New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to Register for free to join our community?

Have You Loved A Spy Lately?


Council Member
Well-known facts about journalism’s long love affair with Socialism/Communism began in earnest in the early 1930s:

More American journalists were involved in spying for the Soviet Union than was previously believed, according to new research published in the Journal of Slavic Military Studies.​

Taqiyya the Liar is himself a Communist; so I never believed the crapola that he and the media were mortal enemies. Every time I turn on the TV —— up pops the Chicago sewer rat lying like hell about issue after issue as though every betrayal is a great victory for Americans. It makes no sense to think of him and the media as enemies.

NOTE: The sewer rat opening diplomatic relations is twofold. Communism in Cuba and Venezuela both get a lifeline. Venezuela no longer has to subsidize Cuba’s Communist economy the way the defunct Soviet Union once did. Americans taxpayers will take over.

Consider this: As far back as the 1920s, the KGB began recruiting spies:

The KGB used journalists because they were able to meet many people in different fields and could ask probing questions without sparking suspicion. In a 1941 report the KGB noted that many of its journalist spies were “highly developed intellectually and occupied high social positions.” They not only attended college in the 1920s and 30s when few Americans did, but they were accepted into the best universities. This allowed these eventual KGB recruits to mingle with fellow students who would go on to occupy senior posts in government with access to sought-after information.​

Communists began infiltrating America’s institutions before and during WWII. When WWII ended starry-eyed young Communists quickly found positions, and advancement, in the institutions that had been previously infiltrated; most notably colleges and universities, federal bureaucracies, newspapers, magazines, and the movie industry regardless of the so-called Hollywood Blacklist that, in effect, sacrificed a small handful of writers, actors and directors who actually were Communists.

In the 1960s, television became Communism’s greatest success story not only in network news divisions, but in the propaganda value of entertainment shows. Hollywood’s propaganda activities paled by comparison to the stuff fictional television shows achieved. Example: Fictional TV shows successfully planted the ideas that there is such a thing as International law, and that the United Nations was America’s friend. Hollywood never came close to selling the garbage, nor could Hollywood sell the sewerage that TV sold in cop shows, lawyer shows, and doctor shows.

TV did not have to beat the audience over the head with collectivist messages. TV simply wore the audience down with one or two lines of dialogue inserted in fictional plots that were watched by millions night after night, year after year. All of it was paid for with tax deductible advertising dollars.

NOTE: Environmental garbage began to be inserted in dialogue in TV shows after the Soviet Union imploded. Movies made about the environment followed TV’s messages.


I am guessing that the number of American moviegoers settled around 20 percent after TV. I believe that that number is now down to about 10 percent, or approximately 30 million Americans. When it was 20 percent, moviegoers usually saw two or three theater movies a week. Renting movies for viewing on a VCR probably increased the number to four or five movies a week where the percentage remained with DVD rentals.

On the other hand, 90 percent of Americans watched TV at least 5 nights a week including moviegoers and renters. There is no guessing how much the computer cut into both TV and movie theaters. That percentage among younger Americans who do NOT watch TV or movies is anybody’s guess. Older Americans still watch TV and movies, but that audience is dying off.

What does it all mean?

It is illogical to believe the media does not also harbor Communists while every federal bureaucracy, and every one of the armed services, is populated with Communists in high office.

NOTE: Communists and the global government crowd have the same objective; totalitarian government administered by the United Nations. As far as I am concerned they are one and the same.

The number of Communists in the media grew to a much larger percentage than journalism employed in the 1930s. It makes no sense to think that Communists would stop at gaining control of the other important institutions and not focus on gaining control of one of the most powerful tools necessary for transforming and controlling a country.

NOTE: I’ve often said that Communist revolutionaries go after TV transmitters before they go after armories. In previous centuries controlling the children was the first objective of every religion. By the mid-twentieth century it became obvious that controlling what children were taught dropped to second behind controlling the media. If controlling media in today’s world is more important than is controlling the weapons, it follows that children will follow the media in importance.

