Crazy but true…

Let me start out by saying, I was NEVER planning on sharing the information that I am about to share with you. I thought it was batsh*t crazy. This is everywhere and I can no longer ignore this. Come to think of it, it’s not the craziest thing we have ever heard. I think in the 80’s with Jeffrey Dahmer being a cannibal, that, at the time, was considered faux pas and outrageous. Nonetheless it was true. So, what is this post about? Adrenochrome. Some of you may have heard of it and some of you may not. I was someone, who had not heard of it, until very recently. I stumbled onto it by accident. I tried to ignore it, but it is everywhere. It has been verified more than my normal 3x. So here we go….brace yourselves, because your life and how you see things will drastically change.

The medical definition of Adrenochrome– A substance, C9H9NO3, obtained by oxidation of epinephrine. This is a naturally occurring hormone that is secreted from the Adrenal gland. The derivative carbazochrome is a hemostatic medication. Hemostatic has to do with blood clotting. There have been books on this, as well as, medical studies. On pages 86-94, in Meyler’s Side Effects of Drugs: The International Encyclopedia of Adverse Drug reactions and Interactions, it talks aboout how Adrenochrome can be injected intra-muscularly or ingested orally. They initially used this in synthetic form to help blood clot quicker in surgery.

In 1954, Aldous Huxley published a book titled The Doors of Perception. In it he says, “Then came the discovery that adrenochrome, which is a product of the decomposition of adrenalin, can produce many of the symptoms observed in mescalin intoxication. But adrenochrome probably occurs spontaneously in the human body. In other words, each one of us may be capable of manufacturing a chemical, minute doses of which are known to cause profound changes in consciousness. Certain.” If you are like me, you are probably astonished that this goes this far back. Another thing, that I did not know, probably because I never saw the movie, is that Adrenochrome is used in the movie “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas”. Duke, one of the characters of the film, takes it, and has a several hour long hallucinogenic episode where he can’t walk or speak. In the movie, the doctor, Dr Gonzo, informs the character that the drug must be taken from a live adrenal gland, meaning someone must be murdered. Here is the eerie part, this is not fictional.

Another book, from Pop culture, A Clockwork Orange (1971) also mentions Adrenochrome. In the book the drug goes by drenocrom. In the Inspector Lewis Mystery, on tv, Whom the Gods Would Destroy (2007), Lewis investigates a series of murders, that revolve around the death, of a prostitute some 20 years earlier. The prostitute had been murdered by a group of, then-Oxford, students for the purpose of experiencing the high attained from adrenochrome. In the Frank Herbert novel “Destination: Void” , an adrenochrome-THC variant is the chemical catalyst for artificial consciousness. There is also a reference to it in the Discworld In the Discworld novel, Sourcery, by Terry Pratchett, it is used to describe one of the characters. There also 2 songs, that reference adrenochrome, as well; Adrenochrome dreams by OTEP and Adrenochrome by the Sisters of Mercy.

We all know, that when things pop up multiple times in pop culture, it is a reference to something real. If you are like me, you also have been asleep at the wheel. I had no idea of any of this, until I could no longer avoid it. Here you will see video clips, from the Simpsons, about (you guessed it) Adrenochrome.

So we know that Adrenochrome is made in the adrenal gland, but how? It comes from a natural reaction to fear. Yes, I said fear. The synthesized drug, made in a lab, has terrible side affects, but naturally? There are none. The only way to get Adrenochrome is by harvesting it fresh, which means murder. I know how insane this sounds, trust me. I wish I was not sitting here writing this right now, but this needs to be said. This is all linked to Human Trafficking and pedophilia. The elite use it for it’s anti-aging benefits and how much energy it gives them. The children they torture and kill, go through unimaginable and unspeakable things. At the height of their fear, they drain their blood, expose it to oxygen and then drink it. This kind of bloodletting is linked to Satanism and is well documented. Sounds insane, I Know. Here is a documentary, talking about ALL of this. Here is just one set of scientific books, by a very reputable source. This all ties into the Cabal, Hollywood, etc. Again, I did not believe this originally either. Then it started showing up everywhere. The fact that I never use Google, helped the information to be uncovered. If you didn’t know, Google buries the information. They are 1 of the biggest misinformation search engines out there, along with the lame stream media.

