Media
Media in America – shameless beyond words
If anyone had any doubt that the journalists and the so called main stream media that employ them, have lost all remnants of professionalism, these past few weeks will have “gaveled” that case closed.
To understand that the Founding Fathers gave these people special rights and protections in order to ensure they had the freedom to pursue the truth and keep the people informed, and now to see what they have done with that privilege, is beyond disgusting. Each and every one of them should be ashamed. But alas, shame is derived from pride and character. No one in the media has either.
Media protects New Jersey’s Menendez
Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Many of you living in that cesspool of crooked politicians and politics, known as New Jersey, are aware of all the financial shenanigans and investigations surrounding our Communist Import, Senator Menendez.
The mainstream media has found no reason to report or investigate any of the past allegations against him and in fact have done everything possible to keep any of this information from the voters. Now, the latest, we find that our Senator, one who has espoused and marched for the Equal Rights Amendment for women, has been under investigation for several months relating to his sexual escapades involving under aged girls down in South America. (If the American media won’t report this, London’s Daily Mail will – Ed.)
And its very likely he has been carrying on down there using taxpayer money or illegal donations.
How does this involve the media? Well, many months prior to the November elections this information was known to them. But they decided that the citizens of New Jersey should go into the voting booth and elect a man who probably should be sitting in jail, not the Senate. Why? Well because he’s a Democrat.
Now, the story is so big, the election is over, and they have successfully kept a Republican out of office, it finally broke and they were forced to report it. So, naturally when ABC News garnered a one on one interview with the frisky Senator, one would suppose that now the citizens would get to hear him explain his nefarious deeds. Really?
Well, surprise, surprise, the ABC interviewer, I won’t mention her name (But I will – Martha Raddatz. – Ed.), drooled and canoodled over him and never once asked one question about his underage sexcapades to Latin America.
Media change the Sandy Hook story
Finally, if you’re not convinced yet that the media and the progressive Democratic Party are one and the same, recall how shamelessly Obama and his leftists used the heartbreak and death of children to push his agenda of disarming citizens.
When this massacre was first reported, the media had not yet been briefed by Obama’s people on just how they intended to use those dead children in their campaign.
They were not aware that the AR-15 and other semi-automatic weapons, the type that dominating governments fear the most, were going to be demonized and then, hopefully, confiscated. Sometime between the initial reporting and the funerals of these children, the major networks were sent the memo and told to report the weapon used was an AR-15.
All of the major networks, following orders, changed their reports in which every one of them had previously reported hand guns were used and the AR-15 was left in the trunk of the car. In spite of the fact that there are no videos or pictures of Lanza, they are all now reporting, not hand guns, but an assault rifle, was used to kill every child.
As the tide of skepticism has rightfully turned against the media, it has been said that the stories will change to whatever they are directed to report.
So if you want to know what the real truth is, go with the unedited early reports.
Watch this video (embedded below – Ed.) which is a compilation of all the major networks as they reported on the massacre prior to getting the talking points. Every one of them reported that Lanza did not bring the AR-15 into the school, but left it in the trunk of his mother’s car.
Like we said, no shame!
Reprinted from Tea Party Advocacy Tracking Hub
[subscribe2]
-
Clergy3 days agoFaith alone will save the country
-
Civilization4 days agoFreewheeling Transparency: Trump Holds First Post-Election News Conference
-
Civilization4 days agoDr. Jay Bhattacharya Will Rebuild Trust in Public Health
-
Civilization1 day agoElon Musk, Big Game RINO Hunter
-
Civilization2 days agoLegacy media don’t get it
-
Civilization4 days agoWhat About Consequences? Are Democrats Immune?
-
Executive2 days agoWaste of the Day: Mismanagement Plagues $50 Billion Opioid Settlement
-
Civilization2 days agoA Sometimes-Squabbling Conservative Constellation Gathers at Charlie Kirk Invitation
So… what do YOU believe about reality, or are we all sitting like pigs at the trough waiting to be fed more garbage, and like it?
I can’t answer for my contributor. I’d rather he do that for himself.
But I think we’re ripe for rebellion.
Refresh often. In another article, I will try to explain that remark.
[…] and use them at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, all by his lonesome? Dwight Kehoe at TPATH pointed out that the mainstream media first reported one thing, then changed their story. They first said Lanza […]
Dwight –
Your title about the “shameless media beyond words” couldn’t be more fitting; especially, as it pertains to the alleged Sandy Hook shooting massacre. I’ve been following that event after I first believed what was reported. Since then, I’ve questioned all of it. For you and those reading this who may be interested, please access my second latest website posting. It has be widely and favorably received:
Alleged Sandy Hook Shooting Massacre: Pictures with captions depict the hoax
link to moralmatters.org
“A thinking person will question what he hears; examine what he sees; and evaluate what others would have him believe.” [Pastor emeritus Nathan M. Bickel]
http://www.thechristianmessage.org
http://www.moralmatters.org
“the alleged Sandy Hook shooting massacre”
You’re not right in the head. If you honestly believe this is a hoax you need serious psychiatric help. If you DON’T honestly believe it’s a hoax… well, you need something else.
