Archive for the ‘Journalistic integrity’ Category

The Making of Faking

March 12, 2017
short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-zN

 

By Dahni
© 2017, all rights reserved

Making Faking

 

As this unfolds, Yes, Yes we are, embarking on a journey to discover, ‘The Making of Faking!’

Please Note: This article is not dependent on if you are a Democrat, Independent, Republican, some other political party, male or female, your religious or non-religious convictions, who you voted for, for president last November 2016 or if you like or do not like the current occupant of the White House! It does however; depend on whether you are a U.S. citizen and if you care about your Life, Your Liberty and Your Pursuit of Happiness!

 

For quite sometime now, the media is full (almost daily) of reports on:

  • Russian hacking of our election
  • The Trump campaign in collusion with the Russians to influence the election in his favor
  • Shakeup in the Whitehouse of firings/resignations/declinations to serve based on Russian ties
  • Suspicion of corruption or collusion with the Russians with members of the Trump administration
  • Wikileaks dumps (Vault 7) over 9,000 documents
  • Wiretapping of U.S. Citizens or No wiretapping
  • Former President Obama’s purported Shadow Government to take down President Donald Trump
  • Calls for Impeachment of Donald Trump
  • The Intelligence Community agreeing or not over wiretapping and/or possible collusion with the Russians and the Trump Administration, before and after the presidential election in November, of 2016
  • Calls for investigations from numerous sources
  • Calls for a special prosecutor to investigate these matters, from numerous sources
  • Fake News (actual and fake, fake news)
  • LEAKS

The last on the list above perhaps should be, first on the list. For this post, it should be! The number two should be, the word, FAKE. To be even more clear, first one fakes something (or sites something they known or unknown to be fake) and then they purposefully and intentionally or unwittingly, leak it (or cite leaks by others).

Maybe you are sick and tired of all of this? Rightfully so. Being bombarded with this stuff so much and so often, perhaps you don’t or no longer care? That’s understandable.

Perchance you have closed your mind to all of this because, it is too difficult to understand, figure out or even prove to yourself, what is and what is not true? That is a common reaction. But each of us should care and by the end, it is my hope; my intention that each of us do, and with a view to understanding all of it. And especially, with a further view as to what each of us can do about. Yes, each of us because, it is affecting and effecting our lives, each and every day!

Before continuing here, I would like you to know that I was a trained, investigative reporter. Though I have not been employed in this field for years, I maintain the skill set. I know how to research and source material, content and people, places and things. I am here, offering each of you, the benefit of my training. True journalism just reports. True investigative journalism, first investigates and then, it reports. This is not an editorial, my opinion or my theory or my speculation! It is based on what facts exist, which anyone can find, look up and know, that they know, that they know.

Some of the information I will provide here, does not require the intelligence community to reveal it, Congress, any court or any government agency, forced to provide it to the public. Most of it, just requires some investigative research (which I am providing) and just a fundamental understanding of how things work like, email and email servers – those storage devices that allow information to be sent and received over the Internet.

This begins with Edward Snowden. He was a whistleblower that leaked information about our own government about many things, which was and may well be still, engaged in. What things? Things like capturing what we previously believed was private information, from every citizen in the United States. Although his motives for, and the consequences of, doing so, may be subject to opinion, the content of those leaks has not been disputed. How could it be because, it was accurate! This information can come from a multiple number of sources i.e. a cell phone, and any e-mail address among other things. Our government collects and stores this information. What used to be, for all of us as, a reasonable expectation of privacy, has now become something you should be vehemently, adamantly and emphatically concerned about because now—

There is No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy!

What about our Constitutional rights? What about our right to be secure in our papers and etc. and our intellectual property? Not anymore! You and I should be concerned about that! But what about the Law (the Constitution) and other existing laws? Aren’t there laws in place to protect? Yes, Yes there are, but most often, to protect those that break the Law or laws.

This continues with the latest news about surveillance or what we understand as wiretapping. It is believed that a warrant must be obtained from a court, in order to wiretap. Enter, the FISA Court. FISA, The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance or simply, FISA Court (FISC). It is a U.S. federal court established and authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Is there anything in the above information that suggests this may be obtained from a citizen of the United States? No there is not! But if this communication is between a foreign entity and a U.S. citizen, a warrant may be granted by the court. Like any warrant, there must be sufficient evidence, for a FISA Court judge to grant the warrant.

So now let us go back in time from the present (March of 2017), to around October last, then June and earlier of 2016.

President Donald J. Trump under his personal Twitter account tweeted on March 4, 2017,

“Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory [referring to the November 2016 election]. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism! …Is it legal for a sitting President to be “wire tapping” a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by a court earlier [this would have been in June of 2016]. A NEW LOW! …I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones [would include email too] in October, just prior to election! …How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones [and data] during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!”

Donald J. Trump
twitter.com/realDonaldTrump 3.4.17

 

This sure set off a firestorm! What was the proof? Is there any? What were some of the responses to these accusations?

“A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.”

Obama Spokesman Kevin Lewis

Is the Attorney General that works, for the president, in the White House? No. So yes, one could president Obama never interfered in an investigation and maybe that he never instigated one either? But did he tell his AG to do it or did she know that is what he would have wanted her to do?

“I think he’s [Trump] right in that there was surveillance and that it was conducted at the behest of the attorney general-at the Justice Department.”

Former Attorney General to President George W. Bush, Michael Mukasey

“No president can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you [Trump].”

Former Obama National Security Adviser, Ben Rhodes

Rather than decide who is right and who is wrong from the apparent contradictory statements above, how about a novel approach? Let’s look at one, actual law.

Excerpt from the U.S. Code

Chapter 36 of Title 50 of the U.S. Code “War & National Defense” ,
Subchapter 1, Section 1802

 

Does this law begin with the President then proceed to the Attorney General? Yes. So Could it be said that the president may order such surveillance? Yes. May it be interpreted that the Attorney General if so ordered, the president did not order it? Yes. Semantics? Perhaps, but understand all these people who serve in a presidential administration are not elected, they are appointed by the President; many of which are confirmed by Congress, but they “serve at the pleasure of the President!”

