Connect with us

Americas

The American People Must Hold The Mainstream Media To Account

Rahul D. Manchanda, Esq.

Published

on

[yt_dropcap type=”square” font=”” size=”14″ color=”#000″ background=”#fff” ] O [/yt_dropcap] ne thing that the events of this latest political election have taught the American People is that the Mainstream Media has virtually no real credibility any more, and are essentially working for the Deep State Plutocratic Elite, fully owned and co-opted by the Central Bankers of the City of London and other foreign nations/entities/individuals, with absolutely no loyalty to the People to provide them with real news that does not support their own agenda and self-enrichment.

Since 90% of American Media is controlled by only 6 corporations, it is unfortunately now time for a new civil, legal, equitable, and non-violent American Revolutionary War, this time dedicated to holding the CEOs of the 6 major mainstream media conglomerates to account, with non-violent revolution.

This means that the People should rise up and begin to file lawsuits, left and right, against individual and corporate entities that make up the Mainstream Media, for a whole series and litany of civil (as well as criminal) causes of action.

For example, we all now know that the U.S. Government, through the CIA’s “Operation Mockingbird,” is an unconstitutional program developed to target and brainwash average Americans into supporting stupid foreign wars, getting tens of millions of people unnecessarily killed, spending U.S. Taxpayer dollars to the tune of $23 trillion in debt, and aiding and abetting major international and domestic criminal conspiracies and plots (such as the engineered financial crisis of 2008) by either refusing to report on them, or outright lying to the American People by covering them up.

From a criminal perspective, the Mainstream American Media led by certain of their CEOs are at once guilty of treason, acting on behalf of (favored) foreign entities and governments (“Foreign Agents Registration Act”), and violations of the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act.

TREASON

To avoid the abuses of the English law, treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined.

Article III, section 3 reads as follows:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

The United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states:

“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

There is no question that the 6 major Mainstream Media conglomerates are owned and beholden to the international central banks, which are by and large non-American actors and are instead sovereign foreign based entities headquartered in the United Kingdom, specifically in the City of London and with other foreign nations/entities/individuals.

FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (“FARA”) is a United States law (22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.) passed in 1938 requiring that agents representing the interests of foreign powers in a “political or quasi-political capacity” disclose their relationship with the foreign government and information about related activities and finances.

The purpose is to facilitate “evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements and activities of such persons.”

The law is administered by the FARA Registration Unit of the Counterespionage Section (“CES”) in the National Security Division (“NSD”) of the United States Department of Justice.

For the same reasons as described above, the CEOs of the above referenced 6 major media companies need to be criminally investigated, indicted, charged, arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated as such.

They are just as dangerous and subversive as any of their foreign central banker City of London and other foreign nations/entities/individuals masters.

The Act originally was administered by the Department of State until transferred to the Department of Justice in 1942.

From passage in 1938 until 1966 when the Act was amended, enforcement focused on propagandists for foreign powers (in this case the City of London international central bankers and other foreign nations/entities/individuals), even if it was not “for or on behalf of” those powers.

It was used in 23 criminal cases during World War II.

For cases not warranting prosecution, the Department of Justice sent letters advising prospective agents of the law.

In 1966 the Act was amended and narrowed to emphasize agents actually working with foreign powers who sought economic or political advantage by influencing governmental decision-making.

The amendments shifted the focus of the law from propaganda to political lobbying and narrowed the meaning of “foreign agent.”

From that moment on, an organization (or person) could only be placed in the FARA database if the government proved that it (or he or she) was acting “at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal” and proved that it (or he or she) was engaged “in political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal,” including by “representing the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government of the United States.”

This increased the government’s burden of proof; since 1966 there have been no successful criminal prosecutions under the FARA act.

However, a civil injunctive remedy also was added to allow the Department of Justice to warn individuals and entities of possible violations of the Act, ensuring more voluntary compliance but also making it clear when the law has been violated.

