Arguably, that story was also in the public interest. Importantly, prosecutors said there was no evidence that any of Murdoch’s editors were involved and no one else was charged. The scandal did not go all the way to the top of the organization.
But Soros needed to bloody Murdoch, his rival. So his allies hyped up old charges from the 2004–2006 period, the time frame already examined by the police, prosecutors, and Parliament. That’s another key detail that the Government-Media Complex won’t admit: These charges are old and probably won’t stick.
In the hoopla, Parliament asked Rupert Murdoch and his son James to testify. They did. Murdoch called it the “most humbling day of my life” and spent millions buying full-page advertisements in other people’s newspapers to apologize to the British public. But the two Murdochs never admitted to any wrongdoing.
In fact, the old buzzard got a round of sympathy when a crazed activist interrupted the parliamentary hearing and tried to put a shaving-cream pie in his face. Murdoch’s wife, Wendi Deng, slapped him back on the forehead, driving him away from her husband. Murdoch and his wife got good press out of that incident.21
Indeed, Soros’s bid for revenge may backfire. British prosecutors announced that they were also investigating the Daily Star,22 a paper not owned by Murdoch. Again, something the Government-Media Complex doesn’t want you to know.
And CNN may be the next unintended victim snared in the Soros trap. Piers Morgan filled the chair of CNN’s legendary softball-question king, Larry King. Now he may also be filling a seat in jail cell. That’s because he wrote a little-noticed book called The Insider: The Private Diaries of a Scandalous Decade, in 2005. In that book, he writes: “Apparently if you don’t change the standard security code that every phone comes with, then anyone can call your number and, if you don’t answer, tap in the standard four digit code to hear all your messages.” Next, he commented: “I’ll change mine just in case, but it makes me wonder how many public figures and celebrities are aware of this little trick.”
Now he’s being investigated for phone hacking.23
Did I mention that he was the editor of left-liberal newspaper that competed with Murdoch? It seems that Murdoch’s rivals are up to their necks in the same “crimes.” Again, you didn’t see that in any of the major newspapers because the Government-Media Complex doesn’t want to cloud your mind with facts that conflict with its official line.
So Soros switched tactics again. One of his minions wrote a piece in the Daily Beast, which is owned by Tina Brown and the Harmon family that owns Newsweek magazine. If you are an audiophile, you know the Harmon family name from its Harmon Kardon line of speakers and other audio equipment. Brown and the Harmons are fully paid-up members of the media elite and the Government-Media Complex. The Daily Beast article called for the prosecution of Murdoch on suspicion that his British newspapers’ payment of British detectives violated America’s “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.” That law is supposed to stop American companies from bribing foreign officials to get contracts from foreign governments.
There were no Americans involved and no British government contracts were involved. So prosecuting any News International executive under that law would be a real stretch. But that didn’t stop the Daily Beast author from salivating, “Imagine an Eric Holder–appointed advisor supervising Fox News.”24
And that’s the real agenda here. Bring Fox News under the control of the Government-Media Complex and make them toe the official line.
And, sure enough, the FBI immediately announced it was opening an investigation into Murdoch’s media holdings to see if—you guessed it—any of his executives (or Murdoch himself) violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.25
And guess whose jurisdiction the FBI falls under. That’s right: Eric Holder.
That’s how the complex works. The government and media work together hand in glove.
The Government-Media Complex Always Wins
Did you know that Barack Obama—the head of the Government-Media Complex—has ordered his minions at the newspapers and television outlets under his jurisdiction to “minimize references to al Qaeda?”
That’s right.
The president doesn’t want you to hear the name al Qaeda associated with the 9/11 terrorist attacks on our country. He’d rather his scribes in the Government-Media Complex “honor all victims of terrorism, in every nation . . . whether in New York or Nairobi, Bali or Belfast, Mumbai or Manila, or Lahore or London.”
Note the alliteration, the fancy turn of phrase.
Note the idiocy of this punk president’s pronouncement.
Instead of honoring America’s dead on this most solemn occasion, Obama wants to “present a positive, forward-looking narrative.”
Until November 2011, I didn’t know of another case in which the president has intervened so directly in an attempt to control the press as he did with these words.
I’m talking about the day the president took over all broadcast networks, overriding all broadcast programming.
On November 9, 2011, the president tested a project that’s been in the background for half a century but had never been tested: the Emergency Broadcast System. It was ostensibly designed “to provide the President of the United States with an expeditious method of communicating with the American public in the event of war, threat of war, or grave national crisis.”26
I don’t buy that.
To me, it looks like the president is rehearsing for the time—in the very near future—when he declares a state of emergency in the United States and takes over public broadcasting on a more permanent basis.
