Mainstream Media Prostitutes

Nothing is quite so ridiculous as wrinkled-skinned, age-spotted, raspy-voiced, cigarette-breathed, half-smashed old prostitute who has dolled herself up with barn paint smeared on her lips, a frosted wig perched on her head, Christmas tree ornaments hanging from her ears, crooked mascara lines zigzagging across her brow, sashaying down the street in search of a hapless client. So goes today’s media, whose rabid partisanship has savaged any noble ideals of fairness in journalism that was once the hallmark of their profession. Not only do their presses churn out toxic propaganda sewage, they have deluded themselves into believing that they are neutral. It’s hogwash straight from the nations pig farms.

Their hyprocisy makes their pontificating and preachiness to the public that much more repugnant. Where do this media get off lecturing politicians about proper subject material to address in their campaigns? Why should they even think they can determine what we should talk about and what we should avoid! What unholy trinity of demi-gods sits in a penthouse boardroom in mid-town Manhattan and thinks it can say what is news and what isn’t; what should be reported and what shouldn’t; what should be investigated and what shouldn’t? Their lopsided liberalism, their globalism, their socialistic ideas and their anti-capitalistic mindset has so skewed their objectivity that they have gone beyond a simple violation of trust. They now represent a danger to America.

These are strong words. I’m tempted to say that, in the vein of the contemporary media, I need no verification. To say it makes it true. I have too much respect, however, for the intelligence of my readers. So, how is the media a danger to America? Witness their kid glove treatment of Ahmadinejad. Analyze their selective reporting of news coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Watch them circle the wagons around sworn enemies of America to mute any criticism of them. Examine the inordinate amount air time and print space they give to their pet causes that are too often degrading, embarrassing or harmful to American interests. (e.g. Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib.) Weigh their relentless skewering of a President who is attempting to make America safe. Note how many times they run to advocates of their philosophies and quote anything they have to say—a sophomoric practice that provides them cover against criticism for being biased. “We’re just reporting what they said!” Yeah, right. These are more than political positions which are fair game for criticism. Too often they have crossed the line into treasonous statements and have dealt a staggering blow to the morale of United States troops.

Somebody needs to stand up to the media and put them in their place. They should no longer set the tone and parameters for presidential debates. They should no longer be given a carte blanche to campaign reporting. The media good-old-boy networks that dominate all press releases and effectively cordon off all alternative news outlets should be stripped of their privileges and thrown into a lottery system to gain access to any national event so they have to compete for the chance just like everyone else. The alphabet soup networks have had a monopoly way too long in this country. They have turned the free reign with which they have operated into corruption and an abuse of power that would bring down most private corporations in a landslide of lawsuits and prison sentences.

I am tired of the media acting like the fourth branch of government. I am tired of people whom nobody elected and over whom nobody has control wielding such enormous power in this society. Yes, free press and free speech is a constitutional right. Exclusive access to privileges by and through which a few people can maintain a stranglehold on a nation is not a constitutional right.

I have two theories, both of which are related. First, I believe it is obvious in the extreme that the mainstream media acts in conjunction with all its sympathetic players. Otherwise, how can ten or more news outlets hold almost the identical view on almost everything? Moreover, how can all the outlets come out with the same story on the same day, and most of the time use identical terms and phrases to write or report their story? The law of averages militates against it. It may not be conspiratorial, but it is, at the very least, coordinated and orchestrated.

My second theory is that the mainstream media has been greatly threatened by the presence of talk radio. Therefore, they have banded together to throw their weight to the other side of the spectrum in an attempt to regain their influence and to assert themselves in the political process. If this means that they lose any vestige of objectivity that they may have had in the past, so be it. If this means that they become intrusive, obnoxious and shrill in their political advocacy, so be it. They may think they have nothing to lose. The print media has steadily lost ground over the past few years due to the rise of the internet, so they are desperate. The television media has seen its viewing audience shrink in the same time period to the point that they need act boldly in order to reclaim their share of the market. Hence, their non-published goal is a no-holds barred partisan power-grab. Their published goal, however, remains to simply report “all the news that’s fit to print.” Foot note to the media: you have zero credibility in my book. A growing number of people agree with me. Officiating at funerals is my specialty. Call me.

