Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘propagandist’

Newsom used video of crying student in a pro-abortion ad. She is again reminding him those were tears of joy over Roe being overturned: ‘Sad? Try ecstatic’


By: JOSEPH MACKINNON | January 27, 2023

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/student-calls-out-gavin-newsom-for-misrepresenting-her-in-pro-abortion-ad/

Image source: Twitter video, @GavinNewsom – Screenshot

Like Blaze News? Get the news that matters most delivered directly to your inbox. SIGN UP

California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently ran a pro-abortion ad wherein a young woman appears crying outside the U.S. Supreme Court. The woman’s tearful response appears to have been strategically situated in the video to convey grief over the high court’s Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade and enabled the states to once again make their own determinations about abortion.

There was, however, nothing grievous about the woman’s actual response.

In fact, contrary to the voiceover that states in the ad, “Panic is the primary reaction,” the woman seen crying was jubilant, overwhelmed by the hard-won result of decades of pro-life efforts and prayers.

“Panic? Sad? Try ecstatic, blown away by God’s grace on this country,” tweeted Macy Petty, a pro-life activist and student at Lee University.

Petty is the woman grossly misrepresented in the Democratic governor’s agitprop, posted to the official California governor’s Twitter account as well as to Newsom’s personal account.

She has called out Newsom for seeking to retroactively convert her documented joy into anguish for the purpose of promoting state-sanctioned homicide.

In a Jan. 21 statement posted to Instagram, Petty said, “California governor Gavin Newsom has used my image in one of his political ads in yet another attempt to show his support for women. He and pro abortion Democrats have once again shown Americans that they care little for my voice as a woman.”

Despite reaching out to Newsom and his team several times, “asking them to stop their pathetic mischaracterization of who I am,” Petty noted “they have chosen once again to use my image and misrepresent me as a pro-life woman.”

Petty added, “I do not appreciate, nor do I consent to this kind of treatment and belittling of who I am as a woman. … Remove my image from your shameful ad and stop your disgraceful treatment of pro-life women just like me.”

Ahead of the midterm elections, Newsom and other supporters of pro-abortion Proposition 1, including former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, circulated a campaign video that similarly used the footage of Petty crying. Petty had called them out then as well, noting, “In your campaign video, you portrayed me in an evil light and distorted my emotions as part of your political game.”

The pro-life activist, who has also taken a stand against men in women’s sports, clarified, “As I continued to witness history, I pondered how lucky I was to witness such an event. I thanked the Lord for this decision and for opening my eyes to the evil of abortion. This is what brought me to tears.”

Clinton shared the deceptive video wherein “SAD” is superimposed on the student’s face on Oct. 18. Days later, Petty tweeted to her, “Hey Hillary, I’m the girl crying in this video. I am pro-life and those are HAPPY tears because I just witnessed a MIRACLE!”

Petty told the Christian Post, “I’m part of a generation of pro-life activists. … My mom worked at a pregnancy center, and my grandma started one. So it’s in my blood. And I was just so grateful to be there to witness it because there are so many people who were in the fight before me who didn’t get to witness it.”

Campus Reform reported that Petty has recently partnered with the California Family Council to take the Newsom administration to task.

The CFC issued a statement Monday, writing, “The California Family Council and Macy Petty are urging Governor Gavin Newsom to apologize for his act of defamation, remove the video from circulation, and never again use Macy Petty’s name to promote a pro-abortion stance.”

SECRET IS OUT: Former Facebook Workers Say it Was Routine to Suppress Conservative News


waving flagPosted on May 9, 2016

No more guessing on this issue. Check out what the former employees were told to do.

Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential “trending” news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project. This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s users.

Several former Facebook “news curators,” as they were known internally, also told Gizmodo that they were instructed to artificially “inject” selected stories into the trending news module, even if they weren’t popular enough to warrant inclusion—or in some cases weren’t trending at all. The former curators, all of whom worked as contractors, also said they were directed not to include news about Facebook itself in the trending module.

In other words, Facebook’s news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation. Imposing human editorial values onto the lists of topics an algorithm spits out is by no means a bad thing—but it is in stark contrast to thecompany’s claimsthat the trending module simply lists “topics that have recently become popular on Facebook.”free speech def

These new allegations emerged after Gizmodo last week revealeddetails about the inner workings of Facebook’s trending news team—a small group of young journalists, primarily educated at Ivy League or private East Coast universities, who curate the “trending” module on the upper-right-hand corner of the site. As we reported last week, curators have access to a ranked list of trending topics surfaced by Facebook’s algorithm, which prioritizes the stories that should be shown to Facebook users in the trending section. The curators write headlines and summaries of each topic, and include links to news sites. The section, which launched in 2014, constitutes some of the most powerful real estate on the internet and helps dictate what news Facebook’s users—167 million in the US alone—are reading at any given moment.