He’s setting it up with the Occupy Wall Street protests in cities across the nation. He’s setting it up by having his union thugs create chaos like they have in Wisconsin, where they took over and trashed the state capitol. He’s setting it up with the class warfare he’s trying to incite between the haves and the have-nots.
He’s ready to initiate another takeover of our rights as citizens—the right to a free press—in the same way his TSA has done. That organization continually violates our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures when we pass through the airport screening process.
Obama is getting ready to extend the unconstitutional even further.
He’s just making sure the equipment works so that when the day comes, he’ll be able to step in and shut down our communications networks—in the name of maintaining order.
My question is this: Does Barack Obama think we’re so naïve as to believe that this is just a test? It’s a test all right. It’s a test by the government to make sure they can shut down communications and deny the American people the information they need in case of political emergency.
Do you trust a single word from any member of the Obama administration?
Have you ever heard anything but lies and disinformation out of these America-haters?
What this tells me is that the Obama regime foresees an imminent national emergency that will necessitate that it takes over the avenues of communications so that it can control, even more than it does through the Government-Media Complex, everything we hear and see.
The Rise of Government Regulation
As if the fact that the media have become nothing more than a venue for the presentation of a leftist agenda wasn’t egregious enough, Obama is out to extend government control over news outlets even further.
I’m talking about government regulation of the media.
I don’t favor government investigations of news outlets. It is too close to tyranny, to government control of the free press. But if we are going to be fair about it, why not look into a major American newspaper that has its own phone-hacking scandal and that has repeatedly violated our national security by printing classified material? Indeed, the paper I’m referring to puts our soldiers and spies at risk while we are fighting the war on terror.
That newspaper is the New York Times. In fact, any “crime” committed by Murdoch’s oper
ation has actually been committed over and over by the New York Crimes.
Let’s go where the mainstream media refuse to tread.
In 1996, a Florida couple, John and Alice Martin, used a radio scanner to hack into a cell phone conversation between Representative John Boehner and House Speaker Newt Gingrich. They made tapes of the illegally obtained conversation and gave them to Democratic congressman James McDermott, a member of the House Ethics Committee. Coincidentally, the Committee just happened to be investigating Gingrich at the time. McDermott immediately handed them over to the Crimes. The page-one story in the Crimes embarrassed the Republicans, especially Gingrich.27
That was the idea, to embarrass Republicans.
It gives you a sense of what the word ethics means to a Democrat.
And while the hackers were later forced by a court to pay a $1 million fine, the Times got off scot-free.
Or consider all the classified information that the Times obtained illegally and then made public—to the detriment of our war effort. In December 2005, the paper published classified information that revealed that the U.S. government was listening in on calls made on cell phones that al Qaeda operatives had bought in Switzerland.28 Within 24 hours, all those al Qaeda phones went dead.
Six months later, Uncle Sam’s classified program to track the money that funds terror attacks was reported by the Times.29 It was a global effort, involving dozens of European and Arab countries. Most feared the political consequences of helping the U.S. stop al Qaeda—any seeming support for President Bush would hurt them with their people. So as soon as the news broke, America’s allies ran for the hills. All al Qaeda bank transfers disappeared, and European and Arab governments stopped helping us track the money.
The Times also reported that the National Security Agency was listening in to the international calls of terror suspects in the United States. That’s right: Someone with the private cell phone number of Osama bin Laden was dialing it from inside the United States.
Jack Bauer would listen in and so would you.
Don’t you think we should know what the terrorists inside our country were planning?
That same year, the Times published the details of CIA secret prisons.30 Allied governments stopped cooperating and all prisoners had to be shifted to Gitmo, effectively ending all interrogations. Without those secret prisons and severe methods, all usable intelligence from al Qaeda prisoners stopped.
In 2009, the Times published secret Bush-era Justice Department memos on interrogation and said the CIA were “torturers.” Some CIA officials retired while others now face criminal prosecution. They will win, but their colleagues won’t be pushing the envelope to uncover terror plots.
Why should they risk their careers?
Jack Bauer should just go home.
In fact, the Espionage Act—section 793(e) of U.S. Code Title 18—does apply to the editors of the New York Times, and they could be prosecuted. Those editors could face up to ten years in prison or tens of thousands of dollars in fines. The New York Times appears to have specifically violated Section 793(e) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. The relevant section clearly applies:
Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.
The case is clear-cut enough. The newspaper is not cleared to receive classified documents, yet they received them and even published them. The paper also failed to promptly turn over the secret papers to the proper government officials and even used those illegally obtained documents “to the injury of the United States.”
Case closed.
