Who Needs The Truth When You Have Mockingbird?

US Govt Just Legalized Operation Mockingbird — FBI Can Now Impersonate the Media

Claire Bernish 

"FBI agents conducting undercover investigations have now been given the green light to impersonate journalists, the Justice Department determined last week — effectively legalizing the government’s most notorious propaganda program, Operation Mockingbird.

Last Thursday, the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General published what’s become the subject of outrage for journalists, civil and constitutional rights advocates, and legal experts  — “A Review of the FBI’s Impersonation of a Journalist in a Criminal Investigation.”

Allowing agents to infiltrate media organizations for any reason threatens to utterly undermine public trust, kill the very concept of journalistic integrity, and throttle the flow of information from sources and whistleblowers concerned with the legitimacy of journalists they contact.

As shocking as the finding sounds, it only validates the practice — in fact, the report centers around a case from 2007 in which an FBI agent pretended to be an Associated Press journalist to identify an elusive suspect online. At the time, the FBI “did not prohibit agents from impersonating journalists or from posing as a member of a news organization,” the report states.

But even the ubiquitous, mainstream AP — whose outlet became an unwitting pawn for the agency — sharply criticized the DOJ’s announcement.

“The Associated Press is deeply disappointed by the Inspector General’s findings, which effectively condone the FBI’s impersonation of an AP journalist in 2007,” Associated Press Vice President Paul Colford said in a statement cited by US News. “Such action compromises the ability of a free press to gather the news safely and effectively and raises serious constitutional concerns.”

In 2007, a high school student near Seattle emailed a series of bomb threats to his school, but his use of proxy servers thwarted police efforts to learn his identity — so they asked for assistance from the FBI’s Northwest Cybercrime Task Force.

Agents devised a plan, and, as the Intercept summarized, “An undercover agent sent the student email impersonating an editor for the Associated Press. The email included links to a fake news site designed to look like the Seattle Times.”

When the student followed the links, malware revealing his actual location installed itself.

It wasn’t until an ACLU technologist accidentally discovered copies of the bogus news stories in 2014 — buried in pages the Electronic Frontier Foundation obtained from the FBI via a Freedom of Information Act request in 2011 — that the plot to pose as journalists came to light, generating massive controversy and consternation.

Furthering the contempt, FBI Director James Comey penned a letter to the editor of the New York Times defending the agency’s impersonation, dismissively stating “we do use deception at times to catch crooks, but we are acting responsibly and legally.”

The Associated Press and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press didn’t believe either the veracity or legality of Comey’s statement, and sued the FBI to disclose documents relating to the practice — ultimately obtaining a redacted memo in which the agency acknowledged the agents violated the FBI’s own guidelines. However, the memo also stated that violation, under the circumstances, was not “unreasonable.”

A review was launched by the OIG, but Thursday’s conclusion simply confirmed the FBI’s previous finding it had done nothing wrong — and may proceed with future journalistic deception.

In June this year, the FBI firmed up its rules for when an agent can pretend to be a journalist — but the added rules haven’t quelled the ire.

As long as agents receive approval from the head of the FBI field office, the Undercover Review Committee, and the deputy director of the FBI — who then must meet with the deputy attorney general — they are free to pose as journalists during undercover investigations.

“We believe the new interim policy on undercover activities that involve FBI employees posing as members of the news media is a significant improvement to FBI policies that existed,” states the inspector general.

But no one outside the FBI or DOJ’s Office of Inspector General who grasps the grievous threat to free speech and press — or the potential slippery slope law enforcement co-opting the media represents — agrees anything short of an abolishment on the practice could be acceptable.

“The FBI guidelines adopted in 2016 in response to this incident still permit the FBI to impersonate news organizations and other third parties without their consent in certain cases, and fail to address the host of other dangers associated with FBI hacking,” Neema Singh Guliani, ACLU legislative counsel, said in a statement cited by US News.

“The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press is deeply troubled by today’s disclosure,” David Boardman, RCFP steering committee chairman, wrote in a statement last Thursday, “that the FBI believes that there is a place in this country for federal agents to impersonate journalists. Such a policy can seriously damage the public’s trust in its free press and the ability of journalists to hold government accountable. We urge the Justice Department to take seriously the need for reform and the importance of protecting the integrity of the newsgathering process.”

Anyone with cursory knowledge of the U.S. government’s nefarious programs to control its citizenry will undoubtedly see similarities between the FBI’s fake journalism plot and the post-World War II CIA propaganda campaign, Operation Mockingbird.

To ensure support for its operations and views, the CIA clandestinely recruited American journalists and media outlets, funded the creation of student and cultural organizations, launched purely propaganda-based print media, and, ultimately, worked its way into political campaigns and employed similar methods abroad.