A substantial number of journalists still work toward advancing Socialism/Communism.

Interestingly, Socialists/Communists blamed, and still blame, robber barons for everything wrong with world, yet they scream the loudest whenever they defend freedom of the press. As for the rest of us don’t fight for press barons, who are themselves robber barons, unless you own a printing press.

Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. A. J. Liebling

Finally, freedom of the press is the one Right I would NOT fight for should it be abolished. Communist countries, and dictatorships of every stripe, control their presses. In short: Worldwide journalism contributes absolutely nothing to individual liberties, limited government, or anything that is worth having. So I see no reason to fight for freedom of a press that is dominated by big government thinkers. More to the point, America’s press would not change the way it operates one bit in a full-blown Communist country.

Here is the link to the article full of facts, names, and dates about journalism’s spies that might interest media watchers:

Journalistic Treachery
By Matthew Vadum
July 1, 2015
Last edited:


Council Member
Today, you cannot escape the global warming fraud, or the people who attach every money-making con to the environment. Hustling reparations for Third World parasites is so ludicrous the Washington Post should be ashamed of itself:

Writing for the Washington Post, Michael B. Gerrard, a legal scholar at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, proposes that we should take in millions upon millions of refugees that will eventually be displaced by climate change. He said, “We ruined your country. Welcome to ours.” Playing on Emma Lazarus’ famous quote, he adds, “Give us your thirsty, your hot, your flooded masses.” Apparently carbon footprint taxes and wealth redistribution are not enough, we must adopt progressive social engineering of the planet.

Interesting Reparations for Global Warming
By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh
July 2, 2015

And what in hell is an Earth Institute? And why must taxpayers pay for it? And who decided that taxpayers had to pay professors like Gerrard to invent harebrained political schemes to loot the public purse?

Forgive me. I got carried away. Don’t answer the questions. The Washington Post publishing Gerrard is what freedom of the press is all about.

Interesting Reparations for Global Warming
By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh
July 2, 2015

“Give me your tired, your poor, ?
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, ?
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. ?
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: ?
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
- Emma Lazarus

If you thought global warming scaremongering tactics went away with the most recent failed prediction for 2015 when we were supposed to be flooded and underwater, with little polar ice caps left, you would be mistaken.

Writing for the Washington Post, Michael B. Gerrard, a legal scholar at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, proposes that we should take in millions upon millions of refugees that will eventually be displaced by climate change. He said, “We ruined your country. Welcome to ours.” Playing on Emma Lazarus’ famous quote, he adds, “Give us your thirsty, your hot, your flooded masses.” Apparently carbon footprint taxes and wealth redistribution are not enough, we must adopt progressive social engineering of the planet.

If global warming average temperatures increase above 3.6 degrees, islands like Kiribati and the Marshalls and parts of Bangladesh, Pakistan, Egypt, and Vietnam will disappear underwater, flooded by melting glaciers in the Himalayas and the Andes. And if people don’t keep their voluntary and non-binding promises to cut CO2 (at the U.N. Climate summit in Paris in December 2015), “the thermometers could go much higher.” From Sierra Leone to Ethiopia, land will turn into desert. The heat will increase violence, ethnic and political tensions, Gerrard said.

Gerrard’s proposed solution is a pledge “to take on a share of the displaced population equal to how much each nation has historically contributed to emissions of the greenhouse gases that are causing this crisis.”

Quoting the World Resources Institute, between 1850 and 2011, the U.S. caused 27 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, a trace gas that all plants need to grow. As a matter of fact, greenhouses provide extra CO2 in their solariums in order to accelerate plant growth.

The European Union causes 25 percent of CO2 emissions, China 11 percent, Russia 8 percent, and Japan 4 percent. It is curious how only industrialized countries are identified as culprits even though nobody bothers to explain how ice melted 15,000 years ago or who or what caused the Mini Ice Age during the Middle Ages when there was little or no industrial pollution.

