Our kids are indoctrinated with propaganda

When we were kids the emphasis was to teach us about the Constitution, the founding fathers, and about American Exceptionalism. We were taught how to think for ourselves. The fear was that if this wasn't taught our children would begin to take their freedoms for granted and join movements like the liberal movement of today.

Now it is not taught, Millennials support wackos like Bernie Sanders, and these wackos think we are the ones who are whacko, brainwashed, and refuse to conform. The reason this happened is by crazy things our kids are taught at indoctrination centers (a.k.a., public schools).

From the founding all the way to 1980, parents and teachers were in charge of what was taught at school. Liberals, in an effort to advance their agenda, wanted to change this. For this reason, Jimmy Carter established the Department of Education (DOE) in 1979.

From 1980 onward, kids were taught what a panel at the DOE decided. Rather than letting parents control what kids were taught, a panel of eight experts, mainly liberal experts, now decide. This would include mainly Millennials.This has many parents and teachers frustrated because they want a say in what kids learn; they want kids to learn English and American history.

They are experts in science, so they think. They believe they are experts in global warming, and they believe that mankind is the cause of it. All told, they have been poorly educated about science. While we were told that theories were theories to be respected, but that's that: they aren't science.

Kids today are told that, since 99% of scientists believe in man-made global warming, then it is a fact. When we were kids were taught that a consensus is not science. So, even if 99% of scientists believe in global warming, that doesn't determine it is or is not true.  Science either is or is not, and it doesn't matter what individual scientists believe. Science is not up to a vote.

Millennials are the product of our public schools, which have been indoctrinating our kids with the liberal agenda since 1979. They are also the product of higher learning, which is also indoctrination centers. They are taught propaganda in terms of what they think is real and what they believe. To them, theories, feelings, beliefs, emotions are real.

They do not read about politics. To them, politics is all emotion. They see someone has a problem, they say something like, "I feel your pain!" Then they create programs that someone else has to pay for." When they don't work, they blame republicans for getting in the way of progress. When they fail, they don't get criticized due to good intentions.

When they see or read that others think differently for them, it is an eye-opening experience. They cannot understand how anyone could vote for Trump, for instance.

For instance, they believe we are destroying the planet. They believe that it might not even be here in 20 years. They believe we are destroying it fast. They believe the polar ice caps are melting. They believe polar bears are living on floating plates of ice. They believe the ozone is disappearing. They are scared to death that this is happening.

Okay, so this is how they continue to vote for people who want to make so many regulations in the name of global warming that the economy sputters. And while the U.S. has a sputtering economy because of it all, China is the beneficiary because they don't buy into the crap science.

Millennials do not have any facts to support their fears and beliefs, to them it's just a fact because it sounds good; it's fact because it's the propaganda they have been taught at public indoctrination centers.

They hate Trump, not because they don't support him on the issues, but because Trump speaks the truth. They have been protected from the truth at the indoctrination centers. They hear Trump's rhetoric, they hear Trump's jokes, and they can't handle it. They are so offended by what they hear, that they haven't even considered the issues.

You ask a Millennial one issue that Trump stands for, and they won't hear your question. They see Trump as racist, homophobe, bigot, etc. That's as far as their minds are allowed to go, as they are not trained in schools how to think for themselves. They are unable to see beyond the rhetoric.

They hate Trump. They hate republicans. And they especially hate conservatives. Anything they are told by the media about Trump, republicans, or conservatives is thought to be the gold standard view. They have a stereotypical view of whatever the media says about republicans. They take it verbatim. They do not question anything unless it's said by conservative news sources.

As Rush Limbaugh said:

"It's really a case study in Pavlov's Dog, in groupthink, in how indoctrination and propaganda actually work. And they think that we are all products of propaganda. They think they're the open-minded thinkers and enlightened ones, highly educated, super-intelligent, very perceptive, lightyears ahead. They have that in common with many young people. But I just picked one story here to give you an example. They're just beside themselves. They thought Trump was a buffoon and they thought everybody else thought Trump was a buffoon.

