Read Trickle Down Tyranny Online

Authors: Michael Savage

Tags: #General, #Political Science, #Political Ideologies, #Conservatism & Liberalism

Trickle Down Tyranny (9 page)

Of course, the rival media barons, stoked by Soros’s front groups, said this was a scandal. And it was. The British detectives appeared to have violated British laws and violated the privacy of hundreds of people over the years.

But the mainstream media in the United States didn’t tell you the full story. Remember, they compete with Murdoch, too, and they love Soros as much as they loathe Murdoch.

Again, I’m not a fan of Rupert Murdoch, but I’m here to tell you the truth, no matter who it helps or hurts.

Here are some things that the Government-Media Complex doesn’t want you to know.

There is a real public benefit to at least some of what Murdoch’s papers did. Murdoch’s
News of the World
newspaper, while Rebekah Brooks was its editor, violated the privacy rights of convicted pedophiles to reveal to the public that dozens and dozens of them were out of prison and living in neighborhoods with young families with small children.
18

If you had a child and lived next door to a pedophile, do you think the government should protect his privacy rights over the safety of your children?

Neither did most Britons.

When they learned about the dangerous criminal living in their midst, they were angry and demanded changes. That uproar led to the passage of “Sarah’s Law” in the British parliament, giving the public right to access government databases to learn the home addresses of convicted pedophiles. Soros’s minions screamed that the pedophiles’ privacy rights were violated and that they had paid their debt to society, but it didn’t matter. Most of these child-molesting felons were forced to move away from neighborhoods packed with the very children that they once preyed upon.

Another thing that the Government-Media Complex won’t tell you is that most British papers routinely hire detectives and trample on privacy rights. What Murdoch’s papers did was routine in Britain. Indeed, I found a 2006 report called “What price privacy now?”—developed for Parliament by the United Kingdom’s Information Commissioner’s Office—that showed that some 305 journalists from 21 different publications committed some 11,000 violations of the Data Protection Act, Britain’s privacy law. The vast majority of violations were by non-Murdoch publications and the number-one offender was a rival of Murdoch. After a lengthy investigation that year, the Crown Prosecution Service declined to press any charges against any journalists.
19

Hacking into the cell phones of Britain’s royal family in 2007 is a different story. That year, the royal correspondent for a Murdoch-owned paper and a private detective were briefly jailed for listening in on the royal family’s voice-mail messages. The story uncovered by the crime was hugely important in Britain though. It revealed that the heir to the throne, Prince William, had injured his knee and that his ability to walk again was in doubt. The royal family hadn’t told the public and the subjects were eager to learn about the health of their future king.
20

Arguably, that story was also in the public interest. Importantly, prosecutors said there was no evidence that any of Murdoch’s editors were involved and no one else was charged. The scandal did not go all the way to the top of the organization.

But Soros needed to bloody Murdoch, his rival. So his allies hyped up old charges from the 2004–2006 period, the time frame already examined by the police, prosecutors, and Parliament. That’s another key detail that the Government-Media Complex won’t admit: These charges are old and probably won’t stick.

In the hoopla, Parliament asked Rupert Murdoch and his son James to testify. They did. Murdoch called it the “most humbling day of my life” and spent millions buying full-page advertisements in other people’s newspapers to apologize to the British public. But the two Murdochs never admitted to any wrongdoing.

In fact, the old buzzard got a round of sympathy when a crazed activist interrupted the parliamentary hearing and tried to put a shaving-cream pie in his face. Murdoch’s wife, Wendi Deng, slapped him back on the forehead, driving him away from her husband. Murdoch and his wife got good press out of that incident.
21

Indeed, Soros’s bid for revenge may backfire. British prosecutors announced that they were also investigating the
Daily Star
,
22
a paper not owned by Murdoch. Again, something the Government-Media Complex doesn’t want you to know.

And CNN may be the next unintended victim snared in the Soros trap. Piers Morgan filled the chair of CNN’s legendary softball-question king, Larry King. Now he may also be filling a seat in jail cell. That’s because he wrote a little-noticed book called
The Insider: The Private Diaries of a Scandalous Decade
, in 2005. In that book, he writes: “Apparently if you don’t change the standard security code that every phone comes with, then anyone can call your number and, if you don’t answer, tap in the standard four digit code to hear all your messages.” Next, he commented: “I’ll change mine just in case, but it makes me wonder how many public figures and celebrities are aware of this little trick.”

Now he’s being investigated for phone hacking.
23

Did I mention that he was the editor of left-liberal newspaper that competed with Murdoch? It seems that Murdoch’s rivals are up to their necks in the same “crimes.” Again, you didn’t see that in any of the major newspapers because the Government-Media Complex doesn’t want to cloud your mind with facts that conflict with its official line.

So Soros switched tactics again. One of his minions wrote a piece in the
Daily Beast
, which is owned by Tina Brown and the Harmon family that owns
Newsweek
magazine. If you are an audiophile, you know the Harmon family name from its Harmon Kardon line of speakers and other audio equipment. Brown and the Harmons are fully paid-up members of the media elite and the Government-Media Complex. The
Daily Beast
article called for the prosecution of Murdoch on suspicion that his British newspapers’ payment of British detectives violated America’s “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.” That law is supposed to stop American companies from bribing foreign officials to get contracts from foreign governments.

There were no Americans involved and no British government contracts were involved. So prosecuting any News International executive under that law would be a real stretch. But that didn’t stop the
Daily Beast
author from salivating, “Imagine an Eric Holder–appointed advisor supervising Fox News.”
24

And that’s the real agenda here. Bring Fox News under the control of the Government-Media Complex and make them toe the official line.

