Polls as early as April of this month showed that the plurality of Americans do not trust the media. But do we trust the candidates any more?
WASHINGTON, October 16, 2016 — Following World War II, Americans got busy. A robust post war economy and slogans like President Eisenhower’s ”Peace and Prosperity” had mom at home raising the kids while dad became a company man—loyal to his work, receiving annual raises and yearly bonuses, and coming home to a 1950’s idyllic family.
Richard Nixon promised us “For the Future” and J.F. Kennedy called on us to “ask what you can do for your country.”
But it’s Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1964 slogan, “The stakes are too high for you to stay at home” that best resonates for the 2016 elections.
Their portrayal of Trump as a serial sexual predator, which the candidate himself has given credibility, comes at the same time they ignore the breadth and seriousness of the Clinton campaign emails. Those emails reveal the candidate and her actions for what they are. They may work against the media agenda because Americans have stopped caring what the media have to say.
The biggest loser of this campaign season may be the media. Polls show that most Americans distrust the media—according to Gallup, only 7 percent say they trust the media a great deal—and confidence is falling. According to the American Press Institute:
Over the last two decades, research shows the public has grown increasingly skeptical of the news industry. … The study reaffirms that consumers do value broad concepts of trust like fairness, balance, accuracy, and completeness. At least two-thirds of Americans cite each of these four general principles as very important to them.
Nothing has happened this year to change the opinion of the 60 percent of Americans who have little or no trust in the media. The non-stop barrage against Trump has become so loud that nothing else can be heard. He has lived up to the media portrayals of him as temperamentally unfit to lead the country.
Media does not have to keep telling us so.
Those who want to see a Republican take the White House might have some hope in four years from Governor Mike Pence, whom most Americans would vote for at the top top of the GOP ticket today. They might vote for Evan McMullin from Utah, in whom some see a principled conservative alternative to Trump.
Others argue that splitting the vote will ensure a Clinton victory, and that Republicans should ask whether they’re willing to accept a liberal Supreme Court over a flawed Republican president.
Clinton has lived down to the media narrative of the Clintons’ quest for power, money and global influence. She seems a creature of George Soros, Saul Alinsky and Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.
Recently released WikiLeaks emails show that there was collusion between Clinton and the DOJ to help conceal the scandal of her private server and up to 13 different non-secure mobile devices.
Despite vice-presidential nominee Tim Kaine’s denial, the FBI is releasing information that the Clinton campaign attempted to get email classifications changed from classified to non-classified. Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy clearly said that the changing of classification was a “quid pro quo” exchange that would allow the FBI to place agents in countries where the State Department had previously barred them.
In this instance, the carrot was not taken. But that is not always the case.
This attempt to collude with the FBI should be shocking, but we have long ceased to be a moral country that can be shocked by mere corruption.
The Washington Times reports that Clinton has equal disdain for Trump’s “deplorable” Americans, but also for Catholics, Southerners, women and “needy Latinos”. Clinton spokesman Jennifer Palmeri mocked Catholics and evangelicals as “severely backwards.”
Long before Hillary Clinton called millions of Americans a “basket of deplorables,” her top campaign advisers and liberal allies openly mocked Catholics, Southerners and a host of other groups, according to newly released emails that offer a stunning window into the vitriol inside the Clinton world less than a month before Election Day.
The emails, published by WikiLeaks after a hack of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s private account, also show Clinton campaign officials and Democratic leaders disparaging supporters of Sen. Bernard Sanders as “self-righteous” whiners, calling Hispanic party leaders such as Bill Richardson “needy Latinos,” labeling CNN anchor Jake Tapper “a d—k” and even lambasting longtime Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal.
The sheer number of insults in the email trove has left the Clinton campaign, along with outside organizations such as the Center for American Progress that were routinely involved in the brutal bad-mouthing, unable or unwilling to respond. Instead, they have blamed the hack on Russia and have refused to even confirm that the emails are genuine, though they also haven’t denied their authenticity.
The Clinton campaign’s biggest problem may be its assault on Catholics. Prominent Catholic organizations called on Clinton campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri to resign after the surfacing of messages showing her making fun of the faith. .
Now CNN laughingly attempts to convince us that it is somehow illegal to read the Wikileaks emails as though reading them is some grand American moral lapse. It is as though they feel Americans are stupid.
