Amazing, isn't it?
Interesting post Jook.
Sadly you'll never convince some people they are being lied to. The so called "news" is telling them exactly what they want to hear so why should they question it? All of the MSM "news" networks are owned and operated by super rich democrats who have donated big money to the democrat party, the Clinton Foundation or both. What happens when someone donates $100,000 to a political party? They are going to protect that investment. George Stephanopolis (SP?) was going to be moderator of one of the first debates in the Republican primaries. Then it was publicized that he was one of Clinton's top aides when he was in office and had donated something like $100,000 or $150,000 to their foundation, had been close friends with the Clintons for years, and he was yanked. The people who picked him for moderator knew he was a Clinton operative, they just hoped we wouldn't find out. I seem to remember an article stating that Bryan Williams, NBC anchor put on leave for 6 months after being caught lying, donated to them too. He's back now but on MSNBC. Why wasn't he fired altogether and banned from TV?
One thing you have to realize. Most average folks at home watch the 5 o'clock news. About 20 minutes of whatever propaganda the MSM wants to feed them, then they're off to see what the Kardashians are up to this week. Very few of them spend hours at a time searching through articles by independent or alternative journalists online to find out how much of it is actually true. There is plenty to find, but you have to look for it.
The traditional news outlets have been brainwashing people for years, training them to believe every word they say is carved in stone, they are beyond reproach, it's the NEWS so it has to be true. Horse feathers. Look at the Media Research Center website, they have some of it debunked, but only a portion. They can only do so much...there are others, you just have to poke around a bit.
I knew the news was not telling us the truth long ago, I just didn't know how bad it had gotten. I didn't know they had lowered themselves to outright lies. I started realizing it when the government shut down in 2013. The first announcement I saw was on a local station, the woman said the government had been shut down about a half hour earlier when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid blocked a vote on the budget bill passed by the House. Nothing else. Nothing about how long it might last, nothing, just that quick notice.
So I switched to CNN. within 15 minutes I saw the people on CNN claiming Ted Cruz and the Republicans had shut the government down. HUH? Cruz is a Senator. He didn't get a chance to vote on or even debate the budget bill, so how the hell did he shut the government down? They ignored that fact and kept pushing the idea that he was guilty as charged. He did filibuster against it before the house voted on it, and said he wouldn't avoid a shut down, but he himself didn't do it. CNN also didn't notice that distinction. Republicans even accused Cruz. Of course they did, he was the perfect scapegoat, and they hate Cruz because he rocked their little boat. As a side note, Trump flipped it over and threw the paddles away. That's why they hate Trump.
The video posted above is pretty good, informative, but I'm not a fan of the snarky, sarcastic delivery. The content is solid, I could do without the attitude. That's why I don't like Steve Malzberg of Newsmax. He tries to bring out the truth, has his head in the right place, but his delivery sucks. I'm not much of a fan of Newsmax any more since they pulled the plug on Dennis Michael Lynch while he was in the middle of his opening remarks, because he refused to let them hand him a script to read from. It's really sad, since they had some good people working there, and were firmly anti Clinton, and tried to stick to the facts, rather than propaganda. But how can I trust any of them, when I know they are being handed a script and forced to read from it? Then, the network can push whatever agenda they want, without regard for the truth.
Fox ran an article when the Republican primaries first started, only 3 or 4 in the race, not including Trump yet. Two of them had held rallies, Cruz and Rubio I think, and 4 of the biggest newspapers in the country had run articles about their speeches. They showed the headlines, and gave a quick synopsis of the articles, then showed video clips of what these two candidates actually said. The newspaper articles were total fabrications, outright lies. Nothing even close to what they actually said. These are newspapers that have circulations of millions per day, one of them 7 million a day. That's a lot of folks reading pure lies.
And nobody else in the "news" even noticed, except Fox and Newsmax.
That brings up a big problem. Very few of the ordinary people in this country really look any further than what they see on the 5PM news or read in the paper. Many of them are so dishonest it's criminal, or should be. But people have been brainwashed all their lives to believe the news media is totally honest, wouldn't tell a lie of you stuck a gun up their nose. WRONG.
The one bright spot on the horizon is the Internet. Independent journalists can now set up blogs and websites and at least try to tell people what they can find out of the truth, but you have to look for it and sort out the truth from the propaganda. Look up Sharyl Atkisson. I'm not sure I spelled her name right. She was once employed by CBS. She did some investigating, did the math and figured out Obamacare could not work. She aired a story one night that was not the usual praise of Obama, her publisher called her into his office and told her no more stories that cast Obama in a negative light. She told him she was just publishing the truth, he ordered her to not air any more stories that were negative about Obama. She quit not long after. Not long after that, she was doing research on Benghazi and Fast and Furious, typing up her notes at home, and noticed much of what she had just typed was suddenly being deleted. She stopped and took a video. Nobody touching the laptop, much of her text being deleted as she watched. She sent the laptop to a friend in IT, he told her it had been hacked and the software used was only available to government agencies like FBI and CIA. They also found a second fiber optic line installed at her house that the phone company knew nothing about. He also found highly classified documents well hidden on her computer, in a location most people would never even think to look. She knew nothing about that either. Somebody with a lot of pull was setting her up.
If the so called news was actually willing to tell us the truth, chances are Obama would never have been elected the first time, not a chance he would have been elected again. Truth is, they are his cheerleaders. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, MSNBC are all owned by democrats and have made large donations to the democratic party. They are not allowed to make donations to individual candidates, just the party. Some have donated to the Clinton foundation too and we're talking at least $50,000 at a time. Nobody makes that kind of donation without expecting something in return, or protecting that investment by protecting their candidate.
All you have to do is look at the overall election coverage. The media scrutinizes every word Trump says, and rigth now, today, you see almost nothing about the Wikileaks dump of Clinton emails and Wall Street speeches. When Hillary passed out on 9-11, CNN aired an edited clip, cut short just after she bobbled the first time, and said she "stumbled". Not a word about her actually passing out and being loaded into the van like a sack of potatoes.
Trump gropes woman. Trump didn't pay taxes for 20 years. Trump insults gold star family. (where did that term suddenly come from?)
Nothing about Hillary's explosive temper, throwing vases and ashtrays at Bill, blacking his eye, cursing secret service agents, demanding people not even look at her, screaming and cursing at campaign workers and white house employees until they are unable to work...
Then we have the recent campaign to make it look like Russia is behind all the hacks and email dumps. I'm not buying that. Why would Putin want to help put Trump in the white house? Trump would be an adversary who actually has a backbone, while. Putin probably has enough on Hillary without hacking a thing to blackmail her to hell and back. I'm willing to bet he would get along with Trump, he may be a ruthless dictator but he respects a person with a backbone. He might still be an adversary, but like any good chess player, he respects a good opponent. He probably doesn't want Trump in office, he has little leverage on a person with no political baggage. So why would he dig up dirt on Hillary to influence our election? She is his best bet not Trump. He already knows he can walk all over her.
We don't have a news media any more, we have a propaganda machine.
