[video:https://youtu.be/aq9gVp-Wk7I align:center]

I'm sure we are all aware of the media black out that Senator Sander's, and the rest of us, has so very much enjoyed through out most of this election season. And I'm sure your aware of the shenanigans that have transpired in various voting locations (Howdy Bill!), primaries, caucuses, like voter purges, oh the alleged "Bernie Bro" violence in Nevada, and just the whole gambit of "questionable" events, accusations, suspicious exit polls, that anywhere else on this planet the US, and almost every other country, would call constitutes glaring election fraud!

And let us not forget the DNC and how they, DWS, has help rig this election. We have the damn e-mails as PROOF.

We complain about the media being biased, and we find clips all over youtube substantiating our claims, but more often than not we are scolded we are just spreading CT crap, and we just need to STFU. The media keeps repeating it's "official narrative", there is no alternative. And from the amount of free advertising and promotion of Trump that they have engaged in, I don't think one would be too far out there to conclude that they (media) want a Trump presidency. (The money is too good!)

The cache of leaked and hacked e-mails, not only from Hillary, the DNC, but people she e-mailed back and forth, have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the DNC had it in for Senator Sanders from the very beginning, as we had complained about, but were scolded and told we're full of it, or we're BernieBros yadie yadie ydada...or just STFU.

Check out this video from RT, featuring legal and media analyst Lionel of Lionel Nation, joins RT’s Simone Del Rosario, listing numerous married couples who both work in media and politics, such as former ABC News exec Ian Cameron, who is married to Susan Rice, the National Security Advisor in the Obama administration. Lionel continues to explain that marriage between people in the media and politicians can lead to biased reporting.

[video:https://youtu.be/LNyY7MqVwJ4 align:center]

Think for a moment about our former Chairman of the FED, whose wife is Andrea Mitchell at MSNBC. How this insidious collusion works, as reported by Wall Street on Parade:

"Leave it to NBC to remind us that corporate media is tone deaf when it comes to facing up to outrageous conflicts of interest. The final presidential debate before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary aired last night on NBC and was co-moderated by Lester Holt and Andrea Mitchell. Given the public focus on Hillary Clinton’s financial ties to Wall Street, it was clear that hard-hitting policy questions on reforming Wall Street would need to be asked during the debate.

So why put Andrea Mitchell on that stage instead of an objective media moderator? Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan, the man whose 18-year stint as Fed Chairman included a two-term appointment by Bill Clinton’s White House. Greenspan was correctly dubbed by Time Magazine as “25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis”; was the man who played a key role together with the Clinton administration’s Wall Street sycophants Robert Rubin and Larry Summers in repealing the Glass-Steagall Act that ushered in the devastating deregulation of Wall Street and subsequent collapse in 2008; and the man who attempted to lend credence to the nutty “selfishness is good/government regulation is the enemy” theories of Ayn Rand, Greenspan’s long-time economic mentor."

Snip...

"Despite a lifetime of evidence, including the rigging of the Nasdaq stock market by Wall Street players that came to light in the late 90s, the corrupted research and pump and dump schemes that led to the 2001 dot.com crash on Wall Street, Greenspan actually never did let the facts on the ground change his views.

Andrea Mitchell demonstrated just how conflicted her role as moderator was, when she needled Senator Bernie Sanders about his remark that Bill Clinton’s behavior in office was “disgraceful.”

Mitchell posed her question as follows:

“Senator Sanders, let me ask you a question. You called Bill Clinton’s past transgressions, quote, ‘totally, totally, totally disgraceful and unacceptable.’ Senator, do you regret saying that?”

Sanders said he had only made that statement when pointedly asked the question and was sticking to his larger promise to focus on the big issues that concern the American people.

Mitchell pressed ahead with more needling, saying: “You didn’t have to answer it that way, though. Why did you?”

Sanders said words to the effect that it would have been a front page story if he had refused to answer the question, adding: “Yes, his behavior was deplorable. Have I ever once said a word about that issue? No, I have not. I’m going to debate Secretary Clinton, Governor O’Malley, on the issues facing the American people, not Bill Clinton’s personal behavior.”