Nope, not stupid. Just numb.
— Whenindoubtdo (@whenindoubtdo) October 16, 2016
What the Wikileaks prove is that Clinton does influence the mainstream media, that the State Department gave special accommodations to “FOBS” (Friends of Bill), that Clinton’s campaign colluded with DOJ officials regarding the email scandal and that the Clinton campaign was informed prior to the release of the Benghazi emails.
The collusion of the campaign with the main stream media is proven with the release of an email from then CNN Contributor Donna Brazile, who is now the DNC Chair replacing disgraced Debbie Wasserman Shultz who colluded to destroy Bernie Sanders campaign, who allegedly shared a CNN debate question with the Democratic nominee:
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Date: 2016-03-12 19:41
Subject: Re: From time to time I get the questions in advance
Hi. Yes, it is one she gets asked about. Not everyone likes her answer but can share it. Betsaida – can you send her answer on death penalty?
Sent from my iPhone On Mar 12, 2016, at 4:39 PM, Donna Brazile <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Here’s one that worries me about HRC. DEATH PENALTY 19 states and the District of Columbia have banned the death penalty. 31 states, including Ohio, still have the death penalty. According to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, since 1973, 156 people have been on death row and later set free. Since 1976, 1,414 people have been executed in the U.S. That’s 11% of Americans who were sentenced to die, but later exonerated and freed. Should Ohio and the 30 other states join the current list and abolish the death penalty?
Sent from Donna’s I Pad. Follow me on twitter @donnabrazile
Fox News is now saying “WikiLeaks said Monday that its founder Julian Assange’s Internet link was severed by a “state party” and that “appropriate contingency plans” had been activated.” If true, what email release are they attempting to stop? And if that is the case, could they really be so inept as to not believe Wikileaks is ready to work around an attempted coup?
The tweets that triggered this are:
pre-commitment 1: John Kerry 4bb96075acadc3d80b5ac872874c3037a386f4f595fe99e687439aabd0219809
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 16, 2016
pre-commitment 2: Ecuador
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 16, 2016
pre-commitment 3: UK FCO f33a6de5c627e3270ed3e02f62cd0c857467a780cf6123d2172d80d02a072f74
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 16, 2016
— Digital Poet (@digitalpoet) October 16, 2016
We do not know exactly what Assange knows, but he has proven through releases of John Podesta’s and other Democrats emails that he knows more than politicians feared – from Clinton’s private comments to Wall Street banks assuring them she tells voters one thing, but will do another and privately saying she dreamed of “open trade and open borders.”
In a 2013 speech to a Brazilian bank,
Mrs. Clinton said “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open borders, sometime in the future.”
Clinton, justifying her actions via our 16th President, Abraham Lincoln, whom she alleges also advocated “both a public and a private position” on politically contentious issues.
Her remarks, as revealed, also noted that during the 2014 rage against political and economic elites that swept the country after the 2008 financial crash Mrs. Clinton admitted she has a hard time relating to the struggles of the middle class.
“Mrs. Clinton acknowledged that her family’s rising wealth had made her “kind of far removed” from the struggles of the middle class.”
But the big smoking gun in Clinton’s emails has to be those concerning Libya when four Americans Ambassador Chris Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and two CIA operatives, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both former Navy SEALs, died in the 2012 Benghazi attack.
There is widespread speculation that the rebels who perpetuated the attack did so only after learning that Stevens, who had been in Libya less than 24 hours when the attack happened, had hacked Clinton’s emails saying that Stevens was there.
“Clinton swore before a federal court and told the American people she handed over all of her work-related emails. If Clinton did not consider emails about something as important as Benghazi to be work-related, one has to wonder what is contained in the other emails she attempted to wipe from her server,” senior communications adviser Jason Miller said in a statement.
Arguing that they were “personal correspondence” concerning yoga, Chelsea’s wedding, emails to Bill Clinton (who has publicly denied ever sending emails), Clinton deleted 30,000 emails prior to relinquishing her emails.
Americans, those that support Clinton and those that support Trump, are not going to change their support and the media is not going to influence how they feel – regardless of how much she lies or he rants.
The question we have to ask ourselves is which is the lesser of two very large evils? What persons allege Donald Trump may have done, or things he said, or the very evil that Hillary Clinton has done in her attempt to corrupt America?
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.
Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.