A very arresting photograph that illustrates this needed massive relocation of humans from poor countries to wealthy countries in the west shows Biblically dressed humans wading through chest-deep water and women carrying heavy loads of possessions on their heads.

Gerrard suggests that the U.S. should then take in 27 million people to absolve themselves from the 27 percent CO2 sin. Taking in just one million per year as we currently do is not enough; it won’t be a popular move but it would be “fair,” he added. We must take responsibility for the gases we expel into the atmosphere and pay for the damage. And if the new arrivals want to “re-create their own communities” within our country, it is only “fair.”

He agrees that these people could adopt desalination practices and other technology-savvy agricultural methods but “they typically take a great deal of money and energy, the very resource we have failed to conserve in the first place.”

The gloom and doom prediction is that “If we don’t want millions of people seeking heaven here – or dying while they try – then the United States and other industrialized countries need to become far more aggressive in cutting their greenhouse gas emissions.”

“Europe is in a furor over who will take in” those who are fleeing civil war in Syria and oppression in Eritrea, said Michael Gerrard. They risk their lives to reach the shores of European safety and the lure of entitlements.

Might Europeans be leery of these refugees because of the attacks against innocents, like the recent one on a Tunisian beach, when Britons on vacation were mowed down with machine guns by a religionist of peace?

A report released in May 2015 by NASA indicated that “updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.”

According to New American, the report did not clarify whether climate warming may be natural or may be coming in cyclical patterns, or whether global warming is anthropogenic.

It has been reported by many scientists who are now called “global warming deniers” that average temperatures fluctuate, the globe’s climate changes in natural, cyclical patterns, cooling and warming, causing glaciers and polar ice caps to grow and to shrink.

NASA scientists began measuring ice caps by satellite in 1979 during the end of a 30-year cooling period. The “normal baseline” was thus established during this cooling period with very thick ice caps. As James Taylor of Forbes wrote,

“The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.”​

Since the Pope inserted himself into the climate change industry, Dr. Klaus Kaiser wrote a letter to the “Academicians of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS)” to clarify their positions, particularly since they have a significant “influence on the development of poorer nations and their people” and in light of the fact that these people “are presently deprived of many of the energy-driven amenities of the developed countries.”

Dr. Kaiser pointed out 12 scientifically incontrovertible facts:

Without CO2 in the atmosphere life on earth, plants, animals, humans could not exist.
For 4.5 billion years atmospheric CO2 on Earth was higher than today.
Photosynthesis converts CO2 to organic matter thus reducing CO2.
Oxygen is produced in the earth’s atmosphere from CO2 via photosynthesis.
Oceans and fresh water are alkaline, not acidic; photosynthesis also increases the alkaline property of neutral or acidic water.
Without human influence, kilometres-thick ice shields covering the northern part of North America and Eurasia 20,000 years ago have melted completely about 5,000 years ago.
For the most part, during the 15,000-year period mentioned, atmospheric CO2 stayed at 250 parts per million.
CO2 is not ‘pollution,’ when “the earth’s plants and ocean algae consume any CO2 stemming from fossil resource use with the same vigour as that emitted from volcanoes and fumaroles.”
Coal, a source of man-made CO2, provides a lot of the energy needs of the planet. India and China build a new coal-fired plant each week. Dr. Kaiser urges countries in Africa to expand their use of fossil fuels.
The word “consensus” has zero meaning in science; look at astronomer Galileo who was exonerated by the Vatican 400 years after the Catholic Church condemned him as a heretic for his view on heliocentricity.
CO2 is a vital trace gas in the atmosphere, not a “pollutant.”​

The naked truth is expressed quite clearly in this quote by Warren Moss:

“‘Such impending catastrophic events – flooding, droughts, heat waves, and higher seas – all allegedly caused by emissions of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels,’ have been used by the global-warming theorists working with federal agencies and the UN to impose draconian environmental regulations geared to bring the world’s industrial-based economy to its knees.”​


Council Member
I have an announcement for those folks who read this thread so far. From now on I will refer to liberal bias in the media as Communist bias. Here is why:

I will stop giving message board liberals the satisfaction of accusing the media of having a liberal bias. Liberal bias should rightly be called Communist bias. Liberalism is Socialism/Communism. Communism and Socialism are the same thing. I chose to say Communist over Socialist because the public perceives Socialism as being benign. (Avowed Socialist, Bernie Sanders, is seen as a harmless old coot. Indeed, there has never been a harmless Socialist.)

