Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696

    Congress Moves To Outlaw the Alternative Media

    Congress Moves To Outlaw the Alternative Media

    September 25, 2013 - Activism, Featured, Main - Tagged: journalism, new world order - 72 comments
    The alternative media is having a dramatic impact on the worldview of the country, so much so, that the US Senate is legislating against the only objective media left in the country.

    It is a well known fact that Senator Diane Feinstein wants your guns and now she wants control over your words. Feinstein believes that a proposed media shield law should be applied only to those she refers to as “real reporters.” Feinstein chastises other reporters as being “basement-dwelling, pajama-clad bloggers with no professional credentials”

    At issue is that the government could soon decide who is a journalist and who is not. Feinstein introduced an amendment, to Senate bill 558, that defines a “covered journalist” as someone who gathers and reports news for “an entity or service that disseminates news and information.” The definition includes freelancers, part-timers and student journalists, and it permits a judge to go further and extend the protections to any “legitimate news-gathering activities.” In the definition introduced in Feinstein’s amendment, somebody writing for a small town paper with a circulation of 30 would receive First Amendment protections, but quality news people such as Steve Quayle, John Stadtmiller, Jeff Rense, Doug Hagmann, Stan Deyo, Michael Edwards, Alex Jones, George Noory and Matt Drudge would not be considered journalists and therefore, the First Amendment would not apply to this group of aforementioned newsmen. With the passage of this amendment, our sources would not be privileged and many of our sources would dry up. But Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper can take bribes from the CIA to not cover certain stories, yet Feinstein thinks they deserve protection as authentic journalists.

    Award winning journalist,
    Amber Lyon, quit CNN because of the CIA and CNN’s complicity in obfuscating the truth from the American people, for a price. Obviously, journalistic integrity means nothing to someone like Feinstein.

    This is the same Feinstein who In 2009, introduced legislation which directed $25 billion in “taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband’s real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry standards. Feinstein was a member of the Military Construction Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Subcommittee (MILCON) from 2001 to 2005.

    During her tenure, Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions of dollars to her husband’s firms URS Corp. and Perini Corp. Feinstein’s personal wealth accumulation since becoming a senator has grown to nearly $200 million. Feinstein has never held a job outside of public service. I am having trouble understanding how a public servant can accumulate a fortune of this magnitude.

    Many of my colleagues in the alternative media have reported on Feinstein’s long list of conflicts of interest, including yours truly. This is why she is trying to attack the alternative media. In a quid pro quo, the gun-grabbing corporate controlled media, such as CNN, would never report on her illegal activities, but I will continue to do so as will my alternative media colleagues.

    CNN’s ratings are in the toilet. The network used to get 6-10 million viewers for their primetime shows, now they get less than 500,000. Feinstein is carrying the water for the corporate controlled media and trying to eliminate the competition as much as possible. And of course, CNN would never reveal Feinstein’s dirty little secrets in exchange for her help.

    The Communications Industry’s Attempt At Censorship

    In 2009, I received an invitation to attend a victory party in Memphis to celebrate a grassroots victory over a senate bill which would have gutted net neutrality and would have subsequently subjected internet businesses and internet “bloggers” to the censorship whims of various communications firms (e.g., Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Bell South, etc.). A strong grassroots movement gathered nearly two million signatures which were subsequently obtained and forwarded to Congress and this prevented the lame-duck congress from privatizing the internet at the expense of the American public’s right to self-expression. At the time, it seemed that the Memphis net-neutrality victory celebration may have been premature thanks to Arizona Senator, John McCain.

    Demagogues Should Never Be Criticized

    McCain wants to ban what ever criticizes him, despite not knowing how to even check his own email.

    John McCain previously introduced a bill that would fine bloggers up to $300,000 for “offensive statements, photos and videos posted by visitors on comment boards”.

    If the bill would have been successful, this legislation would have marked the end for previously unrestrained opinions. Hiding behind the pretense of protecting our children, McCain’s legislation was referred to as the “Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act.” The legislation demands that a Stalinist-type army of informants and spies will browse various websites looking for inappropriate internet material which might pose a threat to children. McCain’s internet army would then pass the information on to the relevant police authorities and subsequent bloggers could be fined $300,000 or have faced jail time.

