would take pride in a five-star display while the public would learn to place lesser faith in a news report from a source with only one star.

I doubt it would take very long for media corporations to start bragging about their five-star rating were they able to maintain one. Nor would it be unexpected for competitors to make an issue of a reporter who has degraded his or her own rating with poor behavior or plagiarism.

It stands to reason that with the news business being as competitive as it is, the ability to gain the trust of the public through a five-star rating would be financially rewarding. I also think seeing the truthfulness and reliability of media personalities and outlets right up front would be very appealing to the public at large.

Social Media, including Facebook, has greatly diminished distribution of our stories to our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting Main Stream Media sources. This is called ‘Shadow-banning’. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you. Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: cash.me/$RedoubtNews

 

14 Comments on Can We Fix Fake News? By Jim Boyer

  1. Bring back the Fairness doctrine. Do U think we didn’t experience this insanity before because people were different/ more honest? It’s because it was against the law to put out opinion as fact. The FCC even made spot checks in towns/ kites and fined violators. Clinton got rid of it & here we are in this mess.

  2. This “article” is fake news, it is written by an obvious – confessed – nationalist party member: a propagandist for the party.

    The so-called first amendment is not a subsidized enforcement of deception, yet that is what is being told in this article. Those who are deceived by this type of deception – legalese – will be powerless to know better, but I write to those who maintain a concern for the facts that matter.

    The propagandists for the nationalist party put their head together – evil brain trust – to pen the Bill of Rights to the Fake News Constitution of 1787. Anyone could have written a document that works efficiently to explain the natural right born into people as people communicate in their mutual defense against all enemies foreign and domestic: including liars in so-called public and private offices.

    The right to speak – or document – crimes perpetrated by people in government, so as to then act on those accusations, by forming grand juries, and presenting the accused with a trial by jury according to the law of the land, which is the common law, is this natural born right to speak in our mutual defense.

    To call this natural born right to speak – document for public consumption – in our own defense a freedom of the press is a hidden message, a message that speaks of corporatism, or financial collectivism. The press – trademarked – is one thing, while individual people forming a collection of individual people sharing a common goal is another thing. What if you cannot afford a printing press? Does that mean that only those who can afford a printing press have this natural born right to speak in our mutual defense? Only the rich and powerful are afforded this basic human right, because, well, they can afford it?

    No one else can afford it?

    Why not learn something worth learning instead of listening to this type of powerless, defenseless, propaganda? Why listen to this siren singing this song that is so adeptly aimed at keeping the slaves in place?

    “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

    When the so-called left and the so-called right are universally ignorant then both parties will be taken over by evil people who represent only evil people, call them RINOS, or call them something more useful like the defendant.

    Someone guilty of willfully – with malice aforethought – conspiring to start a war of aggression for profit – think Nazi here – while employing the so-called freedom of the press is someone guilty of a capital crime, a crime that is said to be eviler than all the other crimes: treason.

    Treason is eviler than all the other crimes because treason removes the affordability of mutual defense commanded by the people who require that affordability for their mutual defense. Treason is eviler than all the other crimes because treason replaces rule of law with subsidized crime under the color of law.

    The reason why the true law is so hard to see is the inculpatory evidence required for the people to see the true law. People have to get tired of their ignorance: First.

    “…shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

    If people are so brainwashed as to trust the very people who have been perpetrating the worst evil for over 200 years, then the people are defenseless. It is that simple.

    The true law affords everyone equal protection under it so that anyone can volunteer to be a member of an independent grand jury, and the most honest, discrete, people will populate that investigatory tool of the true law because we elect them for that vital work. The worst evil people would then be indicted for their crimes by those people on those grand juries, and those allegedly worst people would then face a trial by the people themselves, not a trial by the government. Out goes fake news and in place is voluntary mutual defense where the worst evil people are accounted for accurately: as accurately as is humanly possible.

    “…shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

    No one in a criminal government, making their living covering up for their evil bosses, can be trusted to drain that swamp: it is ludicrous to think that such a farce could be possible.