They thought Trump might get 20% of the vote. They thought Donald Trump was the way he was portrayed on Saturday Night Live. If they wanted to get a dose of Trump, they watched YouTube videos of Saturday Night Live and Alec Baldwin portraying Trump. Likewise, they thought Hillary Clinton was the smartest person in the world, smartest woman in the world, eminently qualified. But the thing is, 95% of Silicon Valley thinks the same way, from the executives on down on down to the employees. 

The reason they think this way is because they are indoctrinated to think a certain a way in schools, and through journalism. They think they are getting the big picture. They think they understand America. When, in reality, they are sheep herded by the indoctrination centers. 

Old media no longer holds truth to power

The role of the media is to be the watchdogs for the American people. Their job is to doubt everything that comes out of Washington until it's proven to be fact. They did this for many years, but no more. The media, most of it anyway, is now just an extension, a satellite, of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). If you want to find doubters, you have to check the new media, or what is often referred to as conservative media.

Today, the media is a part of the state, and by state I mean DNC party. They are liberals, and they are in bed with the Clinton's, and I say that figuratively. They are no longer suspicious or doubtful. They no longer hold truth to power.

I will give you an example. Obama released his latest unemployment numbers which show about a 5% unemployment rate. The New York Times, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, etc, all put this out as breaking news, claiming, "Economy doing great!

Now, a part of me thinks, "Yeah, this is good." But another part of me thinks, "How accurate is this unemployment number?" I mean, I shouldn't have to think this way, because what we are getting from the media is supposed to be facts. We are supposed to be getting both sides of the story. But, knowing what we now know about the modern media, we must now question the media the same as we question the government, because they are now one and the same.

So, as we check into our conservative news feeds, we learn that there are 94 working age people who have given up looking for work. These good folks are no longer counted on the unemployment roles. So, based on this figure, the unemployment rate has declined because people quit looking for work, not because they are working.

You see, the new media, so called the conservative media, is now doing what the old media, the mainstream media or traditional, used to do. The new media, a.k.a conservative media, holds truth to power. The new media is suspicious and doubtful of what comes out of Washington.

So, now armed with the news from two sources, we can see that the unemployment number is not 5%.  If you add the 5% unemployed and still looking for work with the 94 million who are unemployed and no longer looking, you get an unemployment number of about 23%.

You want to know something? The unemployment rate in 1933 was 25%. Back then there were people in soup lines, so you could see them. Today, they are watching TV on their laptops and talking to their friends on phones they received from Obama.

If you just watched CNN you wouldn't know that. If you just watched CNN, you'd think the economy was perfect. But, the American people aren't stupid. We see our friends out of work. We see ourselves not getting raises for five straight years. We see that our wages are at the bottom of the scale. We see that median wages are down from ten years ago.

We do not see this as acceptable. We do not see this as good. We do not become tolerant to it. We do not say, as they want us to, that this is just the new normal; that this is just the way it's is from now on; just the way it's going to be in the modern world. Such talk is defeatist talk. It's like saying, "We're cooked. This is the best it will ever be." I do not believe that. Most people don't believe that.

So, people in government are only watched and analyzed by the new media. That's the only place where this occurs anymore. The old media has failed us. The old media is nothing more than in bed with the government, and that should explain why you don't see anything good about Trump in the news, and Hillary Clinton is made out to be a saint.

Journalism 101: The Narative

In journalism school, we learned that the narrative sets itself, and the journalist reports about it. However, that was back in 1988. It was hard to do. In today's journalism classes, they must teach that the narrative is set by the journalist, and then they search for material to support their narrative. It's not hard to do.

A perfect example here is a story in the New York Times, May 14, 2016, "How Donald Trump Behaved With Women in Private."  It began on the front page and covered, I think, 11 pages in total. So they decided that Trump is setting the narrative, and they can't handle that. That's not selling papers. So Michael Barbaro and Megan Twohey, the authors of the hit piece, decided to set the narrative that Trump, in his younger years, was a womanizer who treated women poorly.

