---------------------------------------------------
An Independent Press? It No Longer Exists
---------------------------------------------------

Back in 1953, John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff for the New York
Times, was asked to give a toast to the independent press before the New
York Press Club. What follows is a portion from his toast:

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as
an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you
who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand
that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest
opinion out of the paper. Others of you are paid similar salaries for
similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest
opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed
my honest opinions to appear in one issue of the paper, before twenty-four
hours my occupation would be gone. Or quite possibly, I'd be dead."

"The business of journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to
pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country
and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it. What folly is
this, toasting to an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of
rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks; they pull the strings
and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the
property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes, whores. Nothing
more."
*************************************************************************
Without Justice, there is JUST_US
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression Strong, credible allegations of
high-level criminal activity can bring down a Government. When the
Government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be
employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a
cooperative, compliant, controlled press and a mere token opposition party.

This sums up, in totality, the press, the media and either of the political
parties here in America.

1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, it's not news, it didn't happen.

2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.

3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If,
in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the
suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe
the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.")

4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest
charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or
plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all
the charges, real and fanciful alike. Clinton and the Democrat's are
masters at this.

5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter,"
"kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use
heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and
defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then
carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus
maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down. A
classic tactic that has been used in America by both the Government and the
press for a number of years now.

6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting
strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply
pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to
over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).

7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition
can be very useful.

8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."

9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or
"taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of
candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless,
less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of
a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With
effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by
stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets. In other words, spread
"disinformation". Another classic tactic of the Government and ALL
agencies, especially the CIA, NSA, FBI, DOD and so fourth.

10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as
ultimately unknowable. (What?)

11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With
thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g.
We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster
"suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't
reported it so there is no such evidence. Never mind that the note was NOT
in his handwriting! Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood
of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.

12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster
was murdered, who did it and why?

13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or
publicizing distractions. Again, Clinton and the Democrat's are masters at
this. Just look at how many times Clinton bombed and strafed innocent
countries simply to distract attention away from the criminal diasters he
had created for himself.

14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them.
This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.

15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute
the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous,
source. A tactic practiced daily by the various Federal Agencies of
America.

16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose"
scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real
opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people
for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.

17. Flood the Internet and ALL levels of society and business with agents,
precisely as Hitler did in Germany so many years ago. Supposdely, that
number (of agents) has reached a minimum of 40,000 - probably a very low
(estimate). This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly
motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending
the government and/or the press and harassing and REPORTING genuine critics?"
Don't the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers,
magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print
critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from
radio talk shows, rarely printing the truth in any written document, would
be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.

The Global New Deal
--------------------------

ALASKA -- Benjamin Franklin described our "free press" as the guardian of
American liberty. If that's true, we had better put out a contract for a
new watchdog. On Saturday, July 1, while the U.S. media was preoccupied
with the price of gasoline, speculating on the seating arrangements for Camp
David and worrying about who might or might not play in the All Star game,
the United Nations General Assembly met in Geneva, Switzerland, to launch a
plan that would dramatically reduce national sovereignty, limit the ability
of nations to govern their own affairs, impose global taxes on developed
countries, and cost Americans trillions of dollars. It should have gotten
some attention in the U.S. media. (But, Americans don't care. Unless it
affects their checkbook. Which one day soon, it well).

But it didn't. For whatever reason, almost nothing was reported to the
American people about this remarkable conclave of representatives from 130
nations at what was billed as "The Second World Summit for Social
Development." Unlike debates in Congress, 10 heads of state, 11 prime
ministers, 7 vice-presidents and a seemingly endless swarm of top government
factotums from around the planet came to the podium and spoke, nearly
unanimously in praise for the United Nations, its agencies and international
agreements, and in support for a dramatically increased role for the UN in
administering social programs on a global scale.

The U.S. was represented at this little-reported confab by the Clinton
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala. We might as well
have been represented by the delegation from Luxembourg. Or Donald Duck and
Mickey Mouse. They could have done a MUCH better job! In her official
remarks, Shalala embraced UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's vision for a
"Global New Deal," proffered a lengthy litany of vacuous platitudes for
Annan's madcap schemes and then descended into outright hypocrisy on the
issue of respect for human rights. Shalala's rant was punctuated by wild
applause when she demanded political rights and free expression around the
world. I believe this is called treason, is it not? Punishable by hanging?
Then, what are we waiting on?

Apparently the HHS Secretary had forgotten, or the crowd chose to overlook,
that she serves in an administration that had just returned a six-year-old
boy to a brutal dictator, and she also serves in the cabinet of a Chief
Executive who routinely ignores grotesque human rights violations in
Communist China. And when Shalala demanded UN intervention to control the
"distribution of health care at the global level," the crowd went positively
nuts -- even though the concept of government-regulated medicine had been
soundly rejected when Hillary! (No Last Name) tried to jam it down the
throats of U.S. citizens. And let us not forget, clearly demonstrated by
their record, that the U.N.'s only interest in "human rights violations" is
to make sure that as many people as possible are killed in any manner
possible.

Unfortunately, vague phrases like "global control" are commonplace for the
internationalist crowd that gathered in Geneva. Their speech and writings
are rife with deceptive, fuzzy-headed terms like "multilateral cooperative
measures," and "global interdependence," and "global solidarity" when they
seek to define specific goals and objectives in their "Global New Deal."
Some read this phraseology for its entertainment value. And it might be
laughable -- except that there are increasing numbers of high-level
officials in western democracies and even in the U.S. government who see
these terms as appropriate expressions in an "enlightened"
worldview. We, the people, do not.

In fact, no representative of any government at the Geneva General Assembly
session stood up to challenge those who advocate the dissolution of
"nation-states" and abandoning national sovereignty and individual liberty
as "archaic concepts." And because the UN operates in virtual secrecy
without the scrutiny of a skeptical media, and acts through unelected,
unaccountable diplomats answerable to no one, ludicrous ideas become
credible concepts.

Thus in Geneva, no official arose to oppose the absurd core notion of the
Global New Deal: that because so many other national governments are
unwilling or unable to do so, the United Nations should provide a "basic
income for all people."

The idea: Create a "UN currency." Establish a UN central bank and thousands
of UN Branch Banks and an accompanying UN debit system. Distribute 250 "UN
dollars" to every person in the world (more for those in poverty.) To ensure
that all people on the planet benefit, a UN representative would be assigned
to represent every 1,000 people. Your local UN representative will be
responsible for entering all necessary personal information into the UN
Global Computer System to ensure that you use your UN dollars for
appropriate purposes. I believe this is known as "The Mark Of The Beast",
and guarentees one an eternity in Hell. Doesn't sound all that appealling,
to me.

The problem: How to pay for this loony idea.

The solution: A "global tax," collected by the UN on all financial
transactions involving a currency exchange. Sound too crazy to be true?
Well, consider this: The UN is planning another global conference for next
year which will focus specifically on the subject of global taxes. Best
say NO now, or forever hold your peace!

Interestingly enough, by next year, all international banks will have
systems in place that could administer a currency transaction tax. The
European Union, Canada, the U.K, Switzerland, and Finland have all expressed
support for some kind of global tax to support the UN. Interesting - they
all express interest in a system that will ensure their enslavement. Just
how STUPID are these people, these days?

Several months ago, when he first advanced this madcap concept, UN Secretary
General Kofi Annan asked, "Could the time be ripe for a Global New Deal?"
Hopefully, we will just say "NO!"
===============================================================

Herbert Jamieson