This has resulted in a number of successful civil cases and administrative resolutions since that time.

The Act requires periodic disclosure of all activities and finances by: (1) people and organizations that are under control of a foreign government, of organizations or of persons outside of the United States (“foreign principal”); (2) if they act “at the order, request, or under the direction or control” of this principal (i.e. as “agents”) or of persons who are “controlled or subsidized in major part” by this principal.

I am sometimes asked if I have any regrets about publishing our book. As of today, my only regret is that it is not being published now. After the humiliations that Obama has endured at the hands of the Israel Lobby and the Hagel circus, we would sell even more copies and we would not face nearly as much ill-informed criticism. — Stephen Walt, co-author of the book.

Organizations under such foreign control can include political agents, public relations counsel, publicity agents, information-service employees, political consultants, fundraisers or those who represent the foreign power before any agency or official of the United States government.

The law includes news or press services owned by a foreign principal.

To that end if any one of the 6 major media corporations has foreign owners or any relationships with the international foreign central bankers based out of the City of London and other foreign nations/entities/individuals, they are at once guilty of violating this Act.

RACKETEERING INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS (“RICO”) ACT

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the “RICO Act” or simply “RICO,” is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.

The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually commit the crime personally.

RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91–452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970), and is codified at 18 U.S.C. ch. 96 as 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968.

G. Robert Blakey, an adviser to the United States Senate Government Operations Committee, drafted the law under the close supervision of the committee’s chairman, Senator John Little McClellan.

It was enacted as Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, and signed into law by Richard M. Nixon.

While its original use in the 1970s was to prosecute the Mafia as well as others who were actively engaged in organized crime, its later application has been more widespread.

Beginning in 1972, 33 states adopted state RICO laws to be able to prosecute similar conduct.

Under RICO, a person who has committed “at least two acts of racketeering activity” drawn from a list of 35 crimes — 27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes — within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering if such acts are related in one of four specified ways to an “enterprise.”

Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $250,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count.

In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of “racketeering activity.”

When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he or she has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to temporarily seize a defendant’s assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond.

This provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets.

An injunction and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.

Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.

RICO also permits a private individual “damaged in his business or property” by a “racketeer” to file a civil suit.

The plaintiff must prove the existence of an “enterprise”.

The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.

There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise “through” the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).

In essence, the enterprise is either the “prize,” “instrument,” “victim,” or “perpetrator” of the racketeers.

A civil RICO action can be filed in either state or federal court.

Both the criminal and civil components allow the recovery of treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).

Initially, prosecutors were skeptical of using RICO, mainly because it was unproven.

However, during the 1980s and 1990s, federal prosecutors used the law to bring charges against several Mafia figures.

The first major success was the Mafia Commission Trial, which resulted in several top leaders of New York City’s Five Families getting what amounted to life sentences.

By the turn of the century, RICO cases resulted in virtually all of the top leaders of the New York Mafia being sent to prison.

So why can’t RICO charges (or civil lawsuits) be brought against the 6 heads of the major Mainstream Media organized criminal enterprise?

Examples of required predicate criminal acts include bribery, extortion, fraud, obstruction of justice, racketeering, money laundering, or copyright infringement.

Although some of the most often used RICO predicate criminal acts are extortion and blackmail, one of the most successful applications of the RICO laws has been the ability to indict and or sanction individuals for their behavior and actions committed against witnesses and victims in alleged retaliation or retribution for cooperating with federal or state law enforcement or intelligence agencies.

It is well known that the mainstream media routinely engages in the above described criminal acts, especially retaliation (defamation/slander/libel for example) when their targets don’t tow the political line as issued by the City of London Central Bankers and other foreign nations/individuals/entities.

Just think of what happened to President-Elect Donald Trump by these 6 major mainstream media organizations simply because the Central Bankers of the City of London and other foreign nations/individuals/entities did not like him, or want him to win the election.