    Anyone who has participated in online comment boards is keenly aware that they are very difficult to moderate. Some articles and news events may receive thousands of comments. Yet, one oversight by the moderator, one day off from the internet, could spell doom for the financial future of a blogger. What citizen can afford to take that chance? Hence, your right to self-expression has been sacrificed. Your first amendment right to self-expression is technically still intact. However, the personal affordability to exercise free speech would have been severely jeopardized

    The Goal Is the Shutdown of the Alternative Media

    Whether Feinstein is successful in the latest round of attempting to silence the alternative media, is irrelevant.

    She is not the first to try and she certainly will not be the last.

    Senator Feinstein

    Feinstein’s Amendment includes the following verbiage which goes after nearly anyone who does not work in the corporate controlled media in which she states that one is only a real journalist only if they have worked for “an entity or service that disseminates news or information by means of newspaper; nonfiction book; wire service; news agency; news website, mobile application or other new information service…news program; magazine or other periodical…or through television or radio broadcast…” These people would have to have the “primary intent to investigate events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information.” Opinion journalists are not covered.

    Conclusion

    The communications industry, John McCain and now Sen. Feinstein are all attempting to shut down the alternative media. Why? Because we tell the people the truth, and when one is part of a psychopathic crime syndicate, the last thing they want to be told to the public is the truth!


    Feinstein will likely fail this time, even though she has announced plans to try again if her amendment is not successful. Recent history strongly suggests that the globalists will also keep trying until they get what they want, which is to silence every journalist that they do not control.As this point, we need to make collective decision about how important is a free and independent internet.

    If and when the globalists are able to censor the internet, what are we prepared to do about it? If we lose the war of words, we will surely lose everything and very quickly.

    If our First Amendment is taken away, are we prepared to withhold paying taxes? Are we prepared to engage in other forms of passive civil disobedience? We should begin to have the post-internet preparation discussions, sooner rather than later, while we still have an internet to communicate with.

    http://thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/0...rnative-media/
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    The Ugly Face of Tyranny: Feinstein Comes For Your Right To Speak Freely Online

    Mac Slavo
    September 26th, 2013
    SHTFplan.com
    Comments (350)
    Read by 14,694 people

    Senator Diane Feinstein has taken up the fight for truth and liberty, just as she has done for health care and the widespread disarmament of American citizens.

    This month Congess has been debating a new media shield law, which according to its authors, aims to protect journalists and bloggers from being forced to testify about their work should their sources or information come into question.

    But Diane Feinstein has refused to support the bill, noting that the law would essentially grant this shield privilege to anyone who chooses to share their opinion on the internet (including those pajama sporting bloggers and news aggregators working out of their basements).

    But because freedom of speech, as interpreted by Feinstein, is nothing more than a privilege granted to us by her and her ilk in Congress, she has taken steps to ensure that only those journalists sanctioned by the government will be protected by the new shield laws.
    The final hurdle for the Judiciary Committee was defining who is a journalist in the digital era.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) insisted on limiting the legal protection to “real reporters” and not, she said, a 17-year-old with his own website.

    I can’t support it if everyone who has a blog has a special privilege … or if Edward Snowden were to sit down and write this stuff, he would have a privilege. I’m not going to go there,” she said.

    Feinstein introduced an amendment that defines a “covered journalist” as someone who gathers and reports news for “an entity or service that disseminates news and information.”

    The definition includes freelancers, part-timers and student journalists, and it permits a judge to go further and extend the protections to any “legitimate news-gathering activities.”
    As noted by Dave Hodges at The Common Sense Show, this very report, for example, is being published by an unlicensed and unofficial news-related web site, and therefore, would not meet the stringent guidelines set forth by Feinstein’s new amendment.
    In the definition introduced in Feinstein’s amendment, somebody writing for a small town paper with a circulation of 30 would receive First Amendment protections, but quality news people such as Steve Quayle, John Stadtmiller, Jeff Rense, Doug Hagmann, Stan Deyo, Michael Edwards, Alex Jones, George Noory and Matt Drudge would not be considered journalists and therefore, the First Amendment would not apply to this group of aforementioned newsmen.

