NEWSMAX TIMING IS CRITICAL

It is often said that timing is everything. So it is that the question needs to be ask, was this the time for Newsmax to abandon its millions of followers in favor of a few paying subscribers? This move at this time comes just 1 year ahead of the election that will have more impact on freedom around the world than any election ever before.

This site has historically reserved postings to issues which need more exposure or perhaps more background information than the more popular sources were able to give their readers or listeners. Many of you will remember the great Rush Limbaugh. But no more than a handful ever realized that Rush occasionally used information possibly found first on this site. He is no longer available to us. The voice which called out warnings against tyranny each day is silent. So it is that this site should increase efforts to post commentary more often.

As if costs increases of food, energy and so much more of everyday life were not enough, this month marks another big gain for the forces aligned against the last stronghold of freedom on earth. Until Newsmax decided to take cover behind a paywall, millions of Americans were finding at least some credible reporting of the corruption destroying the country. To label the 2024 presidential election “the most important election of your lifetime” is to trivialize the reality of the end of America, the end of freedom on Earth, and very probably the end of life for millions upon millions of humans and animals by a nuclear holocaust.

If democrats are again allowed to team with communist Chinese to adjust the vote counts as proven to¹ have happened in Colorado, and certainly elsewhere, the nation will never survive. The departure of Newsmax from its original platforms will leave the propaganda news and social media supporting those who have corrupted our government in totalitarian control in ways beyond the imagination of even George Orwell.

The question is why. Why did Newsmax decide to leave the open market and seek the cheap and dirty route to income by requiring subscription fees instead of generating ad revenues reflecting the network’s ever expanding success and value? It can not be denied that it is easier (lazier and cheaper) to let third parties like cable networks and streaming services do the legwork of selling, collecting and distributing the revenues. But these subscription systems have become less and less popular as their credibility decreases and prices increase. Worse still, the “packages” force subscribers to pay for many unwanted channels in order to receive the few they want.

And as more and more families struggle with higher prices at the grocery and the gas pump, cuts have to be made in other spending; like entertainment subscription services. It seems highly unlikely Americans will give up their cellular and social media services. But at the same time will they chose to increase their costs of accessing the programs previously available over the the internet?

Rush Limbaugh once implored his media affiliates to avoid the trap of increasing ad revenues by increasing the number of ads instead of increasing prices to reflect the increase in exposure. It was, he explained, a matter of value. An ad that exposes the message to a million listeners is obviously more valuable than that same ad being heard by only a half million listeners. And as Rush was a great football fan, he easily explained why a Superbowl commercial cost more than the same commercial run during any other program.

If the decision maker(s) at Newsmax had understood the economics and perhaps more importantly the work ethic Rush was explaining, it would seem doubtful they would have made the move to shelter their content behind paywalls at a time when propaganda and censorship are expanding efforts to dominate the narrative of the upcoming election cycle.

This is perhaps an example of the impact of the horrific decline in education in America, The generation of “mush brains” will be taking the reigns of power in every segment of the economy sooner rather than later.

Protect your history books – hide them for you grandchildren – before they are banned and burned. History has always repeated itself for those who refuse to learn from it.

1: Forensic images of Mesa County voting machines link ballot information to Chinese communist servers in China. L.A. County charges Eugene Yu with sharing exhaustive poll worker information with Chinese communists.

Press Dishonesty and the Riots – Past and Future

Today the United States is racing toward riots – everywhere! The “social” media continues to claim protection for their political speech censorship under a clearly abused regulation called section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. “Communications Decency,” is a perfect example of misleading language to deceive the public into accepting another flanking attack on the Constitution and our Bill of Rights..

For those readers who may have heard of Section 230 in the recent news but were not really sure what it had to do with censorship, here is a very brief description of this 1996 law.

In the very early stages of social media platforms the idea that the companies that owned the platforms could be held liable for something one of their subscribers posted was argued to be unacceptable. Subscribers claiming 1st Amendment rights argued the platforms should not be allowed to censor their postings. Law enforcement agencies argued the platforms were potentially the venue for everything from sex trafficking to terrorists communications. And in the third corner, lawyers were salivating over the opportunity to reach into the potentially deep pockets of the platform companies. Section 230 was the compromise of considering all of these arguments. The platform owners were given immunity from liable suits for content published by “third parties” while also being charged with regulating the platform sites to avoid publication of what they were allowed to determine was “hate speech,” even though the Constitution protects such speech.

If that seems confusing, you are in some very influential company. President Trump and President elect Joe Biden have both proposed major changes to section 230. Trump has proposed limits on the protections where political speech is involved and Joe Biden has proposed eliminating the protections altogether in favor of broadening the platforms’ authority to regulate their content. But of course no one can explain what that means.

As they exist now, the social media platform companies are completely protected from liable suits resulting from content posted by those of us using the platforms. But these companies have also been protected from law suits resulting from content that they have not allowed to be posted or have removed. This is the where the first amendment clashes with the Communications Decency Act. Speech – in written form – that is absolutely protected by the First Amendment is somehow not protected from censorship by a private company offering a public platform for communication it decides should not be published.

As the United States has become violently divided by opposing political ideologies, the speech by either side can certainly be offensive to the other. Determining how to differentiate between hate speech and the opposition’s political point of view has somehow become the privilege of the media companies; including print, broadcast and the internet platforms. Perhaps such a trust would be acceptable if the media were as balanced as the political party support within the population. But the reality is that the media is dangerously out of balance with the population. The control of the media has become exclusive to those who believe government is the only solution to survival of everyone and everything. Political speech by the opposition can be and is considered hate speech by those in control of information distribution. Censorship of one party has become rampant while the other is given extensive leeway of content. This is the Constitutional crisis we are now facing. The media has become so bias for one ideology that crimes at the highest level are both ignored and called propaganda of the opposition.

BREAKING:

This week spokespersons for CNN have repeatedly called for cable and internet providers to delete Newsmax TV and streaming services from their platforms. CNN justifies these calls claiming Newsmax has distributed “lies” about the election fraud claims by President Trump. The report published by Newsmax.com concludes by reporting that during the years and years of the Russian collusion investigation based on a falsified document – proven to be paid for by political opponents of the President – Newsmax officials never called for the censorship of CNN for their spreading of false information.

Now we will need to wait to learn if the largest media – clearly supporting the various Socialists and Communist and other factions of Dystopian Utopia government – will support CNN and the right of the platform owners to “lock out” Newsmax for violating “their” polices covering hate speech they claim could lead to riots by the readers of such Conservative propaganda. These groups – aka Big Tech – have been given the permission to censor whatever and whoever they decide is publishing hate speech by the now infamous Section 230. Of course we have just lived through nearly 4 years of violence and property destruction by the armed forces of such organizations Black Lives Matter and Antifa. Yet these organizations and their offshoots went uncensored by facebook or twitter or other social media platforms. In fact these purveyors of violence were supported in the press, dignified by many in government and supported with money and action by sports and entertainment celebrities excusing their riots as necessary to effect positive changes in the name of social justice.