There is a lot more I can write on this but it is all dark and twisted and I just don’t want to go there. When i find a list of people, i can add it. Epstein’s Island is directly linked to this, so we know The Clinton’s, Obama’s and Bush’s all partook in this sick ritual. A lot of Hollywood as well. As always, stay vigilante.

The Climate Change Farce

For the past few decades, Global Warming/ Global Cooling/Climate Change or whatever else they are calling it these days, has been a political talking point. The fact that this came out of nowhere, and pretty much became a topic, after Al Gore decided to get involved, doesn’t seem to phase some people. I was a Freshman in college, when I first heard about it. I started to fall for it but decided I needed to know all of the information, before jumping on that train. Media bias has been great for spreading the whole climate change agenda by the democrats. This is a mostly one sided agenda. So let’s see if the science backs it up.

The whole premise of Global warming is that the Earth’s atmosphere is rising. The touters claim it is man made, caused by increased CO2 (greenhouse gases) emissions. They claim that it directly affects and manipulates changes in rainfall patterns, extreme weather, arrivals of seasons, and more. When the weather no longer followed this model, the talking points changed. This phenomenon then became global cooling, about a decade or so ago. Global cooling is known as the imminent cooling of the Earth, culminating in a period of extensive glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing. Then another warming cycle came about, during the Obama Presidency, and the name was changed again, to climate change. Climate change is defined as a change in global or regional climate patterns attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels.

The constant flip flopping from the proponents, caused me to delve even further. One thing science isn’t is ever changing, it is usually concise and concrete. Here is what I have been able to find.

A new scientific study, recently released, has revealed the following: Current CO2 levels of 410 parts per million (ppm) were last seen on Earth three million years ago, according to the most detailed reconstruction of the Earth’s climate by researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and published in Science Advances.

3 million years ago, there was no human life, no vehicles, no fossil fuel use, no greenhouse gases. The study goes on to say: Temperatures were up to 7 degrees warmer globally, at least double that at the poles, and sea levels were some 20 meters (65 feet) higher. This is important because AOC has been touting that we have only 10-12 years left to live. The media and all the democrats have literally bought into this. Think Progress, a progressive organization, goes on to say this: “The good news is that the Earth does not warm instantly, and mile-thick ice sheets melt even more slowly. So the temperature rise will take several decades, and tens of feet of sea level rise will take hundreds and hundreds of years.”

90 Italian scientists have signed a detailed letter to lawmakers, which challenges the claim that man is causing catastrophic global warming and that CO2 emissions are the culprit. They said that “policies should be consistent with science.” They say that “CO2 is not in itself a pollutant.” CO2 is actually plant food. Trees and plants need it to live and thrive. Plants then release oxygen into the atmosphere. They go on to state, “the anthropic origin of global warming is an unproven hypothesis, deduced only from some climate simulation models. The advanced alarmist forecasts, therefore, are not credible, since they are based on models whose results contradict the experimental data.” The climate simulation models “overestimate the anthropic contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability.” 

For example, there is no correlation between rising CO2 levels and increased tropical cyclone activity. There is, however, a strong correlation between cyclonic activity and the completely natural Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation, an oscillation that runs in roughly 60 year cycles.  The scientists continue to state, “The scientific method dictates that the facts, not the number of adherents, make a conjecture a consolidated scientific theory.” Their petition demonstrates ,clearly, the absence of a scientific consensus on the matter. The list of signers includes professors of physics, atmospheric physics, physical chemistry, natural sciences, environmental engineering, astronomy, applied geology, volcanology, meteorology and climatology, oceanography, satellite interferometry (a family of techniques in which waves, usually electromagnetic waves, are superimposed, causing the phenomenon of interference, which is used to extract information), hydrogeology, and probability and mathematical statistics. 

Why would people, mostly politicians, keep touting something that isn’t true? Money and control, pure and simple. Recent global warming agreements, brokered by the UN, require major reductions in world C02 output. They want to slow the presumed warming of the earth’s atmosphere, while also seeking alterations in the economy, that would move energy sources away from fossil fuels and toward renewable natural energy. Obama and. the democrats eagerly signed on to the deal. Trump, however, has reversed that and is promoting fossil fuels.