    The people themselves have the tools to fix any of these problems involving criminals in office. The people may learn about those tools, instead of listening to the songs of those propagandist sirens. If the people do learn about these tools then fake news is out, and in place is real news. Why would that be hard to see?

  3. Good Lord what a dangerous article. The whole paradigm of Left and Right is fake in itself. Is conjecture to be subject to government regulation? Humor? Contingency assessment when the contingency seems preposterous?

    Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics” excludes that which is “Extreme” or “Defective” from the goal of the “Golden Mean”. If you are never exposed to “Extreme” or “Defective” ideas you will never learn to trim them out of your life.

    “But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families. Wherefore, the assertion, if true, turns to her reproach; but it happens not to be true, or only partly so, and the phrase PARENT OR MOTHER COUNTRY hath been jesuitically adopted by the King and his parasites, with a low papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness of our minds.” – Thomas Paine “Common Sense”

    Is calling a Country a “Parent” or a “Mother{land}” or a Father{land}” to be considered to be Fake and propaganda? Or attributing gender pronouns to inanimate things? I consider that to be fairly fake and weak-minded. (No offense intended to those who speak the romance languages since we allllll know it is “El Constitution” and not “La Constitution”.)

    Nay, the real story is that in a Biblical word the application of Patriots capabilities is “lukewarm”.

    Aristotle wrote in “Politics” that the “Lacedaemonians were the best in wrestling; as long as no one else wrestled.”

    If Patriots did not have better things to do we should compete by putting out the most outlandish fake stuff, accusations and lies we can think of. We should “own” the field. THAT is why Yankee Doodle laughed it up, stuck a feather in his hat, and called it macaroni.

    The last thing we want to do is put the government in charge of lying or being fake.

    Cato’s Letters: NO. 15. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1721. Of Freedom of Speech: That the same is inseparable from publick Liberty. (Gordon)↩
    https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/trenchard-catos-letters-vol-1-november-5-1720-to-june-17-1721-lf-ed

    “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as publick liberty, without freedom of speech: Which is the right of every man, as far as by it he does not hurt and control the right of another; and this is the only check which it ought to suffer, the only bounds which it ought to know.

    This sacred privilege is so essential to free government, that the security of property; and the freedom of speech, always go together; and in those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call any thing else his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of the nation, must begin by subduing the freedom of speech; a thing terrible to publick traitors.”

    Nay, use your discernment, comrades. We don’t need censors or safety stickers on what we read.

  4. “I didn’t know there was a Nationalist Party.”

    The criminals can’t exactly go around announcing their true colors. Those who work to achieve and maintain the goal of organized crime under the color of law cannot telegraph their intentions to their targeted victims.

    Be it monarchy, aristocracy, capitalism, socialism, communism, despotism, tyranny, or any of the many labels used to place the color of law thinly over organized crime, the goal, and everything required to achieve the goal, remains the same: like a rose only the smell is more like burning flesh.

    “But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood.” Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, 1970 Nobel Lecture

    The Nationalist Party (hidden behind a false republican name) is no different than the Communist Party (hidden behind a false democratic name) in America in this regard whereby the goal is absolute dictatorial power commanded by the so-called “elite” over those who produce anything worth stealing in America, and around the world for that matter.

    Of course, there must be true believers in the party, those who do the necessary covering up, the apologizing, the “justifying,” which is pure deception even when the storytellers have themselves been deceived, or are pandering to the powers that are expressed in so many words like the Emperor’s New Clothes.

    “One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished. ” Luther Martin at the Con-Con Con-Job of 1787.

    Nationalism was first introduced into the American collective soul by the American Aristocratic Class of evil people whose ties to England were never unbound by evil principle. The Federation of free people in free states had to go, as all those 13 Nation States were formed as democratic republics under the common law, not under evil nationalism. A democratic republic moves adaptively, competitively, toward higher standards of living, at lower costs, which is the opposite direction from the despotic direction whereby the criminals consolidate all people under involuntary servitude accomplished and maintained by criminal means; which includes fraud hidden behind a false claim of maintaining a “Free Press.” Free from accurate accountability.

