Propaganda in the American Media

Watching the media coverage of this year's election makes me want to pull my hair out.  This year, because the powers that be are so scared of a Trump presidency, the media has dropped its façade of objectiveness and crossed over into advocacy for Hillary Clinton.  There are so many instances of this, but in the interest of time, I'll only point out a couple.
The first instance I'd like to highlight is the difference in coverage between the "Khan" story and the "Mateen" story.  Everyone knows that Mr. Trump denigrated a Muslim soldier killed in action in Iraq, thus dishonoring both his memory and the military at the same time.  TOO BAD THIS IS FALSE.  Mr. Khan attacked Mr. Trump first and implied, when he waved the Constitution metaphorically in Mr. Trump's face, that Mr. Trump is un-American.  Mr. Trump then merely questioned why Mrs. Khan stood by silently during his tirade, and questioned whether she was allowed to speak, probably to make the point the Muslims regularly, as a matter of course, subjugate their women.  The press, of course, portrayed it as an attack on the family, a "gold star" family, and questioned why Mr. Trump would insult the military, etc., etc.  The story got 24/7 coverage for days.  It turns out that Mr. Khan was paid thousands of dollars by the Hillary campaign to attack Trump at the convention, and that Mr. Khan has written articles suggesting that Sharia law "trumps" the Constitution of the United States--the very Constitution he waved at the convention, but of course that wasn't reported by the vast majority of the media.
Now, compare that coverage with the coverage of Mr. Mateen. 

This man is the father of the radical Islamist who killed 49 people at an Orlando nightclub, and who was pictured sitting in the front row of a Hillary Clinton rally. He also endorsed Hillary for president.  Now, if this had been a Trump rally, the media would have been going on for days about how Trump was supported by an Islamic murderer's father and how letting him come to a rally and sit in the front row not only showed that he condoned the actions of his son but actually approved.  There would be countless editorials questioning his judgement, and by the end of the new cycle a couple of weeks later, half the country would think Mr. Trump himself was a radical jihadist.
There are many other examples of the media being in bed with the Clinton campaign, but perhaps the most insidious and dangerous way is through the use of "push" polls.  These are polls that purposefully over-sample Democrats to show Hillary winning, after which the same papers that run the dishonest polls crow about how Hillary is pulling away and Trump is flailing.  It is the most pernicious type of media trickery, and the ensuing coverage of the poll is a type of propaganda with which Mr. Goebbels or Mr. Stalin would be proud.

The evidence of these dishonest polls is readily available to anyone who looks for it.  Polling firms must disclose their methodologies, and you can usually find their sampling at the end of the poll.  For instance, in the latest CBS poll putting Clinton up by 5, they over-sampled Democrats by 5 points!  The Monmouth poll that came out a couple of weeks ago over sampled Democrats by 35% to 26%!  The NBC Marist poll has a similar over-sampling.  The few polls which do honest demographic sampling show the race a statistical tie.  These include the LA Times and Rasmussen.  However, even these polls are incorrect. First of all, most of these polls only call a few hundred people, thereby making the extrapolation of the numbers suspect.  Also, Mr. Trump has by all accounts pulled millions of new voters into the party.  It is evident he is pulling blue collar Democrats.  Therefore, all the polls should over-sample REPUBLICANS to get a true picture of election day.  One interesting poll which just came out is the Arizona Freedom Alliance poll.  This poll actually polled 1,000 people in every state--50,000 people nationwide (or 57,000 if you're Barack Obama), and the results were so astonishing that you won't see them in the media.  Mr. Trump pulled 67% to 19% for Mrs. Clinton!  The demographic sampling was 33% Democrat, 33% Republican, and 34% independent.
So we have the media actively supporting Mrs. Clinton.  Despite overwhelming evidence of a pay to play scheme between her foundation donors and access while she was Secretary of State, the media hasn't looked into it.  (If it was Trump, they'd be looking at it with an electron microscope).  However, if Mr. Trump has done nothing else this year, he's awakened people to the fact that we have a dishonest media, and the people aren't buying it this year.  Their plans will not dampen voter turnout for Mr. Trump.  It actually could repress voter turnout for Clinton, since many Democrats may say that she's got it in the bag so there's no need to go vote. 
Donald Trump may not be the most eloquent candidate ever, but if you listen to him speak rather than listen to cherry-picked soundbites, he makes sense.  His policies are commons sense policies.  We want a secure border while still welcoming LEGAL immigrants.  We want economic growth, something Mrs. Clinton's plan will not bring with its additional regulations and government control of the economy.  We want to destroy radical Islamists, even though Hillary can't bring herself to utter the words.  We want the 2nd amendment to stay a pillar of our Constitution, giving every American the right to protect themselves and their families.  We don't want to "fire" whole industries, thereby putting millions out of work in the name of "green" energy.  We don't want crippling regulations (Obama's cost about $100 billion per year--imagine what we could do with that money!). 
One last thing to say about the disparate media treatment of the two candidates.  Mrs. Clinton's last press conference was almost nine months ago.   Imagine if Mr. Trump went that long without a press conference.  They would be going crazy.  Have you heard anything about Mrs. Clinton's lack of press conferences in 95% of the media?  No, neither have I.  When it comes to that, when it comes to the questions about her foundation, when it comes to her contradictory economic ideas, when it comes to letting the father of a murdering jihadist sit in the front row of her rally, all I hear from the media is crickets.