“Depending on who was on shift, things would be blacklisted or trending,” said the former curator. This individual asked to remain anonymous, citing fear of retribution from the company. The former curator is politically conservative, one of a very small handful of curators with such views on the trending team. “I’d come on shift and I’d discover that CPAC or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck or popular conservative topics wouldn’t be trending because either the curator didn’t recognize the news topic or it was like they had a bias against Ted Cruz.”

The former curator was so troubled by the omissions that they kept a running log of them at the time; this individual provided the notes to Gizmodo. Among the deep-sixed or suppressed topics on the list: former IRS official Lois Lerner, who was accused by Republicans of inappropriately scrutinizing conservative groups; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; popular conservative news aggregator the Drudge Report; Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL who was murdered in 2013; and former Fox News contributor Steven Crowder. “I believe it had a chilling effect on conservative news,” the former curator said.

Another former curator agreed that the operation had an aversion to right-wing news sources. “It was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively. It just depends on who the curator is and what time of day it is,” said the former curator. “Every once in awhile a Red State or conservative news source would have a story. But we would have to go and find the same story from a more neutral outlet that wasn’t as biased.”

Stories covered by conservative outlets (like Breitbart, Washington Examiner, and Newsmax) that were trending enough to be picked up by Facebook’s algorithm were excluded unless mainstream sites like the New York Times, the BBC, and CNN covered the same stories.

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Social Engineering Through The Propaganda of the Republican Presidential Race


waving flagReported by David Risselada

“The push for global government will not stop, manipulating the public to its acceptance is all that is needed.”propaganda machine

What exactly is propaganda? Most people understand that it is the spread of misinformation intended to push a cause, or a political agenda. Throughout the past century, social scientists have learned, and perfected, the methods of making people accept their propaganda as fact. Joseph Goebbels is, of course, remembered as Adolph Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda and is often times quoted as saying that a lie told often enough will eventually be accepted as truth. In fact, he believed the bigger, more outrageous the lie the better because people would never believe someone would try to pass off such an obvious misrepresentation of the truth. He also believed that the truth was the biggest enemy to the state and that brute force should be used to suppress it. We are rapidly reaching that point in America.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels

We also know that manipulation of the environment can be used as a means of implementing propaganda. B.F. Skinner found that people have a desire to conform, to not stand out. It was quickly realized that this could be used to the controllers advantage as it came to light that environmental circumstances can influence a person’s behavior. Thus, the use of fear and deliberate propaganda campaigns were created with the intention of creating an illusion; a stage show if you will, designed to keep the masses distracted by keeping us focused only on issues that push their agenda.

People who get along together well under the mild contingencies of approval and disapproval are controlled as effectively as (and in many ways more effectively than) the citizens of a police state. (Skinner, 91)The Leftist Propagandist

This quote essentially means that people can be manipulated into going with the flow out of a fear of either being for or against any particular issue. Look at what this concept is doing to our presidential race. The argument between the Trumpeters and the Cruzers both is reaching new heights as you either jump on board with a particular candidate, or risk being ostracized. The paralysis displayed by Republicans in congress when it comes to stopping Obama’s agenda is another good example. They are more afraid of appearing “partisan” and unable to compromise than they are of anything else. This is all a deliberate application of propaganda designed to push the values of the voter to the left.

When it comes to politics, everything is propaganda. By now, most of us have come to realize that there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats; however, they are too quick to assume that an outsider like Donald Trump is truly an outsider, or Ted Cruz is the next Reagan. In order to elaborate on this further, let’s go back to the Manual on Psychopolitics that is often discussed here at propaganda.news.  In order to understand this fully you have to come to accept that our nation has been marked for conquest, and when Obama said fundamental transformation, he meant transformation to a socialist/communist state, period.

If we could effectively kill the national pride and patriotism of just one generation we will have won the country. Therefore; there must be continual propaganda abroad to undermine the loyalty of the citizens in general and the teen ager in particular. The Textbook on Psychopolitics

Very few patriots would argue against the notion that there is a deliberate effort to undermine our sense of nationalism. Where the people split is the presidential race. Is Donald Trump or Ted Cruz the best candidate? Considering the statement above concerning “continual propaganda,” is it possible that these two were deliberately selected by the left because they already knew it would undermine the conservative movement and cause this division? Is it possible that Donald Trump is acting as an agent of social change put in place to make you accept things that eight years ago you wouldn’t have even considered? That is how a social change campaign works, by slowly changing the public’s consciousness on social issues.  This has to be considered as a possibility because Donald Trump has donated money to the very politicians we are angry at, has admitted to buying off politicians, has publicly declared that he can change to whatever he wants to be, once proclaimed he was for an assault weapons ban and publicly declared  he was for socialized medicine. In other words, he admitted that he was a progressive and expressed favor for things we adamantly oppose; yet, because he is so focused on the issue of immigration, (which, considering all things discussed could be a deliberate attempt to cement in your mind a problem that must be solved so you will compromise your other principles in order to solve it,) the masses are willingly ignoring these facts about him and blindly going along, kind of like Obama voters.