This is not even to mention the various and exclusively civil causes of action that the American People could collectively or individually bring against CEOs and various members of the Mainstream Media, such as Defamation, Libel, Slander, Tortious Interference with Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of the Duty of Loyalty, Unfair Trade Practices, False Advertising, Unlawful Trespass, Civil RICO, Unjust Enrichment, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Trademark Infringement, Copyright Infringement, and myriad other purely civil claims, both federal and state.

The cases against the 6 major mainstream media corporation CEOs should involve the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), the U.S. Department of Justice (“USDOJ”), the U.S. Department of State (“USDOS”), the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”), the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), the National Security Agency (“NSA”), and other agencies – but the only problem is that it appears that all of these “alphabet agencies” are, at the top, run by individuals who are also literally co-opted, bought off, and paid for by the same enemies of the American People – the International Central Bankers of the City of London and other foreign nations/entities/individuals.

Until and unless these linkages are more formally exposed, and the relationships uncovered, the American People (and the rest of the world) will be hard-pressed to ever obtain any justice or release from the earthly and hellish bondage of the 6 CEO Members of the Mainstream Media Mafia organized criminal enterprise.

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

A self-inflicted wound: Trump surrenders the West’s moral high ground

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

For the better part of a century, the United States could claim the moral high ground despite allegations of hypocrisy because its policies continuously contradicted its proclaimed propagation of democracy and human rights. Under President Donald J. Trump, the US has lost that moral high ground.

This week’s US sanctioning of 28 Chinese government entities and companies for their involvement in China’s brutal clampdown on Turkic Muslims in its troubled north-western province of Xinjiang, the first such measure by any country since the crackdown began, is a case in point.

So is the imposition of visa restrictions on Chinese officials suspected of being involved in the detention and human rights abuses of millions of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims.

The irony is that the Trump administration has for the first time elevated human rights to a US foreign policy goal in export control policy despite its overall lack of concern for such rights.

The sanctions should put the Muslim world, always the first to ring the alarm bell when Muslims rights are trampled upon, on the spot.

It probably won’t even though Muslim nations are out on a limb, having remained conspicuously silent in a bid not to damage relations with China, and in some cases even having endorsed the Chinese campaign, the most frontal assault on Islam in recent history.

This week’s seeming endorsement by Mr. Trump of Turkey’s military offensive against Syrian Kurds, who backed by the United States, fought the Islamic State and were guarding its captured fighters and their families drove the final nail into the coffin of US moral claims.

The endorsement came on the back of Mr. Trump’s transactional approach towards foreign policy and relations with America’s allies, his hesitancy to respond robustly to last month’s missile and drone attacks on Saudi oil facilities, his refusal to ensure Saudi transparency on the killing a year ago of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and his perceived empathy for illiberals and authoritarians symbolized by his reference to Egyptian field marshal-turned-president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi as “my favourite dictator.”

Rejecting Saudi and Egyptian criticism of his intervention in Syria, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan gave the United States and Mr. Trump a blunt preview of what they can expect next time they come calling, whether it is for support of their holding China to account for its actions in Xinjiang, issues of religious freedom that are dear to the Trump administration’s heart, or specific infractions on human rights that the US opportunistically wishes to emphasize.

“Let me start with Saudi Arabia,” Mr. Erdogan said in blistering remarks to members of his Justice and Development Party (AKP). “Look in the mirror first. Who brought Yemen to this state? Did tens of thousands of people not die in Yemen?” he asked, referring to the kingdom’s disastrous military intervention in Yemen’s ruinous civil war.

Addressing Mr. Al-Sisi, Mr. Erdogan charged: “Egypt, you can’t talk at all. You are a country with a democracy killer.” The Turkish leader asserted that Mr. Al-Sisi had “held a meeting with some others and condemned the (Turkish) operation – so what if you do?”