The senate actually voted on whether or not Climate change was a hoax back in 2015, so there was still skepticism, even in our own government. Here is scientific evidence that proves climate change doesn’t exist. In 2014, there was record Ice in Antarctica, record snowfall, Lake Superior only had 3 ice free months and their was record cold weather. There hasn’t been any warming since 1997. 31,487 scientists also signed a petition, against Global Warming, which states that global warming is not man made. More than 1000 International scientists challenged the UN, Al Gore and IPCC because they say there is no global warming. Polar sea ice is up 50% since 2012, growing from 6,000 to 9,000 cubic km in 2013. 2013’s multi-year ice is 30 cm thicker than 2012’s, which indicates healthy Arctic sea-ice cover.

95% of Climate change models are wrong. Oceans are rising much less than predicted. Many tide gauges show no rise in sea level, and almost none show any acceleration over the past 20 years. Polar bears are thriving. They were supposed to do terrible in 2014, which was supposed to be the hottest year ever. Moose are making a come back. A few years ago, the moose population in Minnesota dropped rapidly. They found out it was due to the wolves, not global warming, even though that is what it was blamed on.

In 2009, emails were discovered from The University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research unit that exposed how scientist’s have manipulated the data to match the narrative. The emails also exposed conspiracies to falsify data and withhold the findings, that cast serious doubt on the man-made global warming theory, to exaggerate the existence and threats posed by global warming, and to obstruct contrary research from appearing in scholarly publications. They also showed how they were aided and abetted by the complicit media. The climate crisis industry portrayed the scandal as much ado about nothing, and continued beating the drums of climate hysteria, as if nothing had happened. This was referred to as Climate gate.

WaPo reported that NASA helped to manipulate the data. “Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.” Since this occurred, around the time of Climate gate scandal, Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a lawsuit to get NASA to release their relevant data on this issue and was able to expose emails from NASA that revealed a disturbing fact. The agency admitted “that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit”. This means that the NASA climate change data was less accurate than East Anglia. In 2011, more emails were released. This time, it showed how they tried to expose a skeptic of their narrative. In 2015, WaPo highlighted another example of NASA manipulating the numbers.

When we look at the money involved, it explains it all. $32.9 billion was spent on research from 1989-2009. This doesn’t include the $79 billion spent for related climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.” In the summer of 2014, a minority staff report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works gave details on a “Billionaire’s Club. ” This club is a shady network of charitable foundations that distributes billions to advance climate alarmism. The report shows that nonprofits, such as the Energy Foundation and Tides Foundation, distributed billions to leftist green groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council. These groups then send staff to the EPA, who then direct federal grants back to these same green groups. The only media that reported on this was the National Review.

This is where the power comes into play. Climate change’s sole purpose is to destroy capitalism in the US, the world’s largest capitalist nation, to pave the way for our nation’s sovereignty being handed over to a global governing authority, run by the United Nations. This sounds insane, I know, but this is true. During my research, I stumbled upon quotes from people associated with the UN.

Christiana Figueres served as Executive Secretary of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change. What she said, is what brought me to the realization that there is indeed a hidden agenda. In February of 2015, Figueres said “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” This economic model to which she refers to is free-market capitalism. A year earlier, Figueres revealed what U.S. capitalism must be replaced with. She complained that our two-party constitutional republic is hampering the UN’s climate objectives. She went on to cite China’s communist system as the kind of government America must have if the UN is to do as it pleases. In other words, if the UN is to have its way, America must become a communist nation.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, what Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer had to say will leave your jaw on the floor. In a Nov. 14, 2010 interview with Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Edenhofer, co-chair of the UN IPCC’s Working Group III, at that time, said “One must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. [What we’re doing] has almost nothing to do with the climate. We must state clearly that we use climate policy to [re]distribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

On the same day, Edenhofer added this: “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with protecting the environment. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which [re]distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.” Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer, is one of the UN’s top climate officials. He effectively admitted that the organization’s public position on climate change is a complete farce.

The same admission was made in July 2019 by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, who told governor Jay Inslee (D-WA) that the Green New Deal has nothing to do with saving the planet. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all. Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing” In other words, the intent of the Green New Deal is to use climate alarmism as a false flag excuse for dismantling our capitalist economy.