Bill Clinton was the man responsible for giving Mitchell’s spouse an extra eight years as the second most powerful man in the U.S. Bill Clinton was responsible for making Greenspan and Mitchell a power couple in Washington D.C. A sitting President of the United States having sex with a young intern is disgraceful, unacceptable and deplorable. Most Americans understand this. That Andrea Mitchell thinks Bernie Sanders’ view on this topic needs to be examined on network television shows just how unsuited she was to moderate last night’s debate."

Of course then there is Chris Matthew's wife getting bucks from Hillary donors, who don't even live in the same city or state as she does. From the DailyCaller:

"research by The Daily Caller reveals that Hillary’s biggest donors are backing Matthews’ wife — Kathleen Matthews — in her congressional race in Maryland, even though many of them don’t even live in the same state, much less the same district, that Matthews is seeking to represent.

Kathleen Matthews, who worked closely with the Clinton Foundation for four years during her time at Marriott (which she just recently left to enter the congressional race), has blown away her primary opponents in terms of fundraising. By the end of 2015, Matthews had raised $1,569,092, FEC records show. Only one of her eight primary opponents — state Sen. Jamie Raskin — had raised more than $1 million by year’s end.

Many of Matthews’ biggest donors have close ties to either the Clinton foundation or the Clinton's themselves. As noted by Bloomberg two years ago, 12 families have donated to every single Clinton campaign and charity. Of the 12 families, the two families that have donated the most to the Clinton's are both funding Matthews’ campaign. Four families from Bloomberg’s list of biggest Clinton donors have given to the Matthews’ campaign. None of the four live in Maryland, where Matthews is actually running."

I don't know if banning marriages between political / federal / government people and media anchors is a solution, but I tell ya, to me right now it seems like a huge part of the problem with our media. The insidious ways in which the elite manufacture consent requires us to be extremely vigilant in our efforts to uncover and expose their practices.

As a result of those hacks and e-mail leaks, we know that Mrs. Clinton and her staff at the State department were arranging favors and jobs for donors to her charity foundation (ahem, money laundering machine), that also happened to have donated to her election campaign or SuperPAC.

Obviously Mrs. Clinton, the cheerleader of the 1%, is lining up her cronies to take over once Obama is out of office, and she and her wall street buddies can continue pressing forward with the Neoliberal economic project.

[video:https://youtu.be/zkEvAvIGK-w align:center]

Climate change be damn, there is a gold mine in selling off US assets, forcing the US public into more debt and removing what constitutional rights we have left.

Oh, but wait there's more. Remember the internet? Yeah, well it looks like Google might be in on the act as well.

As pissed off and disgusted with this whole thing that I am, I came across this article in Sputnik that revels how Google has been "filtering" (rigging) search results, too, dare I say it, white wash, Hillary's history. At least that's the gist of what a new Sputnik Exclusive, (another one of those Putin propaganda PR machines, if you believe the MSM), is reporting.

I will assume a few here think Sputnik is Putin propaganda, and it may very well be, but, one can't know about something, unless one is open to "different" information for analysis. If one only gets one source of information, do you really think you'll have all the facts? FYI, what I do like about Sputnik, is they will cover topics the MSM won't touch. It's not gospel fact, but a different source of "data" for analysis, M K?

From Sputnik

In this exclusive report, distinguished research psychologist Robert Epstein explains the new study and reviews evidence that Google's search suggestions are biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. He estimates that biased search suggestions might be able to shift as many as 3 million votes in the upcoming presidential election in the US.

Biased search rankings can swing votes and alter opinions, and a new study shows that Google's autocomplete can too. A scientific study I published last year showed that search rankings favoring one candidate can quickly convince undecided voters to vote for that candidate — as many as 80 percent of voters in some demographic groups. My latest research shows that a search engine could also shift votes and change opinions with another powerful tool: autocomplete.

Don't be Evil. Yeah, I remember that advertising slogan (propaganda) when google first started out. Like they were going to become some kind of eco-friendly, righteous benevolent corporation.

