When it comes to what we commonly refer to today as
our ‘state-controlled media’ I think most reasonably intelligent people are
able to agree that this group of various organizations who while they may all like
to call themselves ‘news’ organizations are in truth nothing more that creators
of fiction, or “fake news”, that is always, or nearly always, focused solely in
the direction of one political party.
And it’s many of these organizations, some of which have been around for
a very long time, that have over time come to much more closely resemble
purveyors of what is little more than pure political propaganda. And as such they have essentially abandoned
the American people who have now been left with an ever shrinking number of
reliable sources willing to provide to them accurate and useful
information. As proof of that I would
only ask if anyone genuinely believes that Barack Obama, the color of his skin
notwithstanding, would have ever been elected president if those in our
supposed ‘mainstream media’ had actually done their job and reported accurately
when it came to exactly who this man was at the time.
And in reviewing the events that took place over the
course of our most recent presidential campaign, who can deny the fact that it
was this very same group of ‘news’ organizations that attempted to do
everything within its ‘power’ to sway voter opinion and to create the false
impression that the candidate they were so obviously supporting was nothing
more invincible and her election was inevitable. It would seem that their game plan was,
through the use of bogus polls and patently false ‘news’ stories, to advance
the notion that there was simply no way she could possibly lose and doing so in
the hope that they would be able to convince enough of those who supported her
opponent that theirs was a lost cause and that they might just as well stay
home on Election Day. They were
determined to let nothing stand in the way of their effort to convince voters
that she was without a doubt the most qualified person to ever run for
president, and certainly more qualified than was her opponent who they
portrayed as a mere novice when it came to such important matters as
international relations, national defense and terrorism.
But as we all saw on Election Day, all of their hard
work was, thankfully, all for naught because their favored candidate, the one
they had tried so very hard to get elected, the one they had tried so hard to
convince the American people was the best person for the job, came up
short. And while they persist, to this
day, in their claim that she did win the ‘popular vote’ it’s always that they
very conveniently leave out of their argument that the ‘only’ reason she was
even able to accomplish that feat was all because of one state,
California. So once the loss of their
candidate was confirmed it was almost immediately after that that the search to
come up with what could then be used as a plausible excuse for the loss was
launched. Because there had to some
sinister, some clandestine reason, some sort of foul play involved, to explain why
their perfect candidate somehow came up short.
Because there could be no other reason that could possibly explain her
loss. They honestly wondered who it was
that could not bring themselves to vote for such an highlyly qualified
candidate. Yet, millions of Americans
did not!
So immediately after their candidate was declared
the loser it became necessary, I guess, for those who felt that they had
somehow been robbed of a victory because of some sort of shenanigans, was to
come up with some sort retaliatory measures, or a Plan ‘B’ so to speak, that
could then be implemented against the new president in order to undermine, to
the greatest extent possible, his ability to properly execute the duties of his
job. Once the plan was properly
formulated, it didn’t take long for all the players to get onboard. So there now continues what can only be
described as a very coordinated effort between members of the Democrat Party
and their many minions in the ‘state-controlled’ media to undermine the
presidency of Donald Trump. And it would
seem to matter very little to them that despite having no facts or evidence to
support any of their wild claims they continue to spew all manner of
accusations the purpose of which is to destroy our president. And it is out of some genuine concern for our
country that they seek to remove our president?
No, it’s all about revenge, and nothing more.
Which brings to what I’m quite sure everyone is by
now very familiar with as being the latest dustup involving the president and
his decision to fire the Director of the FBI.
And as part of the ongoing campaign to unseat our duly elected president
it was just this week that we had the Washington Post and the New York Times
acting as partners in crime as they each published new versions of the story of
how former FBI director James Comey came to be fired. Each of the articles, published late
Wednesday, seeks to explain more details about how President Trump arrived at
his decision, and each aims to catch the White House in alleged contradictions
between its official account of how the decision was made, and how it actually
happened. Now as is usually the case
whenever dealing with any of these promotors of “fake news”, a certain degree
of trepidation is always required. One
should always take anything that they may say with a significant grain of
salt. Truth is something that seems to
be in very short supply whenever you’re dealing with anyone in either the
Democrat Party or the ‘state-controlled. Media.