Rather than letting the news happen, they created the news. Rather than gather the evidence and report the news from the narrative as it was happening, they created the narrative  and searched for evidence to support it. They talked to as many women as they could, women who had contact in one way or another with Trump, and twisted their words. Their story made page one.

Then Trump woke up the next morning and saw the hit piece. He said, "You know what, I didn't say that. They lied about what I said."

About 20 years ago, before social media, the media would have won. The people would have no way to know who was telling the truth, so they would have just assumed the media was telling the truth. Today, however, social media has a way of finding the truth. You cannot hide behind a lie. You cannot hide behind a false narrative. And so the New York Times was busted.

Then Times has now admitted that the story was false. They were lying. They were misleading.

When asked if he was going to sue, Trump said he is currently in talks with the Times.

Maureen Callahn, in the New York Post, "Everything Today is a Lie," also from May 14, 2016, wrote how everything in the news today is a lie. This is because the media is setting the narrative. She said nothing we see in the news is real because the narrative is being set. The piece is very long because she gives many examples.

For instance, she talks about Sharron Osborne crated the narrative that her husband had an affair and had gone missing. This was all over the news, and people actually had sympathy for Sharron. Yet then the two were seen together later in the week and the whole thing was learned to be a scam. Sharon couldn't rely on her own talent, or her husband's fame, to get headlines: she had to create her own fake narrative.

She basically gave examples of how narrative has become a substitute for substance; how the narrative is set; how the narrative is spun. Substance does not sell newspapers, so the narrative has to be set to make the narrative more interesting. And a busy public doesn't have time to do fact checking.

And this type of narrative setting happens in politics too. Obamacare was passed not because the bill was a good bill full of substance, but because it was spun as a good bill. The narrative was set by the Obama administration, and this narrative was picked up by the media and reported as news. And a busy populace didn't have time to fact check.

Now, the media reported the narrative set by the Obama Administration as opposed to doing their own fact checking. They didn't want to report on the substance, because they didn't like the substance, or so we are lead to believe. They did not look into the substance of Obamacare and report on that. They did not want to report on that narrative. So they just wrote about the narrative that was set and went with it, as thought they were satellites for the White House rather than watchdogs for the people.

As noted by Rush Limbaugh:

"The only thing that was important to the media was: "Would Obama get it? Would Obama be the first ever to get national health care in America? Would Obama succeed? Will Obama get what he wants?" Not, "Is what Obama wants good? Is what Obama wants helpful? Is Obama being truthful about the details of what he wants?" None of that. The press didn't cover one syllable of that. Not one page of Obamacare. The media covered the villains: The Republicans and people like me on radio and in blogs trying to stop Obama from getting what he wants.

But they didn't report on us by telling people we were covering the substance of Obamacare. They just portrayed us as what have you: Racist, bigots, homophobes, who wanted to deny the first African-American president a signature legislative proposal. So the media -- which most people instinctively rely on to learn what things are -- doesn't tell anybody what things are anymore. All the media does, because they're all Democrats... They're all part of the Democrat agenda. All the media does is try to make sure that Obama or Clinton or whoever, get what they want."

So, you have a media claiming to be unbiased, and yet they are biased. The New York Times is a good example of that. Then you have outlets like "National Review" that only report on substance, and they struggle to stay afloat because they do not create interesting narratives, they just report on the substance of the real narratives. They ask the questions. They get to the bottom of things. They report on what people might not want to hear, "That Obamacare has no substance. That it will fail."

And they are honest and call themselves conservative. The only difference between the New York Times and National Review is the Times lies that it is bias and National Review is honest about being unbiased. Of course, if the New York Times revealed it's true liberal bias, no one would read it. So they lie. They spin the narrative. They create it. They only get to substance when republicans are trying to get their agenda passed.

