A Math Refresher Course for Consumers of News

The U.S. has between a population of between 250-300 million people. A crime like the murder of a little girl (which happens more often than you think),  or anyone for that matter affect about 250-300 people and with almost no exception has no impact on the electorate (the voting public), our lives or the world in general. It impacts friends, family, local law enforcement, a jury and a tiny segment of the legal system.

So when you watch a news network that considers itself to be covering ‘news’ that is of a ‘national interest, keep in mind that this vital story impacts or is of real interest to approximately one millionth (0.000001%, 1/1,000,000) of the population. Then think about the resources required to cover such stories to the extent out news networks cover them. And then try to think of one real journalist on the planet that would consider a story like that to be worthy of in depth national coverage.

So I ask you, does America really have a national news industry? I don’t think so.  Think about it!

One Response to “A Math Refresher Course for Consumers of News”

  1. johnmccarthy says:

    Greetings,

    Thought you might find the following of interest. Especially since so much of what the media seeks is now covered by ‘national security’ no seeum’s.

    Bests,
    John

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    In response to the article by Sibel Edmonds and William Weaver

    All That’s Given Up In The Name Of National Security

    http://www.nswbc.org/Op%20Ed/All%20Thats%20Given%20up%20Op-ed-July31-06.htm

    The potential for abuse with the catch all phrase of “National Security” is finally exposed in the continuous efforts on the part of the US Government which show no sign of abatement.

    So, what is the reason for “national security” being used as the blanket response to justify the suppression of information?

    Is it invoked for gagging whistleblower’s who possess information which, if disclosed, would expose the official government position on a given subject as a bold faced lie or as a pretext for war or continuing a war?

    Grave Danger to the United States gives us pause to reflect on the cause and effect of the inappropriate release of information which could provide an enemy of our country to take such action as to avoid our defenses. But that is not the case here. We certainly would not want a potential enemy from knowing our war plans. That is not the case here, either.

    But suppressing information which would destroy our government’s contrived position on relevant information on issues such as 911 is an egregious excuse and mis-use of “national security”excuse to hide the truth. It should also be noted that current and past regulations forbid the use or excuse for the classification of matters which are invoked to cover a criminal act.

    An actual example of invoking “national security” as the primary reason/excuse for closing a criminal trial proceeding stretches the fabric of the blanket of “national security” to the breaking point.

    Government court arguments that exposure of witness testimony in an open court environment would seriously effect the national security of the United States and the further prosecution of the war (in Vietnam) gives us obvious trepidation and a cause to pause. For those who would question the validity of such procedures without having access to the “national security” issues, there is the assumed factor that there MUST be something in the classified portions of the Record of Trial which are part and parcel of the evidence for the court having rendered a verdict of guilt. This throws us back to the reasoning that “certainly if the government had a reason to listen to our conversations, read our email or maintain a classification of sensitive materials, there must be a just cause for such action”.

    However, when years later it comes to light that the actual reason for this blanket of national security was to obsfucate a high crime, it is way too late to do anything about it, and in most cases, the perpetrators are dead.

    Will the excuses of “national security” gag orders against the current cases of whistleblowers last long enough for them to die before the documents are exposed for what they actually are?

    1. Since no one had yet testified on the “national security” issues argued by the government as the reason to close the trial to the public, in violation of the 6th Amendment, it would appear incredible that such a position be advanced before the court. The fear of exposing unknown and unspecified secrets gives caution as to the actual reason for closing the trial to the public.

    2. Re witness testimony “seriously effecting the further prosecution of the war” in Vietnam, one is left with the great impression that such testimony would cause the war in Vietnam to be stopped. This Linus Blanket of “national security” was the ultimate excuse which was designed to provide the trial judge with the rationale to close the court to the public. (Had the testimony been given in open court and the war in Vietnam stopped as a result of this testimony, there would be thirty thousand fewer names on the Vietnam War Memorial. Did the government actually fear that the exposure of the treason on the part of the NSC members would halt the Vietnam War? Did they even know of the actual treason or were they just relying on CIA’s reasoning that the issues were most sensitive to their sources and methods? Did the local CIA have a clue to the NSC treason against the President?)

    Other options for the government were to defer the trial until after hostilities ended or dismiss the charge and free the defendant. The government strongly hinted that if the judge ruled in favor of keeping the trial open, they would entertain the option of halting the prosecution.

    The judge, being informed that the prosecutions case did not rely on classified matters, allowed the trial to proceed in open session with a number of interested parties in attendance.

    The prosecution had already established that all members of the court, the lawyers for both prosecution and defense were cleared for information up to and including top secret. The judge was therefore on notice that certain issues of “national security” would be forthcoming in the form of testimony from defense witnesses but not from the prosecutions witnesses.

    When prosecution witnesses began responding to questions by the prosecutor the judge called a halt to the proceedings and declared, after the court was cleared of jurors and ‘interested’ parties, “I thought you assured me that we were not going to have this turning the witnesses on and blurting out classified information?” The prosecutor explained that there was nothing classified about the witnesses testimony. The judge noted that, “Well, the security officer (CIA) is about to have a heart attack!”

    The judge then exclaimed, “I am not going to conduct this trial walking on egg shells. Why are we being forced to go through this exercise?”

    Up to this point, there had been no disclosure before the court or interested parties of CIA involvement or mention of the country of Cambodia. Discussion on these issues had taken place before the court was called during government’s arguments to close the court to the public. The aura of National Security permeated the courtroom and the psyche of the judge. But it is here that the pattern in the weave of the Linus Blanket of ‘national security’ began to unravel.

