Not so Facty

It is interesting to watch liberal pundits disguise themselves as Truth Detectors. Two of my favorites are Snopes and Each uses the finest of nuance to push an article and associated title to fit their narrative.  That narrative is always, 100% of the time, liberal good – conservative bad.

Take the example of Hillary Clinton and Uranium One. I recently posted an article regarding Chuck Schumer’s selective investigative syndrome (SIS). Of particular note is his strong urge to have two investigations into the Trump administration and Russian ties. Yet, when the Secretary of State was Hillary Clinton, when she was running State business on her own personal server –  Uranium One made four donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling $2.35 million. Chuck Schumer said of this situation, “I think all this other stuff is going to be bumps in the road when you look back on it.” The old, nothing to see here… move along.

When you run to Snopes or to review the Clinton/Uranium One issue you get headlines that could have been written by Chuck himself… move along, nothing to see here.’s title on this topic is, “A False ‘Corruption’ Claim”. Snopes gives it a “False” rating. By the way, Snopes will never give a conservative viewpoint a clear positive claim. It is usually “mostly this” or “mostly that”, or so I’ve notice.

I’ll just take (Snopes is pretty much the same) to make a point. By selectively choosing the angle of argument, they paint the picture of non-corruption. I notice this technique often with liberal media outlets. Morning Joe is famous for this slight of hand. You will always hear one contributor say “people I know”, “people are telling me”, “friends say to me”, “crowds tell me”, “everywhere I go people say”… and then they make the point they want to make. This trick is used to lend credibility to the point they want to make. Of course, they are just saying that – you can’t prove people are saying this or that. You don’t know if it is their other liberal friend saying that and they are being “liberal with the facts” making it sound like half of America.’s (FC)  title on the Clinton/Uranium controversy as noted before is “A False ‘Corruption’ Claim”. FC makes the following point regarding the April 23, 2015, a New York Times article.

“The story doesn’t find evidence of a pay-to-play scandal or say that Clinton was responsible for the uranium deal.”

In building their selectively narrow narrative they add “New York Times wrote about the uranium issue, saying the paper had “built upon” Schweizer’s information.”

This now allows a pivot to Schweizer and Fox News:

“A few days after the Times story, Schweizer made the false claim on “Fox News Sunday” that Clinton, as secretary of state, had “veto power” and “could have stopped” the sale. We found that only the president had that power.”

So now we have the narrative foundation built. You see it isn’t about the potential corruption, or linking a private email server and donations to the Clinton Foundation to the Russians.  No it is about the false claim that Hillary had veto power? That now becomes the false claim!

FC’s goes on to note:

As the Times wrote, there are certainly ethical considerations when a former president is accepting foundation donations from people who have a stake in a business deal and his spouse sits on a committee that approves such deals. But Hillary Clinton wasn’t responsible for “hand[ing] over American uranium rights to the Russians,” Well no, she didn’t mine it, put it in a bag and give them the rights to take it – this is true and a good fact check!

So you see, the issue of impropriety in an administration that said they would be the most transparent in history has no quarter here. When combined with a personal email server, the Secretary of State being closely tied to large donations and being paid large sums of money to speak, combined with getting access to US Uranium is boiled down to A False ‘Corruption’ Claim.

(and don’t give me the Annenberg connection. The Annenberg Foundation was originally founded by Walter J. Annenberg, a conservative who supported Ronald Reagan. However, when Walter Annenberg died, his family took over the management of the foundation and it took a turn to the far left and has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical colleague Barack Obama. See Chicago Annenberg Challenge)

Selective Investigative Syndrome (SIS)

Chuck-E has made a lot of news lately. Commenting on a fake news story about the national guard rounding up illegals, Chuck-E said “I just hope it’s not true. The fact that it might even be considered is appalling”. He was also brought to fake tears on the temporary immigration band of the Trump administration. Barry Obama put lab coats on staffers so they looked like doctors. This can give you Street Cred when p170129141304-chuck-schumer-emotional-trump-travel-ban-00000000-small-169ushing a healthcare program down the throats of citizens. Chuck-E is no dummy, he utilized a child Muslim prop when he whipped up some tears for the cameras. Brilliant Chuck-E! I guess he forgot that in Nov. 2015 he said, “We’re waiting for the briefing tomorrow, a pause may be necessary. We’re going to look at it”. No he didn’t forget, that was political expediency. And of course MSM is missing in action.

Following an emergency Democratic caucus meeting Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) warned that Trump officials might try to cover up improper contacts with Russian intelligence. Hey Chuck-E, you mean like having your own email server? Vetting your own email for FOIA? You know… like when you said, “Oh, I don’t know, I think Hillary is great,” said Schumer. “I think, ya know, she’s already said she wants the emails out. What do Americans care about? Good paying jobs, good country, good family. All that stuff isn’t gonna matter.”

Chuck-E also demanded an independent Russia probe on the Trump administration, saying “If an investigation is not independent, nonpartisan, and most of all, transparent, there is no guarantee this administration will take the decisive and immediate actions necessary to keep our country safe”. Chuck-E urged the creation of two independent investigations: one by Congress and the other by the executive branch. Yet, when Hillary Clinton was utilizing a personal email server to conduct business as Secretary of State, and contributions were flowing into the Clinton foundation as the U.S. reviewed a deal of a Russian energy agency’s control in Uranium One, Check-E was all but silent!

These contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, according to the Times, despite an agreement Clinton, then candidate for president, made with the Obama administration to do so. What was Chuck-E’s conclusion on all of this? Special dual independent  probes??  Well not quite. No in this instance he said, “I think all this other stuff is going to be bumps in the road when you look back on it.

(more on the press, liberal bias and FactCheck.Org in relationship to the Uranium One deal coming next – least you think, there is no there, there)

Time magazine’s cover features menacing portrait of Steve Bannon

If you want to see how the media shapes a narrative and thus sets an agenda they want to talk about, look no further than Time magazine’s cover with Steve Bannon. The official MSM narrative is that Bannon is out promoting himself, Trump is upset and the one I love… Axelrod never did anything like this.

Point one – Did Steve Bannon ask Time to do the article? No. Can he stop an article being written about him? No. Should he be proud of what he accomplished? Yes!

Point two – It is not uncommon to do a story about a campaign manager when said candidate wins the presidency! In fact, that is exactly what happened with “you never saw Axelrod do something like this” Axelrod:


ABC News – August 22, 2008

Obama’s $2-Million Man: Campaign Guru Axelrod


The Christian Science Monitor – July 15, 2008

David Axelrod: architect of Obama’s unlikely campaign


The New York Times – October 26, 2008

Long by Obama’s Side, an Adviser Fills a Role That Exceeds His Title


Even Advertising Age ran a story in November, 2008

The Team That Brought You the New President

How Plouffe, Axelrod and the Rest of the Gang Built a Master Campaign


So if you want to know why we call it “fake news”, if you want to know why alternative media gets large viewership, if you want to know why “citizen reports” are popping up all over and creating blogs like this – look no further than MSM. You are so transparent these days we cannot even see you!