Are you kidding me?
[video:https://youtu.be/ZpUYjpKg9KY align:center]

From the Youtube page of SourceFed:

[video:https://youtu.be/PFxFRqNmXKg align:center]

Google has responded to this video via an email statement to the Washington Times:

"Google Autocomplete does not favor any candidate or cause. Claims to the contrary simply misunderstand how Autocomplete works. Our Autocomplete algorithm will not show a predicted query that is offensive or disparaging when displayed in conjunction with a person’s name. More generally, our autocomplete predictions are produced based on a number of factors including the popularity of search terms."

Read the full article here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...

While researching for a wrap-up on the June 7 Presidential Primaries, we discovered evidence that Google may be manipulating autocomplete recommendations in favor of Hillary Clinton. If true, this would mean that Google Searches aren’t objectively reflecting what the majority of Internet searches are actually looking for, possibly violating Google’s algorithm. According to a research paper cited in this video, that kind of search result manipulation has the potential to substantially influence the outcome of actual elections.

Sources:
Google Search Results Can Change Elections: http://bit.ly/1MTSboF
Wikileak’s Julian Assange Links Google and Clinton Camp: http://bit.ly/25LaEPF
Eric Schmidt, Head of Pentagon Board: http://bit.ly/21HREvG
Eric Schmidt Funds Groundwork: http://bit.ly/1FWIXar
Official 'Groundwork' Website: http://bit.ly/1WP53z3

Music By:
@ronaldjenkees, @Hagemeister, Discovery Music Source

Well gee, what was that, Don't be Evil?

More from the Sputnik article:

Generally speaking, we are finding that Lieberman was right: It is somewhat difficult to get the Google search bar to suggest negative searches related to Mrs. Clinton or to make any Clinton-related suggestions when one types a negative search term. Bing and Yahoo, on the other hand, often show a number of negative suggestions in response to the same search terms. Bing and Yahoo seem to be showing us what people are actually searching for; Google is showing us something else — but what, and for what purpose?

As for Google Trends, as Lieberman reported, Google indeed withholds negative search terms for Mrs. Clinton even when such terms show high popularity in Trends. We have also found that Google often suggests positive search terms for Mrs. Clinton even when such terms are nearly invisible in Trends. The widely held belief, reinforced by Google's own documentation, that Google's search suggestions are based on "what other people are searching for" seems to be untrue in many instances.

Personally, I have configured my browser to not allow search suggestions, because I am sick to death of "auto-fill", auto this, auto that, holy (expletive) I have a brain and like to use it. (Smart phone my dying ass, how many phone numbers can you remember?)

But, if one thinks about it, Google, Bing and Yahoo "control" what we find, who owns them?

An excerpt from the report by Robert Epstein:

Internet search rankings have a significant impact on consumer choices, mainly because users trust and choose higher-ranked results more than lower-ranked results. Given the apparent power of search rankings, we asked whether they could be manipulated to alter the preferences of undecided voters in democratic elections.

Snip...

We present evidence from five experiments in two countries suggesting the power and robustness of the search engine manipulation effect (SEME). Specifically, we show that (i) bi-ased search rankings can shift the voting preferences of un-decided voters by 20% or more, (ii) the shift can be much
higher in some demographic groups, and (iii) such rankings can be masked so that people show no awareness of the manipulation. Knowing the proportion of undecided voters in a population who have Internet access, along with the proportion of those voters who can be influenced using SEME, allows one to calculate the win margin below which SEME might be able to determine an election outcome.

[video:https://youtu.be/yFKNNPuUqM4 align:center]

In a much broader sense, and considering all these "1%" MF's all hang out at the same places (Limo Liberals & Cocktail Party Progressives with their country club donors), which doesn't have to mean there is some "conspiracy". Hell, they sit and chit chat and discuss how to "sway" public opinion on one issue after another.

This "internet filtering" that Google appears to have / is engaging in, is just another filter to add to the 5 in Herman and Chomsky's Propaganda Model from their seminal work, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, published in 1988.

Amy Goodman explains how this “manufacturing of Consent” has actually help create the Trump phenomenon, and has been behind the media black out of Senator Sanders presidential campaign.
[video:https://youtu.be/5J8-LPPRxao align:center]

Have you not heard the clips or read the articles about the MSM CEO's talking about (to paraphrase) about how Trump is really bad for democracy, but hey, they're making money hand in fist!