    The federal idea of rule by the people themselves, by their consent through the power of true law, had to go, and it had to go according to the Nationalist Party then spinning that web of deceit on this planet, and on this continent.

    “Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former.” George Mason, June 4, 1788, against the National Constitution replacing the voluntary mutual defense association (federation) that worked well enough to drive off the largest criminal army of aggression then rioting in the blood of the innocent on this planet.

    The Nationalist, as well as the Communist Party, are for the same thing: a profitable monopoly whereby those in command of the despotic Nation State consume their property.

    “But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property.”

    and

    “But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners.” To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
    November 15, 1802

    Out with true law and out with a true federation went the power the people commend ourselves to hold our representatives to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter. Once that happened the licentiousness of the papers called “News” is fake by design. The corporate press indoctrinates the slaves who are then made to believe that their chains are a necessary evil. Of course, there will be members of the Nationalist Party who are ignorant of their true colors, but those minions will not be earning their way to the bottom of that inverted pyramid scheme. When the ship sinks, on schedule no less, the last rat will have smelled out all the lesser rats and that greatest abomination of evil incarnate will implement the exit plan to greener pastures. The lesser evils will be left holding the empty bag of lies.

    • Thanks for some education. I see a conflict with the most basic definition of nationalism being, ‘loyalty and devotion to a nation’ and your examples of the term being co-opted.

      I hear the version you have given to be saying that the people using the false flag of nationalism are anti-federalists who do not believe in the rights or sovereignty of individual states. Am I following correctly?

      • “Thanks for some education. I see a conflict with the most basic definition of nationalism being, ‘loyalty and devotion to a nation’ and your examples of the term being co-opted.”

        A Nation State that is democratic is therefore a Nation State that is a republic. Criminally feeding upon a natural genetic disposition to “loyalty and devotion,” exploiting that good thing, co-opting that natural drive, is a crime called treason. Treason to what you might say?

        These words may not sound familiar to those who have been fed a lot of lies by those who feed upon natural born genetic dispositions to loyalty and devotion to moral laws, but these words agree with a very well written explanation of the meaning of law: the Golden Rule.

        A federation of republics (Nation States – plural – where people follow the Golden Rule) is an adaptive, creative, competitive, free market of democratic republics, as explained in works like the following example.

        Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
        by William Watkins

        “Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee’s economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.
        Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee’s meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.”

        A single consolidated government in 1789 was a step toward a profitable monopoly and a step away from free market government. Another way of describing a federation of republics is to call it a voluntary association for mutual defense. It, which is the subject of treason, can be explained also as laboratories of democracy. The same principle works at all levels, town to city, city to county, county to state, state to federation, federation to whatever is larger, such as a voluntary federation of federations. The criminal co-opting also works at that level, what is the so-called United Nations? It feeds upon the idea of the Golden Rule, but co-opts it into an all powerful force to enslave mankind instead.

        The word federation has be co-opted, as has been the words democracy and republic.

        “I hear the version you have given to be saying that the people using the false flag of nationalism are anti-federalists who do not believe in the rights or sovereignty of individual states. Am I following correctly?”

        Yes, and furthermore those who employ deception in this way are also those who do not believe in sovereignty of individual people other than themselves: psychopaths. People other then themselves are considered property, hereditary or otherwise. Would you allow a spychopath on a jury trial where you are an innocent accused? Why elect them to public office?

        A non-democratic (original meaning), and a non-republic (original meaning) Nation State founded upon false, or misdirected, nationalism is despotic by design.

        I believe natural genetic moral conscience is the source of those feelings of “nationalism” as you define it. It is in principle a feeling of mutual support: affording each other the means to live and let live. We are all kings and our kingdoms extend to the border of every other king, and we all have a common need to defend ourselves against what? If you can’t even imagine what threatens you, and you hire psychopaths to tell you what threatens you, then what are you buying, and how much will it cost you?

        It may be a good idea to get out of bed with the RINOS who run the Republican (and Democratic: DINOS?) Parties.

        Once someone begins to verify their “education,” along these lines, there is that possibility that such ideas as those offered here are up for validation by individual, sovereign, people. Let the chips fall where they may. Those who still choose false nationalism can pay for what they buy into, and those who care not to will be forced by those supporting false nationalism to pay for it too.