You see, I was taught in journalism 101 to hunt for the real narrative and report on that. It was hard, because you had to dig. You had to go out of your way. You had to talk to people. You had to gather information and report on what you learn. And, what you learn, may not be what you expected, and it may not even be what you want. You may not agree with it. But, regardless, it was the narrative, it was the substance, and therefore it was the news.

Today, however, journalists must be taught that they are to create the narrative. Now they are taught to advance their own version of the story, spin it just the way they want. They can make bad news good, or good news bad. They can do whatever they want. And it's easy, because all they have to do is interview one or two women in Trump's lives and spin what they say as news.

Further reading:

• New York Times: How Donald Trump Behaved with Women in Private
• New York Post: Everything Today is a Lie
• Rush Limbaugh: How to Deal with the Narrative as News

Media blames Trump for protests

Arizona protesters block road to Trump rally

The recent violence at Trump rallies is a quentisential example of why we need the conservative media. If you just pay attention to the mainstream media you'd think they were Trump's doing. They are not. Trump has organized rallies. And the protesters have developed strategies to disrupt these events.

So why is this going on? It's going on because progressives got their man in Obama. He is what they have been seeking for the past 100 years. He has helped them get their agenda pushed forth in Washington. He is helping them to fundamentally transform America from capitalism to socialism.

And they are not going to stand idly by and let whatever republican stand in the way. Since Trump is the likely nominee, he's who they're going after. And since the mainstream media is in bed with the transformation, they are going to do everything in their power to help the cause.

So the Conservative media is needed to set the record straight. They have let us know that the protesters who blocked traffic, the protesters who cause fights at Trump rallies, are not Trump supporters. They are in fact liberal, anarchist, socialist, democrats. They just try to make themselves look like Trump supporters so they can make Trump look bad. The media just plays along.

Okay, so you're saying: so why would they do this? Well, America is traditionally a conservative/ libertarian nation. Progressives have been trying for over 100 years to advance their agenda for the nation, and they have finally succeeded with the Presidency of Obama. They are succeeding in fundamentally transforming America from Capitalism to Socialism.  They know their agenda, their cause, would be devastated if any republican were to become President.

So that's the reason for the rallies. They fear Trump could win if he is the nominee. They cannot in any way take the chance of that happening, as it would be a major roadblock to their agenda, to what they have accomplished.

Look, think of it this way. Say these protesters were at Hillary Clinton rallies. They aren't because republicans have better things to do with their lives, like work. Still, if the same thing happened to Hillary, I would be defending her. She is not to blame for any protesters at her rallies

So these protesters protest under the guise they are peaceful protesters. The truth is they are not peaceful. They are global warming protesters, occupy Wall Street protesters, Black Lives Matter protesters. They are leftists. They are anarchists, like Leon Czolgosz. What they are doing is bordering on illegal. You are allowed to protest, but you cannot disrupt.

They are disrupting Trump rallies. When you disrupt events, you should be hauled off and jailed by police. But these people, because they pretend to be Trump supporters, are allowed to continue their protest No one is doing anything. And the media report that they are Trump supporters to make him look bad. They just play along. Again, this is why the Conservative media is so important, to tell the truth.

Look, recently they blocked a main highway to keep people from getting to a Trump rally, and that is illegal. Traffic was backed up for miles, a road that leads to the only hospital in the region, to prevent people from rallying for Trump. How many people were on their way to the hospital? You see, this type of thing is illegal. Police were not prepared. People were not prepared. Some people probably got hurt as a result of this illegal action. Yet the media brushes it off as Trump supporters to make Trump look bad.

Conservtives want to protect and defend the Constitution, to protect and defend the liberties our forefathers fought so hard for, and they want to change the Constitution -- claiming it is a living document that should change with the times -- in order to move their agenda forward, thus continuing the transformation from Capitalism to Socialism.

You see, if you listen to the mainstream media, you're going to hear how great these protesters are. You are going to have the media promoting leftist protesters. They are always going to categorize them as great heirs of the American tradition. They are going to promote them as great freedom fighters and free speech lovers, when what they really are is left wing thugs who have no respect for the rule of law.  Yet when they border on illegal they are Trump supporters.