Mainstream outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS, and many others, actively and willingly disseminated propaganda disguised as news — through suppression, censorship, and selective focus, etc. — in the interest of the government.

Mockingbird covertly influenced national opinion for years, nefariously planting the CIA’s narrative on the unwitting collective public mind before finally being at least partially exposed over a decade later. It wasn’t until a congressional investigation in 1975 the putative full extent of the program was revealed. Although the CIA claimed it would no longer recruit journalists and media organizations into its folds, Mockingbird has oft been rumored never to have stopped.

Besides the revelations in this article concerning the FBI, documents revealed the government actively tried to influence public thought about Wikileaks and its founder, Julian Assange, in 2011.

It would seem Mockingbird endures to this day — and whatever premise the government claims as reason to become the American media — the public remains, for the large part, its oblivious, captive audience.

References:

http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/2012/03/just-around-corner-or-obama-hear-and.html

http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/2013/06/our-government-has-been-busy.html

A Clear Message: Freedom

 With all of the turmoil in the world today, and all the saber rattling by the 'favorites' in the Republican party, a voice of reason gets lost in the din. But not last night!

In what many are calling a 'breakout performance', Kentucky Senator Rand Paul demonstrated why he is the right choice to truly make America the nation it was meant to be.

The CNN debate last night, the final debate for Republican candidates of the year, left little doubt that Senator Paul not only belonged on the main stage last night, but that his stance on the limits of government placed on it by the Constitution are both 'necessary and proper' to restore the nation to prosperity and security.

Each and every candidate stood by the war hawk mentality that we have to spend more, bomb more, determine the fate and policies of other nations through military force and presence. It hasn't helped us and it certainly hasn't promoted stability in any place that foreign policy is applied.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said we need to establish and enforce a 'no fly zone' over the airspace(s) of other nations and shoot down Russian warplanes if they dare enter that space. When did we get the authority over airspace of another sovereign nation? That is an invasion and a cause for war.  Russia is welcomed there, regardless of whether or not US foreign policy makers agree or not.

Billionaire megalomaniac Donald Trump wants to prevent Islamic terrorists from being able to recruit through social media by controlling the Internet. In other words, the First Amendment and free speech advocates are 'stupid'.  Only Rand Paul remained steadfast in defending the Constitution against all of his opponents.

Rand Paul stood up against Marco Rubio on NSA spying and issues of immigration 'amnesty', clearly demonstrating the abuse of power under such unconstitutional acts.

Immediately after the debate and continuing on Twitter and other social media, Rand Paul was hailed as the true champion of freedom and the man to really make 'America great again' even by liberals. I read several posts of Democrats who say they will change registration to vote for Rand Paul in the primaries.

The home run was in the closing statements, when Senator Paul said the greatest danger to the United States was the debt. How can we build border security when they nation is borrowing money at the rate of about a million dollars per minute?

It is apparent that Americans will have to choose whether they want more of the same or a restoration of the principles this nation was founded upon. I see the choice of freedom is embodied in electing a President who understands that above all issues, the Constitution is the point from which actions taken must begin. I we erode our freedoms for the illusion of security we will lose both. Benjamin Franklin knew this and so does Rand Paul. His message is clear:  FREEDOM!

Happy Ishtar!

Will Christians pretend to be upset that I use such symbolism on their holiest days, as atheists pretend to be whenever they come across a religious display in a public building? Personally, I don't care either way. People will choose how they behave based on their own morals and ethics, regarding of their beliefs of non-beliefs. Besides, Al Sharpton will get more air time than I will, because I never can imagine myself uttering such nonsense. And he has a national television audience?

My relationship with the Creator is personal and private. I do not care to share my relationship with others, nor do I want them to share theirs with me unless requested. On the other hand, you have every right to practice your religion and display it publicly, so long as it does not require infringement on the liberties of others.

In the united States of America, the constitutional federal representative form of governance provided that establishment of a religion by legislation was prohibited. It also made sure that the free exercise of one's faith was not to be infringed. By that it means that displaying of one or more religious symbols is perfectly okay, so long as no one is given preferential treatment. Even if a majority of people feel that a particular religious symbol is ugly, they have no right to prohibit its display.

It is no coincidence that the Christian Easter and the Hebrew Passover often happen around the same dates. The Last Supper is the First Seder of Passover. Jesus last meal with his Disciples and the meal Moses ate with his family as the Angel of Death passed over the houses with door posts stained with the blood of lamb.  Commonalities often bring people together. And maybe that is all that is required to save this nation from certain death.

What is happening at the Bundy Ranch in Bunkerville, Nevada is symbolic of People coming together in common cause. This cause has been brewing for a long time, and it is not about cattle or tortoises. It's about liberty. Yours and mine.

Happy Passover!

