posted 05-02-2001 09:27 AM            

quote:

---

25) USA Today, 1000 Wilson Blvd Arlington, VA 22229 703-276-3400

---

posted 05-02-2001 05:25 PM            

As you may have noticed, Eastern Washington is also aggressively bombarded with chemtrails on a regular basis, and has been for quite some time. You are a news organization: Why aren't you reporting on this chemtrail activity? Do you have so little respect for your viewers that you will not allow them to make their own decisions concerning this matter of importance to everyone? Are you aware that USA Today and several other newspapers have at least brought up the issue? Do you have any responsibility to your readers and viewers at all?

The TV news reporters and weatherpersons oooh and ahhh about the so-called gorgeous days in Eastern Washington. Well, these days would be gorgeous if it were not for vast lines and rows of chemtrails expanding out and covering the beautiful blue sky with haze from horizon to horizon.

http://www.rense.com/general10/chem.htm
_________

Spokane has been quite beautiful for about three days--no chemtrails, just wonderful billowy clouds with a backdrop of deep blue sky--the way it used to be. I've been enjoying it.

posted 05-11-2001 09:16 AM            

"Tim Cooper writes......I have identified all the major national news and information media in the U.S. that have not, and will not, cover the chemtrail mystery, investigate the JFK assassination conspiracy, and the Clinton-Mena connection to CIA drug operations in Arkansas. Most, if not all, are influenced and have been controlled by the Pentagon, US Intelligence, and the CIA since 1963. I have provided the list, and who ever wants to find out who owns them, they'll have to do their own homework. You will note that most are in New York, the political power base of the United States and are dominated by just four media empires. "J" and anyone associated with intelligence can verify what I said. There is no such thing as freedom of the press in this country. All major news stories are dictated in New York and from the White House........"

posted 05-11-2001 11:06 AM            

Now we have Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, the Nationial Enquirer and Matt Drudge giving us the "rest" of the story. These people aren't content to sit on their assets and simply put their bylines on press releases.

posted 05-11-2001 11:50 AM            

I think that if you check the following website, you will have proof that the media IS controlled....;

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/chapter14.htm

John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff for the New York Times, was one of New York's best loved newspapermen. Called by his peers "The Dean of his Profession", John was asked in 1953 to give a toast before the New York Press Club, and in so doing, made a monumentally important and revealing statement. He is quoted as follows:

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar weekly salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

[Edited 1 times, lastly by defender on 05-11-2001]

posted 05-11-2001 02:24 PM            

Here's an interesting site I just found;

http://mprofaca.cro.net/mainmenu.html

"Shortly before New Year's 2000, writer Robert D. Kaplan penned a New York Times commentary about the world's future.

He blithely predicted that "political systems in 2100 will be elegantly varied, unconstrained by the sanctimony of the late 20th century, with its simple call for 'democracy.'" Kaplan added that his vision of this post-democratic world included a breakdown of national sovereignty and a resurrection of the ancient structure of autocratic city-states.

"The next century will be the age of high-tech feudalism," maintained Kaplan, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation which prides itself in "thinking outside the box." [NYT, Dec. 27, 1999]

While Kaplan certainly has the right to his opinion and there is some logic behind his prediction, what was striking was the casual way that The New York Times presented the argument, as if the end of "simple" democracy was a foregone conclusion, nothing much to worry about.

This cavalier attitude offered a rare glimpse at what is a growing -- though usually unstated -- notion along the Washington-New York power corridor: that free-market forces increasingly control everything and should control everything.

From this perspective, democracy -- the will of the people -- becomes more a "sanctimony" than a noble ideal, more an impediment to progress than the fairest way to bestow power on leaders.

This growing view -- what one might call a new-age capitalistic determinism -- has gained adherence among many influential journalists and thinkers. Yet, since democracy remains a popular notion with many Americans and since the media retains a self-image as the plucky defender of the U.S. Constitutional system, the term democracy has been less jettisoned than redefined. Within this new body of thought, "democracy" has come to mean the freedom of business to operate with minimal government constraints.

This evolving concept also helps explain, to some degree, the media’s decline in covering significant affairs of state. More and more, news is debased into “content,” as the out-dated need for a well-informed public fades away. Except for the stock prices and business news, information slides into entertainment.

posted 05-13-2001 03:45 PM            

"In unprecedented numbers Americans are questioning the "official stories" of mainline news media and the business and government which they serve. The news media has joined the government as one of the least trusted institutions in the country. A national survey conducted in August, 1996 reveals that only 13% of the population trusts the news media showing an 87% margin of distrust.

With this overwhelming distrust factor, why are record numbers of viewers watching or listening to news-based programming? Why are news/talk shows so popular? The answer may lie in the fact that the news industry has become primarily an entertainment industry, apparently more interested in their standings in the Nielson Ratings than in reporting the hard, painful truth. With the fierce competition of this "news" or "information" based programming, the emphasis is not on informing or educating their viewers regarding the deeply significant events which are now shaping the immediate future; rather, the focus is producing sensational, captivating, anesthetizing material. The consumers may not trust the news media, but they are entertained and sedated by it.

posted 05-21-2001 11:03 PM            

It's clear to me, you don't listen to Rush, defender. Since when has he ever come out against the second amendment!? Rosie Odonell?, yes. Bill Maher?Yes. Senator McCain? Yes.

posted 05-22-2001 09:32 AM            

When I heard RL knock the NRA and the fact that they both he and Bill Mahr worked for ABC, I knew they had to have the same handlers. I'm sure RL has also verbally supported the NRA too, that's part of the game. He always has plausible deniability. He can always go back and make some quote about something he said to make it look like he supports something he really doesn't.

Rush Limbaughs's TV show was based on Radio Marti, which was based on Radio-Free Europe before that. TPTS/CIA saw how well propaganda could work against 'enemies' of the U.S. like Warsaw Pact countries, and then Cuba, that they decided to use it on US!!! The American people. Limbaugh is not representative of the Republicans I know. He has been effective in some respects at pointing out some of the defects in the Democratic party, but only so far as it can help his own Republican Powers That Suck.

posted 05-22-2001 10:36 AM            

A current issue for Rush in this area is Senator John McCain. McCain is a self-proclaimed Republican who is backing liberal Democratic issues such as limitations on the first amendment (through campaign finance reform) and recently McCain has come out in support of gun control. Three of the issues we are talking about here....and Rush is pulling no punches.

1) Rush is attacking McCain fiercely despite his status as a Republican.
2) Rush is attacking McCain's attempt to limit first amendment rights through his campaign finance reform act.
3) Rush is attacking McCain for his stance on gun control.

Don't believe me? Check here: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com