How they do it


Fake News    The Communist News Networks 
 
 

 

 

Examples of the Media Manipulating Events

 

There's no denying that the media often isn't wholly objective and truthful in its coverage of news events. The photos you're going to see below show just how easy it is to manipulate people's perceptions of an event that's being covered for the sake of whatever agenda that the powers-that-be at a given news network might have. Take a look: An angle makes a world of difference.

 

 

 

 

Creating the impression of strength in numbers for Hillary Clinton!

 

 

 

 

This soldier looks like he was threatening the boy in the first image.

It turns out he wasn't.

 

 

 

 

 

Not many people turned out for the launch of UK PM Theresa May's campaign bus...

 

 

 

This photo was staged between photographers and a young Palestinian.

 

 

 

 

The kid in this infamous photo was participating in a pro-immigration demonstration.

He wasn't even a detained illegal immigrant.

 

 

The camera was used to create the illusion of more people.

 

 

 

 

Not quite as many people there as was made out...

 

 

 
 

The 16 Year Plan to Destroy America

by Allen Williams


The globalist chart below pretty well sums up the Obama administration as well as Hillary's presidential plans if she had won the 2016 election.


Glancing at the chart above may appear conspiratorial at first but a great number of these tag items have already been done or are in progress. For example, rogue operators have been operating in government as in FBI agents Strzok and Page.

ISIS funding has been traced to NATO and hence Obama. There's no question that the Iran deal was the epitome of funding America's enemies. And Obama did a number of purges in the US military to weaken the command structure.

Conservatives have been under attack by the media for some time and attacks heightened in social media censorship in recent years.

There's little doubt that Obama's selection of Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor were intended to move the court to the progressive left.  And US immigration experienced an unprecedented flood of illegals including violent criminals under his watch.

Hillary Clinton has already called for the end of the electoral college during her 2016 loss. The Clinton foundation has pocketed millions in their supposed philanthropic endeavors in Haiti.  And Hillary made millions more in the Uranium One sale to the Russians.


Spectrum - a Rip off Internet Service Provider (Update)

by Allen Williams


I acquired Time-Warner’s Everyday Low Price internet plan about six years ago as I’m not a gamer and I don’t stream movies from NetFlix. I just enjoy reading the news and making occasional online purchases.  So I didn’t feel the need to pay for Hi speed internet.  Time Warner was a pretty good plan with decent service.

About 5 years ago Time-Warner was bought out by AT &T who sold off the cable service to Charter Communication’s Spectrum.  

Right from the start I began getting calls from their representatives for me to upgrade my service, add phone, TV and what not which I declined.  I have my own broadband phone installation which works fine so I didn’t need another.  At the same time I was receiving saturated mailings from Spectrum informing me of what extra service packages I could order.  The phrase ‘not interested’ has absolutely no meaning to the company.

In December of 2018, I opened my Spectrum bill and found that it had jumped 25 percent, down slightly from the 33 percent increase of 2017.  I promptly called them to discover the reason for the latest increase.

The Representative I talked with either wasn’t very knowledgeable of Spectrum plans or was deliberately misleading me on the various options.  It’s likely a corollary of the axiom “Tell customer anything to get the job or keep the service.

The Time-Warner Everyday Low Price (ELP) Internet plan is no longer offered on the Spectrum Website and the company will not let customers sign up for that plan even though my monthly bill continues to show the ELP selection.  http://concerningconsumers.bangordailynews.com/2017/03/16/home/spectrum-discontinues-time-warners-14-99-everyday-low-price-internet/ After informing me several times that Time-Warner no longer exists and that essentially I didn’t have a right to the ELP service at Spectrum, she continued to evade my questions on the reason for the price increases.  After much persistence on my part she finally told me that Spectrum initiated a company wide price increase.  

However, despite the representative’s assertions, the pricing increases appear to be some sort of punitive measure to force the consumer on to a plan of the company’s choosing rather than honoring the user’s preference. There’s also nothing like subsidizing Spectrum’s acquisition costs for Time Warner.

Today’s business strategies concentrate on forcing customer’s to buy services they don’t need or want at outrageous prices in a captive market created by government regulations and other federal enablers.  Remember Net Neutrality..a half baked government plan to equalize broadband speeds, no blocking access or throttling traffic, etc?

Broadband competition is intentionally muted to force prices upward and holdovers from less expensive plans are targeted for forced upgrades:  https://eu.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/business/2017/06/08/spectrum-customers-not-happy-in-time-warner-cable-changeover/376695001/

I’m not alone in experiencing Spectrum’s abusive rate hikes; Charter Communications has lost roughly 100,000 subscribers during the switch from Time -Warner Cable to Spectrum.  Here are more customer’s thoughts:

“After being a customer for 18 years they are trying to increase prices well above their ongoing advertised prices of TV Service, Internet Service.” 

“When Spectrum purchased Time Warner I kept getting a letters in the mail from Spectrum stating save $10 to switch to Spectrum, reading the fine details, year two would increase by $10, year 3 would be what ever going rate is.  I just hit year 2 and price went up $20.  I called and spoke to 5 people. All said I am getting the correct rate.  If anyone has a copy of the letter to prove me right or wrong would be appreciated”   Read more Spectrum complaints at: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/spectrum/internet/spectrum-spectrum-internet-service-took-over-time-warner-cable-industry-california-1338932

Spectrum offerings differ from locale to locale usually pushing phone, Internet and TV services at three to four times the cost of internet alone. The cheapest Internet offering I saw was a promotional at $44 per month soon to become $65 a month.   And Spectrum only offers two speed tiers – 60 Mbps and 100 Mbps, “with no data caps, usage-based pricing or additional modem fees,” according to a recent company press release.  

  • 60 Mbps = $64.99 ($53.99 for customers who also have Spectrum TV)*
  • 100 Mbps = $104.99 ($93.99 for customers who also have Spectrum TV)*

I asked the Rep if there were any changes to my broadband speed.  Spectrum responded that I’m getting 3.5 MB service but clocking the Internet speed with Speedtest shows 2.3Mbps.  http://www.speedtest.net/#, Download at 3.02 Mbps; Upload 0.25 Mbps

Spectrum’s own speed test is pretty comparable with a slightly higher Upload speed at 0.5 Mbps but these will vary from day to day based on traffic load, etc.  https://www.spectrum.com/internet/speed-test.html 

Both tests confirm that I’m getting less than 3.5 Mbps service so either the Rep doesn’t know what speed is supposed to come with Time-Warner’s old ELP service or one gets whatever the company feels like providing.

In Oct of this year (2019) I received a notice from Spectrum that they were increasing my monthly fee for ELP service $3.00 which  now totals $27.99 per month for an alleged speed increase that I didn't request.  So I performed another speed test (same independent source as above) which now shows me getting 4.65 Mbps download speed and 1.93 Mbps upload speed an actual overall increase from what I had before.  In reality, there should have been NO COST increase because I demonstrated that I was not getting what I was paying for originally so their speed increase simply brought me in line with what I was supposed to be getting in the first place.  Interestingly enough Spectrum would NOT let me check my internet connection speed using their platform as I did earlier.  Instead you get two choices from their results screen, ‘Login’ and ‘View’. 

Spectrum Speed Test Screen

 I didn’t try the login choice because I would either have to create an account or use my existing one, slick method huh?

They must have read my earlier review because now when you click on their second choice 'View" it's nothing more than detailed plan advertising including ‘projected’ speeds for different packages.  

You never get an actual speed result for your connection. While I was there a window popped up asking me how I would rate my site experience.  I replied with a ‘zero’ and another window immediately popped up asking me to explain why I gave that rating, which I did.  It’s obvious Spectrum doesn’t want to provide evidence that speeds  provided aren’t up to what they advertise.  So the bottom line is that deceptive advertising laws are worth exactly nothing.

I would still rate Spectrum at zero if the Sitejabber system would allow me for Spectrum’s deceptive business practices, disingenuous advertising, credit billing irregularities, minimal plan choices and unwillingness to allow people to keep their current plan and an endless solicitation harassment to upgrade services from both mail and phone calls.

Spectrum is a dud, best to avoid it.


Judicial nominee faces Senate scrutiny over Knights of Columbus membership

by Ed Condon


Washington D.C., Dec 21, 2018 / 02:00 pm (CNA).- A judicial nominee faced questions from Senators this month about whether membership in the Knights of Columbus might impede his ability to judge federal cases fairly. The Knights of Columbus say that no candidate for public office should have to defend his membership in a Catholic service organization.