The Bailout Jump: Pray that the Chute Opens

The big question is not whether we have a monumental crisis on our hands. The outrageous and criminal abuses of executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mae, enabled by scandalous, socialistic politicians gave us the crisis. Bad mortgage deals that trashed all accepted lending practices have been leveraged many times over against debt. Banks will not lend money to each other, to most businesses or to most consumers. Without credit, business cannot buy raw material for their industries, pay their creditors or make payroll. Without payroll, workers—by the hundreds of thousands—will not be able to keep their households going. The economy slows down to a crawl, exacerbating an already toxic situation.

According to the terms of the bailout, the government will spend $700 billion that it does not have. It can either print or borrow the money. If it prints the money, dollar will be devalued. If it borrows the money from foreign nations, we will be a debtor nation beyond present levels which are already unprecedented. When it buys the mortgages, the government will own up to 50% of the housing market in this country. It plans to sell this real estate off to the highest bidders in a series of auctions. This compounds the problem.

Much of the real estate that the government will own is barely worth half of its original value. Many of the properties are worth scrap value only, and many of them were fraudulent transactions or never even existed. Even if every one of these properties were sold, there is not enough equity to avoid the greatest hit on our economy since the Great Depression, if not greater. The truth is that the loss of this money can never be recouped.

What will the impact of this enormous fiasco be on the average American? There will be a jump in inflation. Food, gasoline, heating oil and other basic commodities necessary to live will experience an historic climb. There will be a steep hike in unemployment. Industry and corporations will institute wage and hiring freezes. All of this economic turmoil will likely foment a rise in civil unrest. This creates a scenario of looting, crimes against property and protest marches that could easily turn violent.

My suggestions to you for the coming weeks and months are the following. Make sure you pay all of your notes—mortgage, car note, credit cards—on time. Bad credit could cut you out of the credit market. Pay close attention to the liquidity of your banks. If you have investments, talk to a knowledgeable person about their security. Be careful about taking on any additional financial risks.

Further, ask yourself these questions: If you can’t go to the store for a while, do you have necessary supplies to keep going? If things get very tight financially, how much of a cushion do you have? Can you do without certain purchases or expenditures? If you can cut the fat or non-essential items out of you budget, do it. It may not be time for a full-blown panic, but it is always time to be prudent.

The people who usually know about these things, the ones we look to for guidance are as puzzled as we are. When the experts don’t know what to do, it’s time to be concerned.

The most important thing you can do goes beyond the financial matters. Do you have a deep, inner peace? Do you have a source of strength that has nothing to do with money or material possessions? It is time to come to terms with your soul. It is time to pray. When everything spins out of control, your relationship with the eternal God will keep you sane and sensible.

Jesus told us not to take thought of tomorrow, of what we would eat or drink or what we should wear. This was not to encourage irresponsibility, but to give us a security resident in Christ that cannot be found anywhere else.

If Christ packs your chute, it will open.

The Bailout

Years ago, a friend of mine thought he was buying a video camera from a street merchant in New York City. The heavy package appeared unopened and in mint condition. When he got back his hotel room and opened up the box, he found two nice sized bricks. The tuition in the school of hard knocks cost him about two hundred dollars.

What does this have to do with the bailout? Well, a lot of banks and investment firms thought they were buying good mortgages from FHLMC (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation),and FNMA (Federal National Mortgage Association). The packages looked good and had all the proper guarantees attached to them. Plus, they were backed up by federal regulations and the United States government. But when they began to inspect the contents, they found out that they bought nothing but bricks. In this case, the bricks were foreclosed mortgages, extremely risky loans and bankrupt patrons. Basically worthless financial assets.

Let’s take it a step further. Say my friend met another friend on the way back to the hotel room and showed him the video camera package. His friend was impressed and offered him three hundred dollars for it. Repeat this process five times and add one hundred dollars for each exchange. Suddenly, two thousand dollars worth of business would have transpired on the basis of a couple of worthless bricks!

Now throw another wrinkle into the mix. Say friend three and friend five didn’t have the cash to buy the package and so they went out and borrowed the money using the package as collateral. Their lenders let them have the money on the basis that they could confiscate the camera and get their money back in case of default on the loan. That means that a thousand dollars of the two thousand dollars has now turned into bad credit. Not only have the lenders been ripped off, there was no camera in the box to begin with. Who is the real culprit? The street merchant who cooked up the hoax in the first place. Good luck catching him.

Multiply the money in the example by billions. Nobody can pay back the loans because it is just too much money. That’s why FMAC and FNMA are now on the hot seat. They were overseers, promoters and participants in cooking up bad loans upon which billions of dollars were invested.