For the first time someone is willing to call them out, and his name is Trump. if you read the media, you would think that Trump was the cause of all this. He is not. The enemy is not Trump. The enemy is leftists who cannot fathom having Trump as President. They cannot fathom having any republican to oppose their agenda.

We get our news from many sources

So I was discussing politics with a friend of mine recently, and he said, "All you do is listen to like minded people all day; people you agree with."  I did not respond to that, although I wanted to say, "You don't know me very well then."

It doesn't even matter what we were talking about.  Every one of my liberal friends get their views from the same places. I can honestly say that.  I'm pretty confident none of them watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh.  They have no idea what people they disagree with think, other than what the people on MSNBC say we think.  

Okay, I'll give one example.  I was debating Planned Parenthood with my cousin.  He said the attacks on Planned Parenthood are unfounded.  I said that even the founder of Planned Parenthood was opposed to abortion, and so she would be appalled that her organization is killing babies in order to sell their body parts."  

This was when my cousin said that I live in a bubble, and that all I do is listen to people I agree with.  I was actually accused of doing this by an atheist friend of mine a few months ago as well.  So it's not new that I'm accused of only reading to, and listening to, things that I agree with.  

My cousin had no clue what I was talking about.  He had never heard the story from that angle before. In the world he lives, with all the smart people he talks to, with all the media he watches and listens to, Planned Parenthood is a noble organization, the only one of its kind, that is capable of helping women. He wasn't even aware that the founder, Margaret Sanger, abhorred the idea of killing unborn babies. He was clueless to this.

Yet rather than look it up on Google, rather than find a book, rather than debating me with facts, he took the usual Saul Alinski route and attacked me.  He called me dogmatic. And I don't deny that I am dogmatic, but he was saying it to hurt me; to break my spirits.  He said that I only hang out with people that I agree with, something he had no evidence of and is not true.  Sal Alinski would be proud of him. 

Look, I don't care what my liberal friends think of me. I don't care how they decide to debate, or not debate, the issues.  I don't care if they think I'm stupid.  The fact of the matter is, they enjoy discussing politics and so do I.  So we will continue to do it.  But, just because I can do it here on this blog, I'm going to defend myself.  I'm going to do it just this one time and be done with it.  

In the world my cousin lives, in the world my liberal friends live, Hillary never lies, Obama is a great president, the economy is doing great, or at least better.  In the world they live a video was the sole reason for Benghazi.  In the world they live, they have no idea that most Americans see Planned Parenthood as a wicked organization for nonchalantly, without even a second thought, killing unborn babies and selling their body parts for science.  Or maybe they kill babies for the sole reason of selling their body parts.  My liberal cousin not see this. 

He doesn't because his own media doesn't report those things, and he doesn't read media that he's not familiar with, like I do. If I were into defending myself, I would have told him him I read leftist media, centrist media, moderate media, mush media, and whatever else media is out there.  I read it all because I want to know what everybody out there happens to be thinking and saying.

I want to know what conservatives are saying, but I also want to know what liberals are saying.  I want to know what conservative republicans are saying, and I want to know what the establishment republicans are thinking.  I want to know it all.  I want to know it all because I think that's important.  And from there I make an informed decision.  

You see, that's what the media should do.  That's what an un-biased media should do: read all the news; get it all from different angles. That's what schools should do: teach all the different angles of thought.  But instead they only teach one thought: the liberal thought. They do this because it's all they hear by the people they hang with and the media they listen to and read. 

There's truth the the notion that journalists and teachers should be open minded in their thought, and honest in fair in their reporting and teaching. This is not possible unless you get all your news from many sources, and not just the mainstream media, and not just CNN, and not just MSNBC, and not just CBS, and not just Rush Limbaugh, and not just Fox.   