        If people, each one at a time, choose otherwise then all the people who are the country (any size geographically) are in a better position to be representatives of the true law of the land. People able to accurately discriminate the difference between law and out-law, fact from fiction, are prime candidates for jury duty, grand or petty. If any of our fellow inhabitants are in need of remedy, then people pulling themselves out of the quagmire of false Nationalism can figure out a just remedy, instead of revenge or other forms of so-called punishment.

        Imagine the true law applied to the worst examples of false republicans you can imagine, or accurately identify? If the law of the land returns (accurate accountability applied to the worst first), then remedy is possible. Freedom in a perishable liberty is possible, and there are roadmaps like The Golden Rule, Declaration of Independence, and so many Bills of Rights eluding to common laws of free people.

          • Further Evidence

            Saturday, June 8, 1776
            The First Congress of the United (plural) States of America
            “That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
            That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
            That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:”

            What is a federation? What is the nature of the association? Is a federation an order issued by a commander that must be obeyed without question, and the order is to form a “Union” or else? Is a federation a “Union” that is indivisible: no “State” (nation) can dare to leave the “Union”?

            New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism, Published in the Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser, March 7, 1788:
            “There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word.”
            And:
            “ Whether national government will be productive of internal peace, is too uncertain to admit of decided opinion. I only hazard a conjecture when I say, that our state disputes, in a confederacy, would be disputes of levity and passion, which would subside before injury. The people being free, government having no right to them, but they to government, they would separate and divide as interest or inclination prompted – as they do at this day, and always have done, in Switzerland. In a national government, unless cautiously and fortunately administered, the disputes will be the deep-rooted differences of interest, where part of the empire must be injured by the operation of general law; and then should the sword of government be once drawn (which Heaven avert) I fear it will not be sheathed, until we have waded through that series of desolation, which France, Spain, and the other great kingdoms of the world have suffered, in order to bring so many separate States into uniformity, of government and law; in which event the legislative power can only be entrusted to one man (as it is with them) who can have no local attachments, partial interests, or private views to gratify.”

            What was civil about the predictable so-called Civil War? That was a pogrom, a method by which the psychopaths in charge of their corporate fiction cull the herd of cats out of their flock of sheep. If all that remains after the culling are sheep, then that predictable goal is reached for and achieved that way.

            How about some notes taken during the Con-Con Con-Job?

            “A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation.” Mr. E. Gerry covering up at the Con-Con Con-Job Crime Scene.

            They were mindful of the distinction between a federal and national government. The existing agreement binding the organization to specific powers was a federation, and those assembled at the crime scene had no power to replace the federal government with a national government. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, if we play with words well, if we access deception, we can get rid of the power that the people command now, a power to consent to, or not consent to any government, then we become the absolute authority over fact.

            Readers here may think I am off my rocker, but you say so from which forms of education? These are the words that survived and are available for your perusal today, words that amount to confessions. It is worse, much worse, as these words are carefully put in context. African slavery was on the way out, at this time in American history, but these psychopaths assembled at this crime scene sought to monopolize and subsidize that profit-making venture, and they did so.

            That is the side you choose and choose voluntarily?

            8 Hear, my son, your father’s instruction And do not forsake your mother’s teaching; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, “Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse,” 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence; It takes away the life of its possessors.”

            If you are led into the trap because you can’t see it, the result is the same as willfully jumping into it. Once in the trap the work required to get out is overwhelming and I speak from experience.

  5. Supreme Court, Red Lion v. FCC, 1969: “It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.”

    Is it not important to understand the meaning of the word “press” at the time of our framers?

    “… the unrestrained right which every citizen enjoys of publishing his thoughts and opinions,”

    From a 1828 Dictionary – Press: Liberty of the press in civil policy, is the free right of publishing books, pamphlets or papers without previous restraint; or the unrestrained right which every citizen enjoys of publishing his thoughts and opinions, subject only to punishment for publishing what is pernicious to morals or to the peace of the state.
    http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Press

    Unrestrained – UNRESTRA’INED, adjective
    1. Not restrained; not controlled; not confined; not hindered.
    2. Licentious; loose.
    3. Not limited; as an unrestrained power; unrestrained truth.

