With the blatant cover-ups of Fast and Furious, and the 9/11/12 Benghazi attack, why shouldn't the public question all of the inconsistencies, strange interviews, secrecy, weird photos, crisis actors and events surrounding the Sandy Hook tragedy?
While reading comments over at Professor Tracy's Memory Hole Blog I ran across a comment that propelled me to do some additional research.
Here is a copy of the comment:
DyingTruth
I think it’s also important to mention the fact that Government Propaganda/Psychological Warfare against the American People has been legalized via NDAA, has been added to the bigger picture and cannot be disregarded when these issues are discussed and considered.
CSC.ASU.edu: Smith-Mundt Has Been Modernized.
The link within the above comment tells us that: Smith-Mundt Has Been Modernized. What is Smith-Mundt? Well that link is supposed to inform us. However, I needed to learn more about Smith-Mundt and the NDAA connection.
One thing that caught my attention in the Medical Examiner’s press conference video was his acknowledgement that this case would be handled differently than others he’s worked on, and more importantly his assuredness that he wouldn’t have to worry about any pending/future court proceedings.
I thought to myself “20 children died while in the custody of a public institution and out of the presence of their parents. Does Mr. Carver not know that these same parents as well as the rest of the public also have access to the courts? And given the circumstances, one could expect a grieving parent or parents to file a lawsuit demanding some form of accountability, because I wouldn’t expect all the parents to be taking this as good as Robbie Parker has been.
At the end of the first article CSC.ASU.edu: Smith-Mundt Has Been Modernized. (which was unsatisfying for me and didn't give enough information) there are additional links:
Related posts:
- New Law Ends Smith-Mundt Ban On Domestic Dissemination Of Content
- Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 introduced in the House
- Public Diplomacy: The most unsettling section of the Smith-Mundt "modernization bill"
- Critics Fret About Smith-Mundt Modernization Act
- When do we start the honest debate over the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act?
The following essay gives us a better explanation of what this new law is really all about. It would appear that the author (based on his last sentence) is concerned about this new law.
Copy of related post # 1:
John Brown Notes and Essays blog: Sunday, January 6, 2013 New Law Ends Smith-Mundt Ban On Domestic Dissemination Of Content
President Barack Obama this week signed into law a provision that lifts a nearly 65-year ban on domestic distribution of BBG content. But for BBG broadcasters, it’s business as usual…*******
As part of a defense authorization bill signed this week by the President, a World War II era [I would say early Cold-War era - JB] ban on domestic dissemination of BBG content was lifted.
Generally known as the Smith-Mundt Act, after its sponsors, a portion of the 1948 law prevented content intended for global audiences from being broadcast or distributed in the United States. It was intended, in part, to prevent what were then wartime overseas propaganda efforts from being directed toward U.S. citizens.
Worth noting, there is much more to Smith-Mundt than the domestic dissemination ban – much of it beneficial to U.S. international broadcasting.
However, much has changed since the Cold War, making the domestic dissemination ban portion of Smith-Mundt less necessary, and even potentially problematic.
For example, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, originally a CIA-funded entity, left that agency in 1972, found its way into the United States Information Agency, which was ultimately spun into the Broadcasting Board of Governors. That’s a brief history, but one meant to show the evolution toward its current situation — one guarded by a firewall intended to protect its journalistic integrity.
Radio Martí joined VOA and RFE/RL in 1985, along with Radio Free Asia in 1996, and Middle East Broadcasting Networks eight years later.
As content offerings grew, so did requests for that content from a rising number of U.S.-based ethnic broadcasters serving diaspora populations. Under the domestic dissemination ban, those requests, which ranged from Sudanese broadcasters in Minnesota to Cuban community broadcasters in Miami, were officially denied. The truth is, however, that many ethnic broadcasters used them regardless.
As internet distribution became available, keeping a lid on BBG content in the U.S. became even more difficult. The BBG could certainly geocode the content to prevent U.S. audiences from accessing it, but censoring the internet in a country with a founding tenet of freedom of the press was seen as a non-starter.
But even geocoding would not be the end of it. VOA Russian, for example, can be seen almost daily in New York City as local cable channel operators import Russian-language channels from overseas.
Enforcing the Smith-Mundt dissemination ban would become akin to a game of whac-a-mole.