Two more twists. What if my friend would have gone to a group of a hundred friends and offered to supply them with video packages just like the one he bought. They all eagerly gave him up front money to the tune of $200,000! He takes the money, spends it and then cannot find the street merchant who sold him the worthless merchandise in the beginning. Now, we have a huge mess. There is no way to recoup the losses for each customer because it was all paid for nothing.

Last, who is to be blamed? What if the street merchant said to my friend. “If you don’t buy my camera, I know where you and your family live and I will pay you a not so friendly visit some time?” What if Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae agents went to banks and said, “If you don’t make loans to people who can’t afford to pay you back, we will cause you so much grief that you will go out of business?” Hmmm?

Finally, what if the street merchant who caused the entire fiasco in the first place dressed up like a federal representative and got all the investors together and said, “If you lend me the money, I will get you out of this mess…maybe?” We would like to tar and feather him and run him out of town on a rail. We can’t. He’s the sheriff, the chief of police, and the mayor all rolled into one.

Unless we can fire the congress, we’re stuck. They invented Freddie and Fannie. They ran it, expanded it, exploited it, lied about doing it, cursed anyone who tried to stop them from doing it, and now they want us to give them money to fix it. They have the nation over a barrel.

America is in trouble. And we elected the very people that did this to us.

Take It from an Old Debater

Since I’m a veteran of a high school varsity debate team, I have a perspective on debates that many may not have. It doesn’t make me an expert, but it does qualify me to have an opinion. Here’s how I saw it.

A commanding, personal presence counts for far less in a real debate than the ordinary person may think. This may be a primary reason why the U. S. Supreme Court requires parties to file written brief, called certiorari before hearing oral arguments in front of the nine justices. According to Wikipedia, “When the Court grants a cert petition, the case is set for oral argument. At this point, both parties file briefs on the merits of the case, as distinct from reasons the parties may urge for granting or denying the cert petition. With the consent of the parties or approval of the Court, amici curiae may also file briefs.”

Because of this, I pay little attention to the looks, the demeanor, the composure or even the eloquence of a debater. I was trained to tune out these extraneous factors and listen very carefully to the definition of terms, the logic of the arguments advanced, the specific relevance and credibility of the evidence cited and the force of the overall case made. I ask these pointed questions: did the debater prove the need, did he present a workable plan, did he prove the benefits of his plan, and did he convince me that he absolutely knew what he was talking about?

First, as to my general sense of the exchange, I came away from the first presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama with a clear conviction that one knew what he was talking about and the other knew how to make a good impression. I feel secure with one being at the helm of the most powerful nation in the world, but I have deep reservations and nervousness about the other operating as my Commander-in-Chief. I felt my trust solidified as one put the building blocks of his case together; I felt my mistrust growing as I heard the other piece together his talking points with smooth bridges and contrived connections.

One gave convincing arguments that made sense. The other used all the right terms, but spliced them together in hollow and scripted ways. One cited evidence with great detail which demonstrated his familiarity with his material and his insight into the real situation on the ground. The other handled his material as though he were reading from a hastily acquired library book or an encyclopedia article. The one spoke from experience of visiting foreign countries and interacting with heads of state. The other…well, the other didn’t.

I will not parse the particular arguments—such a treatment may be found in a plethora of blogs and newssites around cyberspace. I listened and I listened hard. I heard what I needed to hear from one. I did not hear it from the other. My confidence soared to new heights in the leadership ability of one. I gained no such confidence in the leadership of the other. In fact, this is what the evening came down to for me. Two speakers did an adequate job behind their lecterns tonight. There was only one leader. I will leave it to the reader to decide which man I had in mind.

Election Opportunities

I have been paying close attention to presidential elections since John F. Kennedy defeated Richard M. Nixon in 1960. This year takes the cake. No election season has ever been more volatile, more polarizing or more provocative, at least in my memory, than the 2008 race for the White House. But, the explosive nature of the contest only marginally involves the traditional warring between the major political parties. Much more ominous, and therefore more riveting to me, have been the cultural issues that have dominated the campaign. Gay marriage, abortion issues, racial strife, gender rights, terrorism, financial collapse—issues that hold apocalyptic implications for the qualities of our lives—are all in the mix. I have always advocated that Christians, handling their sacred constitutional rights in the fear of God, have an obligation to pull the levers according to their righteous conscience.