    Right – Right
    Justice; that which is due or proper; as, to do right to every man
    Just claim; immunity; privilege. Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public.

    I feel that this should clarify what the words “freedom of the press” means. Not just a business, but every citizen of this nation that wishes to make their thoughts and opinions known and open to discussion, by and with, others. So when those who serve within our government are “shutting down” alternative sites they are in the process of breaking their Oath to support and defend the US Constitution in order to continue to propagandize the American people – felonies and Perjury. But also since the US Constitution and every states constitution are LAW, well, start adding on more charges.

  6. “But also since the US Constitution and every states constitution are LAW, well, start adding on more charges.”

    Who and what army claims this or that about what is or is not LAW in capital letters no less?

    “It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man’s life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue.”
    U.S. Supreme Court
    RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)
    1 U.S. 236 (Dall.)
    Respublica
    v.
    Shaffer
    Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
    February Sessions, 1788

    Because some criminal claims to be the LAW everyone is duty bound to believe that lie? How did that happen?

    • Joe Kelley, it is interesting you say, “The criminals can’t exactly go around announcing their true colors. Those who work to achieve and maintain the goal of organized crime under the color of law cannot telegraph their intentions to their targeted victims.”…because they do make mistakes.

      I know someone who has legally not paid Federal Income Tax since the mid-1980’s. They are self employed and do business on a cash only basis and does not keep records. The I.R.S. cannot force you to keep records and they can’t prove they have that capability; they try to trick you into giving up your jurisdictional rights as a way to bypass that. However, in this case, the acting I.R.S. agent filed a motion in the court against this person and made the claim the I.R.S. was acting under the “Color of Law”…a double whammy against the I.R.S.’s claim since the “Color of Law” means “Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act that operates in violation of law.”

      Secondly, there is another “party” ya’ll have not mentioned and that is the “Class Dictatorship”.

      “Mehring tells us in his notes to Marx’s articles from the Neue Rheinische Zeitung of 1848 that he published, that one of the reproaches levelled at this newspaper by bourgeois publications was that it had allegedly demanded “the immediate introduction of a dictatorship as the sole means of achieving democracy”. From the vulgar bourgeois standpoint the terms dictatorship and democracy are mutually exclusive. Failing to understand the theory of class struggle, and accustomed to seeing in the political arena the petty squabbling of the various bourgeois circles and coteries, the bourgeois conceives dictatorship to mean the annulment of all the liberties and guarantees of democracy, tyranny of every kind, and every sort of abuse of power in the personal interests of a dictator. In essence, it is precisely this vulgar bourgeois view that is manifested in the writings of our Martynov, who winds up his “new campaign” in the new Iskra by attributing the partiality of the Vperyod and the Proletary for the slogan of dictatorship to Lenin’s “passionate desire to try his luck”. In order to explain to Martynov the meaning of the term *** class dictatorship *** as distinct from personal dictatorship, and the tasks of a democratic dictatorship as distinct from those of a socialist dictatorship,…” – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution”

      Beside the Commie/Socialist masses of the democratic mob…there is the entrenched Federal Bureaucrats who really are a special class…to put it more strongly, “a class dictatorship”. You might say I am taking license in making this observation/extrapolation…but there is the sobering thought, “What if the movers and shakers of the Federal Bureaucracy KNOWS what a class dictatorship is?”

  7. Boyd White,

    That is news but not in principle, merely news in detail. How many various deceptions constitute the simple principle of deception?

    If someone plans to deceive an innocent victim, so as to injure them, then in principle that is wrong because the same criminal would certainly expend effort to avoid the same fate; injury by deception. No normal, productive, independent, viable, individual seeks out victimization.