    With the passage of this amendment, our sources would not be privileged and many of our sources would dry up. But Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper can take bribes from the CIA to not cover certain stories, yet Feinstein thinks they deserve protection as authentic journalists.
    And for those out there who don’t have a blog or web site where they share news, videos, information and criticisms of government, consider that the Feinstein amendment doesn’t refer to just web sites. It covers all internet venues. It’s not about how the information gets out there, it’s about the individual or organization disseminating it.

    So, should you choose to share an opinion in the comments section on this web site or post on your Facebook or Twitter page, you would, just as this author, fall outside of the Constitutional protections of the First Amendment.

    Your comments, if critical of government or big business interests, would not be protected by shield laws. You see, you’re not capable of forming an opinion or citing appropriate references for your argument. To do that, you must be licensed by the State or approved by a court.

    But the government can’t do that, right?

    They’ve already tried and failed on their first attempt, but what if this law would have passed?!
    John McCain previously introduced a bill that would fine bloggers up to $300,000 for “offensive statements, photos and videos posted by visitors on comment boards”.

    If the bill would have been successful, this legislation would have marked the end for previously unrestrained opinions. Hiding behind the pretense of protecting our children, McCain’s legislation was referred to as the “Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act.” The legislation demands that a Stalinist-type army of informants and spies will browse various websites looking for inappropriate internet material which might pose a threat to children. McCain’s internet army would then pass the information on to the relevant police authorities and subsequent bloggers could be fined $300,000 or have faced jail time.

    Anyone who has participated in online comment boards is keenly aware that they are very difficult to moderate. Some articles and news events may receive thousands of comments. Yet, one oversight by the moderator, one day off from the internet, could spell doom for the financial future of a blogger. What citizen can afford to take that chance? Hence, your right to self-expression has been sacrificed. Your first amendment right to self-expression is technically still intact. However, the personal affordability to exercise free speech would have been severely jeopardized

    Common Sense Show
    While McCain’s bill died a horrible death, and rightly so, Feinstein’s amendment essentially aims to do the same thing, though monetary fines for journalistic transgressions are as of yet undefined.

    You see, as is always the case with our Congressional benefactors, the devil is in the details.

    Take, for example, health care. For years the establishment pushed for universal, affordable health care for all Americans. The efforts really started back in the 1990′s with the failed Hillary-care movement. But it didn’t really die. In fact, calls for free health care got louder and louder, and in 2008 they came to a head with the election of Barack Obama, who promised just that for Americans. It took nearly 20 years, but they did it, and millions of Americans thought they had won a victory.

    But, lo and behold, after legislation to cheapen and improve our health care was passed, we began to see the fine print come to fruition. And all those folks who vehemently supported an affordable care option are now wondering what the hell happened. As was revealed in recent days, costs aren’t going down. Just the opposite, in fact. For many Americans who rallied behind the President those costs are going to double, triple, or quadruple!

    Now they are pushing forward with new restrictions on speech. And just as no one thought they’d actually be paying more for health care after the legislation was passed, no one really believes the government would go so far as to eliminate our ability to open discourse.

    As with Obamacare, it’s all in the details – the fine print and the complementary regulations to follow.

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is government double-speak for, “you’re about to get screwed.”

    Guess what Feinstein’s version of the Media Shield Law is going to do.
    Disclosure: This report has been published by an unlicensed and unregistered journalist-blogger-commentator. It has not been sanctioned by the United States government. Under new legislation pending in Congress, this report, as well as those who comment and share it online may be determined by a future court to be criminalistic or terroristic in nature and subject to penalties under U.S. Law.

    Hattip to the following outlaw alternatve media outlets: The Common Sense Show, The Organic Prepper, The Daily Sheeple

    Please Spread The Word And Share This Post

    http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-new...nline_09262013
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •