Read this if you want to hate the media more...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/02/10/medias-angry-that-brian-williams-is-being-treated-like-media-treats-everyone-else/

This Jackass:



Isn't the only one.

They all practice deception, Every one of them, Without exception.

http://conservative-headlines.com/2015/02/veterans-today-is-a-fake-news-website/

Has it all been bullshit all along? From exploding Pintos, to fake but accurate, to we lost the Vietnam war. Lies, lies, lies. And so many more, and so many more we will never know, but suspect.

And it's going to get worse.

CTChris wrote:And it's going to get worse.

Not if you are a black shakedown artist:



So, What About Rev. Al Sharpton's Suspension?

In light of Brian Williams sanction, MSNBC host's lies deserve review

FEBRUARY 11--With its swift and severe punishment of Brian Williams, NBCUniversal declared yesterday that it will not stand for on-air talent lying to viewers.

Now that the media conglomerate has delineated that bright line, when does the Rev. Al Sharpton’s suspension without pay begin?



In the wake of last year’s lengthy TSG report about Sharpton’s secret work as a paid FBI Mafia informant, the MSNBC host sought to blunt the story’s disclosures with a series of lies told at a pair of press conferences, on his nightly “Politics Nation” program, and in a report on Williams’s own NBC Nightly News (which was rebroadcast on NBC's Today show).

Sharpton, 60, cast himself as a victim who first ran into the FBI’s warm embrace when a scary gangster purportedly threatened his life. He was “an American citizen with every right to call law enforcement” for protection, Sharpton told his MSNBC audience. His sole motivation was to “try to protect myself and others.”

He needed the FBI’s help, Sharpton claimed, because his relentless advocacy on behalf of African-American concert promoters had angered wiseguys with hooks in the music business. “I did the right thing working with the authorities,” Sharpton assured viewers. As for being branded an informant, that was a label for others to worry about. “I didn’t consider myself, quote, an informant. Wasn’t told I was that,” said Sharpton.

These claims, broadcast by NBCUniversal, were demonstrably false.

Sharpton was, again, lying about when, how, and why he became a government informant. This historical rewrite was intended to cast his cooperation in the most favorable--even heroic--light possible. The true story, however, was grimier and far less commendable.



Sharpton was once an organized crime associate who got caught up in an FBI sting and immediately agreed to join Team America to stay out of prison. The street-smart preacher’s decision to become an informant was borne out of fear and a desire for self preservation, a calculus not unique when someone is cornered by men with badges.

Now, if NBCUniversal cared to examine the televised claims Sharpton has made about his work as an informant, the company’s newly formed internal affairs division could review hundreds of pages of FBI documents chronicling Sharpton’s work as “CI-7,” short for confidential informant #7, and they could track down members of the FBI-NYPD organized crime task force for which Sharpton surreptitiously recorded his meetings with gangsters.

And company brass would certainly want to review the first story to expose Sharpton as a snitch, a January 1998 Newsday piece authored by a Murderers Row of reporters: Bob Drury, Robert Kessler, Mike McAlary, and Richard Esposito. If that last guy’s name rings a bell, well, it is probably because Esposito--now senior executive producer of NBC's investigative unit--is heading the network’s review of Williams’s Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina claims.

Could there be a better man to head the Sharpton Task Force? Luckily, Esposito’s memories of Sharpton’s FBI activities remain clear, as evidenced by a article (“Rev. Al Sharpton and Me”) he wrote for the NBC News web site the day after TSG published its Sharpton story last April.

As detailed by TSG and Esposito (seen at right) and his Newsday colleaugues, Sharpton agreed to become an informant after he was secretly videotaped discussing a possible cocaine deal with an undercover FBI agent.



Sharpton was “flipped” on a Thursday afternoon in June 1983 when he showed up at a Manhattan apartment expecting to meet with a former South American druglord seeking to launder money through boxing promotions (like those handled by Sharpton pal Don King). The role of "druglord" was played by undercover FBI Agent Victor Quintana.

After Sharpton entered the apartment, FBI Agents Joseph Spinelli and Kenneth Mikionis emerged from the bedroom. They then played Sharpton a videotape of a prior meeting with Quintana during which cocaine was a topic of conversation. While the agents were unsure whether Sharpton had said enough to warrant a criminal prosecution, the civil rights activist had no doubt he was in trouble. Sharpton agreed on the spot to begin working as an informant.

The following day, at Spinelli’s direction, Sharpton recorded the first of several conversations with King, a major FBI target. Sharpton, of course, has repeatedly lied when asked whether he made such consensual recordings for his FBI handlers.



Over the next several years, Sharpton worked with FBI agents and NYPD detectives as they put together criminal cases against leaders of the Genovese organized crime family. For example, he used a briefcase outfitted with a hidden recording device to tape ten meetings with a Gambino crime family figure named Joseph Buonanno.

In sealed court filings, federal investigators lauded “CI-7” as a reliable, productive, and accurate source of information about mobsters. The FBI noted that its informant gathered information about La Cosa Nostra matters through his contact with members of four of New York’s five mob families and via “conversations with LCN members from other parts of the United States.”

About nine months into his work as an informant, Sharpton was purportedly threatened by Salvatore Pisello, a mob associate affiliated with MCA Records in Los Angeles. Pisello, Sharpton claimed in his autobiography, was angry that the activist was agitating to have African-American promoters included in the “Victory Tour” starring Michael Jackson and his brothers. Presumably, such involvement by these promoters would have cut into Pisello’s piece of the lucrative tour.

The reported threat, however, amounted to nothing but talk. Sharpton, however, has cast the incident--for which he is the sole witness--as the motivation for him approaching FBI agents for some federal succor.

While Sharpton’s sleight of hand when it comes to matters temporal and factual is well established, he chose to boldly use the airwaves of NBCUniversal--his employer--to broadcast lies about his tawdry past.

Unlike Williams, however, viewers should not expect an apology--even a mangled one at that--from Sharpton.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/investigation/al-sharpton-lies-657391

CTChris wrote:Has it all been bullshit all along?

The Terrible Truth About Abraham Lincoln and the Confederate War (War of Northern Aggression)

Posted on January 20, 2014

By Michael Hutcheson

Abraham Lincoln



President Lincoln has been all but deified in America, with a god-like giant statue at a Parthenon-like memorial in Washington. Generations of school children have been indoctrinated with the story that “Honest Abe” Lincoln is a national hero who saved the Union and fought a noble war to end slavery, and that the “evil” Southern states seceded from the Union to protect slavery. This is the Yankee myth of history, written and promulgated by Northerners, and it is a complete falsity. It was produced and entrenched in the culture in large part to gloss over the terrible war crimes committed by Union soldiers in the War Between the States, as well as Lincoln’s violations of the law, his shredding of the Constitution, and other reprehensible acts. It has been very effective in keeping the average American ignorant of the real causes of the war, and the real nature, character and record of Lincoln. Let us look at some unpleasant facts.

In his first inaugural address, Lincoln stated clearly that (1) he had no legal authority to interfere with slavery where it existed, (2) that he had no inclination or intention to do so even if he had the legal authority, (3) that he would enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, returning runaway slaves escaping to the North to their masters in the South, and (4) that he fully supported the Thirteenth Amendment then being debated in Congress which would protect slavery in perpetuity and was irrevocable. He later famously stated, “Do not paint me with the Abolitionist brush.”


Although there was some opposition to slavery in the country, the government was willing to concede everything the South wanted regarding slavery to keep it in the Union. Given all these facts, the idea that the South seceded to protect slavery is as absurd as the idea that Lincoln fought the war to end slavery. Lincoln himself said in a famous letter after the war began that his sole purpose was to save the Union, and not to either save or end slavery; that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave, he would. Nothing could be clearer.

For decades before the war, the South, through harsh tariffs, had been supplying about 85% of the country’s revenue, nearly all of which was being spent in the North to boost its economy, build manufacturing, infrastructure, railroads, canals, etc. With the passage of the 47% Morrill Tariff the final nail was in the coffin. The South did not secede to protect slavery, although certainly they wished to protect it; they seceded over a dispute about unfair taxation, an oppressive Federal government, and the right to separate from that oppression and be governed “by consent”, exactly the same issues over which the Founding Fathers fought the Revolutionary War. When a member of Lincoln’s cabinet suggested he let the South go in peace, Lincoln famously replied, “Let the South go? Where, then, would we get our revenue!” He then launched a brutal, empirical war to keep the free and sovereign states, by force of arms, in the Union they had created and voluntarily joined, and then voluntarily left. This began his reign of terror.

Lincoln was the greatest tyrant and despot in American history. In the first four months of his presidency, he created a complete military dictatorship, destroyed the Constitution, ended forever the constitutional republic which the Founding Fathers instituted, committed horrendous crimes against civilian citizens, and formed the tyrannical, overbearing and oppressive Federal government which the American people suffer under to this day. In his first four months, he

Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution.
Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.
Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial—which he did.
Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive.
When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution.
Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.
Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the North, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses.
Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution.
Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned.
Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?)
Sent the Army to arrest the entire legislature of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution.
Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.
Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North.
These are just a few of the most egregious things Lincoln did during his despotic presidency. He set himself up as a tyrannical dictator with powers never before utilized or even imagined by any previous administration. During this four years of terrible war he was one of the greatest despots the world has ever known, his tyranny focused against his own countrymen, both North and South. He was called a despot and tyrant by many newspapers and citizens both North and South, until he had imprisoned nearly all those who dared to simply speak out against his unconstitutional usurpations of power. Those who disagreed with him were branded as “traitors”, just as were the brave and honorable men in the states which had legally seceded from the Union over just such issues as these criminal abuses of power by the Federal government.

Four months after Fort Sumter, when Lincoln finally called Congress back into session, no one dared oppose anything he wanted or speak out against him for fear of imprisonment, so completely had he entrenched his unilateral power and silenced his other many critics.

The Union army, under Generals Grant, Sherman, Sheridan and President Lincoln, committed active genocide against Southern civilians—this is difficult for some to believe, but it is explicit in their writings and dispatches at the time and indisputable in their actions. Tens of thousands of Southern men, women and children—civilians—white and black, slave and free alike—were shot, hanged, raped, imprisoned without trial, their homes, lands and possessions stolen, pillaged and burned, in one of the most horrific and brutal genocides ever inflicted upon a people anywhere; but the Yankee myth of history is silent in these well-documented matters. For an excellent expose of these war crimes and their terrible extent, see War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco.

Only after the Union had suffered two years of crushing defeats in battle did Lincoln resolve to “emancipate” the slaves, and only as a war measure, a military tactic, not for moral or humanitarian purposes. He admitted this, remarking, “We must change tactics or lose the game.” He was hoping, as his original draft of the document shows, that a slave uprising would occur, making it harder for Southerners to continue the war. His only interest in freeing the slaves was in forcing the South to remain in the Union. His Emancipation Proclamation was denounced by Northerners, Southerners and Europeans alike for its absurdity and hypocrisy; for, it only “freed” the slaves in the seceded states—where he could not reach them—and kept slavery intact in the North and the border states—where he could have freed them at once.

The Gettysburg Address, the most famous speech in American history, is an absurd piece of war rhetoric and a poetry of lies. We were not “engaged in a great Civil War, to see whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, can long endure.” The South was engaged in a War of Independence from a tyrannical North, and after having legally seceded, wished only “to be let alone.” The North was engaged in a war of empire, to keep the South involuntarily under its yoke. Government “of the people, by the people and for the people” would not have “perished from the earth” had the North lost the war; on the contrary, it perished in the United States when the North won the war; for, freely representative government, by consent of the governed, is exactly what the South was fighting for and exactly what Lincoln’s military victory destroyed.

The checks and balances of powers, the separation of powers, the constitutional constraints so carefully and deliberately put into place by the Founding Fathers, had all been destroyed in Lincoln’s first months. The Republic which the Founders gave us had been completely destroyed and a new nation-state was set up; one in which the free and sovereign States would afterward be only vassals and tributaries, slaves to an all-powerful, oppressive Federal government. This new nation-state is completely different in both nature and consequence to the original American Republic. One only has to look around today to see the end results and legacy of Lincoln’s war, his destruction of freedom, and his institution of despotic, centralized governmental power and tyranny.

In retrospect, it is a tragedy that John Wilkes Booth did not act four years earlier. Slavery would have ended naturally, as it has everywhere else (except in African and Arab states); the American Republic, liberty, and 700,000 lives would have been saved, and untold thousands of those young men would have lived to contribute their ingenuity, inventions, creativity and talents to the political, economic, literary, scientific and social legacy of our people. And the greatest despotic tyrant in American history would never have gained the foothold of power or been able to establish the oppressive and omnipotent Federal government we all suffer under today.


https://snapoutofitamerica.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/the-terrible-truth-about-abraham-lincoln-and-the-confederate-war/#more-156

for years but no one seems to agree with me...I guess I'm just one of the crazys....

DonMatzeder wrote:for years but no one seems to agree with me...I guess I'm just one of the crazys....

Did you like 'Murderous Milhous' Don?

How about 'Barry's Blimp'?



The Nixon Administration’s
Vietnam War-Influenced Crimes

REVIEWS BY MARC LEEPSON



Chasing Shadows: The Nixon Tapes, the Chennault Affair, and the Origins of WatergateThe Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia is not exactly a hotbed of “nattering nabobs of negativism,” as former Vice President Spiro Agnew once described liberal critics of Nixon administration policies. The Miller Center is a well-regarded nonpartisan think tank best known for its presidential scholarship efforts, including compiling extensive oral histories and preserving presidential recordings from every president since Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Ken Hughes, a researcher at the Miller Center’s Presidential Recordings Program, has spent ten years scrutinizing clandestinely recorded White House tapes from the Johnson and Nixon administrations. What Hughes has found on those tapes is the basis for his groundbreaking new book, Chasing Shadows: The Nixon Tapes, the Chennault Affair, and the Origins of Watergate (University of Virginia Press, 240 pp., $24.95).

After leaving the presidency in disgrace in 1974, Nixon waged a legal battle to keep the public from learning what was on thousands of hours of unreleased White House tapes, Hughes writes. Aside from the tapes revealing stark evidence of his racism and anti-Semitism, Nixon fought to keep them secret for another reason: He knew they contained smoking-gun evidence of the crimes he had perpetrated before and after he took office.

The first crime had a direct impact on the Vietnam War. It happened in the months before Nixon won the 1968 presidential election. Nixon—in cahoots with Anna Chan Chennault, a moving force behind the vehemently anti-communist China Lobby—secretly and successfully undermined the Paris peace talks. How? By having Chennault—working with Bui Diem, South Vietnam’s Ambassador to the U.S.—convince South Vietnam President Nguyen Van Thieu that he could get a better deal from the North Vietnamese under a Nixon presidency than he would in the last months of the Johnson regime, or in an administration led by Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey.

Thieu bought that argument and refused to cooperate with the North Vietnamese as negotiations were held to try to start peace talks. The upshot: the talks were delayed for many months and the war dragged on. In other words, Richard M. Nixon—aided and abetted by his foreign policy adviser, Henry Kissinger—knowingly prolonged the Vietnam War for his own political gain.

As Hughes puts it, the South Vietnamese government, “in whose defense more than thirty thousand Americans had died and more than half a million Americans were currently risking their lives, had boycotted the Paris peace talks for the purpose of swinging the American presidential election to its preferred candidate, Richard Nixon.” Nixon played politics, Hughes notes, “with life-or-death matters of war and peace. His own secretly recorded White House tapes [and the Johnson White House tapes] would demonstrate” it.

Johnson found out what Nixon was up to in late October of 1968, just as he was about to order a bombing halt and announce the start of peace talks. Johnson, as Hughes puts it, “received a warning that the Republican presidential nominee was trying to sabotage the peace talks before they even began.”

What’s more, Nixon “in speech after speech” lied to the press and to Johnson, denying that he was monkeying with the peace process. In July of 1968, for example, he told a reporter he would not do anything “to jeopardize the chances for a [peace] settlement.”

Hughes calls the Nixon sabotaging of the Paris peace talks “a scandal that cast doubt on the legitimacy of his entire presidency.”

Then there was the second Vietnam-War-related crime exposed on the Nixon White House tapes: Nixon’s 1971 order to White House Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman to organize a break-in at the Brookings Institution, a liberal-leaning Washington think tank. Nixon ordered the burglary because he believed that Brookings had in its files a report detailing his 1968 illegal machinations to sabotage the Vietnam War peace talks.

“Break into the place, rifle the files, and bring them in,” Nixon told Haldeman.

Even though that burglary did not take place, the Nixon order constituted a federal crime. That order also led to the creation of a White House-funded “Special Investigations Unit” to do the illegal deed, a group that became known as the “Plumbers.”

The Plumbers became infamous for another burglary that did take place: the July 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate. But that’s another story.

http://vvaveteran.org/35-1/35-1_books.html

DonMatzeder wrote:for years but no one seems to agree with me...I guess I'm just one of the crazys....

You are not crazy at all. Just knowledgable.