Left, right, whatever. I'm mad as hell at the media. When they're not so busy obfuscating the truth, they're on their little anti-free speech agendas. Whether it means attempts to communicate merely what the power elites want them to communicate, or whether it is--all in the name of God--man-made attempts to legislate morality and pop culture in society at large (whereas God's Law as set down in the Bible commands that morality be legislated in the home), or whether it is to pass laws regulating what can and cannot be posted in cyberspace, I must raise my small voice at this outrage of muzzling our First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech. It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it. Further, I must raise my cybervoice at "patriot", "constitutionalist," or otherwise conservative/right wing attacks on free speech, which not only will balance my multitudinal attacks on the liberal/socialist/Clintonista attacks so well cited on WorldNetDaily and others, but will show my "agenda-free" approach--put simply, OmegaZine! stands for responsible freedom of speech from all political spectrums and has no "agenda" outside of that. For, as much as OmegaZine! expresses the truth as its editor and author of this article has searched it, the truth will stand up to reproach from the left or right.
Attacks on free-speech from the left:
In as much as the Establishment Media supports the agenda of the left (that is, pro-Big Government), I speak here of Big Media's unwillingness to go much beyond "official sources" when it covers a story. "Official sources" nowadays almost always means cover-up. Wag the dog. All the news the power elites think is fit to print. And, when they do print the truth, it is always well after the fact. For instance, now, suddenly, CNN is telling us that, yes, NATO did bomb thousands of innocents, a large number of them Kosovar Albanians, during its Serbia-Kosovo adventure. It may take them several more months for them to tell us that, yes, Clinton has committed treason in selling our high technology to China. Another for instance: it has now come to light that Serb "atrocities" that were peddled before the public to justify continuing the war were far less than originally reported. According to the "World Socialist Website":
"These reports have been simply ignored by the "newspapers of record "
- the New York Times and the Washington Post - which enthusiastically
backed the bombing of Yugoslavia and retailed the government claims of
mass murder, rape and genocide that were used to justify the war and
manipulate public opinion."
The Big Media tools that might be hurting free speech the most are their polls. Like the wag the dog technique, Big Media uses polls, not to reinforce a pre-existing consensus, but to create it. The Washington Post, for instance, doesn't report what folks think but influences people how to think by the use of their polls. At the beginning of NATO's little war, it ran a poll specifying that well over 50 percent of Americans supported NATO's "humanitarian" intervention into a sovereign nation that had not done anything against US interests, but that opinion might change if troops started coming home in body bags. Other mainstream newspapers ran similar polls with similar results. This was done to ensure that Americans, who have this propensity for wanting to be on the winning side, would morally support this illegal and immoral war. Previous to this misadventure, numerous polls (including a WorldNetDaily poll!) showed that most Americans backed Clinton, despite his lies and contempt for justice, during the impeachment farce. This, too, ensured that the public--which might feel like questioning Clinton's moral character to lead this nation--would think the correct way. After all, a crisis over the presidency would upset the average American's comfort zone too much. It has been alleged that this media owned by the power elites only polls folks in regions of the country that they are reasonably sure supports the liberal/socialist agenda--the East Coast, southern California, yuppie-type suburbia and minority areas (minorities are seen to consistently vote for the Democrat-liberal-socialist regime), disregarding rural areas, places like northern Idaho and other "angry-white-male"-type areas. This practice may be true, and I am sure there are studies that will verify this, or not. Regardless. Polls are taken mostly to create, not verify, public opinion in this era when politics is run by consensus.
A recent poll taken by CNN is the most disturbing one yet: Over 50% of Americans polled believe the First Amendment right of free-speech must be curtailed. Again, this attitude follows several years after Clinton, in an appearance on that paragon of culture, MTV, claimed that "Americans have too much freedom," thus alluding to the notion that freedom has to be limited somehow. Having said that, Clinton has motivated the media into making sure that's what we would all believe!
I quote from the article:
"A majority, 53 percent, of those questioned in a survey sponsored by the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University believe the press has too much freedom. That's a 15 percent increase since 1997.
"Only 65 percent said newspapers should be able to publish freely without government approval of a story -- down from 80 percent in the 1997 survey.