The fact that the United States is likely to encounter similar responses, even if they are less belligerent in tone, as well as the fact that Mr. Trump’s sanctioning of Chinese entities is unlikely to shame the Muslim world into action, signals a far more fundamental paradigm shift:  the loss of the US and Western moral high ground that gave them an undisputed advantage in the battle of ideas, a key battleground in the struggle to shape a new world order.

China, Russia, Middle Eastern autocrats and other authoritarians and illiberals have no credible response to notions of personal and political freedom, human rights and the rule of law.

As a result, they countered the ideational appeal of greater freedoms by going through the motions. They often maintained or erected democratic facades and payed lip service to democratic concepts while cloaking their repression in terms employed by the West like the fight against terrorism.

By surrendering the West’s ideological edge, Mr. Trump reduced the shaping of the new world order to a competition in which the power with the deeper pockets had the upper hand.

Former US national security advisor John Bolton admitted as much when he identified in late 2018 Africa as a new battleground and unveiled a new strategy focused on commercial ties, counterterrorism, and better-targeted U.S. foreign aid.

Said international affairs scholar Keren Yarhi-Milo: “The United States has already paid a significant price for Trump’s behaviour: the president is no longer considered the ultimate voice on foreign policy. Foreign leaders are turning elsewhere to gauge American intentions… With Trump’s reputation compromised, the price tag on U.S. deterrence, coercion, and reassurance has risen, along with the probability of miscalculation and inadvertent escalation.”

Continue Reading

Americas

Trump’s effects on diplomacy

Irfan Khan

Published

on

No longer has Trump’s haphazard behaviour persisted, more will be easy for his administration to enact actions against China, Iran and Taliban. The state department is in a quandary because of it, on each front. Trump’s entrenched eagerness to remain “great” and “first” on the chessboard of International power, could damage the world more ahead than before.

Following the Iran’s attacks on the Kingdom of Saudi-Arabia’s oil infrastructure, US wanted to deploy troops to the Kingdom. It is primarily a justification for why the US has been imposing sanctions over Iran. Is troops deployment a solution? Or will it provide safe horizon to Kingdom oil’s installation? Or will it be revolutionary in oil diplomacy? Or is it the only target retaliated on, by Iran. However, such kind of engagement has short term beneficiary spots, while in broader perspective it has consequential effects for all stakeholders. The episode of nuclear deal has, as a factor of quid-pro-quo, been further dramatised by the state department, withdrawing from. Notwithstanding, the deal has advantageous prospects for the Middle East, and an exemplary for rest of nations, has been further dramatised by the US, in order to seek its diplomatic wins. What significant at this point, is an agreement to reback to the deal.

Embracing a different economic model, China, is plausibly on a runner-up position to the US. Whether it’s 5G tech. Or leading status of green energy, or ultra-scales exports or its leading developments for the nations having indigent economies, is a source of chaos for US administration. The current trade war is an antidoting tool for the whole scenario. The US should, I assume, eye China’s hegemony a piece of cake, and welcome its come out while securing its interests under the umbrella of cooperation. This logic, while posing no threat, seems to be long term functional. Is it?

Trump, according to many native writers, is psychologically unfit, unstable and fickle, however have had strong narrative to prevent America’s engagement into “useless wars” and end “endless” wars. Following this token, Trump announcement of troop withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan put the world politics and even his administration into chaos. This divided strategists and Washington security officials, which was underpinned by the resignation of James Mattis and recently John Bolton. The ten months of peace process which followed the US’s announcement of troop withdrawal, precipitously ended, putting once again the international and national politics into chaos. Trump, grandiloquently fired a tweet that talks with Taliban are dead and futile. The argument he contended was the Attack in Kabil, where one American soldier with 12 other people were lost. The policymakers and high officials in Washington who already negated the policy of troop withdrawal and then after peace deal. They, of course are winner in this policy discourse, have staunch beliefs in their opinion, who may make Trump’s change of heart. The Kabil attack was given, probably, an agent of resurgent for Obama’s approach. However, Trump’s administration had already scripted their policy framework for the region, and pretending Kabul attack was perhaps a way of redemption from the peace talk.