“Definition of at the pleasure of (someone) — used to say that something is done or can be done because someone wants it to be done, I serve at the pleasure of the president, and I will continue to serve as long as the president wants me to.”

Merriam Webster Dictionary

“I can’t speak officially anymore. But I will say that, for the most part of the national security apparatus that I oversaw as DNI [Director of National Intelligence] , there was no such wiretap activity mounted against his [Trump’s] campaign. I can’t speak for other Title Three authorized entities in the government or a state or local entity.”

Former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper

When he was asked to confirm or deny the existence of a FISA court order, Clapper claimed, “I can deny it.” He then followed up with, “Not to my knowledge.” Well, which is it, does he deny it or just doesn’t know? Doesn’t want to say?

His statements were widely spread across the media, but his later claims were mostly ignored by the media. In an interview with CNN’s Chuck Todd, Clapper was asked—

“Let me ask you this, does intelligence exist that can definitely answer the following question, whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials?

Chuck Todd, CNN

“We did not include evidence in our report, and I say our, that’s NSA, FBI and CIA with my office, the director of national intelligence that had anything— that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report.” 

James Clapper

“I Understand that, but does it exist.”

Chuck Todd, CNN

“Not to my knowledge.”

James Clapper

Understand that this information about whether or not such surveillance was performed to which there would be a paper trail, is juxtaposed (side by side) with the longstanding theme of Russian hacking, interfering with our election in favor of  Donald Trump, winning that election. And if the scenario is true, Russian hacking is believed to be the cause for why, Hillary R. Clinton lost the election.

Now, right now it should be clear to anyone that our intelligence agencies are either incompetent or cannot be trusted to tell the truth! Both? If the idea of Russian hacking persists, how can it be denied that the intelligence community did not know about it if, they deny surveillance being ordered? This appears to be exactly what Clapper seems to wants distance away from. If our election was hacked by the Russians (and it sure appears our intelligence agencies were clueless), and since there is no evidence to support this, how would he know or would they (the Intel. Community) know, without some data? So, were we hacked? Was Trump “tapped?”  Is it one or the other or both? Let’s look at the credibility of the former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper.

In March of 2013, then as DNI, James Clapper testified before Congress, under oath, regarding the National Security Agency’s (NSA) collection of data.

Oregon Senator Ron Wyden asked, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions, or hundreds of millions of American?” “No sir,” Clapper answered. To confirm, Senator Wyden repeated clapper’s answer— “It does not?” James Clapper responded— “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly.”

Which is it, wittingly (knowingly) or unwittingly (without knowing)?

In January 2014, Edward Snowden said his “breaking point” which led to him becoming a whistleblower in May 2013 was “seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress.

“There’s no saving an intelligence community that believes it can lie to the public and the legislators who need to be able to trust it and regulate its actions. Seeing that really meant for me there was no going back. Beyond that, it was the creeping realization that no one else was going to do this. The public had a right to know about these programs.”

Edward Snowden

Just so it is perfectly clear, this is about not just warrant-less surveillance on just a few, but anyone and everyone the intelligence community sees fit to target. Now here is an ill-logical, logical reason for this. If you collect data from everyone, sooner or later it will surely lead to some potentially bad stuff/people or some bad stuff people who you or I may have wittingly or unwittingly, had some form of communication with or that used us to receive and send information. I’ll call it the ‘Spaghetti Effect.’ If you throw all the spaghetti (all data) against the wall, sooner or later, some of it is bound to stick!  I cannot answer for you, but I’m NOT OK with this! Even if you believe your data is harmless and you have nothing to worry about, do you trust the Intelligence Community to not use it against you if, it suits their purposes? I certainly don’t! Too much information in the hands of humans with opinions and purposes that are not in line with the Constitution and my personal Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness is, a very, very dangerous thing!

On June 21st, 2013, just about three months after he testified under oath to Congress, then Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said the following:

“My response [to Congress] was clearly erroneous for which I apologize. While my staff acknowledged the error to Senator Wyden’ staff soon after the hearing, I can now openly correct it because the existence of the metadata collection program has been declassified.”

Former DNI, James Clapper

OK, so you apologize for lying under oath, but it’s OK? He is really not guilty of perjury in the least or multiple perjuries? OK, does this make you feel any better or trust the Intelligent Community any more? Not me! Was it OK for Clapper to lie under oath to Congress because, the information then, was classified? And if not for Snowden leaking the information, how would anyone know or maybe even, ever know?

What matters is not whether you or I believe Snowden was a patriot or a traitor. What matters is the reach and over-reach of our servants in the government of US, WE the People? Can we trust them? Can we trust them to keep secrets? Can we trust them not to leak secrets?

With those matters out in the public, wouldn’t you think the Intelligent Community would scale-back or hide or change their ways? Wouldn’t you expect Congress to reign in the Intel Community or cut their funding? I would and I do! Perhaps they are reluctant to do so because, like you and I, all of their data is stored too? Maybe they don’t want their data leaked? Maybe they don’t want to be fired or arrest or have their lives and the families and their friends lives be put in jeopardy? But look at the following from January of 2017, even before Donald Trump was sworn in, as the 45th President of the United States.

From the Office of the Director of National Intelligence

Fact Sheet on E.O. 12333 Raw SIGINT Availability Procedures

January 12, 2017

On January 3, 2017, the Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, issued the “Procedures for the Availability or Dissemination of Raw Signals Intelligence Information by the National Security Agency under Section 2.3 of Executive Order 12333” (the “Raw SIGINT Availability Procedures”).  The procedures were approved by the Attorney General on January 3, 2017.

The procedures are called for by Section 2.3 of Executive Order (E.O.) 12333, as amended in 2008.  The last paragraph of Section 2.3 of E.O. 12333 provides that elements of the Intelligence Community (IC) may disseminate information to a recipient IC element to allow that element to determine whether information “is relevant to its responsibilities and can be retained by it, except that information derived from signals intelligence may only be disseminated or made available to Intelligence Community elements in accordance with procedures established by the Director [of National Intelligence] in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and approved by the Attorney General.” [1]

Executive Order 12333, often referred to as “twelve triple-three,” has attracted less debate than congressional wiretapping laws, but serves as authorization for the NSA’s most massive surveillance programs — far more than the NSA’s other programs combined. Under 12333, the NSA taps phone and internet backbones throughout the world, records the phone calls of entire countries, vacuums up traffic from Google and Yahoo’s data centers overseas, and more.

