Children separated from their families at the border is the latest media meme. But what exactly is the media trying to sell us on? Show originally aired on June 23rd, 2018 on WSB radio Atlanta A new board was recently put in at WSB. We’re still working out the kinks. Our apologies for any issues with audio levels.
If you haven’t, Subscribe to the Propaganda Report podcast on iTunes. Rate and review us because it helps us move up in the search rankings and we’d love to hear from you. Subscribe on iTunes
Despite claiming to be a grassroots candidate in the Georgia Gubernatorial race, democrat Stacey Abrams is funded by liberal billionaires George Soros and Tom Steyer. We discuss her truly terrifying plan for the public education system and we expose how she’s deceiving her supporters into believing she’s a grassroots candidate. Plus, election watchdog Garland Favorito from https://voterga.org/ joins us to discuss his shocking findings about how vulnerable to voter fraud Georgia’s elections are.
Stacey Abrams Wants State To Raise Your Children From “Cradle To Career.”
Stacey Abrams- She talks about children’s brain’s forming and how starting kids in pre-k at four years old is not early enough. She also says its the states responsibility to educate and provide day care for children.
Abrams vision for Georgia according to her website includes getting children into government child care programs starting at age ZERO.
Stacey Abrams Deceptive Campaign Email
The claim that 83% of her donations were under $100 is used to support the assertion that her campaign is “truly a grassroots effort.” This is deceptive. If I were to get 83 separate donations of 1 cent each from inside of GA, and then 17 donations of $6,000 each from outside the state, I could make the same claim she does, but that doesn’t make my campaign grassroots. The reality is that roughly 70% of the money she has raised has come from out of state. Plus, of the total amount of money raised, only around 20% of it has come from those under $100 donations. And there’s even a caveat with those.
When you read through Abrams financial reports, you begin to notice that a lot of people make multiple tiny donations. Some of these people are wealthy lobbyists, who follow up those tiny donations with large donations. You also notice that family members of many of her donors also make tiny donations repeatedly. It’s hard not to conclude that this is done on purpose to bolster the claim that 83% of her donations are under $100. Obviously, totaling the numbers below would exceed $100, but because they were made separately, they fall into that unitemized, under 100 category. Looks like a con to me.
Stacey Abrams Campaign Finance Reports
If you want search the documents for names yourself, do a “command F” search within the page.
In this filing you will find multiple large donations from Billionaire George Soros, Alexander Soros, and Gregory Soros. You’ll also find a small donation from a representative of NextGen Climate, which is a super pac founded by Thomas Steyer (More on him below).
In this filing, you’ll find multiple large donations from MGM International In Las Vegas as well as multiple donations from representative of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Valerie Rockefeller Wayne, whose grandfather is John D. Rockefeller III.
In this filing you will find large donations from Billionaire donor Thomas Steyer and his wife as well as multiple large donations from George Soros children Andrea Soros and Jonathan Soros.
You’ll also notice that donations from both Steyer and his wife indicate that the donations are for the primary and that both donations were made on March 29th, 2018. Yet, an article published on April 13th, 2018 quotes Steyer as saying,
“We have tried to avoid D-on-D races…..We have obviously heard a lot, talked a lot and thought a lot about this Democratic primary in Georgia. We haven’t decided that this is one that would break our rule, although we understand that it’s a very important primary.”
The article, which was published on April 13th, says that the Steyer’s comments were made earlier that week. If that’s true, then Steyer isn’t being honest because he and his wife had already donated to Abrams before those comments were made, as the above image indicates. Not to mention that a representative of one of his PACS donated to Abrams back in June of 2017.
If you haven’t, Subscribe to the Propaganda Report podcast on iTunes. Rate and review us because it helps us move up in the search rankings and we’d love to hear from you. Subscribe on iTunes
Parody. (PG-13) In this exclusive interview, James Comey reveals the truth about his relationship with President Obama, his reason for writing his new book A Higher Loyalty, what he misses most about the FBI, his biggest weakness, the Vince Foster investigation, and what the Russians actually did tape. If you like this video, give it a like on Youtube and subscribe to my channel.
The creator of Politifact and co-founder of the Soros funded International Fact Checking Network, Bill Adair, needs your help tonight. His Duke Media Lab is seeking beta testers to help test out the lab’s new real-time fact checking app tonight during President Trump’s State of the Union Address.
If Adair’s past is any indicator, the app is sure to be programed with liberal bias. But, we shall see. The app is called Fact Stream and is available at the iTunes store. I’m going to try it and then send feedback. I encourage anyone who is interested to do the same. If you do, let me know what you think in the comment section below. More info about the funding behind the project and how the app works in the video below.
Hillary Clinton made an embarrassing appearance at the Grammy’s Sunday night in a painfully unfunny video where she reads excerpts of Micheal Wolf’s Book, Fire and Fury.