Further reading:

• The Evils of Planned Parenthood
• Planned Parenthood: The heart of aborted fetus was still beating
• Planned Parenthood: The undeniable truth (a history)

Conservative media is good for free speech

I went to college at Ferris State University.  Most of my friends were from Detroit, and were hardcore liberal democrats. When we debated they would use the Detroit Free Press as evidence to support their ideas. They'd say, "See, right there!"  As a conservative, I didn't have this. That's why it was so great when Rush Limbaugh came along.

I grew up in the eighties under Reagan and became aware of the misinformation and lies that the liberal media was putting forth, particularly Reagan economics,, which logically made sense, but also the Soviet Union, Communism, and so forth. They said Reagan's tax cuts were not working, and that all his military spending did was add to the national debt, instead of giving people a reason not to mess with us.

A quote by Rush Limbaugh

You know, I always figured the purpose of building a strong military, a strong nuclear program, and stealth bombers, was so we didn't have to use them. You know, people know we have them so they won't mess with us.

I could never explain that to my friends.  They would just pick up the latest edition of the Free Press and point to their evidence. If I wanted to get evidence I had to go out of my way and go to the library and do some research, which was impossible given that I had all sorts of homework and studying that had to be done. Actually, they didn't need evidence. Sometimes they would just look at each other and laugh when I opposed them. I was backwoods.  I had these outdated, controversial ideas.

When I tried to explain to them that the Iraq War was good, they mocked me. When I tried to explain that Sam Donaldson, Peter Jennings, and Dan Rather were all in the tank for democrats and were trying to make Reagan and Bush look bad, my friends mocked me. "It's the news!" they'd say, laughing. "It's the facts as they happen.  How could you oppose facts?"

Well, I knew it wasn't the facts what I was hearing, but I just learned to keep my mouth shut.  The only vindication I got was that the opposing voices in the media, all their attempts at destroying Reagan and Bush, didn't work, as Reagan won in two landslide elections, and Bush also won in 1988.  So there were obviously many people who were thinking the same as me, only if you watched the media you wouldn't know it.

So I was so thankful when conservative media, beginning with Rush Limbaugh, came along to give me some credibility and not let me feel so isolated anymore.  I do not get most of my ideas from Rush, it's just that he sort of vindicates what I'm thinking as I read the news. Of course now theirs National Review, and even Fox News to some extend, although I think Fox is far from a conservative media outlet.  It does, however, seem to be fair to both sides, actually giving traditional Americans (conservatives) a platform.

Yet there are some who don't like all these voices being heard.  They don't like that the Internet, a.m. radio and books give voices to people with differing opinions on the facts to be heard.  They don't like Rush Limbaugh, and would prefer that he not have a voice.

A good example is yesterday when I read that Mitt Romney was saying that he thought American was a better place before conservative media came along.  He thought America was a better place before Rush Limbaugh came along, because all this did was create a partisan divide where people could just listen to people they agree with all day long, rather than everyone getting all the same facts from the same sources every day.

What makes this so naive is that it sort of feeds into what liberals and democrats have always said about Rush, that he hives people ideas and tells people how to think.  That's not how it is at all.  All he does is make free thinkers like myself feel less isolated in a world surrounded by liberal media.

You see, I didn't think I was getting the facts when I watched Dan Rather.  I didn't agree with the editorials in the Detroit Free Press that my college buddies were quoting from.  Conservative media made me realize that I was not alone in doubting the "facts" doled out by the media and my liberal buddies.

Granted, we did not have many political debates, as we were more interested in studying, doing homework, but mainly in having fun. Still, it's something I think about once in a while.  I simply don't understand why anyone would want to stop voices from being heard.  There's nothing better, in my mind, for free speech than a free Internet.  It allows people to get their news from all sorts of media outlets, both left, right, independent, and so forth. It's simply a great thing.