In 2014, The Intercept revealed that the NSA uses 12333 as a legal basis for an internal NSA search engine that spans more than 850 billion phone and internet records and contains the unfiltered private information of millions of Americans.

In 2014, a former state department official described NSA surveillance under 12333 as a “universe of collection and storage” beyond what Congress has authorized.

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, who gave reporters documents that revealed the breadth of the 12333 surveillance, tweeted this:

“As he hands the White House to Trump, Obama just unchained NSA from basic limits on passing raw intercepts to others https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more-latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html …”

Edward Snowden
twitter.com/Snowden
11:54 AM – 12 Jan 2017

So if you would like to believe that the then president Obama, had nothing to do with this, then so be it, call it, “plausible deniability.” But these changes occurred in his administration and just days before the next president was sworn in and took up residency in the White House.

What does this mean to you and me? What does it mean to the Intelligence Community? Sharing information among the agencies can be a good thing, but what else? A better question is this, what lately, has the Intelligence Community being doing with this information? LEAKING it! Where is it being leaked to? The media or Wikileaks latest dump of some 9,000 documents called, ‘Vault 7.’ Where is there journalistic integrity among the media? Is it OK to publish illegal information that should have never been given them in the first place?

Every single one of US U.S. citizens should be greatly concerned about this! Our own Intelligence Community is leaking information they cannot legally give. They have one job and that is keeping secrets and keeping their mouths shut. Is it any strange thing that better than 90+ % of all the IC donated to other than Trump, voted for other than Trump and is still at their jobs within the present administration? OK, so they don’t like Trump. Does this give them any grounds to illegally leak this information to the press? Do you realize this is a criminal offense; a federal crime, a felony? Is the media complicit in the transmission of this illegally gotten information? Should they be arrested, tried and convicted too? And they do this in the name of protecting anonymous sources? Are they just fake people or are they real people that do not want to be caught, found out breaking the law?

OK, let’s move along to another subject, albeit one that is connected and in fact, may be central to this whole Russian hacking and the wiretapping controversy . It’s called, e-mail.

Before we go into email, it is important to get our terms correct. Hacking is an attempt to get into devices and systems without authority, for the purpose of discovering information from outside of the device or the system. Yes, it could be done on purpose to discover any vulnerability of the devices and systems, with a view to improvement and greater security. But when speaking of Russian hacking, the purpose is believed to have affected, the outcome of our recent presidential election. Leaking is not hacking, per se. The information might be gained from hacking and then, leaking the information. But why would anyone, want anyone to know, they hacked your stuff by leaking the information? Would this possibly close the door to one doing anymore hacking, at least in the ways it was done prior to leaking it? No, the current leaks coming from our government to the press are, coming from our inside our own government.

Remember the Email Scandal involving Hillary Clinton? Whether or not she did or did not do anything wrong may or may never be known. But the fact is, she did have a private server installed in her home, outside of the government. Another fact is, it was found out and that she did indeed, had a private server. That information was leaked to the press and the public at large. Why did she have such a server in the first place? Perhaps she had much, she wanted to hide? Maybe it was, that she, far better than you and I, knew, about the government’s collection of data and did not trust it herself? It could also be possible, it was both of these. Before we get into the possibilities of HOW this was leaked, the question is WHY her use of a private server would be leaked. There are only two possible reasons:

  1. To discredit her, to cast doubt on her credibility; to suggest she was doing something wrong, even if not. This is purely political.
  2. To illegally leak information about a possible ongoing criminal or potentially criminal investigation. This could have been political and it could have been from whistleblowers that right or wrong, believed the government was doing something wrong, i.e. trying to cover it up. Even so, those leaks even if true, are still illegal.

So, HOW could this information get found out? We already have looked into the massive collection and storage of data by the Intel Community. But an email server is used to send and receive information privately (Intranet) and over the Internet.

E-mail servers are devices and systems used to do this. As information comes in or goes out, this data is coded (computer language) in the form of packets. It is highly possible if this information is not encrypted, for others to snag this information out in cyberspace at some point after it is sent and before it is received, by the recipient. Another way is to hack into the system and have access to whatever goes out or what comes in. Another way is to log onto the system by way of a user name and a password. There are ways to discover one’s password if it is not long enough; strong enough. We know that the Democrat Convention was compromised. It has been blamed on Russian hacking and many may still hold to this belief. We know that much of this information was leaked to Wikileaks. At the forefront of this was, John Podesta. Through him, this information was leaked. How? A simple ‘fishing’ program was used to discover his password, which was, password! Some believe that someone within the DNC leaked this. Some believe that person ended up being murdered.

Email and email servers if used to transmit information over the Internet have, what we call, a ‘paper trail’ even if just digital as opposed to real paper (unless it is printed). This information is registered. It is extensive. It is public. These ‘whois’ searches include such things as the name of the server i.e. hillaryclinton.com or mail1.trump-email.com or mail.trump-email.com, physical address, the registrar such as, goddaddy.com, telephone number, fax number and administrative contact email and many other items.

It is no secret that politicians tend to smear, lie, spread rumors and cast doubt about their their opposition. Donald J. Trump was definitely trying to exploit Hillary Clinton’s private email server during the presidential campaign of 2016. Chants of “Lock Her Up” could be heard long loud and often, at many of Trump’s rallies.

It is now understood that in June of 2016, then Attorney General, Loretta Lynch (or a deputy/assistant attorney?), tried to obtain a FISA warrant to tap into Donald Trump’s e-mail server, for possible ties to Russia. It was denied likely because, it was lacking sufficient evidence. Perhaps coincidental, but this request in June, happened to be around the time that Former President, Bill Clinton, met with AG, Loretta Lynch on the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.  Another request for a warrant was filed again with the FISA court in October, and was granted. So here is the question, what changed from June to October? What evidence existed that caused the FISA court judge to grant the warrant? Was it evidence or suspicion, due to the unusual amount of activity, found supposedly, coming from Trump’s server and a Russian bank? OMG, Did Donald Trump have Russian dressing with his salad? OMG he must surely be in collusion with the Russians? Yes, something that ridiculous, spread long enough enough could cause doubt and start to stick. But their had to be more data than just one bottle of Russian dressing for the Intel Community to get involved. There was and we shall see, it’s all the ‘Making of Faking.’

