[conservatism_IS_compassion]

It is necessary - and possible IMHO - to sue the MSM into oblivion. And to sue to legally constrain the FCC and the FEC as well.

• Sue wire service journalism - wire services and members/subscribers - on grounds that the wire services have created an illegal cartel. Each wire service is a continual virtual meeting of its members/subscribers. And as Adam Smith noted in Wealth of Nations, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” Name the FCC and the FEC also, for putting the imprimatur of the government on the cartel’s functioning.

• Sue individual journalists, news organizations, and wire services for enormous damages for libel. Note that:
  1. The self-serving propaganda that “journalists are objective” could not possibly be true, in fact is not true because journalism is consciously about bad news reflecting poorly on society and well on government, and in fact has the effect of politically homogenizing all journalism.

  2. Pace the Warren Court’s unanimous 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision, the First Amendment does not modify libel law. At all.

     As Antonin Scalia explained, the Bill of Rights was carefully crafted to be a guarantee that no right of any American was, or would in future be, changed by the Constitution. The right to redress if libeled not excluded.

     Think: How else satisfy the requirement of the Antifederalists for a list of rights and the Federalists’ concern that listing some rights would denigrate others? The enumerated rights are not created, and not modified, by being enumerated. Instead they are enumerated because tyrants had historically denied them because of their political potency.

     Since the Bill of Rights had to be ratified to protect the political viability of the Constitution itself, the proposed BoR was not the place to promote changes in the rights of the people as then understood. Not when you were selling the proposition that the Constitution made no non-explicit changes in those rights. Specifically, the expression “the freedom . . . of the press” referred to freedom of the press as it then existed. Freedom limited by laws including that of libel.

“The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they intrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests.” ― Alexander Hamilton

For “men” read, “the journalism cartel.” The tyrannical impulses in American society are novel in the sense that they come not directly from a tyrant but from the media cartel acting on the people and inducing them to think they want tyranny. Prominent among the cartel's “arts” is the redefinition of terms:

1. ”objective” is a term by which the cartel means only “going along perfectly with the journalism cartel - and therefore getting along perfectly with the journalism cartel.” And the cartel allows it to be used only to describe journalists in good standing with the cartel.

2. all other adjectives which have positive nominal meanings in a political sense - e.g.,
   • ”liberal”
   • ”progressive”
   • ”moderate”
   • ”centrist”
   - also are redefined by the cartel to mean nothing other than “going along perfectly with the journalism cartel - and therefore getting along perfectly with the journalism cartel.” However, the journalism cartel will never permit the use of such terms to a working member of the cartel. That would blow their cover.

3. ”conservative” is the term which is applied to any and all who do not get along with the journalism cartel by going along the journalism cartel. “Conservative” was never a political virtue in America; so-called “conservatives” conserve liberty and in that sense promote change. So-called “conservatives” actually promote progress of, by, and for the people. Prominently including the use of “fossil” fuels or the careful use of nuclear fission energy (whereas, going by their record regarding natural gas, so-called “progressives” would oppose controlled fusion energy if it threatened to subvert their alarmism).

   A century ago there was an adjective which described Freepers accurately - but that word, then having a very positive nominal meaning in the political sense, was coopted into meaning essentially its opposite (in the 1920s, according to Safire’s New Political Dictionary). Astonishing but true, that word was “liberal."

[timestax]

bttt