Figueres, Edenhofer and Chakrabarti aren’t the only high profile communists to recognize the effectiveness of using environmental hysteria, to hide their true intent. In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev advocated using climate change to incite a global communist revolution: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.” The “new world order” to which he referred is global governance under the banner of the hammer and sickle. For global governance to happen, our sovereignty must be ceded to the UN, an organization that is infested, from top to bottom, with revolutionary Marxists hell-bent on disemboweling western civilization. Let’s face it, this has always been their goal and always will be. Powerful globalists don’t think it is fair that billions of people, in the world, sleep on the ground in mud huts, while Americans sleep on soft mattresses in air-conditioned comfort. They also feel that we must share our wealth, to an unprecedented extent, with poor nations of the world, whose government mismanages their money. Global wealth redistribution is the foremost tenet of communism, and those who advocate it are by definition communists, whether they are open about it or not. 

These proclamations alone are evidence enough to conclude that climate alarmism is being used as a Trojan horse, to justify the stratospheric new carbon taxes clamored for by progressive elites like Al Gore, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Not one of them has ever denounced the profoundly anti-American sentiments of two of the UN’s top climate officials. Obama’s whole campaign, both years was to fundamentally transform the United States of America. He revealed that such taxes would be used not for environmental healing, but to fund the most massive redistribution of wealth in history, literally trillions of dollars, extracted under false pretenses from hard-working U.S. taxpayers, and handed over to corrupt governments of every undeveloped nation on earth, all in the guise of “climate aid.”  Upon further research, there are many others, even here in America, that subscribe to this vision. Which you can read more about here.

Progressives in high places are attempting the largest heist in human history, a collusion to plunder unprecedented sums of money, from us, US taxpayers. Why? To implement, on a global scale, the mandate set forth in The Communist Manifesto: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” The UN was outraged by President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords, because it dealt their plan, to redistribute America’s wealth, a setback. The high profile socialists who preach climate change would have you believe that they’re nothing more than environmentally concerned citizens, who would never dream of participating in a subversive attempt to quietly turn their country communist. These wolves in sheep’s clothing have deceived you, and now you know it. No intelligent person, can fail to see that the modern Democratic Party is using climate alarmism as a ruse to help culminate Barack Obama’s vow. Make no mistake, the UN and global elite, even the democrat party, is coming for our liberty.

I had no idea that this would lead so far down the rabbit hole. All the listed evidence is just a small amount of the proof that exists. We “deniers”, as we are called, have been correct. There is no such thing as climate change. The weather is controlled by natural solar cycles. However, the plot, is much more sinister, than any of us have ever imagined. The world we live in is getting scarier and scarier. We cannot allow this to happen. We need to cancel the UN.

Media Bias: The real Pandemic

The whole purpose of this blog is due to the blatant media bias. I will expose it constantly and report the facts. The most current example is the difference between how they covered the swine flu, under Obama, and how they are currently covering COVID, under Trump. The US newspaper headlines alone create fear. With Swine flu, not one US paper covered it on the front page. Based on my headline search, you can see that. They were all foreign papers or tabloid papers.

Obama waited for months, before calling for a national health emergency. Swine flu started in April, but he didn’t do anything until October, 6 months later! CNN headline read: Since the H1N1 flu pandemic began in April, millions of people in the United States have been infected, at least 20,000 have been hospitalized and more than 1,000 have died, said Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

According to Virology Journal, the 2009 H1N1 came into the U.S. from Mexico: “The swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus that appeared in 2009 and was first found in human beings in Mexico, is a re-assortant with at least three parents. Six of the genes are closest in sequence to those of H1N2 ‘triple-reassortant’ influenza viruses isolated from pigs in North America around 1999-2000. Its other two genes are from different Eurasian ‘avian-like’ viruses of pigs; the NA gene is closest to H1N1 viruses isolated in Europe in 1991-1993, and the MP gene is closest to H3N2 viruses isolated in Asia in 1999-2000. The sequences of these genes do not directly reveal the immediate source of the virus as the closest were from isolates collected more than a decade before the human pandemic started. The three parents of the virus may have been assembled in one place by natural means, such as by migrating birds, however the consistent link with pig viruses suggests that human activity was involved.” There was no mention in the papers about this virus being man made or coming in thru Mexico. With COVID, knowing it is man made and came from China, Trump is called Xenophobic and racist.

