Rescinding ABC, CBS, & NBC broadcast licenses on the public's airwaves

[F.T]

@MWJones

making one law that targets a specific party, and is prohibited by the Constitution. Likewise, a law opening a news or media outlet to litigation would (1) have a chilling effect on news coverage in general because anything they say could open them to a lawsuit, and (2) run afoul of the First Amendment, where the press is specifically called out.

No one is targeting ANY party. Though we both know which party the msm represents, and would stand to lose the most!

“Would have a chilling effect on news coverage in general”…

GOOD!!! THAT IS THE DESIRED EFFECT! WOULDN’T THAT BE SOMETHING! TO TURN ON THE NEWS AND ACTIALLU GET TRUTH AND FACTS, AND NOTHING ELSE?! Print and broadcast the truth, the cold boring facts, and that’s it. And for the anything else, to be clearly delineated as editorial sectioned? Is that too much to ask? And if Rachel Maddow can’t make it through a broadcast, without going into cold sweats, crying, pooping her pants, out of fear of lawsuits, fear of NBC losing their liscence, well that’s a good thing. That’s entertaining TV. And if sticking to the truth, and simply reporting facts is too difficult for her, NBC, well then maybe it’s time for new blood, new media institutions to take its place that won’t have to struggle so much.

You’re trying to make a case that lies are 1st ammendment protected speech…And the truth coincides with the first Ammendment protected speech does it not?

But lies are prosecutable in business all the time. All I am trying to do is define and enforce the public trust. A TRUST. Media (trustee) they want the job, they got the job. Duties come with that job. THE PUBLIC (beneficiary) that’s a job, duties come with that job. And you can be sued if you don’t do your job properly, if you don’t adhere to your duties and responsibilities.

Something tells me you do not want there to be a binding legal re quirement between the media and the public that’s enforced to function similarly AS a trust is required to function.

I’m guessing you’re a libertarian. You basically admit that your view is truth and lies are matters of opinion. When it’s far more black and white than that. The covid vaccination propaganda carried out by the media is complicit in millions of deaths and side effects precisely because real journalism did not take place, and the common good, preservation of the public trust is no longer what the media is stewarding.

You seem to view “public” and “private” as financial or commercial UCC terms only. Yet we as individuals, men and women maintain our individual rights in and out of public and private spaces, and the public trust exists from one to the other. We have expectations to not be accosted, or stolen from in either realm, and we can litigate those harms if we are. We do not have to have standing, or prove financial loss, to prosecute a theft or assault or crime. yet you keep referring back to “standing”. You refer to airports as private spaces.

My home is a private space. I can walk around in my underwear in my home. I cannot walk around in my underwear in the airport. It would be considered a crime even though it doesn’t physically or financially harm anyone.

Yet media lies DO physically and financially harm the public. And it does not and should not take “standing” to prove that. Citizen status ought to be sufficient.

You are engaging in denialism, by only putting forth maintenance of the status quo arguments, the way things are, and not acknowledging the way things should be. A law change.

Corporations should not be immune from litigations, or have special protections from violations of the public trust. The 1st Ammendment should not mean freedom to LIE. And legal protections and immunity from prosecutions if your vehicle for distribution of information and news operates within and has direct effects on the public trust.

The public trust is not limited to public spaces, court houses, government buildings only. It’s not limited to the city square where a town crier reads the daily reports. We’ve moved past the city Square, and town criers. Radio/Television news, internet news, makes the public square, and the public trust ubiquitous.

When you lie and say truth and lies are a matter of opinion or preference, it only proves You don’t value the public trust. So why would you care to salvage, secure it, or define it, legally?

Western countries are the only countries who HAVE a public trust. In 3rd world countries, no one trusts anybody else, or anything their government says. Think about that. We’re almost to the point where we cannot trust much of what anyone else says, what our media says, or the government. What’s the standard here then? And why are you attempting to justify it, rather than grasp the gravity of the situation?

Your regurgitation of corporate financial standing is only highlighting the inconsistency of our laws.