The tragedy of the situation, however, is that far too many professing Christians do not take a position on anything they consider to be a political issue. If their favored candidate’s comes up short against a list of moral criteria, some get very nervous and drop out of the process. They have no heart for bucking partisan tradition. But, even within a political party, room exists for righteous influence. The opportunity that an election brings to every citizen—at the very least—is to learn, understand and shape a personal opinion about moral matters. Let this solemn truth guide you: our eternal judge will not hold us accountable to a political party or to some long-coddled personal bias. The King of Kings and Lord of Lords will judge us out of those things written in the book, the Word of God.

Pardon my preachiness for a moment, but: I believe that Bible-believing Christians ought to have a rock-solid opinion about topics plainly spelled out in the scriptures. We ought to know when life begins and ends—and who should be responsible for ending it. We ought to know about the gender of the parties in a marriage and how the Bible teaches us to honor and revere it. We ought to know that this nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles and seek to preserve it by continuing to trust in and practice those principles. We ought to know how to be good examples to our children and seek to protect them from the out-of-control evil influences in society. We ought to uphold family values in the home, the school and in our culture. We ought to fully appreciate our right to worship God according to the dictates of our conscience and fend off every effort to curb or deny that right to us. I could go on, but you get the general drift.

To secular combatants, elections are made for partisan rancor and trading insults. Bible believers, however, get the bigger picture. Any election, but especially this one, compels each of us to learn more about the Bible foundation for marriage, right-to-life, education, religious rights and all the moral issues that have become woven into the political landscape of our nation. It gives us an open door to find out the pros and cons of sensitive topics that we have ducked because of their political implications.

As our culture continues its precipitous slide toward moral poverty, all of these issues and more are working their way into the minds of our citizens and the laws of the land. It would be a mindless and irresponsible act to fling these critical issues under the bus and claim that we have nothing to do with them, or that we are powerless to act. Money, education and influence seem to be the standard by which we judge our political viability. Our greatest need is courage. True courage cannot be measured by political calculi. It arises from the pure heart of a patriot who yields no allegiance to prevailing winds of temporal powers. And when the big stage won’t permit our entrance, each of us has a private stage from which we can shake the earth. It’s called our closet of prayer. Your voice may never be heard in Washington , but it can be heard in heaven.

Take a moment right now and breathe a prayer for the safety and moral preservation of our nation. “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” And, “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” If a country isn’t important enough to pray for, what is? We ask for God to bless America . Let us now bless America with our fervent prayers.

The Liberal States of America

Initiation ceremonies are now in session. All those who have birth passes stating that your parents had permission to conceive and produce you may now stand. Have your papers ready and extend your right hand for scanning.

You, sir. What rights do you apply for?

What? Freedom to bear arms? <sigh> I take it you are something of a comedian. In this setting, your humor is not appreciated. You should know by now that you may only use state-owned and state-issued firearms if you are assigned to a body guard attachment to protect liberal bureaucrats. That takes years of training. Have you applied for this training? No? Well, step back in line and we will deal with you later.

Excuse me? What did you say? Second amendment? My patience is wearing thin. The second amendment was eliminated by the Supreme Court back in 2012, under his Lordship, Barack Obama. What planet have you been living on? It sounds like you have been corrupted by a war-mongering father or grandfather. Probably one of those Neanderthal Bushies. Do I need to send you back to training classes? Okay. Enough.

Ma’am. What rights do you wish to have? Freedom of speech, hmmm? Well, let’s see. Let me take a look at your papers here. Oooohh. This is a problem. Religion classes? Constitutional studies? And, AND…do I see here that you graduated from a private Christian school? Uh-uh. Nope. Can’t do it. You are going to be redirected into geriatric studies and be assigned to your choice of five nursing homes.

What do you mean we are restricting your freedom? Young lady, I told you I was giving you a choice of facility in which you could work! Consider yourself fortunate. Yesterday, I didn’t give anybody that kind of leeway.

Bailiff, where did we get this crop of rednecks today? Unbelievable.

Okay, guy. You’re next. Rights application papers, please. Freedom of the press, huh? So, you’re a writer? Well, let’s look at your credentials. Hey, I’m impressed. Ivy League. No military service…not even ROTC. Good. Students for Democratic Action. Get Out the Vote recruiter. Oh, what’s this? Arrested for disorderly conduct? Pro-Choice parade scuffle with police? Heh, heh. You little rascal. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Heh, heh! No problem. Happened to me twice when I was your age. Tell me, did you get a good crack on those pigs? You did? Good, good. Hey, where do you want to go? Openings at the New York Times, Washington Post, Time Magazine, Rolling Stone…take your pick. Mother Jones? I think we can work that out. Write away, my little friend. Write away!

(Wow. Sometimes it’s hard for me to believe that everybody used to have all these rights and freedoms just by getting born in the LSA, formerly USA. How stupid was that? That little punk over there would have been able to pack heat anywhere he wanted. Turns my stomach to think that people like that were running around the country a few short years ago. It was total chaos. And to think that that mindless skirt standing there would have been able to say whatever drivel dribbled out of her 1776 mouth. What did they do with the dangerous stuff she would have had the freedom to spew out on society? Capitalism? Free enterprise? Private property? Constitutional rights? Right to life? Now those were dangerous times! It’s a good thing we got control over these idiots. Oh, I’m sure that those founding fathers—slaveholders, bigots, capitalists though they were—still had good motives. They just didn’t have the foresight to know that the rank-and-file citizen out there couldn’t handle all that freedom. Nice thought, but totally unworkable. It’s far easier for people of my caliber and understanding to assign appropriate freedoms to deserving people—-and keep the savants from having them. It’s one reason why I don’t believe in God. If God exists, he sure made a mess of things. Actually, I should say that I do believe in God…God does exist, and I am he. Ha!)

Criticism for Conservatives and Liberals

• Criticize a conservative and he will argue on the substance of the charge.
• Criticize a liberal and he will assassinate your character.

• Criticize a conservative and he will ask for your evidence.
• Criticize a liberal and he will call you a liar and be done with it.

• Criticize a conservative and he will debate you on the logic of the charge.
• Criticize a liberal and he will appeal to the emotional content of the allegation.

• Criticize a conservative and he will still respect you for speaking your mind.
• Criticize a liberal and he will curse you for speaking your mind.

• Criticize a conservative and he will defend your right to express your opinion.
• Criticize a liberal and he will rip you for hate speech and bigotry.

• Criticize a conservative and he will seriously examine your contentions.
• Criticize a liberal and he will mock your stupidity for opposing him.

• Criticize a conservative and he will listen and answer you on the merits of the charge.
• Criticize a liberal and he will interrupt you and shout you down.

• Criticize a conservative and he will believe that you speak in good faith.
• Criticize a liberal and he will indict you for having an agenda of greed and selfishness.

• Criticize a conservative and he will assume you are speaking on your own behalf.
• Criticize a liberal and he will accuse you of speaking on behalf of an evil system.

• Criticize a conservative and he will give you an honest and direct answer.
• Criticize a liberal and he will obfuscate his answer with smoke and mirrors.

• Criticize a conservative and he will shake hands with you at the end of the day.
• Criticize a liberal and he will spit on you at the end of the day.

• Criticize a conservative and he will work on a compromise with you.
• Criticize a liberal and he will shaft you and do things his way after all.

• Criticize a conservative and he will forget it and wipe the slate clean.
• Criticize a liberal and he will exact revenge on you and make you pay.

• Criticize a conservative and you can never lose.
• Criticize a liberal and you can never win.

Our Politicized Media

One of my biggest beefs with the entire political process in our era has less to do with the candidates and their policies, campaign strategies or even the tenor of debate than with the unforgivable and blatant bias of the media. With no attempt anymore to conceal their partisanship, they speak about their favorite candidates with beaming smiles, gushy phrases and obviously pulled punches. Before their guy even has a chance to respond to an attack, they initiate counterattacks and circle the wagons so as to blunt any negative effects.

By the same token, the political candidates whom they despise get hostile commentary, slipshod reporting and often a distortion of facts. It has become laughably clear where their sentiments lie as conveyed by the demeanor with which they cover a story. The mass media in this country, hiding behind the freedom of press (which, by the way, they would love to deny to other media outlets who do not share their views) long ago abandoned their objectivity. The press has an agenda, and their philosophical strategy in executing their jobs plays off of this agenda through any and every element of media, whether by straight-up news stories, editorials, commentary, video footage or still photos. You can be sure that the average reader or viewer gets exactly what the czars of media power centers intend for them to get.

One would think that the major media would obfuscate their maneuverings so that most people would not suspect that they are being manipulated. In many instances they do, but they attempt any serious smoke and mirror acts less and less. They don’t think they need to because they believe most people agree with them anyway. It is, however, an arrogant denial of the political positions of most of the country. The country’s opinions do not matter to them if they have their own well-grounded view. If polls show that the majority is with them on an issue, they quote the poll. If the polls show that the majority is against them, they ignore the numbers and ramp up the propaganda to advance their view anyway. Double standards, rabid partisanship and public debacles don’t bother them if the media become the beneficiaries of such political defects.