Why not at least follow his link before you comment? Mr. Bickel might be saying, not that nobody died, but that Adam Lanza did not kill those twenty children and eight adults by himself.
It says a lot that the only “evidence” for this alleged conspiracy comes from the unfolding chaos of that day, as opposed to a careful, methodical examination of the crime scenes. I was listening to the radio all through that day, and the story kept changing because the details were unclear. The initial reports described the shooter as a parent, and when that was corrected all the reporters corrected in unison- that’s how reporting works, no conspiracy required.
What about the forensics? Any proof that it wasn’t Mrs Lanzas Bushmaster used for every shot fired by that type of weapon? Any check against the accounts of the wounded survivors regarding who shot them? Your theory would not only require coordination with events at the Lanza house, but incompetence and /or collusion on the part of every law-enforcement agent involved at the time and after.
It’s easy to float these insane ideas from the comfort of a keyboard, but to attack the character of the responders and investigators is cowardice. Anyone making these accusations needs to drive to Newton and accuse these people to their face, and that includes you, Terry, for providing a sympathetic forum for these offensive accusations to be promoted.
Mr. Bickel’s evidence comes from a lot more than “the unfolding chaos of the day.” It also includes children who took part in the signing ceremony for those Executive Orders (or “Actions” or whatever one wishes to call them). Children who looked remarkably like some (though not all) of the children listed as dead in the Sandy Hook incident.
Now either some of those children were listed as dead, and are still listed as dead, when they are not, OR:
The de facto President selected children who bore a remarkable resemblance to some of the Sandy Hook victims.
Do you care to comment on Mr. Obama’s rather macabre selection of “extras”?
I further maintain that any embarrassment to any person on account of a case or cases of mistaken identity is trifling in comparison to the systematic disarmament of the American public to atone an incident that might have been set up for that very purpose.
So which is more likely- the elaborate conspiracy theory you’re endorsing by promoting it here, or that one young sibling may look strikingly like a deceased one?
There’s a difference between “Renewing the Fourth Estate” and promoting painfully irresponsible conspiracy theories from behind a keyboard and considering it journalism.
Since you regard this theory as credible enough to defend it, then step into the real world, go to Newtown, and talk to people. You never would though, and for that I’m glad because it spares the parents the pain of a conspiracy crank accusing their loss of being a staged political game to promote gun control.
A sibling? Who said anything about a sibling? Before you did, that is.
I think you do protest too much. The guilty often scream the loudest to proclaim their innocence.
I personally consider Obama’s careful selection of lookalikes for his signing ceremony, far more likely than his staging deaths that did not occur. But that’s only because Obama does his management of the news on the cheap. Turning someone’s life upside down would require more compensation than even George Soros would be willing to finance.
But you never answered my question: just how do you regard Barack Obama’s macabre choice of “extras” for that little bit of political theater, in which he signed twenty-three actions aimed at disarmament of the American public, or at least the very earliest stages of the same?
Well, the autopsy reports should settle it fairly conclusively. If the children died from woulds inflicted by 9mm pistol rounds he left the assault rifle (an M4 clone, rather than an AR-15) in the car. If they were killed by high-velocity 5.56mm rounds then he didn’t. Seems easy enough.
“Now either some of those children were listed as dead, and are still listed as dead, when they are not, OR:
The de facto President selected children who bore a remarkable resemblance to some of the Sandy Hook victims.
Do you care to comment on Mr. Obama’s rather macabre selection of “extras”?”
I’d imagine they’re siblings of some of the children killed. Siblings often look alike, especially at a young age and especially where the dead child is older and identified by an out of date photo.
So you, at least, were brave enough to comment on Obama’s macabre choice of extras. Which is better than I can say for Somebody I Know.
Even if they happened to be siblings, I still think that’s a macabre exercise in dramatic exploitation.
Especially since those EO’s, or EA’s, or whatever you wish to call them, will do nothing to serve the advertised end, and will succeed only in substituting tyranny for a risk that a sensible self-defense policy would certainly mitigate.
Let’s go through some of the alleged “evidence” of a hoax.
1) Resemblance of children at inauguration to victims of massacre.
Well, in the first picture, the lips of Dylan and his supposed “double” are shaped differently, the eyes appear to be a different colour (at least a lighter / darker shade), the eyebrows are thinner / thicker, and the “double” clearly has a rounder head.
“The de facto President selected children who bore a remarkable resemblance to some of the Sandy Hook victims.”