Thank God for Donald Trump

This election year looked like it would be like any other.  I looked forward desultorily to the coming ascendancy of Jeb Bush, knowing in my heart that it would lead to another crushing defeat for Republicans in a presidential election.  A Bush candidacy was going to be similar to Romney and John McCain and Bob Dole and every other weak Republican candidate that's been foisted on us over the past thirty years by the establishment.  (I don't put Bush 41 in this list because a.) I think he was a very good president and b.) Ross Perot is the reason Bill Clinton won the election, not anything Bush did).  Then, in steps this guy Donald Trump.  Well known, face recognition, rich, flamboyant.  Everyone thought his candidacy would die in a few weeks.  Then he struck a nerve.  He mentioned that the hordes of people coming across our southern border included rapists, drug dealers and murderers, and we therefore need to seal our southern border and tell anyone here illegally to leave.  He immediately got my attention.  It's something I've been waiting to hear for years. The left went crazy, as did the Republican establishment.  Mr. Trump was immediately branded a racist.  Companies started pulling out of deals with him.  People started vilifying him.  Even Great Britain had a petition circulating to ban him from the country.  But I just went back and found what he actually said.  Here it is:  “When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best.  They're not sending you, they're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting."
First of all, Mr. Trump acknowledges in the statement that there are good people among the illegals pouring across our border, but he also states there are murderers, rapists, and drug dealers among them.  That has since proven to be true, as thousands of crimes have been committed in America by illegal immigrants.  Second, where does he say anything racist?  Since when does speaking truth make someone a bigot?  And this brings me to the point of this article.
It has become apparent to me that the majority in this country has been cowed and intimidated and suppressed by a small elite bent on determining how everyone will act, speak, and even think.  Don't agree with the gay agenda?  You're a bigot whose career and reputation must be ruined.  You think Bruce Jenner dressing like a woman is weird?  You're a hater and there is something wrong with you.  You think "all lives matter?"  You're a racist.  You think that abortion is the murder of a human being?  You're anti-women.  The way the left has directed the national conversation on all these issues has been done purposefully to shame and ruin anyone who doesn't go along with their agenda.  Then in steps Donald Trump.  He says what he thinks.  While the left pretends to be horrified by his words, calling him "racist" and his followers "brownshirts," in fact what they are horrified by is that he is breaking down in weeks the machinery of suppression the left has spent decades building.  He is undoing what was to be the framework of a 1984-like state.  Donald Trump is the only one on the stage talking about beginning national security at the border.  He's the only one on the stage with the economic know-how to get the economy humming again.  However, while I support him because of those issues, my number one reason for supporting him is that he is the man who is going to save free speech in this country.  The left has been trying to set up a Stalinist state, where even a wrongly spoken word can ruin a person.  Mr. Trump, through his words and actions, is quickly destroying that, and while the left is aghast at what he is doing and is trying every ploy they can to bring him down, he continues to just shrug them off.  So, while he is speaking of things which I support, such as sealing our border, it is because he is speaking of these things that I support him.  After all, do we want a president who will unlock the manacles of suppression the left has created, or do we want a president who will act like Joseph Stalin, the man who made certain speech and thought crimes punishable by the state?  The choice couldn't be more clear.