In 2010, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act was introduced, intended to lift the ban but not repeal the entire act. The Act was reintroduced in 2011, with a similar provision finally passing and signed on January 2, 2013. Lifting the ban was one of the goals set forth in the BBG’s most recent strategic plan.
For broadcasters, the change means little on a day-to-day basis – other than they need to worry less about their content popping up in the U.S.
Still, no money can be used to create content directed at domestic audiences, and there are no plans to measure any domestic audiences that may occur. [given this restriction, is the headline to this announcement quite correct? - JB]
The #4 related post is entitled Critics Fret About Smith-Mundt Modernization Act. This particular author tells about the concern of the critics, but doesn't seem to be on board with their concerns.
Excerpt:
The House of Representatives has been working to amend the laws that govern the dissemination of “propaganda” materials in the U.S. What seemed like a good idea to me and others–one long overdue–is being spun by some observers as a dark effort by the DoD and State Department who want authorization to brainwash Americans.
Last night Buzzfeed posted an article claiming that the changes were being quietly inserted into a defense authorization bill. However, as Matt Armstrong reported, the changes were also part of a stand-alone bill (H.R. 5736) introduced last week. I confess I am no expert on the arcania of legislative machinery, but the fact that this bill was introduced a week ago and published by the Library of Congress–then later attached to the defense bill–strikes me as more of a procedural move than an effort to sneak something through.
In a further effort to build a sinister narrative, Buzzfeed frets that this is some sort of effort to enable unfettered psychological operations by the military and government on the U.S. population. Assorted quotes from the article:
The bill’s supporters say the informational material used overseas to influence foreign audiences is too good to not use at home, and that new techniques are needed to help fight Al-Qaeda, a borderless enemy whose own propaganda reaches Americans online.I am not a legal expert, and I suppose changes could have these kinds of consequences if not made carefully. But I doubt these these are the intended outcomes.
The new law would give sweeping powers to the State Department and Pentagon to push television, radio, newspaper, and social media onto the U.S. public.
“Senior public affairs” officers within the Department of Defense want to “get rid” of Smith-Mundt and other restrictions because it prevents information activities designed to prop up unpopular policies—like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The author ends his post by saying:
Unintentional domestic dissemination is one thing, but what about more intentional efforts critics are claiming this legislation would enable? The language in the House bill seems clear enough that it only applies to “materials prepared for dissemination abroad” and does not in any way authorize expenditures for targeted influence of domestic audiences.
Despite the fact that author Steven R. Corman seems to pooh-pooh the concerns, his update is filled with more articles of individual writers being HIGHLY concerned about this!! There are also "progressive" opinions at some of the links where we are being told that there is nothing to worry about.
My question.
If the Sandy Hook shooting was indeed a false flag operation and/or psy-ops "drill" that went awry, can it be that due to this new law it would actually be considered "legal" for the BHO BADministration to do that???
Scary thought...isn't it?
After all, it has given BHO the ability to surround himself with children while he signs 23 executive orders regarding gun control. However, the fake "letters" from the children were so obviously coerced by adults. Using children in your propaganda agenda is absolutely disgusting!! Well, other Marxists like Stalin and National Socialists (Nazis) like Hitler did it too!
I am continually amazed at the lengths these evil tyrants will go to stomp on our Constitutional rights through pressing their hateful rhetoric, obvious propaganda, and hated Marxist agenda upon our Constitutional Republic! More Americans need to wake up and smell the tyranny!
Talk Wisdom Reports - You Decide
~ Christine
*******
Update May 23
This story continues to generate buzz. Here is a selection of recent opinion:
- NDAA 2013: Congress approves domestic deceptive propaganda (rt.com, Russian “anonymous nonprofit organization.” Hmm.) Reauthorizing the indefinite detention of US citizens without charge might be the scariest provision in next year’s defense spending bill, but it certainly isn’t the only one worth worrying about. An amendment tagged on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 would allow for the United States government to create and distribute pro-American propaganda within the country’s own borders under the alleged purpose of putting al-Qaeda’s attempts at persuading the world against Western ideals on ice.
- Democrat Defends “Propaganda” Bill (Rebecca Elliot, BuzzFeed) Rep. Adam Smith from Washington championed the defense bill amendment that will “strike the current ban on domestic dissemination” of propaganda in an interview with Salon’s Glenn Greenwald earlier today.Repealing the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 is “not about trying to influence domestic audiences,” Smith emphaized. Rather, he intends the amendment to free up current restrictions placed on foreign information campaigns.