    A flavor of crime is fraud. If this crime of fraud is an insignificant injury, involving only a single victim and a single criminal, then the event of the crime can be considered civil, a civil matter, a need for the criminal and the victim to solve their conflict on their own, and they can access affordable conflict resolution, known as a civil suit, or also known as arbitration. The remedy can be agreed upon by both victim and criminal, restoring the injured and the guilty to peaceful co-existence – freedom – in liberty. A government of, for, and by the people themselves, even if arbitration is a so-called public service provided by competitors seeking to supply that market demand.

    What you are speaking about are crimes of the highest level of immorality – evil – and the common English word for the type of organized crime you speak about is treason. Treason is said to be a capital crime.

    “…they try to trick you…”

    Where did those who you speak about get their false authority to act in the manner you describe?

    “A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house.”

    Previous to that Con-Job confessed above the Federation worked as a free market of government services, whatever people wanted people paid for, and people – not the government – commanded the power to hold criminals to account for crimes perpetrated by guilty criminals upon innocent victims.

    The Conviction Factory by Roger Roots
    Page 40
    Private Prosecutors
    “For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions – the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state – but for their own vindication. The very term “prosecutor” meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation’s {notice the affect of misrepresenting here, as there were 13 nations that were founded, not one: nation supplants federation, or profitable monopoly supplants voluntary association for mutual defense} founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name – even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
    Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant’s fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. {plea-bargaining is voluntary when no other people are threatened by the offender, but involuntary when the potential for injury yet to be done by the offender is bought off by a private person, which then allows the offender to run amok in the playground} Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and “not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they…repair the injury.”

    I think that the class dictatorship that you report is a number of individuals who are bound into a class because those people share a common bond: they are evil. Those people have been afforded the opportunity to use a false government power to consume innocent people. If that is not evil than what is evil?

    If there is no evil, then no one is guilty of anything, and there are no innocent victims.

    If people can figure out a way to deter thoughts of evil, such as this thing called the common law, then crime pays less, and especially crime under the color of law pays less, which is akin to closing an open door where the price of admission is evil intent. Why not close that door?

    What is offered in this account of when things turned evil in America is the process by which that evil door is slammed shut and locked.

    What is accounted for, accurately, is that door to evil being opened wide. What happened was a willful effort perpetrated by a class of people, call them aristocrats or bourgeois, if you like, while I will call them psychopaths, sociopaths, and an army of sycophants. This class, this army, these criminals infiltrated government and turned a working voluntary association for mutual defense into organized crime under the color of law.

    How many ways can a deception be crafted?

    People believe the lies being told, but every effort to explain the opposite, the true, the real law is met with what exactly?

    People believe that the government after 1789 was worthy of credit, authority, power, despite the fact that the crimes known as African slavery, which was outlawed previously, was subsidized after 1789. People still wave the flag, salute the flag, and take oaths of allegiance to that pile of smelly lies, and the smell is burning flesh.

    “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

    The flag in question is a copy of the Slave Traders Corporate Flag. After 1789 the republics were no longer republics, and the Nation-State Corporation that was created was not a federation, and it was not a republic. If it was a federation then it would be divisible: a voluntary association means that the volunteers can un-volunteer after their tour of duty is up.

    From top to bottom America was a voluntary association for mutual defense when the British began their war of aggression for profit, the British intended – with malice aforethought – to subjugate Americans, to make Americans pay for their own slavery. In 1789 the same subsidized slavery was put in place of the voluntary association for mutual defense.

    How can that not be easy to see? Why would that be news?

    • The pathetic thing is the generational repetition. “Cato’s Letters” written during 1721-23 during the South Sea’s Bubble are very acute and biting; you would find comradeship in their hard words:

      [ They all professed to have in view only the publick good; yet every one shewed he only meant his own; and all the while the great as well as little mob, the procerum turba mobilium, contended as fiercely for their leaders, as if their happiness or misery depended upon the face, the clothes, or title of the persons who robbed and betrayed them. Thus the highwayman said to the traveller, “Pray, Sir, leave your watch and money in my hands; or else, by God, you will be robbed.” ] – NO. 16. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1721. The Leaders of Parties, their usual Views. Advice to all Parties to be no longer misled. (Gordon)
      https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1237#Trenchard_0226-01_374

      If those doing bad don’t repent…then, what other conclusion is there than they are evil?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*