James Comey Just Explained How Establishment Media Legally Creates Fake News

DC Whispers has an article pointing out that Government can legally lie to US citizens.

Check out this quote from FBI Director James Comey’s testimony to Congress today:

“…It’s perfectly legal for someone attending a classified briefing to LIE TO THE PRESS about what they heard in that meeting. The FBI cannot go out and correct the record because then they’d be “commenting on Classified information…”

What? They can lie and it is legal? Propaganda, lies, by the government and its employees, used to be illegal against US citizens, but not any more, thanks to an amendment to the NDAA.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has an amendment added that negates the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 (SMA) and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987.

These laws made propaganda used to influence foreigners and US citizens illegal. Without these laws, disinformation could run rampant.

Of course, government has been lying to us for years, but now they can do it with legal impunity. If a politician, news publication or a government employee, tells you something and cannot present actual evidence as to their assertion, it is highly likely it is a lie/propaganda. Demand evidence, and stop to think about who benefits when they say they can’t reveal their source.

 

Categories: All, Current Events, Featured

About Author

Shorty Dawkins

I am a writer of novels, currently living in the woods of Montana. My 5 novels can be seen here: https://www.oathkeepers.org/my-5-books-shorty-dawkins/

Comments

  1. Retired Navy Spook 22 March, 2017, 10:44

    Shorty,

    I did some global searches of the NDAA, and found no mention of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 or the Foreign Relations Act of 1987. I also searched for the word classified and found no use of it related to the premise of your article. Can you point me to the section of the NDAA that backs up your claim?

    Reply this comment
    • Shorty Dawkins Author 22 March, 2017, 14:57

      Retired Navy Spook,

      Take a look at this:
      https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/5736/text

      This from Wikipedia:
      The U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (Public Law 80-402), popularly called the Smith–Mundt Act, is the basic legislative authorization for some of the activities conducted by the U.S. Department of State commonly known as public diplomacy. The act was first introduced by Congressman Karl E. Mundt (R-SD) in January 1945 in the 79th Congress. It was subsequently passed by the 80th Congress and signed into law by President Harry S. Truman on January 27, 1948.

      The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which was contained within the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (section 1078 (a)) amended the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987, allowing for materials produced by the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) to be available within the United States.[1][2] The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 effectively returned the legislation to the original purpose before Senator J. William Fulbright (D-AR) amended the Smith-Mundt Act to prevent his colleagues in the U.S. Senate, Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as the U.S. media and academia from reviewing, except in Washington, D.C., or otherwise reusing or material produced by the United States Information Agency.[3]

      Wikipedia, of course, whitewashes the actual intent, never mentioning that the US Information Agency is a propaganda arm of the US. What the Modernization Act of 2012 did was allow for using propaganda against US citizens. It is unclear whether the Modernization Act of 2012 was actually a part of the NDAA, or passed as a separate Act.

      Shorty Dawkins

      Shorty Dawkins

      Reply this comment
  2. Cal 22 March, 2017, 18:53

    “What? They can lie and it is legal? Propaganda, lies, by the government and its employees, used to be illegal against US citizens, but not any more, thanks to an amendment to the NDAA.”

    First one must question, is the NDAA constitutional? If it is then it supersedes the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and/or the Foreign Relations Act of 1987. But if it is not constitutional, then it is NOT Law and any that use it, follow it, enforce it as Law instead of *color of law is committing *Terrorism against the American people, working from within to destroy our legitimate government – with knowledge and forethought or through ignorance when knowledge of the US Constitution was REQUIRED of them with the Oath that bound them. Since the NDAA is NOT constitutional and was created by domestic enemies of the USA or quite possibly Traitors, it is NOT lawful and binding on the American people.

    *28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

    Remember that Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381 concerning breaking the Oath USED to read like this before the progressives changed it: “When in the presence of two witnesses to the same overt act or in an open court of law if you fail to timely move to protect and defend the constitution of the United States and honor your oath of office you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason, and upon conviction you will be taken by the posse to the nearest busy intersection and at high noon hung by the neck until dead…The body to remain in state till dusk as an example to anyone who takes his oath of office lightly.”

    Now it reads like this Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381: “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.”

    Or I have found it written this way today
    Title 18, US Code Sec.2381: “In the presents of two or more witnesses of the same overt act, or in a open court of law, if you fail to timely move to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and honor your oath of office, you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason.”

    Reply this comment
  3. Tallyho 22 March, 2017, 19:10

    I read the modernization act, twice, and nowhere do I see anything authorizing the government to lie to the American people. Perhaps the phrase “…dissemination of information and material about the United States intended primarily for foreign audiences…” is code for propaganda?
    The act does say “No funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States”.
    It’s all greek to me.

    Reply this comment
    • Shorty Dawkins Author 23 March, 2017, 09:56

      Tallyho,

      A BILL

      “To amend the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 to authorize the domestic dissemination of information and material about the United States intended primarily for foreign audiences, and for other purposes.”

      The Smith-Mundt Act prohibited the Government from attempting to influence public opinion in the United States. The Modernization Act of 2012 removed this restriction as of 180 days from the time of passage of the bill.
      “(e) Effective date.—This Act shall take effect and apply on the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. ”

      Shorty Dawkins

      Reply this comment
      • Retired Navy Spook 23 March, 2017, 10:43

        So, essentially you have to have a fundamental distrust of our government to interpret this the way you did. Works for me.

        Reply this comment
  4. Nobodiesfool59 9 June, 2017, 07:31

    Could these leftist subversives use the Modernization Act to hide behind saying that under this act (that they themselves created) provides them with protection from prosecution?

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*