In this day and age, many people tend to accept the speeches of current politicians or the ideologues of many "progressive" movements as fact without once bothering to challenge these words on their merit. It's not necessarily their fault, it's easier to believe a happy fib than to accept a painful truth. If we want real change, a real movement, the truth must come out. I aim to expose it.
CAUTION: VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED
Drones, or the official name of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) which I will use every now and then, are becoming a common talking point in our political climate lately. Last year, it was reported by several news outlets that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was in possession of drones (UAVs) similar in design to those that were being used against terrorists overseas, albeit without the guns. Not only did they have UAVs but they were flying them over local farms in Nebraska and Iowa to spy one them and monitor any violations of the Clean Water Act, which is a ridiculous waste of time and resources. Everyone was wondering why the government would be flying drones over our own airspace to simply spy on farmers.
We still don't know why drones were permitted to fly over farms, but the discussions still rage on today. On March 6, 2013, the House of Representatives voted to require the Department of Defense (DoD) to release information
of whether UAVs were indeed being used to conduct surveillance on
American citizens. The bill, rising out of the Appropriations committee,
calls for newly appointed Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to disclose
what "policies and procedures" are in place "governing the use" of
home-based UAVs. This bill comes off the back of Senator Rand Paul's 13
hour filibuster where he raised the profile of the drone misuse issue.
Predator drone firing Missile
According to a recent statement made by Senator Lindsey Graham, over 4,700 people have been killed by drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia over the course of "America's secretive drone war". Further research conducted by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates that somewhere between 474 and 881 civilians have been killed by the same drone strikes. Concerns about drone strikes have risen sharply over the last 3
years for this very reason as Americans wonder if the flying bombers could ever be used at
home. In fact, it reached an all-time high when President Obama released a memo where he gives himself the authority to kill an American citizen, overseas or or at home, who is in imminent threat of committing a terrorist attack against the United States, an act which was recently confirmed by Attorney General Eric Holder.
Giving one man, even the President, the power to rain hellfire down on one of his own people under even "extraordinary circumstances" is a dangerous notion and the people have a right to be afraid. How do the President or Congress decide what encompasses an "extraordinary circumstance" and would these rare instances condone the risk of killing bystanders in the strike's radius? These questions have to be asked, otherwise we're placing blind trust in our leaders to do the right thing. Even more dangerous when those leaders possess one of the most dangerous weapons ever created by man.
We've all heard the stories about media bias in our national news media, all the accusations thrown back and forth about who it favors. Well I'm telling you right now which direction it slants in: the left. People might not want to believe that our news is influenced by a bunch of people who support government agendas and messaging, some people don't even know it's happening, but there have been a multitude of examples over the years where the many outlets of the liberal media have the same message in regards to a certain topic. They protect accused high-profile democrats and liberal groups and individuals even when they are at fault, usually by attacking whoever gave the accusations by slandering them and humiliating them.
Photo from a peaceful Tea Party rally (left) championing regulated government and a photo from a radical Occupy protest (right) demanding government handouts and entitlements.
One example I have of blatant liberal media bias is the Fall 2011 coverage of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Many news outlets were praising the movement calling them organized and peaceful; even president Obama gave his support for the movement, saying that he "emphasizes with their frustration". In the following weeks, while Fox News, bloggers, and other outlets were receiving and broadcasting reports of pollution, defecation, rape, even a few fatalities within the confines of the Occupy camps, networks like ABC News, CBS News, MSNBC, and CNN said nothing of the crimes. They were too busy lording Occupy Wall Street over the conservative Tea Party Movement who they have referred to several times as full of racist, extremist, hate-mongers at best, and domestic terrorists at worstdespite the fact that they hold peaceful and silent protests never having once been reported for so much as littering. This is only one example of the liberal media choosing to ignore certain stories while focusing so heavily on the ones that they themselves have fabricated.
There are other examples that have popped up over the years, but none shine so bright as the election of 2012. Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney, and guess who the media sided with, no need to say it out loud. All throughout the election the mainstream media hounded Governor Romney either supporting or failing to denounce many allegations against him: humiliating a gay kid in high school by cutting his hair; putting his dog on the roof of his car during a family vacation; even claims that he contributed to a woman's death-by-cancer. While CNN debunked the last one, CBS and NBC failed to even report it. And then there were the debates, specifically the moderators of said debates, all of whom happened to be democrats. Candy Crowley from CNN, during the debate at Hofstra University, made a false statement in support of Obama's claims that he called the Benghazi attack an act of terror, which he actually called a spontaneous demonstration. Crowley even admitted afterwards that Romney had it right; so she basically lied to cover Obama. ABC’s Martha Raddatz did something very similar in the vice presidential debate, injecting herself into the conversation against Paul Ryan in support of Joe Biden. The moderator's job is to "moderate" these debates and remain impartial; instead both these women interrupted the Republican nominee several times during both their debates giving more time for their Democrat counterparts to speak. If this isn't a naked display of downright support and bias then I don't know what is.
Since 2008, I've heard a lot of what the news media has had to say about Republicans, conservatives, the Tea Party, and many people that I look up to. I considered what they said, then looked it up for myself only to discover that some of it wasn't accurate, some of it even false. Face it people, liberals own so much of the national news. This is why conservative moderators like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have such huge followings, often larger than even the TV networks, despite being a radio talk show. Oh yeah, I almost forgot to mention that the media is trying to destroy those guys as well. The truth is people just don't trust what they see and hear on the news as much as they used to. Thank goodness for the internet. Relying absolutely on certain people for all your news is dangerous, and I wouldn't suggest that anyone believe me without looking all this up for yourself.