Trump’s factor in US foreign policy was chaotic to his subordinates for which, he attempted to compensate by cancelling peace deal with Taliban. However , on the domestic front, it is likely to be more pluses than on diplomatic front given to Trump in next year’s presidential election. Let’s see which side the wind blow. 

Continue Reading

Americas

Trump Cannot Be Impeached Over Ukrainegate, But Pelosi and Schiff Can Be Charged Criminally

Rahul D. Manchanda, Esq.

Published

on

Pursuant to United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court issued an unmistakable clear edict concerning the foreign affairs powers of the President of the United States.

In its majority opinion, the Court held that the President, as the nation’s “sole organ” in international relations, is innately vested with significant powers over foreign affairs, far exceeding the powers permitted in domestic matters or accorded to the U.S. Congress.

The Court reasoned that these powers are implicit in the President’s constitutional role as commander-in-chief and head of the executive branch.

Curtiss-Wright was the first decision to establish that the President’s plenary power was independent of Congressional permission, and consequently it is credited with providing the legal precedent for further expansions of executive power in the foreign sphere.

In a 7–1 decision authored by Justice George Sutherland, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. government, through the President, is categorically allowed great foreign affairs powers independent of the U.S. Constitution, by declaring that “the powers of the federal government in respect of foreign or external affairs and those in respect of domestic or internal affairs are different, both in respect of their origin and their nature…the broad statement that the federal government can exercise no powers except those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and such implied powers as are necessary and proper to carry into effect the enumerated powers, is categorically true only in respect of our internal affairs.”

While the Constitution does not explicitly state that all ability to conduct foreign policy is vested in the President, the Court concluded that such power is nonetheless given implicitly, since the executive of a sovereign nation is, by its very nature, empowered to conduct foreign affairs.

The Court found “sufficient warrant for the broad discretion vested in the President to determine whether the enforcement of the statute will have a beneficial effect upon the reestablishment of peace in the affected countries.”

In other words, the President was better suited for determining which actions and policies best serve the nation’s interests abroad.

Period.

It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations – a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress, but which, of course, like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution.

Separation of Powers Doctrine

In other words, neither the U.S. Congress nor the U.S. Senate can say or do very much of anything to prevent or interfere with this power, and if they do, they can in fact be held responsible for violating the Separation of Powers doctrine pursuant to the U.S. Constitution wherein the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) are kept separate.

This is also known as the system of checks and balances, because each branch is given certain powers so as to check and balance the other branches.

Each branch has separate powers, and generally each branch is not allowed to exercise the powers of the other branches.

The Legislative Branch exercises congressional power, the Executive Branch exercises executive power, and the Judicial Branch exercises judicial review.

National Security and Foreign Affairs

The Curtiss-Wright case established the broader principle of executive Presidential supremacy in national security and foreign affairs, one of the reasons advanced in the 1950s for the near success of the attempt to add the Bricker Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would have placed a “check” on said Presidential power by Congress, but that never passed, or became law.

If Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats really wanted to interfere with or prevent President Donald Trump from engaging in the activity that they are trying to prevent vis-a-vis Ukraine, China, and Joseph Biden’s alleged corruption and its effect on National Security, they would have to first draft, propose, enact, and pass sweeping legislation, and this could take years and would most probably never pass.

Even so, it could not affect President Donald Trump’s actions already occurred, since the U.S. Constitution prohibits ex post facto criminal laws.

Turning This All Against Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff

To that end if Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Adam Schiff persist in pushing said “impeachment proceedings” against President Donald Trump, it is actually they who could find themselves on the wrong side of the law, with formal and actual charges of Treason, Sedition or Coup D’ Etat being levied upon them by the U.S. Government.

The consequences of that occurring, are truly horrific indeed.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy