The corrupt main stream media

There used to be a day when the media used to do its job and remain independent of bias.  Not anymore.  Of course, there also used to be a time when politicians used to be ethical and refused to take contributions from foreign governments, in any form whatsoever, to avoid even the appearance of corruption.  Hillary Clinton, single-handedly, shattered that integrity guidepost.  Today, reporters donate money to Hillary Clinton overwhelmingly.  The Center for Public Integrity reported that 96% of reporters campaign contributions went to Hillary Clinton.


When our media, which is supposed to be objective, is overwhelmingly biased, what chance do we have of them giving us the objective truth?  Is it the media’s job to tell us what we should or should not say, as long as our writing does not have profanity or lies in it?  Not really.  While views on topics may be controversial, the job of the media is to tell the complete picture.  But the complete picture cannot be told if we are looking at the realities of the past two decades, and forgetting the realities of the past two centuries and world history. 


Today, the media is capitalizing on American ignorance and apathy.  People don’t bother to demand the truth, and supinely accept what “experts” say.  If I had spent an average of nine years on the couch watching television, as the average American does in their lifetimes, I’d be VERY RELUCTANT TO EXPRESS ABSOLUTE OPINIONS ON ANYTHING,  as television is practically guaranteed to disable the reasoning process.  But, many Americans are fiercely convinced that the information they are relying upon, which is often the nonsense of the mainstream media, and fellow liberal thought indoctrination centers, is the epitome of truth.  The same absurd logical fallacy, the appeal to popular, is repeatedly used.  We are told that because all of the mainstream press, and the liberal colleges types support Hillary, and there is a societal echo chamber, that supporting Hillary should be the common sense thing to do. 


Donald Trump is then transformed by the media into a racist, woman abusing freak.  He is placed under the liberal media microscope and shamelessly dissected in every imaginable way.  He is then put back together into a Frankenstein which the liberal media tells us is utterly appalling.  He had issues with treatment of women, but he, like most American men, was an admirer of Playboy magazine in his youth.  When a man views women in porn, it is no surprise he goes on to view and treat them as Trump did, and as many American men today do.  But eliminate porn and that will change.  The Republicans have called porn a public health disaster, and yet Donald Trump’s past is held over him?  Why don’t people realize it was his past bad behavior that led him to the shame necessary to embrace the Republican party and conservative principles? 


Then, somewhat conservative sites like Drudge or Breitbart, which are far more in line with the views of America’s Founders and historical truth, are castigated as off the wall, and lunatic.   Zig Ziglar said, “When I wake up every morning I read the newspaper and I read the Bible, that way I can figure out what both sides are up to”.  Indeed, the fact that our Founders knew their Bibles very well, and nothing of television and porn, but the vast majority of Americans today know nothing of their Bibles, but much of television, and 99% of males have seen porn, is why they are far wiser than we, despite our technological improvements.  King George III told Americans in 1776 he was going to tax incomes over $250,000 (relatively speaking compared to what the money would be worth today), and they rose up and fought a Revolution.  Today, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama say this, and Americans cheer.    


If the media wants to make moral decisions, in line with history and the Bible, as newspapers did in 1776, then they ought to be commended.  But to try and hide the truth from the American people, and to elect a woman who DESERVES TO BE IN JAIL, is despicable and truly deplorable.   If the media wants to show us all the stories from women accusing Trump, fine!  Go ahead and show the lawsuit Trump files against them and all the evidence proving or disproving their evidence too.   Go ahead and show us “Their Lives”  by Candice E. Jackson, which chronicles the 8 lives of women who were abused by Bill Clinton, and whose abuse was hidden by Hillary Clinton.  Show us the Clinton Foundations corruption.  Tell us about Clinton Cash, and the pay to play system.  Tell us about the 33,000 e-mails blatantly deleted after a subpoena was given to Hillary Clinton.  Talk to us about the numerous scandals the Clinton's have been involved in over the years.  Talk to us about the threat that Hillary poses to our Constitution.  Talk to us about how Hillary Clinton has destroyed the Middle East with Obama, and created unprecedented chaos and the rise of Isis.  Talk to us about the Democrat inner cities, and the rampant violence and welfare their policies create.


Billy Roper Added Oct 25, 2016 - 7:46pm
Ryan, nice article about the "mainstream" media, but I'm afraid that you misspelled the word "Jewish". Any discussion of the media without mentioning that they are almost all owned or controlled by Jews is like those politically correct newscasts on crime reports which say, "The description of the perpetrator is uh, a male wearing a white t-shirt and blue jeans." In other words, of limited use, because it doesn't really identify the culprit.
Tamara Wilhite Added Oct 25, 2016 - 7:55pm
Ryan Messano Added Oct 25, 2016 - 8:09pm
Ha Ha, Billy. 
But Michael Savage, Mark Levin and many other Jews in the media support Trump?
Also, I'm curious, is Jeff Bezos, a Jew?  I've been researching and I can't tell for sure.  
I don't mind people giving the news a religious slant, as long as it's the same one those who formed the Constitution had, minus the racism and slavery.  
That is absolute corruption, Tamara, I can barely keep up with all the corruption revelations coming out about Hillary.
If I can barely keep up and I'm single and own my own business, what chance does the average American with a family, and who is not self employed have?
Patrick Writes Added Oct 26, 2016 - 12:07am
I believe Jews are still God's chosen people. They have a destiny to fulfill before the end comes. Best to leave them be. 
And before Billy starts his "they aren't really Jewish" mantra, let's do a quick thought experiment. 
If a Jewish woman marries a non-Jewish man, what are the kids considered? They are considered Jewish. 
A Jewish man travels to a new country as an immigrant and marries and local woman. If she converts to Judaism, has children who are raised in Judaism (circumcised if boys), are these children considered Jewish? Yes, they are also considered Jewish in that case. 
If this literally happens a dozen or so times in the course of thousand years, will the Jewish man living today have much "blood" of the original Jewish man? Partly, but he'll have a lot of "blood" from the countries where the Jewish men in his line traveled to and married local women. 

But as I've already demonstrated, it doesn't change the Jewishness of the man living today. If he's not Jewish, then neither was King David who's great grandmother was a Moabite (Ruth). 
Stone-Eater Added Oct 26, 2016 - 6:16am
Agree fully. That's what we have noticed here in Europe too. It's hilarious how the press hails that slut to heaven. Seems that she's being supported by the MIC to ensure the US can start WWIII as soon as possible to test new weapons. We live in the time of Counter Strike and WOW, so real war can't be different than a video game, right ?
I could puke about so much stupidity.
Kerem Oner Added Oct 26, 2016 - 8:57am
It is a sad day when a civilized nation looks up to entities such as WikiLeaks and Judicial Watch to get the truth because the media has lost all integrity.  A sad day indeed; one that will not end well at all when all is said and done. 
Kerem Oner Added Oct 26, 2016 - 9:00am
Whatever happened to all the big talking progressives around here?  Anything that has to do with the Democrat party is either in a mess (such as Obamacare, the economy, and the sorry international situation to list a few) or ridden by scandal (way too many to list)!
Kerem Oner Added Oct 26, 2016 - 9:01am
...And the sad thing is, they all lack the integrity not to come once the election is over and act as if none of this happened, lol.
Billy Roper Added Oct 26, 2016 - 9:20am
Patrick, Ruth wasn't actually a Moabite, she was descended from Israelites who had moved to that side of the river shortly after the Moabites were conquered by the Israelites, so she lived geographically in Moab, but we know that she was an Israelite also because Boaz was able to step forward as her kinsman redeemer, a fellow Israelite, per the Mosaic requirements in Deuteronomy 25:7–9.
The territory of the Moabites was originally east and northeast of the Dead Sea. It extended from the Arnon river on the south to the Jabbok river on the north. Then their territory went from the Dead Sea and the Jordan river on the west, across the plains and foothills, into the mountains to the east. From the name of the people who lived there, it was called Moab. It kept that name for many centuries after all the Moabites were gone from it.
When the Israelites entered the promised land, after their 40 years wandering during the exodus, the land of Moab was the first land they conquered. Yahweh had commanded Israel to totally exterminate the occupants of the lands they were to settle, in Moab they did so.
At this time, about 1450 B.C. Sihon, king of the Amorites, had conquered and occupied the kingdom of Moab and was its ruler when the Israelites came in. In Numbers 21:26, 29 we read, “For Heshbon was the city of Sihon, king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand, even unto Arnon. Woe unto thee Moab! Thou art undone, O people of Chemosh: he hath given his sons that escaped, and his daughters, into captivity unto Sihon, king of the Amorites.”
The Israelites conquered the land of Moab, killing all the people found there. We read in Deuteronomy 2:32-34, “Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. And Yahweh, our God delivered him before us: we smote him, and his sons and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones, of every city: we left none to remain.”
From here, the Israelites advanced northward into the land of Ammon, Numbers 21:33-35 describes it. “And they turned and went up by way of Bashan: and Og, the king of Bashan, went out against them, he and all his people, to the battle at Edrai. And Yahweh said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people and his land; and thou shalt do to him as thou didst unto Sihon, king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon. So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left alive: and they possessed his land.”
Billy Roper Added Oct 26, 2016 - 9:22am
Anyway, Ruth was an Israelite by blood, not a Moabitess. But if you truly believe that those who call themselves Jews today, who are spoken of in their modern context in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9, are God's chosen people, and since that's inherited, through the matrilineal side, you should marry a Jewess, so your kids can be Chosen, too, logically, right?
Billy Roper Added Oct 26, 2016 - 9:27am
Ryan, yes, Bezos is a Jew. Most Jews are atheistic, so it isn't about religion, but rather, their race, and their group survival adaptive strategy. Sure, there are some Jews who take a "conservative" stance. If I make the assertion that Bob Jones and his family had a monopoly on the gas stations in town, because they own the biggest station, would you tell me that I was wrong because his brother Ralph Jones owns a competing gas station across the street?
Ryan Messano Added Oct 26, 2016 - 5:02pm
Oh no, Kaushal, Hillary is a wicked witch, and has tons of scandals while in public life.  
Trump is a wild card, but Hillary is a known corrupt politician, one of the most corrupt in our nations history.
Joel Rambaud Added Oct 26, 2016 - 6:16pm
Ryan , you need to stop smoking your dirty underwear , it affect your hairs. , just do like Trump get a graft , take the hair from your rear and stick them to the front ...
I found it amusing that YOU the so called moral majority which by the way come from mainly in the so called bible belt , the Highest rate of divorce , incest , child pregnancy , incest , poverty and crime , look it over FBI statistics . Every time the weather does not favor you , you blame the Corrupt Media
Then you come around blaming the Jews one more time , one should not forget that Hitler based his extermination of Jews , Gays , Gypsies on the Eugenic movement , a very real tragedy as peoples were forcefully sterilized for their race , did not work too well either .
1 - Created Social Security {if you never used it? You will unless you are the top 3% which you are not they don’t waste time on AOL chat }                                                                                                              2 – Lifted millions out of poverty                                                                                                            3 – Liberals ended segregation { I wonder what the Olympic , NFL , NBA and other would be without minorities crying they got mugged in a Brazilian bathroom? just saying  }                                                                4 – Liberals got women the right to vote , {you know the one that cook your meal , do your laundry ,clean your trailer and wake you out of hibernation or alcohol induced coma}                                                          5 – Liberals ended segregation {while ultra conservative Republican were having babies with the Maid}                                                                       6 – Liberal passed the civil right { while republican wanted to keep the Country under slave labor regardless of color}                                                                                                             7 – Liberals passed the voting right { so not only the Vanderbilt, the  Carnegies would have an opinion}                                     &nbs
Bill Kamps Added Oct 26, 2016 - 7:01pm
Ryan my only disagreement is that you say politicians avoided even the appearance of corruption, when was this time ?  Politicians have always been corrupt, we just know more about it now.
As for the media, do you mean the media that used to help politicians cover up their misdeeds, like the JFK brothel in the White House?
My contention is that we just know more about this stuff, because of the internet, videos, blogs, and the various way people find things out these days without the media being involved.
HRC screws up in Baghdad four people die and we all know the next day, Lincoln screws up something in Civil War, thousands die, and no one knows because it takes weeks for even the result of the battle to get around, much less the decision process that went into moving troops around.
Bill H. Added Oct 26, 2016 - 7:38pm
Ryan - your collection of information sources goes beyond even the term "polarized"! Every time I click on one of your links, it is either radically religious or ultra conservative conspiracy theory based.
You are the prime example of when I describe those who are "lost in a bubble" on the internet.
Thanks for proving me right again!
Patrick Writes Added Oct 26, 2016 - 8:14pm
@Billy - We disagree on Ruth. I see on the net that there are some who believe different interpretations of the book of Ruth. I take the text on the surface. It says she's a Moabite. Naomi tells her to go back to her own people early in the book. She calls herself a stranger (foreigner) when addressing Boaz.
Either way, she could be redeemed by her Jewish kinsman redeemer (Boaz) because she was widowed by a Boaz's close Jewish relative. This is the Levirate marriage, detailed in the Old Testament. It's important to remember that this was voluntary, though encouraged. 
Prohibitions against intermarriage between Jews and Moabites such as Deuteronomy 23:3 applied only to Moabite men, not to intermarriage between Jewish men and Moabite women. See below Christian and Jewish commentaries which agree on this.
Also, from a Christian perspective, Rahab the (likely) prostitute from Jericho was also in the line of Jesus because she joined the Israelities and married a Jewish man. (Uriah the Hittite was obviously a foreigner but a soldier of high rank in King David's army because he joined the Israelities.)
To your final point, if the Jews are God's chosen people, why don't I join them? That's one of the central doctrines of Christianity in my opinion. 
Gentile converts to Christianity are 'grafted in' to the family of God (the true Israel). But the Jews still have their position in God's eyes as well. 
Romans 1:1-2, 11, 25, 28 (read the chapter to determine if I'm taking it out of context)
"I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.
Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious
Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in,
As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs"
Billy Roper Added Oct 26, 2016 - 8:30pm
Patrick, You're confusing geography with ancestry. Are the Boers an African people? Sure. They live in Africa, and have for centuries. Are they African by race? Nope. so, if you read that they were a African people, you'd take that at face value, that they were black, I guess, without looking at their origin and identity.
Rahab also was an Israelite. And the term 'mamzer', the word which was used to describe a mixed race person who wasn't allowed to come into the Lord's house for ten generations, applies to the offspring of either a man or a woman who married outside the Israelite community.
Again, in Revelation 2:9 and Revelation 3:9, Israel is a people, not a place, and those who call themselves Jews today are not them.
In Matthew 1 (the lineage of our Savior) we read:
And Salmon [a Judahite] begat Booz [Boaz] of Rachab [Rahab]....Matthew 1:5
It is often assumed that the Rahab of this text is the Rahab of Joshua 2, who was a Canaanite, and helped two Israelite spies escape. It is only an assumption. Rahab was a common Hebrew name. Moreover, it is an assumption that the Rahab of Joshua 2 was a racial Canaanite, simply because she lived in Jericho .
The Canaanites were not of a different race than the Israelites. They were of a forbidden lineage. Thus, even if Rahab was not an Israelite, her marriage to Salmon would not have been an interracial marriage!
We find this in Deuteronomy Chapter 7:
When YHWH thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites ... thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. (Deuteronomy 7:1-3 )
Are we to believe that the Rahab listed in the genealogy of Yehshua was a Canaanite, when the law specifically forbade marriages between the children of Jacob/Israel and the Canaanite? For this to be so, the prophet Zechariah would have to be wrong:
Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts. (Zech 14:21)
Remember, Zechariah was a prophet to the House of Judah, from which Jesus came, and was describing 1 st century events leading up to (and including) the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD. Even with a futurist view that Zechariah's phrophecies are yet to come, the idea that Jesus can have a true Canaanite lineage is untenable.
Also, our Jesus could never sit on the throne if he had a Canaanite lineage:
Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom YHWH thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. (Deuteronomy 17:15)
There is another scenario.  If Rahab really was of the lineage of our Savior, she could have been called a "Canaanite" but not actually have been one.  We can prove this by addressing a common assumption. If a black man lives in, and is a citizen of, the sovereign state of Texas , is he an African or a Texan? You see, nothing has changed! In Moses' time, Moses was called an "Egyptian":
And when they came to Reuel their father ... they said, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds....Exodus 2:18-19
Where a person lives is often use to determine what they are called. Rahab very well could have been called a "Canaanite" and not be of the forbidden lineage!
There are yet more things to consider that would leave us to conclude that the Rahab of Joshua Chapter 2 might indeed have been an Israelite. For instance, why would the Israelite spies seek out Rahab's home for safe habor (especially when Rahab is identified as a harlot?)
Was Ruth of another race than Naomi and Boaz?
Is it really true that we can use Ruth as an example of how " God views the issue of marriage between those who are from different people groups but trust in the true God?" Here are some more commonly-heard statements made by those who would say "YES!":
... Since this was clearly a union approved by God, it underlines the fact that the particular 'people group' she came from was irrelevant – what mattered was that she trusted in the true God of the Israelites.
The same can be said of Ruth, who as a Moabitess, also married an Israelite, and is also listed in the genealogy in Matthew 1 that leads to Christ. Prior to her marriage, she had expressed faith in the true God (Ruth 1:16 ). ( )
Billy Roper Added Oct 26, 2016 - 8:31pm
But, one should also remember both Rahab and Ruth, Gentile women of faith; they were both accepted into the community of believers (they are even in the genealogical line of Jesus! Matthew 1:5). (
There is much in the book of Ruth that would make it appear that Ruth was an Israelite, like her mother-in-law Naomi. It's actually difficult to draw a conclusion that she wasn't, were it not for the proliferation of false doctrine coming from our pulpits. For instance, consider the wording of this passage:
And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, [or] to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people [shall be] my people, and thy God my God...
Where does is say that Ruth was not of the same race as her mother-in-law, Naomi? It doesn't. It can easily mean that Ruth, who had lived among the Mohabites, was now determined to live among her racial kin: the Israelites, unlike her sister. Ruth's sister – also widowed - returned to the Moahbite gods :
And she [Naomi] said, Behold, thy [Ruth's] sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law.
Let's get some background about the Moahbites. According to Judges 11:12-13, By 1450 B.C. All the land of Moab was Israel 's territory . in 1142 B.C.. Three hundred years later, the land of Moab was still Israel 's territory. Long before Ruth, the Moabites had been exterminated by the Amorites. Then the Israelites drove out and exterminated the Amorites. The Israelites occupied the land of Moab for the next several centuries, though the gods of those people persisted.
Ruth could not be of a different race than Naomi. Even if she was descended from the Moabites, she would have been a descendant of Lot through his incestuous relationship with his eldest daughter. So – once again – this cannot be a case of an interracial to begin with.
Ruth was truly an Israelite.
In Ruth 4 there is an application of Israelite law to land inheritance. By Israel 's law, only Israelites could inherit another Israelite's real estate. If Ruth were a racial Moabite, then she could have made no lawful claim on the land. It's in Deuteronomy 21 and Numbers 27.
Israelites (in this case, Boaz) were forbidden to marry Moabite descendants:
... The people of Israel ... have not separated themselves from the people of the lands ... even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites .... For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands...(Ezra 9:1-2)
Quoting Pastor Ted Weiland:
"Yashua could not have become king of the Israelites if He was from a forbidden lineage or mixed-race relationship. Therefore, Ruth must have been known as a Moabite because she had lived in the country of Moab – a possession of the Reubenites at the time of Ruth."
As a nail in the coffin, consider that Boaz (stated as a close kinsman several times in Ruth) applied the levirate law to her. The levirate law requires Israelite men to raise up a male heir for a deceased kinsman, thereby preserving his name and estate:
If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother [or "nigh of kin," Leviticus 25:48-49] shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel . (Deuteronomy 25:5-6)
And he [Boaz] said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth ... thou art a near kinsman. And he said, ... it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit ... will I do the part of a kinsman to thee.... (Ruth 3:9-13)
Again quoting Pastor Weiland:
"Had Ruth been from the forbidden lineage of Moab or from another race, the levirate law would not have applied because her previous relationship with Boaz's kinsman Mahlon would have been unlawful and, therefore, adulterous. Had Ruth been a racial Moabite, the nearer kinsman (Ruth 3:12 , 4:5-6) would have only needed to raise this objection to keep from having to redeem Ruth along with Mahlon's land."

Today's Judeo-Christian leaders erroneously teach that Ruth and Rahab were of a different race than Salmon and Boaz, respectively. As a result, they believe that Jesus was a bastard (mamzer) and does not sit the Throne today.
Ryan Messano Added Oct 26, 2016 - 8:58pm
Joel Rambaud:Ryan , you need to stop smoking your dirty underwear , it affect your hairs. , just do like Trump get a graft , take the hair from your rear and stick them to the front ...
Ad hominem.  Argument discounted.  I'm glad you kept with the trends of your historically ignorant but visually cognizant brethren.
Before I address your ridiculous arguments, please let us know which liberal college ruined your noggin with the crap they spew into kids heads these days?  Also, I've never used drugs, but can you share with us what drugs have stupified you so badly?  And please let me know if you think porn use is permitted, so I can know if I am dealing with a nitwit or not.  Thank you.
Joel: I found it amusing that YOU the so called moral majority which by the way come from mainly in the so called bible belt , the Highest rate of divorce , incest , child pregnancy , incest , poverty and crime , look it over FBI statistics . Every time the weather does not favor you , you blame the Corrupt Media
Keep drinking the koolaid your liberal media shoves down your throat.  It justifies your own wicked behavior.  If you picked up a Bible and learned it you wouldn't be throwing stupid nonsense around that is totally false.  You know too little of history to know how absurd your statements are.  Liberals are geniuses with numbers.  You give them enough numbers and they will convince you our economy has been going gangbusters under Obama, even though we are $20 trillion in debt, and Obama has added more to our debt than all other Presidents combined..

Joel:Then you come around blaming the Jews one more time , one should not forget that Hitler based his extermination of Jews , Gays , Gypsies on the Eugenic movement , a very real tragedy as peoples were forcefully sterilized for their race , did not work too well either.
I never blamed the Jews, please don't put words in my mouth.  Homosexuals helped Hitler into power.  Please research Ernst Rohm, and the other homosexuals.  The effeminate ones were the ones gassed in the concentration camps. 
Joel: Liberals:
1 - Created Social Security {if you never used it? You will unless you are the top 3% which you are not they don’t waste time on AOL chat }     
FDR was a spoiled brat who ruined our country.  SS is so broke right now, I don't know where to start.  Please research before you talk.  
                                                                                                         2 Joel:– Lifted millions out of poverty      
What in the world are you on?  47,000,000 people are on welfare, and no society in human history taxed it's way to prosperity.               Joel:                                                                                       3 – Liberals ended segregation { I wonder what the Olympic , NFL , NBA and other would be without minorities crying they got mugged in a Brazilian bathroom? just saying }    
Please go read about the Civil War and go research where conservatives were on the issue of racism and slavery.  What liberal college brainwashed  you?
                                                            Joel:4 – Liberals got women the right to vote , {you know the one that cook your meal , do your laundry ,clean your trailer and wake you out of hibernation or alcohol induced coma}     
That would be conservatives you historically ignorant twit!!  Susan B Anthony,
Ryan Messano Added Oct 26, 2016 - 8:58pm
Clara Barton, Florence Nightingale, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were not liberals.  Get that straight!  And I never drank alcohol, you got that punk.  Unlike the partying you've obviously done.               
                                     5 – Liberals ended segregation {while ultra conservative Republican were having babies with the Maid}    
Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican and it was Republicans who forced the Democrat presidents to support ending segregation.                                                                   6 – Liberal passed the civil right { while republican wanted to keep the Country under slave labor regardless of color}     
You are seriously delusional.  Republicans in the North ended slavery and segregation.                                                                                                        7 – Liberals passed the voting right { so not only the Vanderbilt, the  Carnegies would have an opinion}      
Voting rights enabled the voter fraud that has gotten liberals into the White House from LBJ to the present.     We don't need voting rights.  We need you to educate that addled brain of yours to learn history as our founders knew, and TO STOP THINKING THAT YOUR WORTHLESS MEDIA EXPOSURE AND COLLEGE IS ANY KIND OF EDUCATION WORTH RELYING ON.  
Ryan Messano Added Oct 26, 2016 - 9:04pm
Bill Kamps: Ryan my only disagreement is that you say politicians avoided even the appearance of corruption, when was this time ?  Politicians have always been corrupt, we just know more about it now.
Not really.  You look at an Abraham Lincoln, and he was exemplary compared to Hillary, but I don't suppose you've read any biographies of his have you?  George Washington was a pretty good man, even liberated the slaves he inherited from his wife. John Adams was not corrupt at all.  John Quincy Adams, his son, was a great president.  James Garfield was a Church of Christ Preacher.  Teddy Roosevelt had some awesome traits.  Politics was relatively tame before television came along and the masses became stupid.  
As for the media, do you mean the media that used to help politicians cover up their misdeeds, like the JFK brothel in the White House?
Yes, absolutely.  Television has been effectively used to hide the womanizing and corruption of virtually every President from JFK on.  
My contention is that we just know more about this stuff, because of the internet, videos, blogs, and the various way people find things out these days without the media being involved.
Oh, no, that is not so.  We are getting information from James O'Keefe and Julian Assange that our corrupt, lazy, and incestuous press should have been getting for us.  It's a shame Trump had to pay O'Keefe to find corruption he expected to find a year ago.  
HRC screws up in Baghdad four people die and we all know the next day, Lincoln screws up something in Civil War, thousands die, and no one knows because it takes weeks for even the result of the battle to get around, much less the decision process that went into moving troops around.
Do you mean Benghazi?  Lincoln and others were raised with a solid moral foundation, unlike the garbage that kids today have their heads filled with.
Ryan Messano Added Oct 26, 2016 - 9:05pm
Bill H, there is absolute right and wrong, you obviously have no idea which is which.  Pretty frightening for you, and for our nation that people like you can vote.
Ryan Messano Added Oct 26, 2016 - 9:05pm
Wendy, what does Koch brother contributions have to do with this thread at all?
Ryan Messano Added Oct 26, 2016 - 9:06pm
Billy, it's a shame you are wasting your considerable intellect on upholding the racist traditions you inherited.
Stone-Eater Added Oct 27, 2016 - 5:44am
Stone-Eater Added Oct 27, 2016 - 5:47am
BTW: I'm no fan of Hitler. But to blame the Germans for every evil that happened is wrong too. Too many people forget Stalin and Mao and their genocides in their own countries.
But keeping the Germans in a never ending feeling of guilt is a pretty good geopolitical strategy, as we see up to today..... 
Bill Kamps Added Oct 27, 2016 - 9:29am
Ryan, I dont understand your reply to this....
My contention is that we just know more about this stuff, because of the internet, videos, blogs, and the various way people find things out these days without the media being involved.
You said the media was not involved, and I said the same thing.  No disagreement.
Im not trying to say that Lincoln was not a moral man.  I was trying to say that Lincoln had the benefit of his war not being on TV every day, and that when mistakes were made, he he was not hounded 24/7 by some TV station that did not share his views.  Mistakes in the Civil War were made just like every war, but not having to have every decision on the news each day was an advantage for them.  
I will also say that politicians in general, have always been corrupt as a group.  There is a reason you mention Washington and Lincoln, and not some of the other 40 odd Presidents, many of which were not honest.  However, Presidents aside, local politics at the governor and mayoral levels in the past have been some of the most corrupt, and these days are somewhat less so.
As an aside, I would contend that TV, has lowered the body count in every war since Viet Nam.  Had TV existed I dont think the population would have tolerated the brutality of the Civil War for example.
Ryan Messano Added Oct 27, 2016 - 1:22pm
If that were true, Bill Kamps, about the Civil War, its quite likely we'd still have slavery, because if you think the slave owners were going to voluntarily give up their wealth, you are wrong.  
Thomas Napers Added Oct 28, 2016 - 4:16am
“There used to be a day when the media used to do its job and remain independent of bias.”
This day never existed. I’m sorry to discredit the entire premise of this article after having read only the first sentence. For whatever it's worth, I almost commented after only reading your false title.  
George N Romey Added Oct 28, 2016 - 9:25am
The media has always been co-oped in some way its just a matter of degree.  As Bill correctly points out they covered up JFK's womanizing in the White House.
The big difference now is that the news divisions are expected to make money and they are staffed by mostly entertainers.  So on cable networks we get people ranting and shouting at each other. Since big media doesn't want to be broken up they support the current status quo, which is what HRC will indeed do.  Trump scares them because they have no idea of what he will do.  He is a bull in a china closet.
If you want real news go to one of the many Youtube channels.  They are not trying to bring on other elites to brainwash you into thinking one way or another.
Billy Roper Added Oct 28, 2016 - 9:27am
If you're interested in reading more about why the controlled media seems to favor open borders and unlimited immigration, I suggest this article:
Billy Roper Added Oct 28, 2016 - 11:31am
Perhaps from a Democratic perspective, but if you're referring to Fox, the only pro-Trump voice there is Hannity. The rest, O'Reilly, Kelly, et cetera, aren't.
Ryan Messano Added Oct 28, 2016 - 1:02pm
May I introduce Henry David Thoreau on why he didn't read the news over a century ago?
From “Life Without Principle”
By Henry David Thoreau

Just so hollow and ineffectual, for the most part, is our ordinary conversation. Surface meets surface. When our life ceases to be inward and private, conversation degenerates into mere gossip. We rarely meet a man who can tell us any news which he has not read in a newspaper, or been told by his neighbor; and, for the most part, the only difference between us and our fellow is that he has seen the newspaper, or been out to tea, and we have not. In proportion as our inward life fails, we go more constantly and desperately to the post-office. You may depend on it, that the poor fellow who walks away with the greatest number of letters, proud of his extensive correspondence, has not heard from himself this long while.
I do not know but it is too much to read one newspaper a week. I have tried it recently, and for so long it seems to me that I have not dwelt in my native region. The sun, the clouds, the snow, the trees say not so much to me. You cannot serve two masters. It requires more than a day’s devotion to know and to possess the wealth of a day.
We may well be ashamed to tell what things we have read or heard in our day. I did not know why my news should be so trivial, — considering what one’s dreams and expectations are, why the developments should be so paltry. The news we hear, for the most part, is not news to our genius. It is the stalest repetition. You are often tempted to ask why such stress is laid on a particular experience which you have had, — that, after twenty-five years, you should meet Hobbins, Registrar of Deeds, again on the sidewalk. Have you not budged an inch, then? Such is the daily news. Its facts appear to float in the atmosphere, insignificant as the sporules of fungi, and impinge on some neglected thallus, or surface of our minds, which affords a basis for them, and hence a parasitic growth. We should wash ourselves clean of such news. Of what consequence, though our planet explode, if there is no character involved in the explosion? In health we have not the least curiosity about such events. We do not live for idle amusement. I would not run round a corner to see the world blow up.
Ryan Messano Added Oct 28, 2016 - 1:03pm
All summer, and far into the autumn, perchance, you unconsciously went by the newspapers and the news, and now you find it was because the morning and the evening were full of news to you. Your walks were full of incidents. You attended, not to the affairs of Europe, but to your own affairs in Massachusetts fields. If you chance to live and move and have your being in that thin stratum in which the events that make the news transpire, — thinner than the paper on which it is printed, — then these things will fill the world for you; but if you soar above or dive below that plane, you cannot remember nor be reminded of them. Really to see the sun rise or go down every day, so to relate ourselves to a universal fact, would preserve us sane forever. Nations! What are nations? Tartars, and Huns, and Chinamen! Like insects, they swarm. The historian strives in vain to make them memorable. It is for want of a man that there are so many men. It is individuals that populate the world. Any man thinking may say with the Spirit of Lodin, —

“I look down from my height on nations,
And they become ashes before me; —
Calm is my dwelling in the clouds;
Pleasant are the great fields of my rest.”

Pray, let us live without being drawn by dogs, Esquimaux-fashion, tearing over hill and dale, and biting each other’s ears.
Not without a slight shudder at the danger, I often perceive how near I had come to admitting into my mind the details of some trivial affair, — the news of the street; and I am astonished to observe how willing men are to lumber their minds with such rubbish, — to permit idle rumors and incidents of the most insignificant kind to intrude on ground which should be sacred to thought. Shall the mind be a public arena, where the affairs of the street and the gossip of the tea-table chiefly are discussed? Or shall it be a quarter of heaven itself, — an hypæthral temple, consecrated to the service of the gods? I find it so difficult to dispose of the few facts which to me are significant, that I hesitate to burden my attention with those which are insignificant, which only a divine mind could illustrate. Such is, for the most part, the news in newspapers and conversation. It is important to preserve the mind’s chastity in this respect. Think of admitting the details of a single case of the criminal court into our thoughts, to stalk profanely through their very sanctum sanctorum for an hour, ay, for many hours! to make a very bar-room of the mind’s inmost apartment, as if for so long the dust of the street had occupied us, — the very street itself, with all its travel, its bustle, and filth, had passed through our thoughts’ shrine! Would it not be an intellectual and moral suicide? When I have been compelled to sit spectator and auditor in a court-room for some hours, and have seen my neighbors, who were not compelled, stealing in from time to time, and tiptoeing about with washed hands and faces, it has appeared to my mind’s eye, that, when they took off their hats, their ears suddenly expanded into vast hoppers for sound, between which even their narrow heads were crowded. Like the vanes of windmills, they caught the broad but shallow stream of sound, which, after a few titillating gyrations in their coggy brains, passed out the other side. I wondered if, when they got home, they were as careful to wash their ears as before their hands and faces. It has seemed to me, at such a time, that the auditors and the witnesses, the jury and the counsel, the judge and the criminal at the bar, — if I may presume him guilty before he is convicted, — were all equally criminal, and a thunderbolt might be expected to descend and consume them all together.
Ryan Messano Added Oct 28, 2016 - 1:03pm
By all kinds of traps and signboards, threatening the extreme penalty of the divine law, exclude such trespassers from the only ground which can be sacred to you. It is so hard to forget what it is worse than useless to remember! If I am to be a thoroughfare, I prefer that it be of the mountain brooks, the Parnassian streams, and not the town sewers. There is inspiration, that gossip which comes to the ear of the attentive mind from the courts of heaven. There is the profane and stale revelation of the bar-room and the police court. The same ear is fitted to receive both communications. Only the character of the hearer determines to which it shall be open, and to which closed. I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality. Our very intellect shall be macadamized, as it were, — its foundation broken into fragments for the wheels of travel to roll over; and if you would know what will make the most durable pavement, surpassing rolled stones, spruce blocks, and asphaltum, you have only to look into some of our minds which have been subjected to this treatment so long.
If we have thus desecrated ourselves, — as who has not? — the remedy will be by wariness and devotion to reconsecrate ourselves, and make once more a fane of the mind. We should treat our minds, that is, ourselves, as innocent and ingenuous children, whose guardians we are, and be careful what objects and what subjects we thrust on their attention. Read not the Times. Read the Eternities. Conventionalities are at length as bad as impurities. Even the facts of science may dust the mind by their dryness, unless they are in a sense effaced each morning, or rather rendered fertile by the dews of fresh and living truth. Knowledge does not come to us by details, but in flashes of light from heaven. Yes, every thought that passes through the mind helps to wear and tear it, and to deepen the ruts, which, as in the streets of Pompeii, evince how much it has been used. How many things there are concerning which we might well deliberate whether we had better know them, — had better let their peddling-carts be driven, even at the slowest trot or walk, over that bridge of glorious span by which we trust to pass at last from the farthest brink of time to the nearest shore of eternity! Have we no culture, no refinement, — but skill only to live coarsely and serve the Devil? — to acquire a little worldly wealth, or fame, or liberty, and make a false show with it, as if we were all husk and shell, with no tender and living kernel to us?
Ryan Messano Added Oct 28, 2016 - 1:06pm
Once you know moral principles and history, you don't need to pay attention to the news.  Like a chessmaster who looks at any position on a chess board and instantaneously knows the best move, you can view any situation and knowing human behavior grasp the significance of it.
The problem with many on here is not that they don't get enough news, it is they don't  understand how to view the news and information.  They have no underlying set of principles to protect them from the conmen who seek to subvert their reason.
Thoreau was so profoundly right when he said the following quote, and if any have not read his Walden and Civil Disobedience, you will never be the same again after you do.
“And I am sure that I never read any memorable news in a newspaper. If we read of one man robbed, or murdered, or killed by accident, or one house burned, or one vessel wrecked, or one steamboat blown up, or one cow run over on the Western Railroad, or one mad dog killed, or one lot of grasshoppers in the winter, - we need never read of another. One is enough. If you are acquainted with the principle, what do you care for a myriad instances and applications?”

Henry David Thoreau, Walden
Kerem Oner Added Oct 28, 2016 - 1:07pm
Joel Rambaud, thanks for the laughter.  What imbecilic comments. 
I will not speak for Ryan but:
"so called moral majority which by the way come from mainly in the so called bible belt"......moral majority is anyone who has NOT bought in to the progressive moral nihilism.  Yes some are in the bible belt but many are everywhere else.  In fact, only less than a third of the nation self identifies as progressive.  Do not confuse that with Democrats winning nationwide elections.  Many who vote for them are sheep who do not think rationally (don't know if you are aware of the term 'useful idiot', but that is the definition of the majority of Democrat voters)
"Every time the weather does not favor you , you blame the Corrupt Media".... and what do you say to the fact that media is 90%+ Democrat and do not even lie about that?  What do you say to the e-mail revelations of it clearly favoring the Democrats?  Stop being in denial because that just makes you look stupid in the face of realities.
As to your erroneous use of the word liberal, you are not a liberal as a liberal is an individualist.  You obviously are a collectivist, therefore a Fabian progressive (not the real kind from Enlightenment era).
The Republicans were the only true classical liberals.  You are utterly clueless and a first class imbecile for having the temerity to distort reality!
No Republicans did not create social security (though it would have been a worthy program should it have been managed correctly and not made in to a Ponzi scheme). 
Yes they ended slavery, segregation, and accomplished women to get the right to vote despite practically zero Democrat support for any.  Who the hell do you think created KKK?  Who are the American Nazis?  Who was Sheriff Bull Connor?  Are you that much of an imbecile??
No Fabian progressives, aka Democrats, did not lift anyone out of poverty.  Until 1965 (the advent of the welfare state), poverty was dropping precipitously in the U.S. in the post war era.  After 1965, poverty rate stopped falling (except for two brief rest bits when welfare reforms were implemented during Reagan and Clinton years). 
You are a pathetic imbecile and anyone wasting their time with such an ignorant tool needs to get their heads examined.
Kerem Oner Added Oct 28, 2016 - 1:08pm
Ryan Messano Added Oct 28, 2016 - 1:09pm
Thank you Kerem, brilliant article.  I've learned the left are a bunch of lying heathens and beneath their number statistics lies the truth buried somewhere.
Kerem Oner Added Oct 28, 2016 - 1:31pm
Lying comes naturally to anyone who has no moral compass.  That is what moral nihilism does to people.  To them, it is not a lie because their reality is on a different universe.
James E. Unekis Added Oct 28, 2016 - 2:31pm
Good job Ryan!  Well thought out and articulated.
Steve Bergeron Added Oct 28, 2016 - 2:47pm
Good article, Ryan.  There was once a time when journalists and the media were watchdogs of freedom.  No more.  They have become a propaganda arm for the Marxists of the Democrat Party.  Same for our colleges and universities (for the most part), and much of the government.  The Fall of the Roman Empire will seem in very, very slow motion to our fall, which will seem as lightening when it happens.  And it will happen soon, barring Divine intervention.
Ryan Messano Added Oct 28, 2016 - 4:11pm
So sad, Kerem, Thank you James, you did a great job on your article too!  
Thank you Steve, you are so right.  It is a terrifying time in our nation.  
George N Romey Added Oct 28, 2016 - 7:25pm
The difference between MSNBC or CNN or Fox is there really is no difference.  They are nothing more than versions of pro wrestling made to look like mortal enemies when they are all in on the joke despite the theatrics. The people are watching are the fools thinking they are watching an actual competition.  
Ryan Messano Added Oct 28, 2016 - 7:49pm
Totally agree, George.
Television is a total waste. 
I understand youtube videos give a broader perspective, but reading is superior to watching videos and television, I feel.  
Readers are often leaders, and leaders are often readers.
Mircea Negres Added Oct 29, 2016 - 3:01am
Every journalistic outfit has an agenda and a political view, no matter how much a lot of them deny it. It's just human nature. As for politicians being cleaner in centuries past, think again. The Greeks were quite crooked and in the Romans' case, while they hated a bought politician, what they hated more was a politician who wouldn't stay bought, seeing that as a double betrayal, first of the people and then of the patron or corruptor.
Oh my, how porn is the root of all evil... Ahem, what happened to money? Anyway, looking up the Aryan Brotherhood one gets basically a page or so of information. I became aware of them about 20 years ago and tried to do some research. The library didn't have anything, and neither did the magazines and newspapers of the time (1995-1996), until I saw one which had an interview with a guy who was in a SHU because he ran afoul of them. I pulled out my R15 or so and paid for it, then read it at home. It was the most informative item I'd ever read on these guys and it wasn't written by Time, let me tell you. Nope, it was that paragon of gutter, nemesis of hypocrisy, home of crude but funny cartoons and temple of hedonism- Hustler!
Want sex education? Forget the Bible, 'cause there's nothing useful in it about that. Go out and buy a porn movie (or get on the internet, as is common these days), a six-pack and a bog roll, then get ready to learn about the mechanics of it. All the other stuff you'll find out by reading chick-lit and failing to satisfy most women's unrealistic expectations of what a "real man" should be, together with dope, booze, acne, shaving and your first divorce.
Mircea Negres Added Oct 29, 2016 - 3:06am
While we're at the "Jewish question", it is worthwhile to point out the reason why Jews count genealogy through the mother is because until the advent of blood tests (1930s or so) and DNA (1980s or so), "who's your daddy?" was a tricky question. So, while one might not always know which member of which marauding army sired somebody, you sure as hell knew who his mommy was...

Recent Articles by Writers Ryan Messano follows.