    The trial ended in a conviction for premeditated murder on January 30, 1968 at 7:00 PM. The sentence was life in prison.

    The conviction was overturned in November, 1970 by an appellate court in Washington, DC because of “newly found evidence and fraud on the court”. The governments expert witness had recanted his incourt testimony, in writing, and submitted it to his boss at the Bethesda, Maryland Armed Forces Institute of Pathology where it remained hidden from September, 1968 until November, 1970. This file also contained FBI reports dated February 8, 1968, just nine days after trial, containing exculpatory evidence in violation of Supreme Court Ruling Brady v Maryland http://www.ipsn.org/court_cases/brady_v_maryland.htm
    However, the written recantation of the government’s star witness was determined to be sufficient to over rule the conviction and the FBI was never called to task for their violation of Supreme Court rulings or other egregious acts in this matter.

    The charge was dismissed on January 8, 1971

    In November, 2000 the State Department declassified once top secret documents which were released on the Internet by the LBJ Library.

    http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id48.html
    http://www.geocities.com/larryjodaniel/17.html
    http://www.geocities.com/larryjodaniel/21.html
    http://www.geocities.com/larryjodaniel/22.html

    This is where the Linus Blanket of ‘national security’ became shredded. These documents prove, in no uncertain terms, that the CIA, State Department and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as other members present during National Security meetings attended by the President, blatantly disregarded presidential directives issued during NSC meetings during June 1966 wherein the president expressed his concern over the state of affairs in Cambodia and his desire to ‘get closer’ to then Prince, now King Norodom Sihanouk by forbidding any and all support for Khmer Serei activities including the overthrow of the Cambodian Government and the assassination of Sihanouk.

    This information allows but one conclusion for critical thinking: The government’s demand for a closed trial was predicated on maintaining the secrecy of rogue CIA operations in violation of presidential directives issued during NSC meetings, during wartime. When LBJ was made aware of the court outcome in 1968 he made it known that he “…would not seek, nor accept, my parties nomination for a second term as President of The United States”. One must conclude, therefore, that the treasonous actions by the NSC were of major concern to the President and the root cause for the continued quagmire of the Vietnam War.

    And these are only a few examples and long lasting ramifications when ‘national security’ is wrongly invoked. Unfortunately, the added blockage of ‘need to know’ further isolates those with true justification for such knowledge.

    The pattern of abuse continues.

    Must we wait another thirty two years for the blanket of national security to be lifted on the information used to gag Sibel Edmonds by court order? Are there crimes of treason in the documents shielded from interested parties relating to the ‘inside job’ and government facilitation of the events of 911?

    It should also be noted that the information found in the above documents has been submitted to Senators of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the former Attorney General, the National Archives and White House, without response. Subsequent letters of Inquiry seeking response have likewise been ignored.

    Sibel Edmonds and William Weaver wrote:

    “We have also received e-mails from individuals who argued against the public’s right to know when it comes to issues such as NSA warrantless eavesdropping or mass collection of citizens’ financial and other personal data by various intelligence and defense related agencies. They unite in their argument that any measure to protect us from the terrorists is welcomed and justified. One individual wrote: “so what if they are listening to our conversations. I have nothing to hide, so I don’t mind the government eavesdropping on my phone conversations. Only those engaged in evil deeds would worry about the government placing them under surveillance.” But how far can one let the government go based on this rationale? This issue is well articulated in Federalist, No. 51, “You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” How do we oblige our government to control itself?”

    Having nothing to hide matters not when the government resorts to fabricating evidence in order to obtain a guilty verdict. Surveillance of phones and emails can trigger a warrant-less search and the potential of ‘planting’ evidence which, when ‘found’ can and will be used in a court of law to convict any individual. But in this continuous war on terrorism and the Patriot Act, such convictions will only be obtained in secret courts covered by the blanket of ‘national security’, ostensibly to protect the vital interests of our country but actually to secret the sources and methods of obtaining ‘evidence’ with which to convict ‘terrorists’ or other enemies of the state.

    “Our entire system of government and its institutions is grounded in an insistence that tyranny be combated and that individual liberty be protected from a potentially tyrannical government. The result is a suspicion of authority and an emphasis on limited government. Samuel Huntington, a well-known conservative Republican, states in American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony: “The distinctive aspect of the American Creed is its antigovernment character. Opposition to power, and suspicion of government as the most dangerous embodiment of power, are the central themes of American political thought.”
    Tyranny in the form of treason, to undermine the will of the President, and therefore the people, by forming a government within the government, and by subtrefuge, bypass and eliminate the will and focus of the President to counter efforts of war expansion and continuation of the existing war is utterly reprehensible and mind numbing to those now exposed to such skulldugary. In this case, the opposition to power, the power of the presidency, itself, is a matter of grave concern and shows the potential for true disaster in the nuclear age by those who would subvert the law of this land.

    The following was written in 1979, before the above documents were known to exist or released. This is the background for continuity of the documents in question.

    http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id17.html

    And the following synopsis, written in 1997, provides further continuity.

    http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id1.html

    In conclusion, the use and excuse for secreting crimes by invoking the blanket of “national security” must be exposed for the ruse that it is.

    Bests,

    John McCarthy

    http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 683 access attempts in the last 7 days.