John Hinderaker of PowerLineBlog discusses this modus operandi in the media in a recent posting. He wrote in response to an editorial defending the New York Times for printing of graphic and gory photos of the carnage of war. The real question is not the propriety of printing the pictures. They, as we know, simply tell the story of the tragedy of war. Rather, the issue is why did the Times publish these pictures but not similar or even worse shots of gore and mayhem occurring elsewhere in the country? If the intent is to present the facts as they are, why are those facts always set up so as to lead readers to a political conclusion? Are the photos simply a photojournalist’s view of the war or are they calculated to advance an agenda held by the corporate media? John writes:

“The Times photographer quoted by Hoyt says that graphic battle photos should be published “to see that a truthful account of the consequences of war is given.” I am somewhat sympathetic to this view. But isn’t that principle being very narrowly applied here? The fact is that newspapers and magazines hardly ever publish graphic images of violence in any context.

“If journalists believe it their role to “see that a truthful account of the consequences” of a given policy or phenomenon is given, why don’t we ever see photographs of the bloody and battered bodies of crime victims? Most horrific crimes are committed by people who already had long records of violent crime, and either have not been jailed, have been given short sentences, or are out on parole. Many Americans think that our criminal justice system is too lax in punishing violent criminals. Wouldn’t showing graphic pictures of their victims, painful though that might be to their families, represent a “truthful account of the consequences” of our policies on criminal justice?

“Here’s another one: a large number of crimes are committed by illegal aliens. Illegal aliens are also responsible for a remarkable number of motor vehicle accidents. Here in Minnesota, an illegal immigrant was just convicted of criminal vehicular homicide after she crashed into the side of a school bus, killing four children and injuring 17. No newspaper published photos of the dead or injured children. Why not? Wouldn’t such photos contribute to a “truthful account of the consequences” of our lax immigration policies?

“One more: since shortly after September 11, 2001, the television networks have refused to show footage of the terrorist attacks or the collapse of the twin towers. They have done this on the ground that the footage would be too upsetting to Americans; therefore they are sparing our sensibilities. What they really mean, I think, is that if Americans could see that footage their anger against the Islamic terrorists would be rekindled and they may be more likely to support aggressive actions to defeat them. They might conclude, for example, that two or three minutes of waterboarding is a small price to pay to avoid such attacks in the future.

“So, if we’re going to have a debate about when it is necessary to show graphic images of violence so that Americans can be better informed about the consequences of government policies, by all means let’s go at it. But let’s not pretend that the only time the issue arises is when a newspaper wants to publish photos of dead and dying soldiers for the purpose of turning public opinion against a military conflict.”

Today’s media power represents a fourth branch of government, albeit an informal one. Without an official role in governing this nation, they insert themselves into formation of public policy, selection of candidates and appointees, executive decisions, foreign affairs and domestic welfare. They can foment war, instigate riots, assassinate characters, shape public opinion, interfere with the administrative process, facilitate their agenda and virtually control the direction and destiny of the country. That’s a lot of power. That’s a lot of unelected power. We don’t get a chance to elect the people who work the ropes behind our politics.

The huge conundrum is, of course, how can we reign in the mainstream media without denying them the freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights? The simple answer is: we can’t. Two options remain: the media can return to its former professional objectivity and report the news that happens, or, alternative sources of news can rise up to expose the present media agenda. I don’t see the first option happening. The news outlets have become far too politicized to change. Moreover, they are fully cognizant of the power they wield and they will never let it be wrested from them without a fight on the scale of WWIII. (And remember, they control their own destiny through the use of their power. The playing field in such a war would never be level.)

The second option, alternative sources of news, is happening today. This column and tens of thousands of others represent the move in that direction. It is an uphill battle, a costly battle in which the media moguls hold the major financial resources, and it is a messy battle because many players in the alternative media sympathize with the mainstream media.

In the meantime, read or view ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, CNBC, FOX, AP, Reuters and all the other news outlets with skepticism. Don’t make up your mind until you sample the alternative sources out there. In extremely critical matters, investigate fully the options available. Ultimately, each individual consumer is responsible for what he or she believes. If someone lies to you repeatedly, and you continue to believe them, then you are to be blamed for your own opinions. If, however, you catch them in their lie and you turn to some other trusted source, you are to be commended. In the end, truth is all that matters. Jesus said, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”