If someone can be charged with a hate crime for saying nigger, or something deemed antisemitic, in private or public spaces? Are those “victims” required to have standing or prove financial loses? Or prove they’ve been harmed physically? Or is it really a matter of 1st Ammendment free speech?

You suffer from the same brain rot the left does. The left wants to violate the 1st Ammendment with regards to individuals free speech, but they no longer want to bear any responsibility for the truth, but want to create harms, death, costs, effect political outcomes with brazen lies with total immunity. And your solution is obscure and obfuscate the prioritization and restoration of the public trust, which is vastly more important than any number of corporations, and has more societal function and purpose, and your solution is “vote with your feet”, change the channel?

I think you DO get it. But you don’t want to get it.

Truth and facts are more than a preference. They are a necessity. Western culture and country are dependanton it, and society breaks down without it. You want the luxury of it as a preference, but you don’t want it as a duty of responsibility. Which I’d why you personally are OK with the crimes of the media, and the left, because while you may want the media and the left to be truthful, you don’t want anyone, including yourself to be duty bound to it.

I’ve already laid out a more coherent legally consistent framework for the entity of public trust than the existing framework for corporations. All that’s lacking is political will.

[SueK (Susan)]

FT, it appears as though your IQ is north of 135 – and with a demonstrative shining confidence to boot. Congratulations (and well stated). If most people faced the issues “head on and unabashed” as do you, then we would not be in the situation in which we now face ourselves - having to clean up the government rot and cultural decay that these leftist cultural marxist idiots have left for us. Even Beethoven was “crude” in his time – until he was immortal. Never bow to the latest cultural norms and expected rules of conveyence, lest you insult yourself to deserve such a level. Your lack of fear in expression is precisely why they call you"fringe" and “theorist” – because it is directly contrary to the marxist and regressive lingo of Natrually-opposed “Karens & Cucks”. Onward and upward.

PS - *By the way, folks…whilst you are bickering about small things, China wants to own you and ‘cap you in the head’ if you dont go along with their Chinese-Deepstate Globalist agenda…but dont worry your pretty little head about that, since it is “nothing” until it is “something”… and then it is suddenly too late to have a comfortable online chat about it.

[F.T]

Thank you Sue, you’re not too shabby yourself. I appreciate your comprehension and long form skills. I’ve looked forward to your posts because I know some idiots will be batted down and you leave 'em smarting. Lol. You would make an excellent neighbor.

I’ve had great teachers. Who didn’t make much easy. I’m just trying to expound on what I’ve learned from them.

Listening to last night’s America First broadcast with Nick Fuentes. He’s talking about charity. And I’m having a small epiphany.

America has been, Christians have been charitable in the past. I don’t know where that gets any acknowledgement. And it seems to me the term needs to not be redefined but defined again.

Question: why is the assumed default position of being charitable today simply means being nice, generous, giving, with no strings or expectations attached? It’snot a choice wether or not for whites to be charitable or not, you MUST be, and you must be according to the new woke terms. In other words the woke, politically correct, “virtuous” signal, the feminine controls asserted is you/we are specifically not allowed to have strings or expectations attached to our charity. That we are only permitted to be nice, generous, and giving, and to forfeit conditions and expectations. Feminine.

In fact what of our institutions, cultural or otherwise has not already seperated us, or is actively not separating us from OUR cultural expectations?

It’s not a right/left thing. We culturally invented the LAW. Now we’re culturally down to really only the right wants the law enforced against rule breakers. Because the left is considered a valid political position, the right and left dismiss each other’s positions. As matters of choice and opinion. Yet the law doesn’t, and isn’t intended to function as a choice, a subscription or opinion. But the false left/right dichotomy allows the left to dismiss the right, our culture, and the law.

The law is a white invention. It’s how we govern ourselves and facilitate fair justice, and part of how we’ve accomplished so much as a culture. To be anti law, to be anti culture, to be anti right, is really not valid, as in the palatable term of “leftist”, it’s really hatred of whites. Our history and culture and the expectations we place upon ourselves. There is concerted efforts to seperate us from our expectations. Expectations we placed upon our culture, and then applied to others. It didn’t work. We should acknowledge that it has not worked. And likewise we then should acknowledge that what has not worked for them, DOES work for us, and not allow ourselves to become estranged from what DOES work for us.