And, sure enough, the FBI immediately announced it was opening an investigation into Murdoch’s media holdings to see if—you guessed it—any of his executives (or Murdoch himself) violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
25

And guess whose jurisdiction the FBI falls under. That’s right: Eric Holder.

That’s how the complex works. The government and media work together hand in glove.

The Government-Media Complex Always Wins

Did you know that Barack Obama—the head of the Government-Media Complex—has ordered his minions at the newspapers and television outlets under his jurisdiction to “minimize references to al Qaeda?”

That’s right.

The president doesn’t want you to hear the name al Qaeda associated with the 9/11 terrorist attacks on our country. He’d rather his scribes in the Government-Media Complex “honor all victims of terrorism, in every nation . . . whether in New York or Nairobi, Bali or Belfast, Mumbai or Manila, or Lahore or London.”

Note the alliteration, the fancy turn of phrase.

Note the idiocy of this punk president’s pronouncement.

Instead of honoring America’s dead on this most solemn occasion, Obama wants to “present a positive, forward-looking narrative.”

Until November 2011, I didn’t know of another case in which the president has intervened so directly in an attempt to control the press as he did with these words.

I’m talking about the day the president took over all broadcast networks, overriding all broadcast programming.

On November 9, 2011, the president tested a project that’s been in the background for half a century but had never been tested: the Emergency Broadcast System. It was ostensibly designed “to provide the President of the United States with an expeditious method of communicating with the American public in the event of war, threat of war, or grave national crisis.”
26

I don’t buy that.

To me, it looks like the president is rehearsing for the time—in the very near future—when he declares a state of emergency in the United States and takes over public broadcasting on a more permanent basis.

He’s setting it up with the Occupy Wall Street protests in cities across the nation. He’s setting it up by having his union thugs create chaos like they have in Wisconsin, where they took over and trashed the state capitol. He’s setting it up with the class warfare he’s trying to incite between the haves and the have-nots.

He’s ready to initiate another takeover of our rights as citizens—the right to a free press—in the same way his TSA has done. That organization continually violates our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures when we pass through the airport screening process.

Obama is getting ready to extend the unconstitutional even further.

He’s just making sure the equipment works so that when the day comes, he’ll be able to step in and shut down our communications networks—in the name of maintaining order.

My question is this: Does Barack Obama think we’re so naïve as to believe that this is just a test? It’s a test all right. It’s a test by the government to make sure they can shut down communications and deny the American people the information they need in case of political emergency.

Do you trust a single word from any member of the Obama administration?

Have you ever heard anything but lies and disinformation out of these America-haters?

What this tells me is that the Obama regime foresees an imminent national emergency that will necessitate that it takes over the avenues of communications so that it can control, even more than it does through the Government-Media Complex, everything we hear and see.

The Rise of Government Regulation

As if the fact that the media have become nothing more than a venue for the presentation of a leftist agenda wasn’t egregious enough, Obama is out to extend government control over news outlets even further.

I’m talking about government regulation of the media.

I don’t favor government investigations of news outlets. It is too close to tyranny, to government control of the free press. But if we are going to be fair about it, why not look into a major American newspaper that has its own phone-hacking scandal and that has repeatedly violated our national security by printing classified material? Indeed, the paper I’m referring to puts our soldiers and spies at risk while we are fighting the war on terror.

That newspaper is the
New York Times
. In fact, any “crime” committed by Murdoch’s operation has actually been committed over and over by the
New York Crimes
.

Let’s go where the mainstream media refuse to tread.

In 1996, a Florida couple, John and Alice Martin, used a radio scanner to hack into a cell phone conversation between Representative John Boehner and House Speaker Newt Gingrich. They made tapes of the illegally obtained conversation and gave them to Democratic congressman James McDermott, a member of the House Ethics Committee. Coincidentally, the Committee just happened to be investigating Gingrich at the time. McDermott immediately handed them over to the
Crimes
. The page-one story in the
Crimes
embarrassed the Republicans, especially Gingrich.
27

That was the idea, to embarrass Republicans.

It gives you a sense of what the word
ethics
means to a Democrat.

And while the hackers were later forced by a court to pay a $1 million fine, the
Times
got off scot-free.

Or consider all the classified information that the
Times
obtained illegally and then made public—to the detriment of our war effort. In December 2005, the paper published classified information that revealed that the U.S. government was listening in on calls made on cell phones that al Qaeda operatives had bought in Switzerland.
28
Within 24 hours, all those al Qaeda phones went dead.

Six months later, Uncle Sam’s classified program to track the money that funds terror attacks was reported by the
Times
.
29
It was a global effort, involving dozens of European and Arab countries. Most feared the political consequences of helping the U.S. stop al Qaeda—any seeming support for President Bush would hurt them with their people. So as soon as the news broke, America’s allies ran for the hills. All al Qaeda bank transfers disappeared, and European and Arab governments stopped helping us track the money.

The
Times
also reported that the National Security Agency was listening in to the international calls of terror suspects in the United States. That’s right: Someone with the private cell phone number of Osama bin Laden was dialing it from inside the United States.

Other books

Getting Waisted by Parker, Monica
Corporate A$$ by Sandi Lynn
Elders by Ryan McIlvain
Aunt Dimity's Christmas by Nancy Atherton
La reliquia de Yahveh by Alfredo del Barrio
Matazombies by Nathan Long
Numb by Viola Grace