From May 4th –September 23rd, 2016, there were over 2,800 ‘hit’s’ called pings from a Russian bank and Trumps email server. Then in October of that year, the warrant was granted. How did anyone know about this unusual activity in the first place, before June, when in June, the first warrant was denied? How could they present sufficient evidence in October to receive the warrant if, Trump’s email was not already being looked into? Was all of this leaked? What were these pings?

On October 31st, 2016, two articles appeared from the press. One was from Slate and the other was from, The New York Times. On the same day (10-31-16), Hillary Clinton tweeted:

“Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.”

Hillary Clinton
twitter.com/HillaryClinton
10-31-2016 5:56 PM

 

What computer scientists? Who were they? What covert server? Where was it? How did they know? Who told Clinton, Slate or the New York Times?Two articles and one tweet all from leaked, unnamed, anonymous sources and all of it illegal, started the spread of doubt which continues to cloud the integrity of the United States Intelligent Community to this day! Not only do WE the People not trust our government, many of our allies have doubt. Do you see what a dangerous game is being played, for whatever the motives might be, well-intentional or not; wittingly or unwittingly? A game? A dangerous game? If their is something to the Russian hacking and the Trump Organization’s collusion with the Russians, so be it. But there is no evidence? And there is still no answer as to the government’s role in surveillance which included private citizens. The government can deny it all they want, but they’re in it “thick as thieves.”   Somebody thought I wonder if or let’s say there is suspicion of wrongdoing here so let’s use the the Intel Community to check it out. Well, look at this, nothing. Then again in October, well look at all the activity, look at all those pings!!!

Well back to those pings. For a simple explanation for what are referred to as a DNS (domain name server) lookup, think of them initially as, a request for information. It’s like— hello, are you at home right now, is this really you. You are simply trying to establish some communication and verify you are communicating with who you are intending to reach or that is attempting to contact you.

There are other ways to try to communicate with a device or system. You might just want to leave ‘cookies’ to see where the server goes onto the internet. Many businesses use ‘cookies.’ They may be harmless, but nonetheless, they are like intruding little unseen spies, removed when you clear your Internet cache. It can get more and more sinister. One might want to try out different keys (passwords) to see if they can get in through your front door or maybe some other door. They may look for some open windows or doors, some unsecured ports that would allow them entry.  These hacks and cracks might be used to just break in and steal our stuff one time, destroy the place or leave a back-door to get in at anytime and steal and/or break stuff little by little. And they may want to exploit your device or system, by using it to contact other devices and systems and blame you for it.

So, somewhere between May-June of 2016, Trump’s email server got pinged over 2,800 hundred times. If it was just a simple hello is this you (DHS) request, this article would never have been written, and no one would be talking about Russian hacking and U.S. wiretapping (all data from whatever source). It was more than just the volume of pings which alerted attention and caused a judge to grant a warrant. The activity was just unusual. What does that mean? I do not know, but it was unusual.

I have included the following link to a CNN article that does a good job of explaining much of this rather than just speculate, which many believe CNN does often. CNN has been called the Communist News Network, the Clinton News Network and just the Fake News Network. I am not a fan of CNN, but the article linked, offers a pretty good explanation as to this unusual activity. As I explained earlier, mail. trump-email.com is a current and legitimate server. So was mail1.trump-email.com. The Trump organization employed a marketing firm called Cendyn out of Pennsylvania. The administrative email contact was a vice-president of the company and coincidence or not, she is related to a former CIA agent.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/fbi-investigation-continues-into-odd-computer-link-between-russian-bank-and-trump-organization/

Click to read the above article and look for the links and click on the Slate and the New York Times articles as well.

OK, you and I know somewhat about, what marketing firms do, especially if we have ever stayed in a hotel or a motel. We went, we stayed; we receive emails (spam) about wanting us to return, about their other services and perhaps a lot of other things. You do realize that Trump Tower is among other things, a hotel right? People associated with the Russian bank in question, have stayed at Trump Tower. But the communication was one-way. There is no evidence that the Trump Organization ever returned the communication.

So, there was this server mail1.trump-email.com that was being administered by Cendyne a marketing firm in PA. At some point they were replaced by a German firm, but that server still existed and technically was still being administered by Cendyne. Were they or was the vice-president who was the administrative contact listed under email contact, mad about being replaced? Did they want to get back at Trump for outing them or try to cast doubt on Trump because, they favored Clinton for president? I don’t know. But that Russian bank had admitted receiving marketing email from Trump Tower in the past, but when they noticed the unusual amount of activity, supposedly coming from them, they used U.S. specialists to try to solve this. Their investigation and research showed this came from somewhere in Europe. Well, of course we would expect them to deny it, but what actually was done? A whole bunch of communication, supposedly from them to mail1.trump-email.com was sent, but no evidence was ever responded to. Then, when the Trump organization discovered their email server (address) was being used, they took it down. Next, the collusion with Russia conspiracy theory continues, see there, Trump is trying to hide something, he got caught with this email server and took it down?

Well, you can continue to believe that if you so desire. You can blame the Russian for hacking the DNC, trying to manipulate the election, trying to get Donald Trump elected, and that he was and/or is, in collusion with Russia, that there were or was not attempts to wiretap the Trump Organization or that it never happened. And you can believe that he is an illegitimate president, that he and the Russians cost Hillary Clinton the election. You can believe that his appointments had or have Russian connections. As for me, and this article and the research contained herein proves only one thing.

Someone or someone(s) (that would be collusion), conspired to make it look as if, Donald J. Trump was and/or is, in collusion with Russians. I don’t know who did this, exactly how it was implemented, where it originated (likely someplace in Europe), but the only evidence to support the requests for two separate FISA warrants and any surveillance originated in our country, by our Intelligence Community and during the Obama administration.  Is Obama running a shadow operation to discredit or try to impeach Donald Trump from his presently rented home just about two miles from the White House? I do not know. Iis he doing all of this to try and preserve his legacy at the expense of to hell with the law, intelligence, secrecy and protection of our Constitutional rights? I do not know. Has his former advisor/attorney Valerie Jarrett been given a room and an office in this home as several media outlets have reported? I do not know. Has Valerie Jarrett’s daughter, Laura (also a lawyer), been hired by CNN to cover Washington D.C. Politics and etc.? Yes? Does she have a journalism degree, background or expertise? No!

So in conclusion here, this entire so-called scandal is nothing more than, the ‘Making of Faking.’

People that believe something nefarious or evil is at the center of this controversy, are not faking what they believe. That could change, especially if, nothing to the contrary comes out, but then again maybe not. People believe what they believe whether it is factual or fake.

“You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink. You can lead a man [or a woman] to the truth, but you cannot make them think.”

-unknown-

“A man [or woman] convinced against their will, is of the same opinion still.”

-unknown-

Oh those pesky facts, alternate or alternative facts! But one more thing can be added here, our own government, our Intelligence Community and the previous administration has been involved with fake information, leaked that information and is in CTA (cover their ass) mode about their reach and over-reach against Our Constitution, Our rights, beyond the scope of Congressional oversight and is an out-control, illegal, clandestine operation of espionage against their own country and their own employers, US, WE the People! Fictionally Legally (legal fiction) or not so legally, they might defend, but they are guilty of if not treason, at least in not honoring their oaths of office to protect and defend the United States and Our country, you and I, against all enemies foreign and domestic. And for what? For what purpose? To continue the making of faking, unanswered and answering to no one especially not their employers, WE the People who are supposed to serve at Our pleasure because, most are not even elected. If WE do not put a stop to this, who will? In this, they are our enemies from within and they are not our friends!

You have just read a report. It has been reported on by the tools of investigative journalism. Your conclusions are your own. Sorry, there are only two pictures provided in this post. You will just have to get the picture, on your own, make up your own minds, but this is truly about and has been about and remains, the ‘Making of Faking!’

 

1 of WE,

MySignature_clr

 

Advertisements

Are there Limits to Freedom of Speech?

May 7, 2015

short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-oG

by Dahni
© 2015, all rights reserved

 

Polite3Almost everywhere we go today inside and outside of the Internet and from any and all forms of information exchanged among all people, the words, “freedom of speech,” come up. Do we even really understand what those words mean? Oh, we probably understand that it is part of ‘The Bill of Rights’ and within the very first amendment to the Constitution. But do we really understand what these words mean and what ‘The Law of the Land’ had intended to protect? Smart people think they know. Lawyers and judges and particularly, the Supreme Court think they know. But here is the question, are there limits to freedom of speech? Depending on your perspective, you may not like the answer, but the simple answer is, yes. Yes, there are limits to the freedom of speech!

In almost every single argument that gets heated, one or all parties usually walk away from the others with similar words to follow, on their breath, “It’s freedom of speech, I have a right to say whatever I want!” Do you really? Well, for one thing, it is against the law to yell “fire” in a crowded theater if there is no fire. It is against the law to yell “bomb” on a crowded airplane or jet, if there is no such bomb. These two illustrations don’t even begin to define what freedom of speech is or is not. “Not?” Well, sure, to understand what something is, it is also important to to understand what it is “not.”

Current phrases tossed around  now are: “haters,” “don’t be a hater,” “racist”, “race-baiters” and “hate speech.”

Here is where our subject really goes dark. Dark as, “in the dark,” clueless and pretty much useless as a tool for communication. The law of language states that it is absolutely impossible to articulate in words, that which is not understood. Well, darned if religious leaders (so called), politicians, lawyers, judges and other supposed “smart people” don’t try anyway! To some degree or another, all engage in this type of communication behavior. There are a couple of descriptions (perhaps more) for these. One is called, “talking out of both sides of your mouth.” Another is, talking from your rear posterior or your derrière, rear, buttocks, butt, ass etc. The ancient Greeks had a word for this and it is epiluō and is defined as: “using the voice without reference given to the words spoken.” It is used in literature as, letting dogs loose on the game as in a hunt. In the vernacular and today, it still means what it always has, talking without understanding, what your talking about.

We see this type of behavior everywhere today. Politicians say what they think we want to hear or what is politically expedient for them, especially if there is an election coming up and they want to be, re-elected. We see it in politics when executives try to legislate or interpret the law or both. We see it in the legislative branch when they try to execute or interpret the law or both. We see in in the judiciary branch when they try to execute the law, legislate the law, interpret the law or all of these. We see it in journalism when instead of reporting the news, it is either fiction or editorialized. Now most of these people, in all these fields are highly educated. So, this is where it all stems from, education. What has higher education given the rest of us? It has graduated people that know how to dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’, write binding contracts with loopholes and still, don’t understand what they are talking about. If they, the smart people in charge, are without a clue, what about the rest of us? So, before saying that our education system has failed, what is education? It comes from the Latin word ēducātus which means, “to lead out.”

How can anyone “lead out” anyone from trouble, failure and bondage to peace, success and freedom, if they don’t understand what they are talking about or where they are going? That would be, IMPOSSIBLE!

Without getting into a biblical discussion here, I find one verse of scripture and two  words in particular, very interesting, in light of what we are discussing here.

 

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

 2 Peter 1:20  King James Version (KJV)

 

The word “idiot” is derived from another Greek word, idios, and simply means, “ones own.” It is translated in the above scripture by the word, “private.” Remember the Greek word epiluō? There is another form and it is the word epilussis “‘letting loose” The word epilussis is translated in the above verse as, “interpretation.” So, no prophecy of the scripture (singular for the plural – i.e. scripture(s) of the Bible is, of any “one’s own” “letting loose.” No where in the Constitution is the right to “interpret” the Constitution ever even hinted at, that this is a function of the Supreme Court! But somehow, they think it does.

Where is this freedom of speech to be found? It is found in the first amendment to the Constitution, we often refer to as, ‘The Bill of Rights.’ What are its actual words?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

First Amendment of, the United States Constitution

 Polite6

I would just like to point out that the very first words in the very first amendment are, “Congress shall (not will or maybe, but absolutely=shall not) make no law…” If congress cannot make any law, for these protected rights, then no executive branch can carry out what is NOT a law and no Supreme Court can rule or “interpret” any law that does not exist. But this is exactly what every single branch of government has done, is doing and will continue to do, unless stopped!