In the sketch, host James Corden auditions celebrities for the spoken word version of Michael Wolff’s “Fire and Fury.” Among those who “auditioned” were Cher, Snoop Dogg, Cardi B, John Legend, DJ Khaled, and of course, Hillary. In an attempt at a dramatic reveal, the video shows Hillary awkwardly covering her face with the book when she first appears. The problem is that she’s not only obviously covering her face, as opposed naturally holding the book that way, she also begins reading before she lowers it, making it even more obvious that its her. If her direction was to make it look forced and stupid, she nails it. On top of that, she delivers a final line that’s more terrifying than anything else. After Corden says, “That’s the one,” Hillary turns to him with the eyes of a homicidal maniac and says, “Grammy’s in the bag?”
It’s truly horrifying.
“Fire and Fury” has been shown to lack credibility by many in the media, including CNN’s Jake Tapper who’d love for it to be true. But you don’t need the media fact checkers to see that this one is bogus. All you have to do is look at the second page of the book’s Author’s Note to see that Wolf’s claims are subjective and unverifiable.
In the Author’s Note, which appears immediately after the table of contents, Wolf writes,
“I have, through consistency in accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true. Some of my sources spoke to me on so-called deep background, a convention of contemporary political books that allows for a disembodied description of events provided by an unnamed witness to them. I have also relied on off-the-record interviews, allowing a source to provide a direct quote with the understanding that it was not for attribution.”
In other words, there’s no way to verify anything written in the book. Yet, Hillary Clinton and a handful of celebrities read excerpts from it at the Grammy’s as though the book’s dubious claims are facts.
Propaganda has poisoned nearly every corner of the entertainment industry.
After a 19-year old from Michigan was arrested for calling in death threats to CNN over fake news, the Washington Post implied that it was Trump’s fault. What’s more, the WaPo journalist then wondered if it’s “time to expand the definition of conspiracy or to tweak laws against yelling “fire” in a crowded theater?”
You can read the full Washington Post article here.
The article suggests that Trump’s fake news tweets incite his supporters into making threats against journalists because Twitter makes them feel like the president is whispering in their ear. Then of course it suggests some sort of regulation to control it.
While the article emphasizes that many liberal journalists feel like they have a target on their back because of Trump, it makes no mention of conservatives who feel the same way because of radical progressives. It makes no mention of Steve Scalise, who was shot by an anti-Trump, Bernie Sanders supporter. It also doesn’t question the methods of the “Resistance,” which explicitly incites their followers to disrupt and cause chaos. Nor does it mention conservative pundits who receive death threats from radical progressives.
Instead, the article takes a real problem that pundits and public figures on all sides face, and makes it out to be something that only those on the left deal with. Then it calls for the government to regulate away the first amendment just a little bit more. Look for the reporting on this story from other outlets to follow the same pattern.
The New York Times has made another odd claim about the President that their audience is sure to believe without question. Is the mainstream media testing what they can get away with? Are they trying to see how far they can go before their audience will question them? In an story reported over the weekend, the NYT alleged that while the government was shutdown Trump spent most of his time watching old TV clips of himself “berating President Barack Obama for a lack of leadership during the 2013 government shutdown.”
The source of this odd claim? An anonymous White House aide who seemed “content to sit back and watch the show.”
Here’s the full passage, which is tacked on to the end of the article.
“On Saturday, the president was left alternately defiant and angry, self-pitying and frustrated. He argued to aides that he did not deserve the blame he was taking, but without a credible deal on the table, there was little for him to do. Irritated to have missed his big event in Florida, Mr. Trump spent much of his day watching old TV clips of him berating President Barack Obama for a lack of leadership during the 2013 government shutdown, a White House aide said, seeming content to sit back and watch the show.”
So the NYT would have us believe that while everyone else was working hard on capital hill to get the government back open, President Trump was having a pity party and watching old clips of himself smacking down Obama? How narcissistic, unstable, and racist of him. Someone better evoke the 25th amendment before he loses his mind and nukes the South Side of Chicago. Down with Cheeto!
Is the claim true? I don’t know. To me it sounds more like the parody story about how Trump spends 17 hours a day watching videos of gorillas fighting than it does a real story. You know, the one that went viral because so many people believed it was true. I do question the authenticity of the above quoted claim, but not just because it reads like a parody to me. The main reason I question it is because it comes from the New York Times. They’ve reported too many stories from unnamed sources that ended up not being true, and I don’t trust them. I no longer give them the benefit of doubt simply because they’re the New York Times.
But it doesn’t matter what I think. It matters what their primary target audience thinks. And their audience will believe this story without question, regardless of whether it’s true or false. Their primary audience will believe anything that reinforces their negative perceptions about Trump as long as the story seems plausible. If a story meets those requirements, it will not have to withstand critical scrutiny from the majority of their readers. Why would they question something they want so badly to be true?
The New York Times and other mainstream media outlets know this and they appear to be testing just how far they can go before their audience will finally stop and question the validity of a story. I say this because not only has the use of unnamed sources become the norm, so has the reporting of seemingly crazy stories. One day it’s reported that Trump drinks a dozen Diet Coke’s a day. A few weeks later it’s reported that he said everyone from Haiti has AIDS. And not long after that the story is all about how Trump called all African countries S-holes. Those are just a small sampling of stories that originally relied on unnamed sources and were then later disputed, yet millions of Americans have never questioned their validity.