CNN’s front page compared the swine flu to the regular flu, pointing out the amount of deaths per year of the regular flu. “An outbreak of swine flu that is suspected in more than 150 deaths in Mexico and has sickened dozens in the U.S. and elsewhere has grabbed the attention of a nervous public and medical officials worried the strain will continue to spread,” CNN wrote. “But even if there are swine-flu deaths outside Mexico, the virus would have a long way to go to match the 36,000 seasonal flu deaths in the U.S. each year.” The very next day, the World Health Organization (WHO) raised the pandemic level to a five out of six. CNN posted a basic write-up on the WHO elevating the pandemic threat level. There was never one criticism written about President Obama, who again, waited 6 months.

Fast Forward 11 years, we have a different President, Trump. After Trump put together a task force in January and banned travel to China, CNN covered the Trump administration’s announcement extensively and conflated Trump’s “bans” with travel restrictions he implemented due to coronavirus. “The Trump administration has announced an expansion of the travel ban — one of the President’s signature policies, which has been derided by critics as an attempt to ban Muslims from the US — to include six new countries.”

The first US death hit in February. “Like all President’s before him, his ability to govern (and in Trump’s case, be re-elected) will be judged by his performance during crisis in the next weeks and months,” CNN’s Joe Lockhart wrote. CNN’s homepage included extensive coronavirus coverage, Lockhart’s opinion piece, as well as CNN anchor Don Lemon slamming Trump’s “classic gaslighting” over coronavirus’s impact.

The fact is media bias has been going on for years, but has gotten worse recently, to the point that they don’t even try to hide it anymore. In the 1986 book, The Media Elite, political scientists S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman and Linda S. Lichter reported the results of their survey, of 240 journalists at the nation’s top media outlets: ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report. When asked about their voting patterns, journalists admitted their preference for Democrats: Of those who say they voted for major party candidates, the proportion of leading journalists who supported the Democratic candidate never drops below 80 percent. In 1972, when more than 60 percent of all voters chose Nixon, over 80 percent among the media elite voted for McGovern. This does not appear to reflect any unique aversion to Nixon. Despite the well-publicized tensions between the press and his administration, leading journalists in 1976 preferred Carter over Ford by the same margin. In fact, in the Democratic landslide of 1964, journalists picked Johnson over Goldwater by a sixteen-to-one margin, or 94 to 6 percent.

In early 1995, Ken Walsh of U.S. News & World Report asked his fellow White House reporters to fill out a survey, for a book he was writing (Feeding the Beast: The White House Versus the Press); 28 returned his questionnaire. He concluded that “the White House press corps is overwhelmingly Democratic, confirming a stereotype often promoted by Republicans.” Interestingly, he also learned how much reporters dislike being on the receiving end of personal inquiries: “Even though the survey was anonymous, many journalists declined to reveal their party affiliations, whom they voted for in recent presidential elections, and other data they regarded as too personal — even though they regularly pressure Presidents and other officials to make such disclosures.”

Fast forward to 2004. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released a survey of 547 journalists and news media executives, including 247 who worked for national news organizations. The poll reiterated many of the questions, asked by the same group (known as the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press) back in 1995.

chart0604_5Pew established that the proportion of liberals, in the national media, had increased over the previous nine years, from 22% in 1995 to 34% in 2004. However, the percentage of conservatives, barely increased. They were at 4% percent in 1995 and 7% in 2004. As for local reporters, liberals (23%) outnumber conservatives (12%) by a 2 to 1 margin.

Pew also asked journalists to name a news organization that seemed to cover the news from an especially liberal or especially conservative angle. Not surprisingly, when it came to a liberal news outlet, most of the national journalists couldn’t call out their own bias. 1/5 of the journalists suggested that the New York Times is liberal. ABC, CBS, CNN and NPR were each named by 2% of those polled, with only 1% of reporters stating NBC was liberal. They did however, all agree on 1 thing. “The single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance — either liberal or conservative — is Fox News Channel,” Pew reported. More than 2/3 of national journalists (69%) labeled Fox News as a conservative news organization, followed by the Washington Times (9%) and the Wall Street Journal (8%).

