Press Dishonesty and the Riots – Past and Future

As the United States has become violently divided by opposing political ideologies, the speech by either side can certainly be offensive to the other.

Today the United States is racing toward riots – everywhere! The “social” media continues to claim protection for their political speech censorship under a clearly abused regulation called section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. “Communications Decency,” is a perfect example of misleading language to deceive the public into accepting another flanking attack on the Constitution and our Bill of Rights..

For those readers who may have heard of Section 230 in the recent news but were not really sure what it had to do with censorship, here is a very brief description of this 1996 law.

In the very early stages of social media platforms the idea that the companies that owned the platforms could be held liable for something one of their subscribers posted was argued to be unacceptable. Subscribers claiming 1st Amendment rights argued the platforms should not be allowed to censor their postings. Law enforcement agencies argued the platforms were potentially the venue for everything from sex trafficking to terrorists communications. And in the third corner, lawyers were salivating over the opportunity to reach into the potentially deep pockets of the platform companies. Section 230 was the compromise of considering all of these arguments. The platform owners were given immunity from liable suits for content published by “third parties” while also being charged with regulating the platform sites to avoid publication of what they were allowed to determine was “hate speech,” even though the Constitution protects such speech.

If that seems confusing, you are in some very influential company. President Trump and President elect Joe Biden have both proposed major changes to section 230. Trump has proposed limits on the protections where political speech is involved and Joe Biden has proposed eliminating the protections altogether in favor of broadening the platforms’ authority to regulate their content. But of course no one can explain what that means.

As they exist now, the social media platform companies are completely protected from liable suits resulting from content posted by those of us using the platforms. But these companies have also been protected from law suits resulting from content that they have not allowed to be posted or have removed. This is the where the first amendment clashes with the Communications Decency Act. Speech – in written form – that is absolutely protected by the First Amendment is somehow not protected from censorship by a private company offering a public platform for communication it decides should not be published.

As the United States has become violently divided by opposing political ideologies, the speech by either side can certainly be offensive to the other. Determining how to differentiate between hate speech and the opposition’s political point of view has somehow become the privilege of the media companies; including print, broadcast and the internet platforms. Perhaps such a trust would be acceptable if the media were as balanced as the political party support within the population. But the reality is that the media is dangerously out of balance with the population. The control of the media has become exclusive to those who believe government is the only solution to survival of everyone and everything. Political speech by the opposition can be and is considered hate speech by those in control of information distribution. Censorship of one party has become rampant while the other is given extensive leeway of content. This is the Constitutional crisis we are now facing. The media has become so bias for one ideology that crimes at the highest level are both ignored and called propaganda of the opposition.


This week spokespersons for CNN have repeatedly called for cable and internet providers to delete Newsmax TV and streaming services from their platforms. CNN justifies these calls claiming Newsmax has distributed “lies” about the election fraud claims by President Trump. The report published by concludes by reporting that during the years and years of the Russian collusion investigation based on a falsified document – proven to be paid for by political opponents of the President – Newsmax officials never called for the censorship of CNN for their spreading of false information.

Now we will need to wait to learn if the largest media – clearly supporting the various Socialists and Communist and other factions of Dystopian Utopia government – will support CNN and the right of the platform owners to “lock out” Newsmax for violating “their” polices covering hate speech they claim could lead to riots by the readers of such Conservative propaganda. These groups – aka Big Tech – have been given the permission to censor whatever and whoever they decide is publishing hate speech by the now infamous Section 230. Of course we have just lived through nearly 4 years of violence and property destruction by the armed forces of such organizations Black Lives Matter and Antifa. Yet these organizations and their offshoots went uncensored by facebook or twitter or other social media platforms. In fact these purveyors of violence were supported in the press, dignified by many in government and supported with money and action by sports and entertainment celebrities excusing their riots as necessary to effect positive changes in the name of social justice.

Trump called it War

politicians who spent millions of taxpayer dollars trying to destroy the President supported the riots.

To most Americans today the name Nazi describes a comical colonel and a no-nothing sergeant; not the horrific murderers of millions of innocent people considered inferior to their so called Master Race.

There are many descriptions of the purpose of war.

For thousands of years the purpose of war may have been to kill people and destroy things until one side or the other surrendered. The more resolved the opposing forces, the greater the destruction. It would seem the better the execution by the victors the less value of the spoils.

For The United States, the purpose and execution of wars changed when we created the atomic bomb. The destruction was too great a price to pay; even for victory. While the military continues to improve on the potential of its arsenal of atomic weapons, the resolve of the politicians to permit their use has all but disappeared. Wars have become a stage on which politicians perform to demonstrate their compassion for those with an opposing ideology. Compromise has been the ultimate goal of conflict by America since the unofficial end of the the “Korean War.”

But if one side in a war continues to believe victory is possible while the other side is willing to draw a line of compromise, it has proven over the last 70 years that those who believe victory is possible will in fact win the war. Such was the case in Vietnam when the resolve of the communist was to control the country while America was willing to settle for less as they had done in Korea. The communist prevailed and today Vietnam is a united country. They are at peace. Today they are not only a trade partner, much like Japan, they are a popular tourist destination for Americans while the divided Korea remains an adversary. Were these lessons learned?

Seeking compromise with people who have a strong belief in their ideology has led us to an endless conflict in the Middle East. But the reality is America lost the war against Islam on September 11, 2001. Americans lost freedoms and the American lifestyle. Instead of recognizing the massive destruction by an enemy intent on victory under the old rules of war, our politicians refused to acknowledge defeat. And so the losses build while politicians refuse to even acknowledge we were at war. Their arrogance has led to the spending of untold wealth seeking to reach a compromise with Islam. But Mohammed believed in war. His followers believe they can defeat any and all who don’t believe as they do. The conflict continues. One only needs to check the security lines at any public venue these days to understand how completely our freedoms have been destroyed.

President Trump successfully kept the United States from initiating a new conflict overseas during his entire term. But that doesn’t mean America was not drawn further into war. The President correctly reported to the people that America was under siege – we were at war. A war being waged in our homeland. A war being waged on three fronts; in the streets of our cities, in the leftist media in the chambers of government.

While political forces aligned to undermine the President and his election, subversive forces created false narratives about how unjust America is to – everyone who would join them in their cries for “social justice.” But no one can define what “social justice” means or who will benefit if it comes about. These forces gathered followers after each conflict with police was played up as another example of how unjust our laws were to – everyone who wanted “social justice.”

The violence and destruction grew. City after city surrendered to these anarchists demands for lawless zones where equality would reign supreme without fear of police brutality. The same politicians who had spent years and millions of taxpayer dollars trying to destroy the President and the Constitution with falsified documents and perjured testimonies joined the chorus of media and celebrities vocalizing support for the protestors’ riots while strengthening their defenses and boarding up their businesses to reduce their own losses by looters.

When the President called for Americans to recognize that these self proclaimed “social justice warriors” were in fact engaged in an organized war on America, his political enemies seized the moment to decry him as having a phobia against everyone except rich white men like himself.

After a year of violent protests, property destruction and widely recorded looters running unchecked as police stood aside, President Trump was defeated in his bid for reelection. Those who had used his presidency as their excuse for protests should have cried victory. The war should have ended with the democrats taking charge of both houses of congress and the presidency.

But the riots continued in the very cities which voted for the new regime of Joe Biden and the democrats that were so supportive of the social justice warriors. Why?

Could it be those who are financing these riots are resolved to wage this war without compromise? Will the new regime even recognize these protesters as warriors seeking conquest of America?

Trump called it war. Will Joe Biden defend America or join those intent on plundering her riches?

Truth vs Truthful celebrates George Orwell

Big Brother protects those who protect Big Brother

Of the many great books that are mental maps for ideologies George Orwell’s “1984” is probably not considered one of them. Should it be, or is it simply the work of a great visionary?

Orwell did not hesitate to add detail of his vision for society some 40 years into his future. And much like many books purposely designed to guide followers of an ideology, he was not wrong in his predictions, he was just some 40 years short in his timeframe. As we look at events of the last 15 to 20 years and watch the progression of Orwell’s predictions coming to fruition in America today, should we celebrate Orwell or, as we are doing to much of American history, should we erase Orwell and burn his book. To hide from the truth.

One of the overriding themes Orwell examines is the roll of truth and facts as they are used by politicians to manipulate opinion. The Truth versus Truthful column is dedicated to explaining that just because a particular part of a particular incident may be reported as a fact, without context those facts become deceptive: as dishonest as if they were not true in the first place. But defensible nevertheless.

In “1984” the world was mostly at war, government surveillance was uncontrollable and history was being altered by propaganda. If these sound familiar, consider that as the last voice of freedom speaking out against the growing threat of a barbaric government, the protagonist Winston Smith is ‘eliminated’ by Big Brother.

In just the past few days the Chief Protagonist of the ‘deep state’ has been banned from Facebook, deleted from twitter and removed from YouTube. By those actions, the President of the United States has been shown to be less powerful than the collective forces aligned against him.

Perhaps the biggest failure of the Trump presidency has been that the prosecution of crimes became as political as the crimes themselves. Efforts by the deep state collaborating with political allies failed in multiple efforts to destroy the President. Meanwhile the President’s efforts to drain the swamp, as he labeled it, were hampered as he failed to bring to justice even the most blatant criminals for the most obvious crimes. These failures emboldened others to mock the law and commit more destructive crimes than simply destroying cell phones containing damaging evidence. Those who would most benefit from freedom and who’s ancestors may well have given their lives for the chance of freedom took to the streets destroying property, looting even property of their friends and neighbors, without realizing they were yielding power to those who would strive for a dystopian society.

It was 1957 when Ann Rand published her book “Atlas Shrugged” in which she expands on the idea of the evolution from freedom to a dystopian America. Over the past five or six years her book has become popular as a reference for those who would work for freedom as well as those who would seek government solutions to all of their life’s challenges. These are the people who follow – anyone! These are without doubt the supporters of the often incoherent rantings of Joe Biden who believe it is better to choose evil than to have good imposed upon them. These are the people who believe that every crisis can be solved by expanding government; not by getting out of the way and let human spirit and imagination find the solution.

Thomas Becket was outspoken against the tyrannical rule of King Henry II. He was eventually murdered by knights sent to silence his critical voice. That was December 29, 1170. On December 29, 2020, President Trump issued a proclamation honoring Saint Thomas Becket aka Saint Thomas of Canterbury. When former Colorado state senator Kevin Lundberg included a link to Trump’s proclamation his email service provider, Mail Chimp, shut off his service for violating their terms of use. When Senator Lundberg requested an explanation Mail Chimp officials refused to offer reasons for their decision. Big Brother protects those who protect Big Brother.

Continue reading “Truth vs Truthful celebrates George Orwell”

An Outboard to be Reckoned With

A product review – just because I wanted to…

I would not hesitate to recommend the 12HP model Hangkai outboard and this seller to friends.

First let say that my review of this outboard and seller was not permitted on Amazon.

While the delivery was just a little later than originally projected I was really relieved and happy to receive the UPS tracking number. I had been scammed earlier this year by a Singapore-based outboard seller who actually had a fake ( but very good looking) shipping company tracking number that seemed to show the shipment’s progress. Thankfully my credit card company rescued me and recovered my money. But it did take 7 months. Ebay and PayPal did not help, and I lost the entire summer of boat fishing in Montana.

Vowing never again to use Ebay I purchased the Hangkai 12Hp 2 stroke outboard through Amazon. The little booklet that was packaged with the motor began by very clearly stating that if the registration card were not returned the warranty would not be honored. There was no registration card in the packaging and no mailing nor email address to even request registration assistance. This was a bit disturbing but only the beginning.

The little booklet instructs to use an oil to gasoline ration of 1:25 for the first 10 hours of operation – the first break in period – during which rpm’s should be restricted. This mixture makes the motor very hard to start. In fact I must have pulled the starter cord for nearly 30 minutes before I finally had success. Once the motor fired I immediately watched for cooling water to come from the check port and when no water was streaming after some 15 or 20 seconds I pulled the safety shut off cord.

The motor never again started!

The seller replied quickly and suggested I follow the same starting steps as included in the booklet except that oil to gasoline mix ratio should be 1:35 – which is different from the booklet’s 1:25. And he was sending me a new water pump impeller.

I sent a new message to explain that a new impeller was not necessary since: first, there was one included in the original package; two, since the motor wouldn’t start anyway there was no way to even know if the the pump was working, and third, after several minutes of pulling the starter cord it did appear that the carburetor was leaking.

The seller gave me a choice to return the motor – at my own expense – or accept a replacement. I chose to forego a refund and accept a replacement.

The replacement arrived. I used the 1:35 fuel mix for the initial break in. The replacement started with just a couple of pulls. The replacement was carefully broken in for the recommended 10 hours and has performed extremely well. It is fuel efficient, seems more powerful than the 12HP rating and is reasonably quiet at higher speeds.

I would have given the motor 5 stars if there had been a registration process. However, the motor seems to be made with motorcycle parts and I expect to be able to handle my own repairs. If you are not comfortable doing your own work it may not be the motor for you.

Liberty or Safety, Can we ever have both

If Adam Schiff is not held accountable for sedition or treason the law has no value

This week has to be on of those weeks that will forever live on in controversy. Historians will argue in perpetuity whether the truth about events reported this week lies with stories written by major news outlets of the period or with facts and the evidence to support them as presented by data and documents wrestled from the bureaucracy that created them.

With so much attention on the effects of the covid-19 virus and the damaged economy, it was perhaps a perfect time for the release of transcripts of the concealed testimony given behind locked doors deep beneath the Capitol. Those hearings, created from the whole cloth of seditionists, were conducted under such cover that when duly elected members of the House of Representatives attempted to witness the proceedings, Chairman Adam Schiff (D, anti-Trump party) refused to conduct the hearing and immediately threatened the use of armed guards to clear those representatives he deemed intruders. This week we learned why. The most organized coup ever attempted, perhaps ever attempted in history, was taking place and any accidental exposure by any official called before the Skiff committee would threaten the success of the conspirators. Reports released to the media about what was contained in the testimonies is now proven false. In fact most of the released quotes were simply fiction.

The criminal activities of FBI agents and other agency operatives might have carried more headlines except for the increasing evidence of the manipulation of the country by the man-made pandemic which has claimed more destruction to the economy and liberty than any event since the great Islamic victory of September 11, 2001. That was the day a small group of attacking Muslims succeeded in creating panic across the country. Like a tsunami of fear, lawmakers were scared into erasing much of the American lifestyle. Without clear thinking congress created laws that eventually became the keystones for the abuses of power which almost succeeded in overturning the government. We will not see for some time yet when or if those exposed by the newly released transcripts will be punished.

While the crimes of some involved in the coup attempt are now a matter of record, the extent of criminal activities by those behind the covid-19 pandemic are only now being pieced together. During this week of dramatic revelations the complicity of national government and business leaders in the development and spread of the covid-19 virus has barely begun to be exposed. Even the numbers are now being questioned by the White House task force as White House Task Force Coordinator, Dr. Burke, has said she suspects the numbers released by the CDC may be exaggerated by 25% or more.

The truth vs truthful media have proclaimed that Obama did not fund the Wuhan lab where the covid-19 virus originated. And it appears that Obama did not officially approve the transfer of millions US taxpayers’ dollars to the Wuhan lab. Nevertheless the money trail leads clearly to Dr. Fauci – with or without passing through the oval office.

Then there is surfacing the connection between Bill Gates, a patent application for a microchip related to a covid vaccine, Dr. Fauci’s recommendation to shut down the brick and mortar economy and the on-line retail industry giant Amazon. This entangled network was revealed by investigators finally examining the data used to justify the destruction of the US economy. It was also learned that Gates’ so-called charity had funded the British institute Fauci claimed was the expert source cited as the justification for shutting down the country. Now of course the models cited by Fauci have proven to have been laughably wrong and the creator of the model has resigned in disgrace over a matter of violating his own isolation program.

But wait, in a seemingly unrelated event – before the stay at home orders and shut down of brick and mortar businesses – the Ferguson institute was the recipient of a huge flow of cash as the result of a 2019 purchase by Jeff Bezos (Amazon) of some 100,000 delivery vans. The purchase of such an unprecedented increase in delivery capacity is cause for further query when it was learned the purchase was tied to the same guy behind the now debunked shut down model. A year before the shut down!

As if those stories aren’t enough to keep water cooler debates fueled for years, the saga of General Flynn came to an explosive end when the Justice Department completely retracted the charges to which the general had plead guilty. This action was predicated by release of the criminal activity by operatives within the FBI with the full knowledge of then President Obama. Dropping the charges removes completely the conviction, will allow Flynn to be reinstated to rank and benefits and opens the possibility of civil action against the prosecutors involved in official misconduct.

Perhaps the quickest and most effective step President Trump could now take to further ‘drain the swamp’ would be to appoint General Flynn as director of the FBI. Such a light turned on inside that dark hole would surely send swamp dwellers scurrying like cockroaches. The big difference though is that those roaches would be running toward lucrative taxpayer funded retirements and contracts with television networks as “expert” commentators before they face consequences for their actions.

Benjamin Franklin’s words have never rung more true: “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Is the Virus Killing Freedom

The President has said we are at war.

The President has said we are at war.

An Ohio House unrepresentative Democrat has proposed charging President Trump with ‘crimes against humanity’ through the International Tribunal (A.K.A. World Court). The boiling point that will push neighbors against neighbors in a bloody civil war is getting closer as hate consumes more democrats watching their political power dwindle. Will America be the site of the next Rwanda genocide where citizens were agitated by the party in power into virtually killing their opposition. Is that so much different from what Nancy Peloci and such politicians as we see in the Ohio House screaming. Hate has a history of overpowering societies.

Recently Patriot Essays published a post titled: Timeline to the 2nd Civil War which outlined the history of repeating the most destructive events of civilized societies; wars within those societies implemented to affect or resist dramatic changes. The pattern for these events was recognized some 2500 years ago by the Estuscans. Yet today, with the advantage of instant communications around the world, with the ability to hold language translators in the palm of hands, the United States rest at the precipace of another saeculum. We have reached the final years of the generation who failed to pass an understanding of the value of freedom to those who have now become government officials and representatives. We have allowed our schools and colleges to teach a history distorted, revised and even reversed by the generation of teachers Ronald Reagan correctly predicted as the last generation for freedom on Earth.

Today we are willing to standby as armed officers chain the doors of some private businesses while their competitors are allowed to remain open – all the name of public health! In one area officials deem one business is essential, and another is forced to close at the point of a gun. All the while in another area essential businesses are defined totally different. Even the person or persons with authority to make these decisions varies without questions by the citizens. Where is the guide for which business is essential for who? Why is one store chained shut while another is heralded for the bravery of its employees to serve the public’s interest. The President has repeatedly warned that the value of the cure must not exceed the cost.

There is no doubt the corona virus is attacking across the world without respect for borders or political ideology. It must be fought with as much resolve as any enemy in any war. But is that resolve to reach a truce with a virus to come at the cost of human rights and the final defeat of freedom in its last stronghold on Earth? Have so many generations before us given their lives and fortunes for the very freedoms this war is erasing? House Majority Whip James Clyburn made it clear when stated that the covid-19 crisis is a “tremendous opportunity” to “restructure government” and advance democratic policy goals. (1)

While the nation suffers both emotionally and economically, the covid crisis is being considered as a great opportunity by too many politicians. The recent financial relief bill enacted by congress is a major victory for politicians seeking to buy power by creating a dependent constituency. More importantly than individual benefits is the opportunity to widen the divide between the political parties through oversight of the spending of the relief programs by partisan career politicians.

Just as local officials are choosing which businesses are allowed to stay open and which will lose by being forced to close, federal level programs were built into the relief bill to direct money to supporters without regard for the intent of the relief. To insure of the success of this corrupt plan, House majority leader Nancy Pelosi has appointed the chairmanship of the oversight committee to a loyal party soldier with no qualifications except party politics.

Normally this sort of financial corruption goes unnoticed and unreported. But with so many Americans staying home by directives from government, the despicable behavior of the democratic leadership in the House of Representatives is creating anger and an atmosphere of distrust in government at all levels. AN anger that has been simmering since James Comey exonerated Hillary Clinton for crimes for which others are in prison and Americans saw that justice was no longer equal for all.

The evidence is clear. Gun sales are setting new records with each additional restriction imposed on the citizens. History always seems to have a way of repeating.

(1) Just one day after the original posting of this essay, the news carried details of as much as $20million being spent by anti-American groups attempting to defeat Trump by advertising how poorly his administration is dealing with the covid-19 pandemic.


The popularity of the internet as a source of information has grown as the credibility of the major media has declined. Newspapers across the country have recognized they must be online if they are to survive economically and remain politically influential. One advantage is that internet sites offer greater control over what the readers access than printed papers. But those controls also allow the opportunity for deceptive censorship practices. After all, omitting key information is a more effective form of censorship than the popular form of redacting documents where the readers know there was something important blacked out.

When Thomas Jefferson proclaimed that he would rather have newspapers without a country than a country without newspapers, he believed the uncensored sharing of unbiased news and opinions among the people was critical to free men. But with the loss of neutrality by the press and morality in society, would Jefferson repeat those words today? Has media become too politically bias and unaccountable? In the sphere of the internet, can we even identify who is entitled to those special protections Jefferson was advocating?

Since the Federalist Papers, newspapers’ editorial opinions have always had influence with politicians. However, recent decades have seen a transition from reporting news separate from the opinions to reporting opinions as news. Readers have very limited opportunity to learn the truth behind the headlines for themselves. Nevertheless, every newsroom receives the occasional letter opposing news and/or editorial content. Unfortunately letters-to-the-editor are typically limited to a just a few words, are subject to editing, and most never reach the public at all.

While the popularity of charging for content has filtered down from national to local newspaper sites, the pay-per-hit advertising revenues have declined as subscribers numbers fall. Recently, the local paper in Loveland, Colorado initiated a program that prevents access to the letters to the editor without a paid subscription. As a business the paper has the right to charge for content. But as a newspaper with special protections afforded under the Constitution does it have constitutional obligation to be both honest in reporting and inclusive of opposing opinions.

In the case of the Loveland Reporter Herald the paper has disguised the denial of access by allowing the reader to momentarily see a partial list of opinion letters before a large ad for a subscription covers the page. If the reader chooses to close the ad without subscribing the letters page is closed and the site returns to the home page. Only the papers’ opinions are available,

The effect of this loop is the total denial of access to opinion letters by non-subscribers. This is significant since fewer and fewer conservatives subscribe to liberal newspapers – even at local levels. The net result then is that leftists candidates will have far more supporting letters read than conservative candidates. The Constitutionally protected press has found a clever new way to censorship.

Fact Check Facts

As the influence over viewers’ opinions declines, the efforts by liberal news outlets to disguise their bias and hold onto their power over public opinion increases. Perhaps the most popular of these bias disguises is the use of segment titles; such as ‘fact check’ or ‘truth check.’ These segments typically open with a statement as if it were a fact and proceed to present their ‘evidence’ to either support or discredit their opening statement. Most of these segments end with a graphic illustrating some sort of rating such as stars or Pinocchio noses or some such device. With the analysis completed and given credibility by the rating system, the host typically signs off using their most distinguished voice and signature phrase.

A recent example is from the Denver Fox affiliate. The segment was titled “Truth Check: Fact checking Bernie Sanders’ latest Colorado ad.” True to the template the host opens by stating the purpose of the segment is to pursue the truth of the content of a political ad of Bernie Sanders in which he makes several derogatory statements about the President. As viewers we are supposed to believe we are being told the underlying truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth…

But there is a very real difference between truth and truthful. A detailed explanation of these differences can be read here.

The Fox affiliate ‘analysis’ of Mr. Sanders’ claim that the Trump presidency is the most corrupt in history begins by acknowledging that Trump was impeached. That of course is true. But the reporter ignores the truth that the real corruption of the impeachment was by those who first created a false narrative, lied to a federal court to process their attack on the President and then ignored every precedent of law to push through a vote on articles which didn’t even include a law allegedly broken. And of course the vote was totally political. After more than 2 years and over $30 million taxpayers’ dollars spent investigating, there in fact was no corruption whatsoever associated with the President.

Then after acknowledging that Mr. Sanders’ statement is subjective and can’t technically be proven, the host adds that several associates of the President’s face prison time. But not one of those associates was ever even accused of any crime associated with the President. The segment goes on about some pardons and throws in a name as if there was any association of those convictions to the President.

The “Truth Check” of this segment is that its dishonesty can be discovered if the whole truth can be revealed.

Truth vs Truthful in the Un-Fake News

Is there a difference between a true statement and a truthful one? For decades we have all watched as lawyers and politicians dissected words into such literal meaning that we finally reached the point of being told by a United States President that different groups might well have different meanings for a word as small as “is.” It was September 13, 1998, when President Bill Clinton told a grand jury he hadn’t been lying because, “It all depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” And many would argue that was the final crashing blow to honesty in the public media.

Today the news media has perfected the art of extruding the meanings of words to create impressions designed to mislead their audience in whatever direction leads toward their ideological position. Moreover, when the writer doesn’t possess enough command of the language to deflect a story with word meanings alone, the popular tactic has become simply distorting the truth by scattering a few false details to an otherwise true story or using the headline to create the first impression.

To illustrate that method, consider the following event:

A colorful city commissioner who’s policies were opposed by the local newspaper was walking through his neighborhood when he came upon a house on fire. As he approached he heard the moaning of the elderly gentleman who had fallen near the front door. The commissioner managed to force open the door and drag the nearly unconscious victim to safety. When the fire department arrived firemen made the victim comfortable and called for an ambulance while the auxiliary team offered the exhausted commissioner coffee and a doughnut.

The next day’s headlines read:

Commissioner Relaxes with coffee and donuts while neighbor’s house burns

Regardless of how accurate the paper reports the rest of the story, the headline has served its purpose – malign the commissioner. The paper then avoids reporting why the commissioner was even on the scene until at least the second paragraph. This insures fewer readers and gives the writer additional opportunity to invoke his opinion into the article mis-catagorized as news.

If or when someone complains on behalf of the commissioner the paper gets a second news cycle from the original headline by very easily making the case that the headline was true. They may even have a photo of the commissioner with a cup of coffee sitting in the yard of the burning house. The follow-up story defending the original headline (ie the article) then has the added benefit of discrediting a supporter of the commissioner and “proving” the paper is factual and – by implication – truthful. The fact is that it is true, just not truthful.Advertisements

Occasionally, some of your visitors may see an advertisement here,
as well as a Privacy & Cookies banner at the bottom of the page.
You can hide ads completely by upgrading to one of our paid plans.




Education Crisis in the HouseIn “edcation”

Grateful for Impeachment?In “edcation”

An Evil WomanIn “military, Hillary Clinton, Iran, plane crash, SEAL”

Published by patriotessays

 View all posts by patriotessaysMarch 9, 2017


Post navigation

On Black History MonthDid Founders anticipate Dark MatterEdit”Truth vs Truthful in the Un-Fake News”

Leave a Reply

Search for:



Mr WordPress on The Survey says…U.S. #2…





UP ↑Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy

Colorado Communists are coming for the Children

Chose any definition you like that defines the Communist Party objective and you can not possibly deny that a bill, which has already pass initial committee hearings and prepared to be rammed down the throats of every family or prospective family in Colorado, is exactly what every Communist leader would be elated to sponsor. Karl Marx, the creator of the blueprint for today’s democratic party stated it this way; the conflict between the working class and those who control them is the root of all problems in society. The solution then is for the government to replace the capitalists and thereby become the controlling body over the working class: in other words, everyone but the government.

Four loyal democratic party women have sponsored House Bill 20-1006 (HB20-1006) titled, “Early Childhood Mental Health Consultants Program.” Two of those women, state senators Petterson and Story make no claim of having any occupation whatsoever according to the public record, while representative McCluskie actually considers herself a professional “legislator” and her fellow representative Sirota simply list her occupation as a “social worker” and “administrator.”

Four government insiders who seemingly would have no means of support if they couldn’t feed at the public trough have teamed to suggest Colorado families can’t raise their own children without government supervision. What exactly is it these women of the Colorado legislature have proposed? Among the directives of their new program are state certified government workers, an army of them, intruding into your home to insure your children are being instructed for proper “behavioral outcomes” and become “culturally responsive” according to definitions not yet created.

The unlimited expansion of the state’s army of “mental health consultants” will initially be assigned to evaluate the youngest children they can find. The language of the bill does, however, identify all children from preschoolers through high school graduates. Future expansion is disguised as counseling to be made “available” to prospective families. History suggest then that the “counseling” will eventually begin with the parents of the unborn to insure access to the newborn.

God this is scary stuff!

Of course, as with all oppressive government programs since the word “security” was attached to a tax intended for retirement savings, this new program has a clever acronym to hide beneath. As the bill advances toward the time when Governor Polis will sign it into law, the acronym SMART will become popular in the media. SMART refers to a section of the law which is filled with meaningless criteria supposedly to gain acceptance by those who would doubt the need for these draconian measures to force loyalty upon a generation of indoctrinated citizens.

State Measurement for Accountability, Responsive, and Transparent Government Acting is actually the title of that section nicknamed SMART. Imagine the ‘State’ creating a system to ‘measure’ its own accountability for anything. Is there any organization less transparent than an intrusive government bureaucracy? Yet there are many adults already convinced that government really does intend to work for their best interests. And good intentions are enough regardless of which road they pave.