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?