We are talking about the Constitution, which all states agreed to and it was required that all states and future states offer to its people, a republic form of government, like the Constitution, and have a balance of power (executive, legislative and judiciary) like the Constitution. Some states made their own state constitutions word for word, just like the U.S. Constitution while others patterned theirs after the Constitution, but made them to reflect the will of its own people.

As to freedom of speech, what follows is, the Supreme Court’s brief history of, interpreting our right to speak freely.

 

In 1942, Justice Frank Murphy summarized the case law:

“There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or “fighting” words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member’s racist and hate-filled speech and created the ‘imminent danger’ test to permit hate speech. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that;

“The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law. 

In 1992, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the issue of freedom to express hatred arose again when a gang of white people burned a cross in the front yard of a black family. The local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, criminalized such racist and hate-filled expressions and the teenager was charged there under. Associate justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Supreme Court, held that the prohibition against hate speech was unconstitutional as it contravened the First Amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance. Scalia explicated the “fighting words” exception as follows:

“The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey”

Because the hate speech ordinance was not concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of the freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence. The opinion noted, “This conduct, if proved, might well have violated various Minnesota laws against arson, criminal damage to property”, among a number of others, none of which was charged, including threats to any person, not to only protected classes.

In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8-1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn’t promote imminent violence. The Court explained:

“Speech deals with matters of public concern when it can ‘be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community’ or when it ‘is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public.”

Hate speech was mentioned. What is it?

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by certain characteristics. In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. A website that uses hate speech is called a hate site. Most of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint. There has been debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet as well as hate speech in general.

Critics have argued that the term “hate speech” is a contemporary example of Newspeak, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct

Excerpts In (red text above) from: Wikipedia – ‘Hate Speech’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

 

As you can clearly see, most of us are so confused, we can’t even see. The term “freedom of speech” is, so loose and so broad that it even includes “hate” speech as a protected right, I guess, as long as it it does not cause a riot? Come on, really? Have we lost or have we no common sense at all? Am I supposed to NOT be offended by what you do not find offensive and the same would apply to you? It is all, just a matter of opinion? You and everyone else and I all have the right to say anything we want? Is this freedom of speech? Is this a protected right by the law of the land?

Polite2

Now, this next thing might really offend some of you because, like our current president, you view the Constitution as a flawed document. Well, I don’t share his or this opinion. But what were they thinking in the late 1700’s, when this document was written? The same writ, has stood for over 200 hundred years, despite the many “flaws” of others that have tried to execute, legislate and interpret outside of it! Yes, what were those long dead and irrelevant people of long ago thinking?

Can you imagine any of our founders wanting to go against the king’s state religion to set up their own? Do you think they wanted the right to call the king an a–h–e, a MF, the N word or tell him to to go f–k himself? Do you think they wanted to jump up and down on and spit on and curse the Flag of England?  Do you suppose they wanted to replace the king’s media with their own elite media of— do as I say, not as I do, or to just make up whatever, to sell more stuff, for more money? The ridiculousness of all these things and the answers to them lie within the last words of the first amendment:

 

“…the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

 

I have purposefully highlighted in bold text, “the right of the people to peaceably assemble…” Now how can the people assemble “peaceably” if, the individuals are not at peace? Impossible!

Polite1

Prior to the Constitution, there was written, The Declaration of Independence. It was a logical, civil and polite declaration. Logically, it stated its premises and logically concluded that its only possible solution was, to declare its independence. It was written in a civil manner and politely. Perhaps we should read or re-read this work, as it just might give us a clue as to what freedom of speech was really all about? Maybe instead of endless and needless speech policies, for companies, businesses, organizations and social media, all that really should be required and enforced is, IS IT POLITE Does the speech offend or build up? Does our speech lead others out or leave them in darkness or drive them deeper into it.

In the name of freedom of speech or expression, we have been subjected to that it’s OK, to use filthy language to hurl an expletive, almost every second. Comedians are near-perfect experts at this. This is no more language just heard behind closed doors, but is common in nearly every public and private place. It is language that most of our parents and caregivers scolded us and perhaps punished us for, its unacceptable use. And weren’t most of us taught the rhyming lie, “sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me?” Go repeat this to family and friends who have lost loved ones to suicide and other non-peaceful acts because, of hateful speech, from mental bullies! But then, some of us make it through and become adults. We become adults that this language and these types of words and our children hear and see. What do they hear and see us saying and doing? Are they not confused by the old saying— “do as I say, not as I do?” Do they not grow up to think that hypocrisy is acceptable and confused about integrity or meaning what you say and saying what you mean really means, nothing!

Yes, the child that spits and calls out hurtful names and bullies other kids in the ‘sandbox’ so to speak, grow up. The brain expands. They become more educated and many become even, ‘highly educated’ and what do they do with it? They find faster ways, better ways, legal ways, loopholes and more so called “creative” ways, to destroy lives. All of it under the name of freedom of speech. It has become acceptable to and a current trend to disrespect the flag. And yet few people realize or have ever read the U.S. Flag code that makes it against the law, to do such things. And fewer people realize that our own government, does not enforce these laws. So, what do people think? They think and believe that they have the right to spit on the flag, burn it, jump up and down on it, crap on it or whatever and this is just freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of artistic expression and freedom to make your points known, even if it offends others. Oh come on now, how ludicrous is this! What is not somewhere, sometime and to someone,  NOT offensive and are offended something?

Since everyone is offended by something and most liberal minded minds don’t want to offend anyone, what solutions are offered? Pretty much the argument goes, I have freedom of speech to say pretty much anything. Courts rule on it. Laws are made by it and people pretty much say whatever they want. What kind of solution is that? That is not a solution! It is illogical! It sounds to me, a lot like lawlessness, rebellion in the name of revolution and anarchy under the guise of freedom of speech!

The solution is plain and simple. It is right in front of us. Are there limits to freedom of speech? YES!