Cow Chips And The Tortoise: Or How BLM Pushes Agenda 21 While Reid Profits

I have not been compelled to write anything about the recent Clark County Nevada cattle grazing rights dispute between the Cliven Bundy Ranch and various  federal agencies that have in effect, taken over much of Bunkerville and designated 'First Amendment Zone' by which they really mean the rights of the First Amendment are suspended in any area they don't declare as the First Amendment Zone.

At first it seemed that it was about nonpayment of lease fees. Then it seemed to be a dispute about limitations on grazing due to environmental protections mandated by (BLM?) By now it seems more about the U.S. Bureau of Land Management using force on an American rancher to push forth the plans for a concentrated solar power plant to be erected by ENN of China.

That is not only an infringement of rights of the individual, but it is being done at gunpoint and by individuals who may be contract mercenaries that are foreign nationals. In other words, these people have no regards for US law nor respect for your rights whatsoever. These people are here for one reason:  To take your guns, your rights, your property, and the penalty for noncompliance is death. 

The videos that are being shown on the Internet regarding confrontations between these hired goons and the good People of Clark County coming to the aid of one of their own, clearly show the complete disregard of anything and anyone who challenges their 'mission.'

While the fed seem to have backed down for the moment, real intelligence sources indicate they are planning a fill scale attack on the Bundys, probably like Ruby Ridge or Waco. Only this time its about tortoises and cattle. And may I interest you in purchasing a very nice bridge?

There are many distracting stories in the privately-owned major media so the Bundy issue is not being given too much coverage if at all. To many as it is being played in the media, this is just some stubborn cowboy that refused to pay his bills. It's being glossed over in favor of Lois Lerner, Oscar Pretorius, and other issues of far less importance in how it will directly affect the lives of all Americans.

Senate Majority Leader and liar, Harry Reid and his son Rory are certainly living up to their ancestry. Both have heavy ties to what is transpiring in Nevada, as their appears to be financial gain and once again, use of federal agencies for personal if not political profit. Hard to say which is worse, but then what difference since both are being used to destroy our liberty and economy.

They said this was about lease fees and that the cattle were going to be confiscated and taken to auction to pay $300,000 or $1,500,0000 depending on which cow chip you choose to swallow. That flew out the window when it was evident that no livestock  auction would accept the cattle with Bundy's brand from anyone but Bundy. So 130 are alleged to have been slaughtered by the thugs contracted to round them up for the BLM.

They were well prepared to slaughter the Bundys and anyone else who stood between them and their 'mission.' Is this really about cows and tortoises? Really?

It seems to me that the laws, mandates, and regulations that would deprive the People from earning an honest living as their family has been doing since the 1800's are laws that are against the very principles of the nation's founding.

There is only one thing that causes me to focus on the Bundy issue:  LIBERTY!

"Government is the Servant, not the Master!"
- Judge Andrew Napolitano

What will you do?

In Liberty

What was the purpose for the creation of our Nation?

The Society of our Nation was formed from different groups of people who came from different societies which, in many instances, held different social customs, religious beliefs, languages, etc. 

The common characteristics, in general, were those of free-thinkers and people tired of being ruled and tired of having their labor, goods, and their freedom of speech and thought controlled by others.

While it is true that many people came to America to escape religious persecutions throughout Europe, many others were (regardless of their personal religious beliefs) coming  to America for secularist principles, not founded in any religious doctrine.

See: Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism
by Susan Jacoby

It can be stated that religious intolerance did rear its ugly head in America, as related in the testimonies of the Salem Witch Trials, and which was also well noted in the Antisemitism attitude in the United States into the 1960's. But for the most part, people tended to their own lives and families without interference into the lives of others.

Our Constitution's First Article of Amendment states explicitly that, "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of..." and although Congress has not legislated for establishing religion, they have passed many laws that do infringe on the free exercise of the religious beliefs of some. Laws that force people to do things that are prohibited by their faith are by their very nature are in fact unconstitutional and need to by nullified by the State(s) in which these laws affect the religious expressions of their constituency  A law such as ACA which includes mandates directing healthcare providers to provide contraception and abortion is a prime example. The prohibition of religious symbols from being displayed in a public building or a public employee's work space is another example of the government displaying religious intolerance.

The Constitution does not separate people into any groups based on religion or sexual preferences. The Constitution does not provide for the government to give special status to any group. And while there were blatant inequalities regarding Native Tribal Nations and to Africans brought to America as slaves, these  were the few constitutional exceptions and I trust that they have been remedied through the common sense of the people. 

Often times when confronted by the people, Congress defends itself for passing laws by referring to the parts of the Constitution that seem to serve their unconstitutional legislation. The "necessary and proper" clause and the "provide for the general welfare of the people" must not be construed to mean they can write and pass laws simple because it seems "necessary and proper" to the special interests served by the passage of such law(s). Sometimes it seems the best course of action is to take no action at all.

Happy Independence Day!