- U.S. declares propaganda war on citizens (David Pruitt, The Alestle). I can appreciate security, and I’m sure some good arguments could be brought forward for a change in the policy. However, the government’s sexy smile and little wink does nothing to reassure me of any noble intentions. I have grown tired of overused phrases like “you can trust me” and “everybody else is doing it.” The government has a major image problem when it comes to being considered trustworthy. It would be just a matter of time before a self-serving politician used the bill to start another war or bail out another bank and tell us — well, whatever.
- Smith-Mundt Modernization: Better Late than Never (Helle Dale, Heritage). Critics have already voiced concerns that this will open the floodgates of propaganda by the U.S. government. This is hardly likely. Indeed, access to programs and materials produced by the State and the BBG will allow Congress and the public a better understanding of what we are funding. Much of it is high-quality journalism, which deserves support, and some programming could have a positive impact on certain immigrant communities in the United States that are vulnerable to radicalization. As for programming and materials that are controversial, questionable, or wasteful, doesn’t the U.S. public deserve to know what is being published or broadcast in its name?
- Are Government’s ‘Strategic Communications’ Coming to American Airwaves? (Rachel Marsden, Townhall). I see. So the Smith-Mundt Act was strictly limited to countering communist propaganda overseas, because the idea of conducting government propaganda operations within a country at a time when Joseph Goebbels was a household name would have triggered post-traumatic stress.
- Our View: Truth The Best Tool In Our Defense Efforts (Yankton Press & Dakotan editorial). Does issuing distorted information to our own public make us any better than those who spew out misinformation for their own ends? Americans are better served by the truth. Whether we’re truly getting that now from our own defense department (let alone our news organizations) is certainly debatable, but that debate is just as important and vital to public morale as any news release or communiqué. Keep the laws as they are — strengthen them, in fact — and maintain an America with eyes wide open. The truth is the best antidote to distortion. It may not set as free, but it will certainly keep us free to think.
- Consider this: American Dollars on American Propaganda to Brainwash American Citizens (Lisa Cerda, City Watch LA). y striking the existing ban on domestic misinformation campaigns, Americans can expect to be programmed on an even greater scale than ever before. Many would argue that the most prolific misinformation campaign comes in the way of our American History books in our schools. Others would say it is the gag order fueled by corporate interests on our mainstream media
- .
- NDAA Amendment Would Legalize War Propaganda (John Glaser, Antiwar Blog). In other words, people are getting information online that we don’t want people to have – therefore, legalize domestic propaganda. So NDAA is the latest effort by Congress (after SOPA, CISPA and the others) to take control of the best resource the American people have. The Internet is too open, too free, too…subversive. We need information the government wants us to have, not all that other stuff.
- Proposed US law makes domestic propaganda legal (Cory Doctrow, BoingBoing). The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Mac Thornberry from Texas and Rep. Adam Smith from Washington State, would allow the US government to knowingly tell lies to its people in order to promote the government’s own policies.
- Misleading Your Own (“The Reverend,” Akron Beakon Journal Online). So, I guess giving U.S. government and military officials the power to purposely deceive and mislead Americans into accepting policies which are unpopular….like more war….is just the natural flow of events for a rotted, bloated and declining Empire. The Soviets regularly lied to, deceived and misled their citizens about military adventurism, about worker productivity,…about the United States. The Soviets misled their people to help bolster acceptance of their policies, foreign and domestic. In the long run, that didn’t work. And it will not work for the U.S.A. either.
*******
Update:
Commieblaster has a round-up of reactions against BHO's gun control executive orders. Here are just a few:
LATEST COMMIE NEWS
Updated:
| With Stroke of Pen: Obama Moves to Ban Sale and Manufacture of Semi-Automatic Weapons | 01.16.13 |
| Obama's Begging for Impeachment | 01.16.13 |
| Rand Paul: Obama Breaking the Law, Has King Complex | 01.16.13 |
| Oregon Sheriff Tells Obama: Illegal, We will Not Enforce | 01.16.13 |
| NRA AD: MSM Speaks for Elites, America Speaks for Itself | 01.16.13 |
| Citizens from 47 States Revolt Against Obama Orders | 01.16.13 |
| Flashback: Heston Talks to Al Gore About Gun Rights | 01.16.13 |
| Piers Morgan Loses Another Gun Debate | 01.16.13 |
Posts