In the 2008 election, the media attacked Mitt Romney. This was the pivotal moment when the media started showing their liberal bias, more openly. The media made Romney out to be anti-woman. The Guardian, supposedly an independent news site, jumped on the bandwagon. It is obvious that they have liberal leanings in these stories and facts are non-existent. The media went on this tirade because he said that he had “binders full of women” that he was looking to appoint, into key positions, if he was elected president. Yes, what he said was a weird way of stating it. Could he have said this differently? Absolutely. It is clear how they twisted what he said. The media is blatantly using slander, which last i checked, is still a crime.

During the entirety of Obama’s Presidency, facts were lost on the media. Fox News, was the only major news network reporting on what was actually happening, while the other national networks lied to the American people.  USA Today‘s editorial board parroted, almost verbatim, a claim that Obama’s Presidency was scandal-free. Unfortunately, this news was repeated by other journalists and networks, including Tom Brokaw from NBC, despite the investigations into the IRS for targeting conservative groups, the investigation into the ATF’s Fast and Furious program (also known as Project Gun runner) and the investigation into the Obama Administration’s federal guarantees for Solyndra, among others.

During the Fast & Furious investigation, Attorney General Eric Holder withheld documents and concealed evidence, continuing to deny any knowledge of gun walking. He was threatened with Contempt of Congress and had to be forced into appearing at these hearings. A Congressional report, on Holder, described his view of the murder of Agent Terry as “a nuisance.” The report further stated that Holder knew about gun walking in general and Operation Fast and Furious in particular – he even knew that the weapons involved in the shootout resulted in the death of Agent Terry – as far back as 2010. The Congressional report further accused Attorney General Holder of stonewalling Grassley’s investigation. I remember watching the news and asking, “Why isn’t the MSM covering this?” Fox news and foreign news were the only people speaking the truth.

The lack of acknowledgement of actual scandals, that were investigated by Congress, and the blatant disregard for truth to the American people, perfectly epitomize how the vast majority, of the media, is bias. They were way too cozy with Obama and his administration. There is nothing wrong with the media being friendly with a President or his aides (these things happen, especially since they are in constant contact with one another), but it crosses the line of journalistic integrity, when that relationship impacts reporters’ ability to provide objective coverage and challenge assertions made by an administration. 

Known Liberal reporter Ken Starnes, formerly of NPR, took it upon himself to do real journalism, and submerse himself into Republican culture. This is what he discovered. “For an entire year, I embedded myself with the other side, standing in pit row at a NASCAR race, hanging out at Tea Party meetings and sitting in on Steve Bannon’s radio show. I found an America far different from the one depicted in the press and imagined by presidents (“cling to guns or religion”) and presidential candidates (“basket of deplorables”) alike.”

He also compared the views of gun control and gun usage. “Over the course of this past year, I have tried to consume media as they do and understand it as a partisan player. It is not so hard to do. Take guns. Gun control and gun rights is one of our most divisive issues, and there are legitimate points on both sides. But media is obsessed with the gun-control side and gives only scant, mostly negative, recognition to the gun-rights sides. Take, for instance, the issue of legitimate defensive gun use (DGU), which is often dismissed by the media as myth. But DGUs happen all the time — 200 times a day, according to the Department of Justice, or 5,000 times a day, according to an overly exuberant Florida State University study. But whichever study you choose to believe, DGUs happen frequently and give credence to my hunting friends who see their guns as the last line of defense for themselves and their families.” He goes on to say, the very same thing, many people have being saying for years. “It’s not that media is suppressing stories intentionally. It’s that these stories don’t reflect their interests and beliefs.”

The media is clearly not sharing facts. They just write about things that reflect their beliefs, even if it is wrong. America has caught on and they are tired of it. Journalism is supposed to be objective, showing both sides and allowing people to come to their own conclusions. Journalists are supposed to follow the evidence, regardless of what they think. Here are 50 other examples, of media bias, going all the way back to Joseph Stalin. I could literally go on and on for days about this topic.

As you can see, by all the citations in this article, it is a REAL issue. Time to cancel the MSM and focus on independent sites that report the truth. It is time to keep them ALL accountable. President Trump and Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnaney do a great job of this. Let’s hope more administrations, moving forward, do the same thing.