This pattern of reporting by the media has expanded the level of crazy that Americans will, without being shown any evidence, accept as true. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if in their pursuit to see how far they can go, the media just stopped citing sources all together. Maybe instead of saying “according to a source familiar with the matter,” they’ll test how their audience reacts to statements like, “Because we said so,” or “according to us.” “”BREAKING NEWS: In A Fit of Rage, Trump Fires Baron As His Son, Sends Him To Live in Sh*Thole Haiti Alone”…..Because we said so.”
While there’s a lot of humor in the insanity that comes out of the news these days, it’s a bit unsettling when you hear protesters cite stories that’ve been proven false as their reason for resisting. This is not to say that hardcore Trump supporters don’t sometimes fall into the same trap. They do. The difference is that when Trump supporters are quick to believe a claim before the evidence is in, the claim isn’t parroted as fact by almost every major media outlet in the country.
If nothing else, it’ll at least be interesting to see how ridiculous the stories become before they have to reel it back in. I mean, how much further can they go?
The New York Times article quoted above includes more than just the one reference to an unnamed source. There are a handful of others as well. Among them are:
“according to one presidential adviser”,
“according to a person briefed on the exchange”(My personal favorite.),
“One senior administration official, who asked for anonymity”, and
“a White House aide said, seeming content to sit back and watch the show.”
It might be time to start compiling a definitive list of all the ways the mainstream media cites anonymous sources.
Facebook is currently testing a new feature on its mobile app called, “Today In,” a feed made up of local news. The purpose of the new feature is to help people find local news from “vetted” sources. That’s right. Facebook wants to vet your local news sources for you. According to Record, who spoke with the social media giant, “Facebook is using machine-learning software to surface content in this new section. Local news publishers who appear there will all be approved and vetted by the company’s News Partnerships team, which is overseen by former NBC news anchor Campbell Brown.”
Over the summer Facebook removed a link that I posted because someone flagged it. The link was to an official government document on the official Georgia Secretary of State website. If that’s the kind of vetting Facebook intends to do locally as well, I think I’ll pass.
You can read the rest of the Record article here.
A few news items I’ve found interesting so far today. 1. Vanity Fair Expresses Regret Over Video Suggesting that Hillary Get A New Hobby.
Yesterday Vanity published a “humorous” video suggesting to Hillary Clinton that she get a new hobby. The “controversial” (not really) video offers Hillary ideas on activities she can do besides run for president…like knitting. Naturally, because we live in a always triggered world, liberals were outraged. Many took to social media to call Vanity Fair sexist and to demand that everyone cancel their subscription to the magazine. Unable to withstand the tyranny of the online lynch mob, Vanity Fair showed itself a coward today and issued what is being reported as an apology. In a statement Vanity Fair said of the video, “It was an attempt at humor and we regret that it missed the mark.”
Trump of course took the opportunity to troll Vanity Fair for its weakness.
Vanity Fair, which looks like it is on its last legs, is bending over backwards in apologizing for the minor hit they took at Crooked H. Anna Wintour, who was all set to be Amb to Court of St James’s & a big fundraiser for CH, is beside herself in grief & begging for forgiveness!
While the media is reporting Vanity Fair’s statement as an apology, perhaps they shouldn’t check their liberal outrage just yet. Vanity Fair technically did not apologize with their statement. They merely expressed regret over missing the mark in their attempt at humor, which they did. They video is lame and if there’s anything they should regret it’s that they missed an opportunity to mock Hillary Clinton as well as they could have.
2. World Health Organization To Recognize Gaming Addiction As Mental Health Disorder
It’s finally official. Just a few weeks after advertisers targeted children with ads designed to make them throw screaming tantrums until their parents bought them the latest Xbox, Playstation, or Nintendo Switch, the WHO has essentially declared most of the children in the United States, as well as many adults, addicts.
“Gaming Disorder’ appears in a section titled, ‘Disorders Due To Addictive Behaviors‘ which states,
“Gaming disorder is characterized by a pattern of persistent or recurrent gaming behaviour (‘digital gaming’ or ‘video-gaming’), which may be online (i.e., over the internet) or offline, manifested by: 1) impaired control over gaming (e.g., onset, frequency, intensity, duration, termination, context); 2) increasing priority given to gaming to the extent that gaming takes precedence over other life interests and daily activities; and 3) continuation or escalation of gaming despite the occurrence of negative consequences. The behaviour pattern is of sufficient severity to result in significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning. The pattern of gaming behaviour may be continuous or episodic and recurrent. The gaming behaviour and other features are normally evident over a period of at least 12 months in order for a diagnosis to be assigned, although the required duration may be shortened if all diagnostic requirements are met and symptoms are severe.”
This recognition of a very real problem should come as a relief to parents who could use a better reason than “because I said so” when their kids ask them why they have to pry the video game screen away from their face and go outside. Psychologists will also surely welcome the new patient group. The new label however is unlikely to affect advertisers who no doubt will continue spending millions advertising drugs to addicted children. 3. People Are Moving To Small Boxes In The Woods
A startup called Gateway wants to sell stressed out Millennials on moving into a small box in the woods.
But how will they get their hourly fake news fix?