Their efforts to change rules, coinciding with differing rules, double standards with different cultures and people groups, and do away with the only expectations and rules that aided us in achieving the societies we wanted, they are now dismantling like termites. This is not leftist, it’s anti God, it’santi creation, it’s anti law, anti cultural, anti nature, and anti white. It’santi Truth. And if we saw it for what it was, we wouldn’t accept it hiding behind the “leftist” mask and moniker. WE would give it it’s proper name. And we would make it stick, not dismissed by unbaked opinion. And we not only would not allow ourselves to be separated from our expectations, we would take steps necessary to remove the termites, and preserve our home, culture and way of life our forefathers worked so hard to establish. We can hear the chewing on our cultural infrastructure. We can see the damage. What place does charity have here? Can a termite do anything other than termite?

Since when does being charitable mean I must move from my right position to one more leftward in order to be “truly” charitable? Why is charity no longer approved by the you know who’s to mean the recipient must move further right to be a beneficiary?

Maybe it’s a bad idea to import other people groups to our homelands to be charitable to. Maybe we should look for opportunities to be truly charitable with our own people first and only. And maybe it ought to alarm us if we are not naturally gravitated toward and being culturally attuned to doing so. Maybe we ought to get good at extending charity amongst our own, before we consider, or are forced to consider extending it to foriegners, and doing away with the notion that we must import foriegners to do charity. It’s an absolutely culturally suicidal notion, and it has no benefit to us, or our charity recipients, but does benefit the tiny hat minority religion that wants to rule us all.

We either get wise to how our enemies defeat us, or we lose another means to maintain who and what we are, and our very way of life is. I’m against other people groups, and women’s redefinition of charity. With the actual true function and intention of charity being specifically and intentionally removed, by that I mean true charity naturally inspires reciprocity. But if charity must mean that trustee/beneficiary relationship is prevented from forming, if benevolence must be present, and gratitude and reciprocity must be excluded, we lose another mutually beneficial option for correcting problems. We still have options, but fewer and fewer mutually beneficial ones. This is the most difficult of concepts for todays feminine to understand.

And what we are really talking about is a tax, an imposition with little to no return. A theft. So what we are really doing is calling a theft, charity.

But I don’t think it’s too late to un malign these concepts and correct and reutilize them for ourselves, and redirect our primary energies to and for our own people. The atomization has got to stop. If you truly understand the problem. Whichever way you want to look at it. If we go down, there’s nothing left for us. If we go down, there’s nothing left for anyone else either. That’s not a threat, that’s just the reality that no other people or culture can do what we do. We want to individually thrive. We should want that same broad success for our own people, and culture too. We don’t have to be stuck pining for the good ol’ days. We should cultivate the desire and appetite in ourselves AND each other to see them return. It’s not so much a financial or capitalist goal or fantasy, but a prosperity that reinvigorates and re establishes our spirit, as well as our cultural history and continuity. This is our home. We should have say and sway over where we live. It’s OK to ensure that. It’s OK to focus on that, and only be about that. Because there’s no shortage of work to do, and no one else is going to do it for us. And I for one think what we came from, what we are, and what we have the potential to be, it’s too valuable to lose, to nothing more than this psychological fog of war.

Yes CHINA IS the real enemy. When I went out to get the mail, There was indeed a gook behind every blade of grass!, lol. When you look into why the schools suck, property tax increases during a depression, the food and air quality sucks, marraige rates and childbirths are way down. Our culture and families are many becoming atomized. The government graft, the duel citizen Israel lobby, Hollywood, big pharma, inflation and unsound money, beaurocracy, etc… when you dig deep enough into why we as Americans don’t have autonomy and sovereignty in and over our own country, a country, a place of our own, not over run with diversity interests, free from these impositions of the others, you discover the real rats in the stew have slanty eyes! It’s definitely not the beady eyed hook noses.

We must put an ocean between the US and these “people” as soon as possible.