Think the First Amendment’s free-speech protections mean the law doesn’t apply to the New York Times?
Think again.
The United States Supreme Court considered that very question shortly after the law was adopted during World War I. In Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court held that those who were convicted under the law had no shield under the First Amendment. The Constitution was designed to protect people who wanted to help America’s enemies during a shooting war.
And what about the Pentagon Papers case?
Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo were working for the Pentagon in 1970 when they decided to secretly photocopy thousands of pages of classified intelligence about the Vietnam War. Justice Department prosecutors won a grand jury indictment against the pair in 1971, for allegedly violating the Espionage Act. They appealed, ultimately landing before the U.S. Supreme Court. In the New York Times Co. v. the United States, the high court held that government could not stop the newspaper from publishing the illegally gotten documents, but—and this is the key part of the finding—the government could still constitutionally try, convict, and punish editors for violating the Espionage Act if they did publish the classified material. So the Supreme Court said that no one has a constitutional right to publish secret documents.
Why did Ellsberg and Russo later get let off?
The official story is that the judge declared a mistrial. In reality, the Government-Media Complex protects its own.
So while the New York Times is champing at the bit for the government to go after Murdoch, the “paper of record” has done far worse things itself.
But don’t expect the FBI, which opened an investigation into Murdoch, to expand its inquiry into the activities of the New York Times. Why? Because the Government-Media Complex always wins in the end.
The Tyranny of Blame: Norway’s Christian Killer
Let me give you a vivid example of the Government-Media Complex at work.
Remember Anders Breivik, the Norwegian nut who killed more than 90 people in a bombing of Norway’s prime minister’s office in Oslo and the grisly gunning down of scores of teenagers on an island retreat?
First, let’s remember some hard truths. Not all Muslims are terrorists and not all terrorists are Muslims.
Think about it. If all Muslims were terrorists there would be 1.1 billion Muslims at war with everyone else on earth. Muslims may hate you, but they’re not terrorists, just as you may hate others, but you’re not a terrorist. Don’t tell me you’ve got a halo on your head just because you have a cross and go to church.
Look within your own heart and you will know I am right. I expect many of you are angry with me right now. You think I’m totally wrong. But after you have a chance to reflect on this incident, you’ll say, “Savage, you were right.”
You need to understand the danger of certain ideas and where they can lead you.
Now, given all this, Breivik wrote about al Qaeda with admiration, and that explains why this madman killed his own kind, hunted down young Norwegian children like rabbits. His mass murder was the most dastardly, Nazi-like act I’ve seen in my time. It’s the same as I’ve seen here in America with guys in the black raincoats. I am talking about the Columbine High School killings in Littleton, Colorado, in 1999, when two youths who called themselves the “trench coat mafia” hunted down fellow students and shot them.
I don’t understand that mentality.
These tactics would have been used by Adolf Hitler in the death camps, or by one of the Einsatzgruppen, the Nazi death squads that cheerfully shot innocent civilians.
Human nature does not change. In all of our hearts lurk ancient temptations and eons-old evils. I guarantee that many people—too many people—would kill their neig
hbors if their government told them to do it. That is the danger of this type of thinking. Many people, if given a uniform and the authority, would round up innocent citizens who happen to belong to an unpopular political party or religious sect and kill them.
Our history is stained with examples of this.
Ask the Jews or the American Indians.
Don’t assume that it couldn’t happen again. It could. And I am telling you, when it appears, no matter what the symbol is, no matter the associated religion, you must understand that evil exists, and stand up to it and say, “No, that’s not me.”
It doesn’t mean you have to surrender your religious beliefs. Evil men disguise themselves in the saintly robes of religion. It doesn’t mean your religion is evil; it means he’s evil. And so in casting out his evil, you make sure you yourself don’t fall into that well.
Is Norway’s suspected murderer Anders Breivik a Christian terrorist?
Some would say yes, and so would I. Not to slam Christianity, but as a warning to those of you who think that it can’t happen within your own ranks. It can and it did, and it will happen again. Remember the words of Senator Barry Goldwater, speaking at the 1964 Republican National Convention, in San Francisco’s Cow Palace: “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
I’m a Goldwater conservative. Those are the truest words ever spoken in my lifetime, next to Eisenhower’s “beware the government military-industrial complex.” However, it doesn’t mean you have to slaughter innocent people if you believe that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. It doesn’t mean you blow up parliament buildings. It doesn’t mean you go out and kill children.
What I want you to understand is that you can be an extremist without being a murderer or terrorist. You can be an extremist in what you do, and work around the clock to save this nation without having to resort to what this lunatic did in Norway.
Trickle Down Tyranny Page 7
