Dang, Russia-Syria just took out one of our best Islamic fundamentalist leaders. The US isn’t going to be happy about this. Al-Nusra are our boys. Obama airdrops weapons to them because they’re “moderate” Al Qaeda terrorists even as we continue risking American lives fighting against their parent organization in Afghanistan.
Hillary won the debate. I know because the moment it ended cnn.com told me so with the all caps headline CLINTON SWEEPS DEBATE. Not sure what criteria the editors were using. Today it’s a little more tempered but same unwavering message. Likewise another unabashed Clinton dynasty backer the NY Times sez A NIGHT GOES CLINTON’S WAY. You aren’t thinking of bucking the system and voting for another Democrat are you? A handful of people at the top of the media food chain are working hard to make sure you aren’t.
My beef isn’t with Hillary, it’s with the mainstream media on both sides. I’m tired of living in a cartoon.
UPDATE 10/15/15: Thank God I’m not the only one who noticed. See below.
thehill.com: “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) raised $1.3 million in four hours after the first Democratic presidential debate started on Tuesday night, according to his campaign. His campaign blasted out an email seeking donations from his line defending Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as Secretary of State. The remark from Sanders was the most retweeted of any candidate of the night with more than 12,000 shares on social media. It was also one of the night’s most memorable moments and helped contribute to Sanders dominating attention on social media and in online searches.”
Pundits Thought Clinton Beat Sanders – but Did Viewers? (fair.org) “Pundits who said Hillary Clinton won the first Democratic debate failed to mention that every online poll one could find that asked web visitors who won the debate named Bernie Sanders…”
More TPP fluff from the billionaire-controlled media, this time from Michael Muskal of the LA Times (“What NAFTA can teach us about the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal“). This seems like a studied article; after all, it tells us plenty of facts — about NAFTA. Muskal can’t tell us a thing about TPP because he doesn’t know anything, because he’s not allowed to know anything, because President Obama’s keeping it secret. And Muskal doesn’t even mention that 800-lb gorilla.
He could tell us some facts about TPP thanks to Wikileaks but he’s going to pretend the damning leaked chapters don’t exist just like CNN’s Eric Bradner. Do you see a pattern emerging here with the corporate-owned media? Are they afraid of being kicked out of the White House press pool if they don’t follow Obama’s commands to disregard whistle blowers?
The LA Times is owned by the Tribune Company, the CEO of which is Austen Beutner, a former investment banker who has been part of the Democratic Party machine since the Clinton era. He has contributed more than a quarter million dollars to the Democratic Party which for a news man pretending objectivity is extremely troubling. (Remember the hot water George Stephanopoulos got into (continue reading…)
What a bunch of one-sided fluff from CNN writer Eric Bradner on the secrets of the TPP (“How secretive is the Trans-Pacific Partnership?“). For starters the article only quotes one source, Matthew McAlvanah, a paid shill for U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman. Froman is extremely down wid’ TPP. By only including him as a source for this article we can infer that Bradner was either too lazy to go interview someone with an opposing view, which is standard procedure for good journalism, or is blatantly biased in favor of the pact.
Bradner also blithely parrots Obama (and his new best friend, Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner) and explains to us that the reason the agreement must remain secret is because exposing the details might foil our delicate international relations (even though these other signatory countries already know what’s in it; who do you think is leaking these details to Julian Assange? I have a few guesses and it ain’t the Tea Party). Besides, says Bradner, the legal contract language is just too goshdarned difficult for representatives of trade unions, who get to serve as “advisers” to the White House on the agreement, to understand. Bradner makes the ludicrous claim (continue reading…)