"By notable majorities, Americans also said the news media should not be allowed to endorse or criticize political candidates, use hidden cameras for newsgathering or
publish government secrets.
" 'The survey doesn't address why,' (Center executive director) Paulson said, 'but common sense tells you the airwaves and newspaper columns have been filled with Monica Lewinsky, Marv Albert and the aftermath of the O.J. Simpson case. They've all contributed to a sense that the American press has lost its perspective.' "
I could get a lot more down and dirty on this issue of the leftist subterfuge of freedom of speech, but I have specified much of that elsewhere in this e-zine and the OmegaZine! archives.
Attacks on free-speech from the right:
This can be sudivided into three subgroups: the "patriot/militia" right (the angry white males); the Christian (legislate morality) right; the conservative-politcal-Republican right.
The "patriot/militia" right:
Since I have in the past been associated with the fringe of this "angry white male" movement that was "a force upon the plain" for the last few years but seems to have dissappated, or at least it isn't as notorious as it used to be, I know about and have come into contact with their agenda--and some of their agenda is almost as bad as that which they rail against, the so-called New World Order. Basically, it is this: get rid of government by, for, and of the power elites (good); get rid of the IRS, BATF, CIA, Federal Reserve and the other so-called illegal agencies (good); bring us back to the gold stardard, common law, Bill of Rights and Constitutionalism, and the limited central govt. that goes with it (good); isolationism (not so good); close our borders to illegals (a popular idea, but totally impractical and in many cases immoral, considering immigrants are part of what made this nation great); bring back Biblical morality (a great idea, but NOT the way the religious wing of this movement, Christian Identity, would have it. As a woman, I won't stand for their "barefoot and pregnant" nonsense!); violence (Not everyone in the patriot movement believes in this, but, having seen with my own eyes the results of the 1997 Republic of Texas standoff, and having known the Patriot media was solidly behind Rick McLaren and his crew, I truly believe those that advocate this method to right the wrongs of out-of-control government are either insane or agents-provacatuer types affiliated with agencies of the power elites.); doing what the bankers do (you know, printing bogus money, a-la Freemen--and McLaren, who tried to pass phony "Republic of Texas Warrants," backed by nothing.); and so on. Thus, I can say with a certainty that the Patriot movement agenda is part great intentions (which the road to Hell is payed with), part con-game scamming, and part downright un-Godly, and their media materials reflect this.
The Christian Right (apart from Identity):
These are the folks who want to ban everything, from rock music to video games to working on Sundays to pornography on the internet. You know, legislate all morality, and, like the Big Brother government they purport to oppose, they seek to tell Americans what is best for them. Like Christian Identity they want to return to Biblical values, but, for these hypocrites, some Biblical values are better than others. For instance:
The Political Right:
These are the folks who want to "downsize government" and "cut spending", and, except for those smart enought to know there's not even a dime's worth of difference, support the Republican Party. They read The National Review, The Spectator, and so on, and write letters to the editors of liberal newspapers. So then why are they supporting the Republicans? You know, the folks who betrayed their stand to downsize govt., cut spending, and stop the Democrats? What a joke! And did you know that the right's biggest pundit, William F. Buckley, is a member of Skull & Bones, along with ex-President George Bush and (God forbid) "soon-to-be President" W? The same Skull & Bones secret, occultic society that has recruited Yale leaders of the New World Order Power Elites for many, many years? Thus, while it scores points once in a while when it is allowed to, the media of the political right is a sham, and stands against free speech.
Finally, I will, if I must, define myself as a conservative, in a classical definition sense: a conservative is one who upholds eternal values. Eternal being God-given. I sometimes consider myself Libertarian but that has more to do with practicing personal responsibility than in a legislating morality or a political sense. That is, I believe guiding principals stem from God's Laws, as set forth in the Bible, particularly The Ten Commandments. These are not negotiable and there are no gray areas, which sets them apart from man's laws that are "meant to be broken" according to whichever agenda is politically correct. That is, may I sum up--God's Laws, God's media (the Bible), and God's agenda is truth. Man's laws, man's media and man's agenda is only partially true, in as much as man upholds God's truth to the best of his ability. Anything else is maddening!