Madam Feinstein, I’m slightly concerned for your mental health.
By Brittany Yurkovitch on 8/18/2013
Dear Dianne Feinstein,
Recently, a former AP Economics teacher wrote a letter to the massive state surveillance system and since I know you introduced the last internet censorship bill, PIPA, voted to extend the Patriot Act, and introduced legislation to ban semi-automatic rifles or “assault weapons” as you masters of propaganda like to say, I figured I would address this letter directly to you. Hopefully, one of your cronies at the NSA can funnel this letter to you in case it ends up in your spam box.
I am aware that you hard-liner liberals have a difficult time using statistics and logic when it comes to the second amendment. I understand that your position is due to the historical inability of liberals to comprehend facts about crime and self-defense. This anti-self-defense position has always irritated me, but I understand it to be a liberal mental problem. Hopefully, your generous taxpayer- funded insurance plans will cover your debilitating psychiatric deficiency.
However, as a government and economics teacher, you have thoroughly confused me, Dianne. You see, I was under the impression that my job was to teach students about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights so that they can become smart, productive citizens. I thought that you were a Democrat and thus, take the position to strongly defend the First Amendment for everyone (but Christians). So what’s going on with all this NSA garbage you keep spewing? I recently read that you would not support protecting the First Amendment rights of someone like me, at www.RehashedFashion.com, or those of my lesser-achieving students who chooses to voice their opinion because we are not “salaried agents” at a large media company like CNN, CNBC, or FOX.
There has been some debate amongst you liberals. Charles Schumer, must be slightly more liberal as he thinks some bloggers should be protected but not all:
The Senate Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 would establish a national “shield law” that would give journalists protection from testifying in situations when investigators want the sources of confidential information used in media reports.
However, in today’s world, the definition of the word “journalist” means different things to different people, and two powerful Senators, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Durbin, say journalists only should enjoy extended First Amendment protection if they work for traditional media outlets on a paid basis.
The Free Flow of Information Act was introduced earlier this year by Senator Charles Schumer, who had introduced a similar bill in 2009 with the late Senator Arlen Specter. Back then, Feinstein and Durbin wanted strict definitions of the word “journalists” after the WikiLeaks story broke.
Their current amendment to the bill poses the same questions.
“This bill is described as a reporter shield law — I believe it should be applied to real reporters,” Feinstein said last week. “The current version of the bill would grant a special privilege to people who aren’t really reporters at all, who have no professional qualifications.”
The Feinstein-Durbin proposed amendment would narrowly define journalists as “a salaried agent” of a media company.
Feinstein also reportedly said that the bill shouldn’t apply to WikiLeaks or “a 17-year-old who drops out of high school, buys a website for $5 and starts a blog.”
Schumer’s bill has a much-broader definition and he believes the language is specific enough to include bloggers and unpaid contributors, and exclude WikiLeaks.
“The world has changed. We’re very careful in this bill to distinguish journalists from those who shouldn’t be protected, WikiLeaks and all those, and we’ve ensured that,” Schumer said. “But there are people who write and do real journalism, in different ways than we’re used to. They should not be excluded from this bill.”
Dianne, are you OK? Seriously, I am worried about your mental health. I know you are currently the oldest serving Senator and I think the liberal mental disease is getting worse. Are you really afraid of a 17- year old dropout blogging ? Are you really worried that the many public school teachers who run blogs are actually terrorists in disguise? Despite that the 17 year old dropout has a better chance of reporting real news than the puppets on any mainstream news channel I can’t imagine you would be willing to sacrifice our First Amendment rights over baseless fear. Censorship is liberal no-no land. Remember?
Despite the fear people have about crazed Congresswomen cracking down on free-speech, I cannot help but smirk as I know you are desperately trying to keep the dinosaur propagandists and liars in power at a time when the technological landscape is dramatically changing. I think its wonderful that you government leeches are beginning to fear the “common man” again. It’s cute to see you guys try to control the marketplace of ideas. Remember the Gutenberg printing press and the revolution of ideas that followed? It’s coming and you cannot stop it so please stop trying. The free-market is a beautiful thing and in the long-run it will always win, ALWAYS.
Seriously Dianne, please get some help. If you are mind-controlled, I will pray for your free-will and if you are simply a treasonous witch I pray for the people’s enlightenment. Either way, I cannot let a bunch of old crazies with historically low popular support scare me into shutting up and neither should you, dear readers. Dianne, people like you give me plenty of ammunition (hehe) to write. Maybe you should censor yourself to shut the rest of us up.
PS. Why don’t you simply pull a Pelosi and scare Congress into signing a censorship bill before they know what’s in it. Ahh, San Fransisco- you sure know how to pick them!
Posted: August 18th, 2013 under Education, Original Political Cartoons, Political commentary, Political Satire.
Tags: 1984, brave new world, constitution, empire, endless war, fascism, freedom, gun control, legalization, libertarian