[video:https://youtu.be/cpbbuaIA3Ds align:center]

From Mediaite.com:

At a Morgan Stanley investors’ conference in San Francisco today, the chief executive officer of CBS, Les Moonves, found the silver lining of this year’s tumultuous election season as only a businessperson can. The latest chairman of the company said, “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS,” and called Donald Trump‘s presence in the race a “good thing.”

Gee, almost a year ago Thom Hartmann discussed the “Wave of Silence” by major media on Senator Sanders.
[video:https://youtu.be/UT24VWuWnsI align:center]

Think about it, with only 6 corporations controlling the vast majority of TV, printed and radio media, as well as acquiring a growing segment of online properties, we are facing an ever growing threat to our democratic republic and loosing perspective of what reality actually is. We live in a virtual echo chamber of “elite” consensus, if you don’t go outside of the MSM.

The media, through elite consensus, is denying the American people, ALL the relevant information about our political candidates, not their chosen preference. I seem to remember somewhere that this was OUR country, not theirs?

Where is the debate on the policy issues? And not this clowning around horse shit, about the size of someone’s thingy or whether someone can hold their bladder or not?

Google, Bing, Yahoo, are all a part of this "media" environment (propaganda filtering), not to mention FaceBook, Youtube, and every other corporate owned social media site. How many times has FB censored it's users? How many times has YT cracked down on political activists for being too political in their videos? Who gets preference on Twitter for trending topics?

Of course Snopes.Com reports:

While the claims posited in the video displayed above may sound like the workings of a conspiracy theorist, SourceFed didn't fudge any of its evidence. We double checked the videos findings and confirmed that Google does return different results than Bing and Yahoo for searches such as "Hillary Clinton Cri" and "Hillary Clinton Ind." For instance, Google completes the search "Hillary Clinton Cri" as "Hillary Clinton Crime Reform", while Bing and Yahoo complete the search as "Hillary Clinton Criminal Charges" and "Hillary Clinton Criminal." Google provides this result despite the fact that "Hillary Clinton Crime Reform" is a less popular term on Google Trends.

But, gee, right off the bat, the story is equated to CT. "may sound like the workings of a conspiracy theorist".

I reckon in the big scheme of things, distort all information (information dominance), and you get a lot of confused people, wandering in the wilderness, gee who do I vote for? Does Hillary need depends?

Considering these media organizations, and let's face it FB, YT, twitter, all of them are "media organizations", who are nothing more than "corporations", and that they ...

"serve to mobilize support for the special interests that dominate the state and private support for the special interests that dominate the state and private activity." (p.1).”

All of these corporations are collecting huge amounts of "personal data" about us, and serve up advertising, and who know what other crap, based on that data.

Now think for a moment, with all the crimes that corporations have engaged in over, I dunna know, the last 50 years, it's quite possible, most likely probable (speculation) they (internet companies) are skewing the search results, not to mention what "ads" or other relevant information gets either served up, or filtered out (Bernie), because of some "corporate policy" about some BS excuses, as Google as offered about "filtered" searches of that, female dog (no offense...), that we know Hillary Clinton to be, and the crimes (against humanity) she is associated with.

After all, all these people all donate to one another charity, political campaign, make massive ad buys in on one anothers "advertising platforms". (generalization)

Google, Bing, Yahoo, FB, YT, Twitter, all are multi-national corporate growing monopolies, gobbling up our data and severing it back to us, spoon fed and stripped of meaning, history, everything relevant so we can remain, obedient workers and claim our status as knowledge workers......

I wonder if we just took the Forbes 400 list and just started connecting the dot we would be able to determine who is really controlling the world, because obviously, these 400 people have the most money to do so, and probably own all the media on the planet (speculation).

These 400 people, are they not the ones who have help lead us to where we are today? (I'm just saying.....are they not the "money" behind the politicians in governments, all over the world?)

I know things are bleak, but ...

[video:https://youtu.be/2-lGhKrypb0 align:center]

(PS: Shameless self promotion, Click Here.)