What are these limits? You or I do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire. We do not have the right to yell bomb on a crowded airplane or jet, if there is none. Why not? Common sense says this could cause a panic, start a riot, disturb the peace and people could be hurt, crushed and even killed. We do not have the right to say anything that is NOT true. These are called lies and are seen as libel, slander, copyright and patent infringement among others. We do not have the right to hurt and kill others physically, and we do not have the right to hurt anyone emotionally, physically and spiritually, with words. On and on we could go here and perhaps I am “preaching to the choir?” But the solution is much more simple than just endless examples, which many may view as nothing more than just, my opinion.

So, what exactly does the first amendment to the Constitution mean? What is the right? Who has these rights? And to answer these, we also answer to whom this amendment was written for and what it is designed to protect us from.

These first amendment rights are to, of, for and by us, WE the People. It clearly states what and/or to whom we are to be protected of or from. And what is that? Anything or anyone, that is not polite!

We each have the right to choose our own expression of belief, but in our discourse of expressing them, we must be polite. We have the freedom of speech, but our speech must be polite. The press (media) is free to express the facts, but they must be polite. We have the right to assemble peaceably and redress government of our gripes and griefs, but we must be polite and courteous about it!

Polite4

The FREEDOM to be POLITE, cost our founders everything!

 

As to speech itself, any speech that is not polite would be impolite. Hate-speech at its least is, impolite. So, any and all speech or any of the rights listed in the first amendment that is NOT polite, is against the law!!!!

Politeness and courtesy would eliminate the burden of the courts, drastically reduce riots, crime, destruction of properties and lives. Speech policies of all businesses, organizations and all manner of people gatherings would become so simple, even a child or a fool could understand them. Chat rooms, social media timelines and pages would suddenly disappear, if they were not polite and courteous. Terrorist recruitment and activity would cease using online social media because, they would all become illegal as, they are not polite.

This is what our founders pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for, the freedom to be polite, to have the liberty to live life and to pursue happiness. This is what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written for, the FREEDOM to be polite!

The executive branch, the legislative branch and the judiciary branch of government do not have these rights, they are but servants to those that do have these rights, us, WE the People.

Polite5

From same Greek word [polis] “people of the walled cities made to protect them from enemies without” are both the words politics and the word POLITE derived

This is, our country. It is our Republic. It is both our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Let us politely, take them all back to ourselves and our posterity.

Polite5

 

 

1 of We the People,

 

Dahni

Journalistic Integrity

February 12, 2015
By Dahni
©  2015, all rights reserved

 

Brian Williams

Brian Williams

First, this begins with my own apology. I am not apologizing for Brian Williams or NBC, nor for my own mis-remembering or stating something intentionally or knowingly false. My apology is for my own actions.

As you may probably already know, Brian Williams was recently suspended from NBC without pay for 6 months (about a $5 million dollar loss of income). This came about because of his own embellishments of the truth or falsifications of the truth. The Internet was on fire with sarcastic photo shopped images and quotes, ranging from everything from his being personally present at Gettysburg, PA in 1865, sitting in the limousine during the assassination of president John F. Kennedy and so much more that were supposed to be funny. I too participated in the sarcastic, supposed funny feeding frenzy of the Brian Williams, “I was there…,” stuff.  I posted a photo shopped picture of him on my Facebook timeline. He was with General George Washington with the troops at Valley Forge, PA in 1776. I took this down (deleted it) after a short period of time. But is anything ever really, truly, absolutely; permanently deleted from the Internet? Probably not! I took it down not to cover up my actions, but to keep others from seeing what I now understand, was the wrong thing, for me to have done in the first place!! Why? When is anyone or anything ever helped, made better, made stronger; made taller, by putting them down? NEVER! So for this, I truly apologize. It will not happen again. We are supposed to be able to make our own decisions, not go along with the crowd, go with the flow or with what is trendy and popular.

But as for Brian Williams, I do not know him personally. I always liked him and still do, but I do not personally know him. So I also, do not know why he did what he did. I heard all kinds of things such as a faulty memory and if that is true, the man needs professional help, but he should not be allowed to continue as a news anchor and editor of NBC. The damage has been done.  Perhaps, one day he can recover. I hope so. I’ve no problem with forgiving anyone, for just about anything because, I know more than anyone, what I’ve been forgiven of!

If Brian Williams embellished things to puff himself up, I don’t know why he felt the need to do that since he already held the top job at NBC News. IF this is what he did, the man needs professional help, but he should not be allowed to continue as a news anchor and editor of NBC! The damage has been done. Perhaps, one day he can recover. I hope so. I’ve no problem with forgiving anyone, for just about anything because, I know more than anyone, what I’ve been forgiven of!

Some may argue that Brian Williams just got caught and therefore, he and NBC had to act, to control or contain, the damage done. Surveys and poll after poll, for years, have shown that most of us low-information folk, don’t trust the news, any news, main stream media, networks or journalism anyway. With this latest scandal, all it shows is that we are right and were right, all along. Validation of this I’m sure, does not make any of us feel any better. But it does show that journalistic integrity is, all but non-existent and networks are not about news, but biased conglomerates of entertainment, for profit.

So when the cracks started to appear at NBC, the higher-ups had to get involved. But here is the greater problem, beyond anything Brian Williams has done or could do. Camera people, others, editors and executives at NBC had to know about, what started with Williams in 2003. Either others at NBC just let this behavior slide or God Forbid, it was on purpose, accepted, allowed, encouraged and scripted, for ratings and profits. Either others that knew what was really going on never spoke up or were never heeded. Perhaps, some of both?

The current INTERNAL investigation imply that there were MANY other embellishments or falsifications by Williams over the years and maybe even on his expense account. So is there any doubt that there were OTHERS that were/are in the know about these things? There is a trail! Again, if others knew and know, did they speak up and out or were they ignored; their concerns unheeded before now?

During what is released or leaked about this investigation, there is another possibility. Is NBC just totally inept at running a news organization and programs which are supposed to be news oriented? With the amount of information now coming out, why wouldn’t NBC hire an independent firm to investigate these matters EXTERNALLY? If it was just one little reporter that got his information screwed up, what is an editor for? Isn’t an editor supposed to check (double check and etc.) the facts and sources, before the story goes to print or put on ‘air?’ And if somehow, it was still missed and later found out, is not this what an apology is for, corrective action taken with the reporter, responsibility shared by any and all concerned and a retraction made to readers and viewers? But this is a major network we are talking about here. Investigate itself? Is not this like representing yourself in a court of law and as it is said, having, “a fool for a client?” Or again, was this (internal) investigation just to cover it up or control what is released to the public? Is this not like they are ‘flipping off’ the viewers?