Senators Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Kamala Harris (D-CA) raised concerns about membership in the Knights of Columbus while the Senate Judiciary Committee reviewed the candidacy of Brian C. Buescher, an Omaha-based lawyer nominated by President Trump to sit on the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

Senators also asked whether belonging to the Catholic charitable organization could prevent judges from hearing cases “fairly and impartially.”

In written questions sent to Buescher by committee members Dec. 5, Sen. Hirono stated that “the Knights of Columbus has taken a number of extreme positions. For example, it was reportedly one of the top contributors to California’s Proposition 8 campaign to ban same-sex marriage.”

Hirono then asked Buescher if he would quit the group if he was confirmed “to avoid any appearance of bias.”

“The Knights of Columbus does not have the authority to take personal political positions on behalf of all of its approximately two million members,” Buescher responded.

“If confirmed, I will apply all provisions of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges regarding recusal and disqualification,” he said.

Kathleen Blomquist, spokesperson for the Knights of Columbus, told CNA that the senators’ questions echoed the kind of anti-Catholicism seen in previous generations of American history.

“Our country’s sad history of anti-Catholic bigotry contributed to the founding of the Knights of Columbus, and we are proud of the many Catholics who overcame this hurdle to contribute so greatly to our country,” Blomquist told CNA

“We were extremely disappointed to see that one’s commitment to Catholic principles through membership in the Knights of Columbus—a charitable organization that adheres to and promotes Catholic teachings—would be viewed as a disqualifier from public service in this day and age.”

President Trump nominated Buescher to serve on the U.S. District Court on Nov. 3. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Buescher’s nomination Nov. 28, sending written questions to him on Dec. 5. 

The Knights of Columbus is active in 17 countries worldwide. In 2017, members carried out more than 75 million hours of volunteer work and raised more than $185 million for charitable purposes. Successive popes, including Pope Francis, have praisied the group for their charitable work and the manner in which they articulate Catholic faith and values.

In her questions to the nominee, Sen. Harris described the Knights as “an all-male society” and asked if Buescher was aware that the Knights of Columbus “opposed a woman’s right to choose” and were against “marriage equality” when he joined.

Responding to the senator’s questions, Buescher confirmed that he has been a member of the Knights since he was 18 years old, noting that his membership “has involved participation in charitable and community events in local Catholic parishes.”

“I do not recall if I was aware whether the Knights of Columbus had taken a position on the abortion issue when I joined at the age of 18,” he wrote in response.

Harris raised a statement from Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson, who said that abortion constituted “the killing of the innocent on a massive scale” and asked Buescher if he agreed with Anderson.

Buescher said he was not responsible for drafting statements or policies made by the Knights and that, as a federal judge, he would consider himself bound by judicial precedent regarding abortion.

“I did not draft this language. If confirmed, I would be bound by precedent of the United States Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and would not be guided by statements made by others,” Buescher told the senator.

Blomquist told CNA that asking a judicial nominee to defend his membership of a major Catholic charitable organization is disturbing.

“We believe that membership in the Knights of Columbus, which helps everyday men put their Catholic faith into action, is worthy of commendation and not something a nominee for public office should be asked to defend," she said.

In 2014, Buescher ran as a candidate in the Republican primary election for Nebraska attorney general. During that campaign he described himself as “avidly pro-life” and said that opposition to abortion was part of his “moral fabric.”

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) noted the nominee’s previously outspoken opposition to abortion and asked “why should a litigant in your courtroom expect to get a fair hearing from an impartial judge in a case involving abortion rights?”

Buescher responded that “as a candidate for Nebraska Attorney General in 2014, I did what candidates for any major state or federal office do, which is to take political positions on a variety of issues of the day.” 

“However, there is a difference between taking political positions as a candidate for elective office and serving as a federal judge. I believe a judge’s role and obligation is to apply the law without regard to any personal beliefs regarding the law,” Buescher wrote.

“If confirmed, I will faithfully apply all United States Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals precedent on all issues, including Roe v. Wade."

Buescher also fielded questions from senators about Trump administration policy on Title X funding for clinics providing abortions and referrals, as well as on the application of anti-discrimination law to questions related to gender identity or sexual orientation.

The nominee underscored that, as a judge, it was not for him to advance personal or political opinions but to make fair and impartial rulings based on the law and judicial precedent. 

If confirmed by the Senate, Buescher will fill the vacancy left by Judge Laurie Smith Camp, who assumed senior status - a kind of judicial semi-retirement - on Dec. 1.

This story has been updated.