The resemblance is passing, at best. What should he have done? Intentionally selected children who *didn’t* look at all like the victims?
2) “Which parent laughs before being interviewed about the very recent death of his child?”
Maybe one who is, like everybody, subject to a range of emotions even after an unspeakable tragedy? Supposedly inexplicable levity is actually a very common side-effect of grief.
3) Sundial shadow
Entirely dependent on the exact perspective (distance, height) from which the photo was taken, which is unclear even before it is covered in graphics.
4) “Aren’t shooting victims routinely taken to a hospital in the hopes that even one can be saved, or for the organs?”
No. Says who?
5) “This Facebook page was created Dec 10. Four days later this woman was an apparent shooting victim of the alleged Sandy Hook massacre. What gives?”
Pages don’t join Facebook, people do. Whoever created the memorial page joined the site on December 10 (of any potential year – none is provided in the graphic).
6) Adam Lanza “death date” photo
Any evidence of when this graphic was actually made, and by whom?
“Why not at least follow his link before you comment?”
I did; that’s what prompted my comment. The article he linked to was one of the craziest things I’ve ever seen, and I’ve read Khomenei’s little green book.
“Mr. Bickel might be saying, not that nobody died”
No, that’s exactly what he was saying. He seems to believe that Obama would fake children’s deaths then deliberately expose them on TV. Which doesn’t make much sense, does it?
I suggest that the alternative (and, I believe, more likely) scenario does not flatter the de facto President either. Namely that Obama picked lookalikes as “extras” for his little act of Kabuki Theater (Theatre?).
“I suggest that the alternative (and, I believe, more likely) scenario does not flatter the de facto President either. Namely that Obama picked lookalikes as “extras” for his little act of Kabuki Theater (Theatre?).”
Or alternatively his guests included the relatives of the victims; after all that isn’t exactly unknown, is it?
I don’t recall that he identified them as such. In fact I don’t recall that he identified them at all. All he said was, they had written him to urge him to take all the guns out of the big bad grown-ups’ hands, and he selected the writers of the most poignant letters to appear with him at his signing ceremony. Not. One. Word. About. Any. Of them. Being. Brothers. Or sisters. Or cousins. Of the deceased.
“Not. One. Word. About. Any. Of them. Being. Brothers. Or sisters. Or cousins. Of the deceased.”
Not one word about them being carefully selected for their resemblance to the deceased, either.
But why would he say a thing like that? Why make it obvious? And don’t you find it macabre, to choose children that look so much like the ones who died, that some might think they are seeing ghosts?
“don’t you find it macabre, to choose children that look so much like the ones who died, that some might think they are seeing ghosts?”
That’s assuming that they WEREN’T relatives, which hasn’t been established.
Of course I freely admit to being no great fan of Obama’s style. I’ve said right from the start that he’s a sort of American Blair; more focused on presentation than actually getting anything done. Is it possible that this is some sort of disgustingly sentimental ploy? Of course. My money is on relatives, though.
If they were relatives, Obama would have said that. It would have been high-handed, but not macabre, and therefore it would have been defensible.
But he didn’t say that, did he?
And I acknowledge this much: you’ve said many, many times that you don’t think our de facto President pretends to be a doer but is little more than a play-actor. Or so I infer from your Tony Blair metaphor.
But I put it to you that no one, propounding his kind of ideas (which are right out of Karl Marx), gets to be (de facto) President by accident. Such a person is organized (Organizing for America) and has a plan. A plan leading, not so much to a lifetime pension (for he has that already), but to a Presidency for Life of Earth.
[…] and use them at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, all by his lonesome? Dwight Kehoe at TPATH pointed out that the mainstream media first reported one thing, then changed their story. They first said […]
So, it’s not clear to me what children we’re talking about. The kids at the signing ceremony for the EOs were letter writers, not siblings of the Sandy Hook victims. See, for example: link to nydailynews.com
But I can’t find anything online suggest these kids looked like the Sandy Hook victims. Those claims are made about others with whom Obama has visited. For example, see this photo: link to usahitman.com. Those kids are, at least to my understanding, quite obviously siblings of the deceased.
If I’m missing something, please let me know. Carefully choosing human backdrops for political events is a sad but common fact of American political life, but I’ve never heard of anything quite so (pointlessly) complex as what is suggested above and it’d certainly be interesting, if not entirely surprising, if someone got the bright idea to select these four kids for their resemblance to the Sandy Hook victims.
[…] and use them at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, all by his lonesome? Dwight Kehoe at TPATH pointed out that the mainstream media first reported one thing, then changed their story. They first said […]
[…] and use them at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, all by his lonesome? Dwight Kehoe at TPATH pointed out that the mainstream media first reported one thing, then changed their story. They first said […]