The Pea+cock plucked and exposed

The Pea+cock plucked and exposed

I write these things because, I was a reporter. I was a trained investigative reporter. Journalism was something I was proud of and proud to be a part of. I did not get to show emotion during an interview. I did not get to inject my opinion. Beyond reporting, it was and is supposed to be the editors that get to offer their opinions. These used to be called, editorials. But my job, like the 60’s show, ‘Dragnet’ and one of the main characters, Sgt. Joe Friday (Jack Web) said, “All we want (or “know“) are the facts, ma’am (or man).”

NBC is not the first to have trouble with the truth. Remember CBS and the downfall of Dan Rather? ABC, CNN, FOX  and all the rest, have had their issues as well. I am almost of the opinion, depending on which network you regularly watch (if you do) all the rest, but yours are, UNTRUSTWORTHY. But again, the polls show that most of us, don’t trust ANY of them!

Regardless of what Brian Williams has done or why, this is much bigger than him. It could also be bigger than even NBC. The question we should be asking is not whether Brian Williams will come back or if NBC will return to true journalism and true news, but will WE the People, ever trust any of the mainstream news media to just give us the facts? I never thought Freedom of the Press meant or means, the freedom to make stuff up, for your bias, political persuasion, to entertain, for ratings and solely for profit.

Journalistic Integrity meant something in this country. Graduating from an accredited school of Journalism used to mean something. If you were even a cub reporter just starting out, you were proud of your work. Reporting “Just the facts…” was, important to the reporter, their editor, the readers and the viewers. Journalism 101 (even high school) taught that the first paragraph of your article or report had to contain, W,W,W,W,W & H. (who, what, where, when, why, and how). IF it did not contains these, your editor would probably reject it, even if it was a great story.

In the past, news and journalism meant something and whether we called it journalistic integrity or not, that’s what it was and we trusted it. In the past, news was a necessary staple in the United States. There were the local channels, for local and regional news. Then, around 5 PM, most people and families turned on their TV for the 1/2 hour broadcast of the national news. When I was young, there were only three (3) networks, ABC, CBS and NBC. For news, we usually watched CBS with Walter Cronkite. We called him, uncle Walter in our home. This is what he was like, a trusted family member. He had a way about him that was calming and reassuring. I’ll never forget when the news came in that president John F. Kennedy was killed by an assassin’s bullet. He removed his glasses and we could tell he was shaken, but during this horrible time that rocked our nation, Walter Cronkite was there to feel what we felt, to give us the truth and yet somehow, he calmed our fears and comforted us in our shock. Somehow, we just knew, there would come a new day, tomorrow.

Walter Cronkite removes his glasses and reports that the president was dead

Walter Cronkite removes his glasses and reports that the president was dead

There were other trusted news people of other networks too. Journalistic Integrity meant a lot to them as well.

News was not really profitable at the networks. It wasn’t about profit. It was necessary. The network’s other programs and sponsors and advertising bore the costs, for journalistic integrity. News was about news, not so much about ratings or profit.

Journalistic Integrity, meant a lot, to a lot of people.

I can not think of a finer example of journalistic integrity, than the Declaration of Independence. That document meant so much to many. It said what it meant and it meant what it said. We know because, those that wrote it, signed it, published it and went out and fought for it, pledged their lives, their fortunes and their SACRED HONOR! It was the WHY of the rights, we have come to know in this country. It was like an apple of gold!

Apple of Gold

Apple of Gold

I can not think of a finer example of journalistic integrity, than the Constitution of the United States of America. This document meant and still means so much to many. It said what it meant and it meant what it said. We know because, whereas the Declaration of Independence declared our inalienable rights, the Constitution directs and limits the power of our servants, to protect those rights. It was like a frame of silver, around an apple of gold. This frame of silver, this government, was made to serve – of, by and for us, WE the People, the apple of gold. WE the People, the apple of gold, were not made to serve the government, the frame of silver!

JournalIntegrity5

The Picture (frame) of Silver

Today, we have seem many changes to these precious documents. They have been interpreted and even by some, considered outdated, corrupt and unnecessary words, for our modern age. The Declaration of Independence is mostly unread and unknown. It has no legal force or teeth in a court of law. The preamble to the Constitution, has no legal force or teeth in a court of law. But WE are the government. WE are the Law. The government and the law are supposed to work for us!

Apple of Gold in a Picture of Silver

Apple of Gold in a Picture of Silver

“A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver.”

The Bible, Proverbs 25:11, King James Version (KJV)

True, these documents may not be considered as works of journalism, but words are supposed to have meaning. And words carry much more than information. And words may carry emotion and passion. And words can hurt and words can help and heal. And words can destroy. And words can edify, build up and transform! But words without action and integrity, are just words that can be used to puff yourself up, a particular bias, slam your neighbor or just, for entertainment, ratings and profit.

Journalistic integrity meant something. It still does for me, if for no one else. I could be wrong, but Freedom of the Press was never intended to just make up whatever you want, but the freedom to speak the truth.

Freedom of the Press

Freedom of the Press

I read somewhere that Brian Williams never was interested in nor got into ‘social media.’ I do not know, but it was social media that brought to light what has for the most part, been in hiding; in the dark, for years. OK, this is a good thing. But not Brian Williams, any at or all of NBC, and not even all forms of media should bear some responsibility, for the fall of journalistic integrity. What about government servants, the legal profession, and business? What about you and I?

In a sense, all of us are reporters. We can report the facts or just make up stuff, cut and paste and post, twitter, blog, message and communicate in any and all the ways we have available today. Do we check our facts? Are they facts or opinions? Do we check and double check and etc. our sources? Do we just make up stuff. Do we tear down? Do we build up?

How will you and I report on life and on others today? Will we do so with journalistic integrity? Will we expect and demand this from everyone? WE are all, in this together!

 

1 of WE the People,

MySignature_clr