Further Reading:

• Rush Limbaugh: Debunking the mind numbed robot

Media wrong about 2016 GOP prospects

The media has no clue what republicans need to do to win in 2016. Take a recent article by Phil Rucker at the Washington Post, "Large GOP field has party leaders anxious about their chances in ’16," as an example. Consider the first paragraph:

To take back the White House after eight years in the political wilderness, Republicans think they must soften their image and expand their appeal in particular to women and Latino voters. As Jeb Bush, a leading presidential contender, puts it, “We’re going to win if we show our hearts.”

That might be what the party leaders think, but that's exactly the opposite of what we need to do. This paragraph is wrong on two accounts.

1. We don't need to soften our image.  This is essentially saying we need to give up on our core principles to win.  They basically want us to give up on our fight preserve traditional marriage, and against the welfare state, amnesty and abortion. If we caved on principles liberalism would win. 
2. We don't need to cater to women and Latinos.  I say this because what the republicans need to do is cater to all Americans, not groups of Americans. Liberalism tries to separate people into groups, as though America is a salad bowl.  They want to pit one group of Americans against another, such as the rich verses poor. Conservatives believe we are all together as a melting pot, and we should create an environment whereby everyone benefits, not just one or another group.  

Later, Rucker explains that the "large and diverse" republican field, along with the fact that Jeb Bush has failed to jump out ahead of the fray, may impact the amount of money that can be raised to win a general election.  He said:

This could cost presidential aspirants tens of millions of dollars; pull them far to the right ideologically, from hot-button social issues to foreign policy; and jeopardize their general-election chances. And in such a muddled lineup — officials are planning to squeeze 10 or more contenders onto the debate stage — candidates will be rewarded for finding creative ways to gain notice.

Sure, this sounds great if you want to turn the republican party into the democrat party.  This is fine if you want both parties to be the same.  This is fine if you want the republican party to return to being the liberal party it was when Teddy Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover were presidents.

But that's not the republican party the rest of us want.  We want the party to be the opposite of what the democrat party has become.  We want the republican party to be the party of the people.  We want the republican party to stand up for the principles that made this nation exceptional once, and what can make this nation exceptional again.

We do not want two parties running whereby the choice, as it was when Obama ran against McCain, is whether you want to spend $200 million on global warming or $200 billion on global warming.  We want one of the choices to represent something other than the liberal values the media and the current White Houses wants.

We do not want republicans to continue to negotiate with democrats in order to soften their image. Most republican voters are adamantly opposed to the rapid influx of immigration in the country, and believe amnesty would simply turn these immigrants into democrats.  Yet the republican leadership is trying to help Obama in order to soften its image and cater to Latinos.  This, in my view, is political suicide.

If Jeb Bush wants to give up on principles to win in 2016, he's going to be met with a lot of opposition within his own party.  So, in this way, the media is once again wrong.  This is another reason why the media cannot be trusted. 

Everything is a crisis these days

This guy obviously needs the assistance of Big Mother Government

So a snowstorm, or blizzard, was expected to blow through the eastern states, and the media talked about it, even before it happened, as though it were the worst storm ever.  As it turned out, the extent of the storm was blown completely out of proportion.  Yet this comes as no surprise by those of us who already don't trust the media.

It was so overblown that both Connecticut and New Jersey banned road travel, and over 6,000 flights were cancelled. The government told people in many areas not to leave their homes.  It got so bad that in Bound Brook, New Jersey, police stopped teens who were snow shoveling work.  They were told by police that they had to stop.

One elderly person in the neighborhood reported the incident, saying, "Are you kidding me? Our generation does nothing but complain about his generation being lazy and not working for their money.  Here's a couple kids who take the time to print up flyers, walk door to door in the snow, and then shovel snow for some spending money. And someone calls the cops and they're told to stop?"

One of the officers later responded, claiming that that the kids weren't ticketed for soliciting work without a license, but were warned about being outdoors in dangerous weather conditions. He said, "We don't make the laws but we have to uphold them," he said Tuesday after reading some of the online comments about the incident. "This was a state of emergency. Nobody was supposed to be out on the road."