Anyway, it was the Post story that characterized
Trump’s decision as a “sudden” one, driven by “anger and impatience,” and by a
desire to stop the FBI’s investigation into supposed connections between the
Trump campaign and Russia. The Post says that President Trump initiated a
meeting with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein —
not the other way around. It portrays them as anxious to fulfill “the boss’s
orders,” and suggests that Trump felt events were “spiraling out of his
control.” Perhaps the most startling claim is that Rosenstein threatened to
resign after the narrative emerging from the White House on Tuesday evening
cast him as a prime mover of the decision to fire Comey.” The Post relies on a
single source — “a person close to the White House” for that rather sensational
claim. Interestingly, the Post story also portrays the testimony of former
Acting Attorney General Sally Yates on Monday as damaging to the White House —
although there were no new details revealed about the Russia investigation.
Meanwhile, the Times story is a bit more
circumspect, saying Trump’s decision on Comey had less to do with fear of the
Russia investigation and more with irritation at Comey’s political
grandstanding. The article claims, “He was particularly irked when Mr. Comey
said he was ‘mildly nauseous’ to think that his handling of the email case had
influenced the election, which Mr. Trump took to demean his own role in
history.” Curiously, the Times story
claims that White House adviser Steve Bannon was a dissenting voice — which
contradicted earlier speculation by a Times reporter. The Times does not go as
far as the Post in concluding that Trump initiated the Department of Justice
review that led to Comey’s firing, leaving the order of events a bit more vague
and including the White House’s explanation.
The two accounts agree that there was near-unanimity in the White House
about firing Comey, and that the White House was surprised by the public
backlash. Neither suggests an imminent FBI breakthrough on the Russia probe.
Operating under the Watergate template, and
salivating over the prospects of a similar conclusion, those in our
state-controlled media will likely endeavor to suggest that “the cover-up was
worse than the crime”, even though there has been no cover-up, and no evidence
of any crime. What these leftwing zealots
fail to grasp is that ”We the People” now pay very little attention to them and
that we now consider them as being little more than the propaganda arm if the
Democrat Party. And of course what I’m
referring to is anyone once referred to as the ‘mainstream media’. But as most of us are now aware, sadly there
is very little about abut modern day media complex that can, in any way, be
described as “mainstream.” They keep
trying to tell us what to think not realizing we’ve moved beyond them. There’s no direct evidence that Trump has any
ties to Russia, yet the media has a hysterical obsession. Yet there are stacks of evidence that Hitlery
committed numerous felonies with respect to her email and secret information
which the media couldn't care less about.
And yet, there isn't any bias, and no, they aren't ‘fake news.’
Our ‘fake news’ organizations have spent more time
on this non-scandal scandal than they spent on all of Barry’s bona fide
scandals combined. Remember the Benghazi
massacre where four Americans dead, including the US Ambassador, Obama's War in
Libya WITHOUT Congressional approval, the great “stimulus”
"shovel-ready" heist, Eric Holder held in contempt of Congress, the
IRS Targeting Scandal with the destruction and wiping of servers and Lois Lerner's
testimony, ‘Fast and Furious’, the GSA scandal, the lies and deceit of
ObamaCare, the Iran nuclear deal and ransom payment, the EPA Cover-up of the
pollution of the Colorado River, the VA death-list scandal, Barry's "Red
Line" in the sand to Syria, and refusal to back it up which helped destroy
US credibility, Hitlery's e-mail's and her Secret, Unsecured Server, Hitlery's
RUSSIAN Uranium deal, ‘Slick’ and Hitlery's Foundation - Pay for Play,
‘Slick’s’ meeting Loretta Lynch on the Phoenix Tarmac days before Comey reveals
his findings and conclusions about the Hitlery e-mail scandal, Barry holdovers
illegally leaking the names of Trump associates to the press, and the list goes
on!
So here we are seven months into the Trump
presidency and still ZERO evidence of any collusion with Russia. Zip, Zero, Zilch, Nadda! We know that Trump didn't collude with
Russia, because if any evidence had been found our supposed ‘news’ would have wasted
no time in making sure that it became a big problem for the president. And yet nothing but silence and admissions
that they have nothing. Still I can't
understand how anyone would ever think that Russia would rather have someone like
Trump over someone like Hitlery, on whom they likely possess all manner of
blackmail ammunition. So I find myself
wondering how many of my fellow Americans remain able to take seriously any of
these politicians and ‘journalists’ who are so very obviously suffering from
what is a most severe case of ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’. These people have now allowed themselves to
become so consumed by such a level of hatred they come across as sounding
completely insane. And how does their
bizarre behavior convince those who may disagree with them that what they’re
claiming is anything other than some crazy leftwing conspiracy?
No comments:
Post a Comment