On May 23, 2013, the American President Barack Obama gave a
speech on national security in which he touched on many subjects including the
relationship between the press and the security of the nation. He said the
following:
“The Justice Department's investigation of national security
leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right
balance between our security and our open society. We must keep information
secret by enforcing consequences for those who break the law. But a free press
is also essential for our democracy. I am troubled by the possibility that leak
investigations may chill investigative journalism. Journalists should not be at
legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law.”
How can the proper balance be achieved? To answer the
question, we must first understand how we got to where we are – and for this,
we need to go back to the beginning. It is generally accepted that a government
is made of three branches: the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial.
With the passage of time, people began to understand that good government
happens when the three branches check and balance each other; tasks that reduce
the tendency to resort to corrupt practices by the individuals who run the
government. For this reason, the three branches were made co-equal without any
of them given dominance over the others.
Then, something that remained beyond the consciousness of
people for a long time began to come to the level of their consciousness. It
was the fact that the press (now called media) was protected by a provision in
the constitution which made it as immune of government interference as the
branches were of each other. In addition, the press put itself in charge of
checking and balancing the branches of government as much as the branches were
checking and balancing each other. The press achieved this status often by
cooperating with the party in opposition – called minority in either chamber of
the US Congress. Thus, having those two tasks as part of its job description,
the press inevitably came to be viewed as the fourth branch of government.
Then little by little, the press – which does not submit to
the electoral process – developed techniques that allowed it to dominate the
Executive and Legislative branches that must submit to the process. This
happened because corruption in government is normally done in secret, something
that the press seeks to uncover and make public. At the same time, however, the
press itself is able to engage in practices that may be corrupt but seem
otherwise paradoxically because such practices are committed in the open. It is
that they are mostly sins of omission motivated by malicious intent. For this
reason, the public can neither see what is not there, nor can it see what
malice dwells inside the head of an editor who would omit key elements of a
story.
In time, much of these practices had become the norm, and
the abuses were detected by the public. But while the abuses were deemed
unethical, they were not illegal. For a reason that remains unexplained to this
day, that approach to the trade was given the name yellow journalism. A
notorious practitioner who appeared at the start of the Twentieth Century was
William Randolph Hearst about whom Orson Wells made the film: Citizen Kane. It
is a story that has an ordinary human plot-line but one that shows how the
position of editor can accumulate imperial powers while the political and civil
servants are reduced to the status of criminal suspects who remain neither
charged with a crime nor tried for one. In this sense, they forever resemble
the character Joseph K in Kafka's novel: The Trial.
In time, yellow journalism ebbed in America ,
especially since the start of the country's participation in the Second World
War. This was a time when people came together, got busy contributing to the
war effort, and let their patriotic fervor guide their behavior. But soon after
the end of the War, there came the McCarthy era, and the time for mutual
recrimination and finger pointing started again. Ever since that time, the Jews
have been in the middle of it all because they tried to have it both ways. They
yearned for the Socialism of the Soviet Union
that would have brought the world to their feet, and they coveted the
Capitalism of America that would have brought the riches of the world to their
wallets. Simply put, they want to have the world and all it riches, and they
never gave up that quest.
In the meantime, Israel was established as a country
and recognized as such. The Jewish leaders in America
saw that for it to remain afloat, it will have to be constantly served by an America that
must be harnessed for the purpose. They reasoned that they had to turn their
own country into a body-guard, financier and diplomatic protector in the
service of what they called the Jewish state. To achieve all this, they needed
to infiltrate the important American institutions and take them over,
especially the press that was beginning to expand and put roots in all sorts of
new media – television being the most prominent at the time.
Monopolizing the print and audio-visual media one outlet
after the other, the Jewish leaders managed to isolate America from
the rest of the world. Bit by bit, they forbade its political and civil
servants from talking to or dealing with individuals, institutions and nations
they did not like while at the same time rendering the American politicians and
civil servants ever more reliant on Jewish and Israeli advice, ideas,
suggestions and commands.
Forever the paranoid and fearful people that they are, the
Jewish leaders dreaded the day when the American public would elect a President
they cannot control. He will be someone who, instead of hopping into their
pocket and serve them faithfully, would decide to establish a regime that would
work for America
and for its people. If this were to happen, they intended to pull all the
stops, and work to destroy his ability to govern. To this end, they established
a string of media outlets which they manned with a swarm of pseudo journalists
that went about the business of openly playing the role of opposition to the
regime. They did so not in the sense of loyal opposition as inherited from the
British parliamentary system but in the sense of deadly enemies in the style of
the cold war.
The Jewish leaders now have a fleet of media outlets under
their command with a flagship that is composed of the print and audio-visual
sisters: the Wall Street Journal and the Fox News Channel. Both are part of the
empire owned by the notorious Rupert Murdoch whose conduct in Great Britain
made his journalistic acumen synonymous with mud. When the foreign policy of
President Obama clashed with the interests of Israel ,
the foot soldiers of the Murdoch empire sprang into action, treating Israel as the country to which they must pledge
their loyalty, and treating the elected leaders of America as the mortal enemies who
stood in the way.
They used their flagship and all the media under their
control to demonize the American government while praising to high heaven
everything Jewish and Israeli. They pursued this policy in the hope of pulling
the American people to their side, away from their government – and where
possible against it. In the process, they made everything fair game for them to
use, being the press that is protected by the First Amendment. And they
rendered the American government the Kafkaesque character that deserves to be
punished by staying permanently in the purgatory of suspicion and being
subjected to constant journalistic abuse.
When the national secrets of America came into play, a clash
resulted between the Murdoch empire and the Obama Administration. Day in and
day out during the weekdays and during the weekends, at intervals that lasted
no more than three minutes, a fake “News Alert” was set off on the Fox News
channel to the effect that something of utmost significance just came into the
studio. And each and every time the item turned out to be not a news item but
the repeat of an opinion that had been puked, re-eaten, excreted, re-devoured
and re-puked by the same disgusting worm-like hosts who sat there pretending to
be journalists.
While there are plenty of people in America with great stories to tell and
worthwhile opinions to express, the Fox News producers invited only the kind of guests that helped them advance the causes of Israel , and those of the Jewish
leaders. This is where the Obama administration – specifically the Department
of Justice – must begin to make its case during the upcoming debate signaled by
President Obama in the speech on National Security.
Footage of an Israeli official sitting in a foreign country,
appearing on Fox news and warning President Obama before the election that
Israel has a Fifth Column of Jews who will upset the election if he did not
start a third war in the Middle East on behalf of Israel – must be shown to the
public as often as the fake news alerts are set off on the Fox News channel.
The goals of the Israeli official and Fox were, of course,
to put pressure on the American government to stop working for the American
people and start working for the Israeli leaders. Thus, the comment
accompanying that video footage must be to the effect that since the pressure
on the President can only be achieved if Fox obtained the kind of secret leaks
that would damage the security of the nation, the attempt to obtain such leaks
must not be regarded as legitimate gathering of information for journalistic
purposes.
That point made, it is then logical to suspect the motive of
a pseudo journalist caught in the act of enticing or inciting a feeble minded
civil servant to betray their country by giving him secret information. For the
good of the country, those in charge of the Justice Department would have the
duty to consider the Jewish operative a co-conspirator if and when caught in
the act of pushing hard on the civil servant to betray his country.
Begin the debate here, and let it go where it will lead.