Look, snow is not a death sentence.  We're talking about people who have experienced 5,10,15,20,30, and probably even 40 inches of snow before.  These are not inexperienced dummies we're talking about.

These are people who have lived through short and long winters for their entire lives, generation after generation.  They know how to handle themselves in a snowstorm.  They known when to stay in and when to go out.  They know what is safe and unsafe.  

Yet here you have people in the media, in government agencies, who feel they have to create a panic. And I know the reason for it. It's because when people feel panicked they act panicked. They rush to the stores and buy all the items in them. That's why all the stores shelves in New York are empty today. It's because the media and the government created a panic.  

This is progressivism at full steam.  This is how they get their agendas through to the people: by creating panics and wars.  When the people feel panicked, they call to the government for help.  

And even when they don't, the government assumes the people are stupid and only they know what to do.  So they tell people to stay inside, to not do anything, to shop for food and other materials that aren't needed, and to hoard them for a storm than might not even be close to as bad as expected.  

And even if it is as bad as expected, it's nothing these people haven't experienced before.  They will survive.  A panic is not in order here. But everything to these people is worse than it is, and it's for a reason.  

To make matters worse, weather men and women think that they have to stand outside in the conditions that are supposed to be to cold and dangerous for us just to prove that it really is cold outside.  But all people have to do is look outside and they can see for themselves that it's cold out.

They think they have to tell us when it's safe and when it's not safe to go outside.  Yet any person who lives in cold regions of the U.S., places that get snow every winter, knows when it's too cold to go outside.  We don't need the media, and we don't need Uncle Sam telling us how what we can and cannot do.  We are not stupid.  

Get your news from more than one source

Sigh! 

Eyes Rolling!

These are both silent ways of saying, "You are an idiot!"

Imagine the moans and groans when Galileo confirmed to the papacy that Copernicus was correct about the world being round, and the planets evolving around it. It's not hard to imagine the signs and eyes that were rolling.  

Even in today's world, even with an Internet that allows all the facts available to all who yearn to find them, there are still those among us who sigh and groan when we hear truths and opposing viewpoints.

One of the neatest things about the American Constitution is it protects our natural born right to free speech, at least as far as it comes to the government. This is great because every opinion, every fact, and every new idea can be communicated. This allows us an opportunity that most of our ancestors did not have.

In the past most people received all their news from one or only a few sources, and it it was usually from the aristocracy or government.   Even as recent as the 1980s we had only three sources on television -- CBS,  ABC, NBC, and were based in New York, and all copied the front page headlines of the New York Times.

Today, partly thanks to the Internet, no opinion, and no fact, can be prevented from seeing the light of day. A recent example is when Romneycare and Obamacare architect Jonathon Gruber said: "This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes…Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter, or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”

This is a stunning admission as to the lies that were told to the American people hoping they were "too stupid" to catch on, and it wasn't even mentioned by American's top news outlets.  The problem with this is that most Americans get all their news from America's top news outlets.  

The media is an outlet created to hold those in power accountable, and they are not doing it in this case.  In this case, they are not reporting the the truth about Obamacare because they are in the bank for Obama, or so it seems by omitting this story from their news outlets.  

Despite all the advancements in today's world, there are still those who would like to prevent certain voices from being heard, and in this case it was the voice of a person who was honorable to reveal the truth of how democrats were able to get this bill passed.  

If anything, all media outlets should want to report all news stories, not just those that support a certain political viewpoint.  The fact that many in the mainstream media continue to have a bias is proof that there is still a long way to go before all Americans are told all that going on in the world, as opposed to just what the "elite" want them to know.  

This is a perfect example of how you should get your news from more than one source.  You should pay attention to the main media outlets, but you should also pay attention to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and other such voices.  

For those who continue to roll your eyes, and sigh, when you hear opposing viewpoints, shame on you!

Further reading:

• Jonathon Gruber speaks the truth about Obamacare
• Third video of Gruber speaking truth about Obamacare
• Media tries to cover up Obamacare architect