Please don’t mistake this as advertising for Ted Cruz, the man was born in Canada and his wife co-authored a document with the Council on Foreign Relations describing the plans for a North American Union. This makes the points being made in this article more relevant because this issue is causing great strife between Trump supporters and Cruz supporters. Instead of focusing on the left, conservatives are busy trying to prove to one another the downfalls of each other’s candidates.AMEN

Either the points made about each candidate are true, or it is all deliberately placed misinformation designed to undermine our resolve and split the Republican Party. Either way, this is exactly what is happening. It is due time conservatives stop bickering over a narrative defined for us and demand that conservatives who believe in liberty and the values we hold dear be selected to be our candidate. Not people with the numerous question marks surrounding their campaigns.

Remember, Goebbels said that repeating a lie often enough would eventually make it the truth. Well, here at propaganda.news I’ve decided to apply that same concept except I am going to keep repeating certain truths until people get it. One of these truths is best expressed through a quote found in Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, and in my opinion, it best describes what we are witnessing today.

There’s another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.Alinsky Rules for Radicals

By accepting Ted Cruz or Donald Trump as our presidential candidates we are signaling to the left that we are willing to surrender certain values in order to solve problems they have forced upon us. It’s that simple, we are being socially engineered. Of course, this is just my opinion.

Article reposted with permission from Propaganda.news.

Die Death of a nation true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

The Inconvenient Facts the Media Ignore About Climate Change


waving flagAuthored by Rep. Lamar Smith / / February 26, 2016 / Rep. Smith is a Republican who has represented Texas’s 21st district since 1987.

Former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore at the Paris Climate Conference. (Photo: Ian Langsdon/EPA/Newscom)

Americans in large numbers are turning off TV newscasts, canceling subscriptions to newspapers, and seeking other sources of news. Distrust of the national media has hit an all-time high. According to a recent Gallup poll, six in ten Americans now have little or no confidence in the national media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that 65 percent of Americans believe that the national news media have a negative effect on our country.propaganda machine

Americans are frustrated because they know that many of the “news stories” they read are only opinion columns in disguise. If the story does not fit the liberal worldview, then facts are ignored, dissent is silenced, and Americans are told what to think. Perhaps one of the worst examples of one-sided, biased reporting involves global warming.

Those who reject the liberal viewpoint that climate change is the greatest threat to our country are ridiculed and ignored. For example, the Associated Press recently amended its stylebook to recommend that those who question the science behind global warming be called climate change “doubters” instead of “skeptics.” But this is inaccurate, since many “skeptics” don’t doubt that climate change has occurred.

Liberal groups continue to attempt to silence debate. The repeated claims that “the debate is over” and that “97 percent of scientists agree that human-caused global warming is real” are false and mislead the public. In testimony before the Science Committee, a lead author of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that the 97 percent estimate “just crumbles when you touch it.”Settled-Science-600-LA

The source of this “97 percent” myth is a discredited study that attempted to categorize scholarly articles on climate change by the position the papers took on the issue. But most of the papers never took a position on climate change at all. This has not stopped the liberal national media from touting this illegitimate statistic.

Silencing debate is contrary to the scientific method. If these groups were confident about their arguments, they would welcome more debate to test their theories. However, some media outlets, such as the Los Angeles Times, have changed their policies and no longer accept letters to the editor from those who question human-made climate change. That this would happen in a democracy where free speech is enshrined in the Constitution is unbelievable.

Scientists who are not alarmists agree that climate change is a complex subject with many variables. But the liberal national media instead chooses to focus on human contributions and usually fails to provide both sides.

For example, the national media hyped NASA’s finding that 2014 was the hottest year on record. Ignored was the footnote that revealed that NASA was only 38 percent certain this was accurate. Less than fifty-fifty. Americans would have been better served by a coin toss.Solid-Foundation-600-wLogo

Too often, these alarmist announcements are based on manipulations of existing data. And when Congress or independent researchers question federal agencies about the data, they are criticized as “attacking scientists.”

Particularly regrettable is that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) fails to include all relevant data sources in its monthly temperature news releases. Atmospheric satellite data, considered by many to be the most reliable, has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. This fact is well documented, but it does not fit the liberal politics of the administration or the national media.Baal Worship

NOAA also published a controversial study last year where scientists altered global surface temperature data and widely publicized their results as refuting the two-decade pause in global warming. This week, a new peer-reviewed study was published in the journal Nature that, according to one of the authors, shows “reduced rates of surface warming” and “essentially refutes” NOAA’s study. Shouldn’t the media acknowledge that their alarmist headlines are based on incomplete information?Mantra

Americans will continue to distrust the liberal national media until the media provide objective coverage of the news. Americans deserve all the facts that surround climate change, not just those that the national media want to promote.

true battle DNC hate machine Die In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


New WhatDidYouSay Logowaving flag

“This is one of the BEST Political Cartoons so far this year. – JB”

Follow The Blood Money

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/04/follow-the-blood-money/

Clinton-Weight-NRD-600
In Review OARLogo Picture6

Tag Cloud