For decades the press got away with denying a liberal bias. They probably invented the term because liberal bias hid what the media is. The bias was always obvious at the New York Times and the Washington Post, but it was only a few years ago that journalists began to admit that a left-leaning bias did exist in the major networks. The Internet prompted the admission. Try to imagine how much better the country would be today had the public always read and heard Communist bias instead of liberal bias!

NOTE: Hillary Clinton does not appear to have a solid base of her own. It looks to me like Paul Begala is trying to convince Socialist Sanders’ supporters that Socialist Clinton has a better chance of winning the general election than does the old coot. You have to be an idiot to believe that Begala would say anything that hurts Hillary Clinton’s chances. Begala’s attempt to help Clinton backfired when he told the truth by accident. The original Bolsheviks became the Communist party:

PAUL BEGALA: I'm old enough to remember, the very moderate Clinton economic team used to call Hillary and her staff "the Bolsheviks."

Incidentally, what was Bill Clinton and his staff if not Socialists? This is the real Clintons (plural):

Bill Clinton made a major address to the United Nations General Assembly in September 1997. He spoke with gusto about what he called "this new global era" and "the emerging international system." Then he used an amazing metaphor: he said he is taking America into a "web of institutions and arrangements" to set "the international ground rules for the 21st century." He identified the treaties that will take us into this web: the World Trade Organization, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the NATO Expansion Treaty, and the Global Warming Treaty.

Clinton said that "the forces of global integration are a great tide, inexorably wearing away the established order of things." Then he described our troops lost in a crash of a UN helicopter in Bosnia as "citizens of the world." Those men signed up to serve in the American armed forces. Who made them "citizens of the world"?

The following month, Bill Clinton went to Argentina, where he said: I'm trying to promote a "reorganization of the world" into a "global system." He said he wants "to build a global system" by merging "integrated economies and integrated democracies."

Beware of Clinton's "Web" of Treaties
by: Phyllis Schlafly
September 18, 1998

And here’s Hillary advocating the same thing:

NOTE: The Chicago sewer rat is close to legislating the TPP —— a treaty that has to be ratified with the advice and consent of 67 senators as the Constitution requires.

Finally, freedom of the press is the one constitutional Right you will never see attacked by Communists.


Council Member
You have to be an idiot to believe that Begala would say anything that hurts Hillary Clinton’s chances. Begala’s attempt to help Clinton backfired when he told the truth by accident. The original Bolsheviks became the Communist party:

PAUL BEGALA: I'm old enough to remember, the very moderate Clinton economic team used to call Hillary and her staff "the Bolsheviks."
Bucko Bill dumped on Paul Begala without mentioning my take:

Bill and Bernie Goldberg went on to accuse ‘journalists’ for sullying the profession without ever touching on EVERY journalist remaining silent about policies they agree with. Pontificating on the evils of corrupt journalists and hustling politicians looks good for public consumption.

Talking heads have no qualms about opposing legislation like the ACA, and even SCOTUS decisions like homosexual marriage, but when did you ever hear a talking head object to the harm membership in the United Nations does to this country?

So long as ‘journalists’ earn big money in an industry that agreed to keep quiet about a deal their bosses made with bankers 60 years ago —— a promise that is tearing this country apart inch by inch —— talking heads should keep their mouths shut about the stuff they do not like personally:

David Rockefeller's 1991 Bilderberg
Quote...Ten Years Later

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."​

He went on to explain:

"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."​

-- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle