David Swanson on ‘Voting Independent’ & A Few Words on the Real but Unknown History of the Not So Real ‘Real News’

insanityI just finished watching an excellent interview given by David Swanson on the importance of voting independent and the futility of voting between two evils every four years. Let me qualify my qualification of the interview as “excellent”: the interviewee. David Swanson was very good, articulate, and right on with his points. That constitutes 50% of the interview. The interviewer, on the other hand, was anything but objective, was antagonistic, and a propagandist who lacked logic and the ability to articulate even a very illogical point of view.

I am going to give you the link to this interview, but before I do that I want to go on record with a few words on ‘The Real News’ – its beginning, and its founder & host Paul Jay.

In late 2006, Mr. Paul Jay contacted me and Ray McGovern to introduce himself and invite us both to a small dinner gathering in order to present to us his newly conceptualized TV news project- The Real News. While I am very picky when it comes to social gatherings, I accepted this one since it was going to give me another opportunity to spend some time with Ray McGovern (I love Ray’s company, friendship, critical mind, and of course, incredible wit and sense of humor).

Unfortunately, even Ray’s great company was not enough to take away from an ego-centric and opportunist host, and the very disturbing birth of his new opportunist product, geared strategically to spit partisan propaganda benefitting partisan corporates and their foundations in Washington DC.

Mr. Jay was in DC to meet with all the known corporate-foundations to raise money for his ‘The Real News’ TV project, which was being marketed as ‘alternative news to be ready by 2008 in order to counter another party during the elections.’ That was the main gist of this project. It was not about ‘censored news.’ It was not going to be about giving voice to censored voices. It was not about countering wars outside approved and measured borders. It was not about civil liberties. And it was certainly not going to be about ‘the real news.’

One memorable Mr. Jay quote that stuck with me from that dinner: “If the liberal foundations don’t dish out I’ll go to the other side. So, they better!

Well, the ‘Liberal Corporate Foundations’ did in fact dish out the dough. Please be my guest and check out the alphabets of corporate foundations behind this not so real ‘The Real News.’ Oh, and as one of the consistent conditions, the corporate foundations gave Mr. Jay a list of their ‘To-Be-Censored’ truth-tellers and whistleblowers. I was honorably placed on that list (truly my honor) among almost all other truth-tellers, some of whom attended that dinner.

Anyhow, I believe this brief background is definitely necessary to truly observe this interview with David Swanson. Please keep it in mind while you are watching it. Also, I am not responding to dozens of e-mails coming from similar ignorant-minded people who are urging me to support King Obama so that the more-evil Romney won’t be our next King. Go cast your idiotic vote and contribute to our damnation as a nation. And with that let’s observe this ‘interesting’ debate and continue to support our uber activist Mr. Swanson:


This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVD .

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.

Comments

  1. Ugh, I couldn’t even finish watching. This Paul Jay character is a smug, arrogant fool who clearly had no comprehension of what David Swanson was saying. Mr. Jay even openly admits at one point that the two-party system is essentially different factions of the oligarchy… then he returns to repeating the same question about why it’s more important to choose one master over another.

  2. Judge a book by its cover… in this case it works… not need to look further with this jerk. Some people can’t disguise the ugliness inside. Jay’s one of them. YUCK.

  3. avatar jbfarrell says:

    I was struck once again just how pervasive is our collective programming and brainwashing. I, too, found Jay’s obtuseness disturbing…that’s how the great majority of Americans are in their thought processes, that’s how I used to be, too. Most of us are products of our educational system, including public and private schools, exposure to corporate media, advertising, mall culture, etc. We proceed mindlessly through life until something extraordinary begins to work on us and wake us up. David Swanson is amazingly awake, focused and truly moral and consistent. It was a privilege for me to witness this interview. I am inspired to persist in my own awakening.

  4. avatar jschoneboom says:

    Well, I can certainly see why Sibel wanted to make it clear that she didn’t endorse this Paul Jay guy, and he certainly seems to me to be both dim-witted and unpleasant…BUT in the context of this interview I think it kind of worked WELL! In other words, through his persistent dullness, Jay personified the “lesser of two evils” point of view PERFECTLY and allowed David Swanson to really shine with his articulate and perceptive commentary.

    (I suppose one could get by pretty well with only 25% of the interview because Jay said the same things over and over again, forcing Swanson to repeat his arguments again and again, but maybe on the other hand it’s not so bad to hear it explained so well a few times in a row…might help sway a few fence-sitters…)

  5. I am very surprised to read this post from Sibel. I take it you commenters are not frequent TRNN viewers… this is what Paul Jay does, he always plays devils advocate and presents the opposing view and allows his guest to argue otherwise. And as jschoneboom points out, it WORKS to allow the guest a good chance to illuminate his arguments against some (often token) opposition. It’s how he runs his show – he doesn’t let his guests just run solo… he challenges them, regardless of how he feels himself.

    As a frequent watcher of TRNN I am quite certain Paul is no fan of the two party system… he is CONSTANTLY talking about how it’s a dual party oligarchy. He’s constantly talking about MOST of the things discussed on this site.

    Sibel, can you elaborate on the corporate foundations supporting TRNN and your apparent blackball? I was unaware of such backing, the website itself says: “We are viewer supported and do not accept advertising, government or corporate funding.” Who are these foundations?

    Paul may personally be a jerk, I have no idea, but I think BFPers should give TRNN a closer look before passing judgment. Obviously I have great respect for Sibel or I wouldn’t be a member… so I’d really like to hear more details on her blackball and TRNN’s funding.

  6. To give you guys an idea of what is standard fare on TRNN:
    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=7269&gclid=CI6uqcaevLMCFQ45nAod6DMAGg

    This is about as far from ‘partisan propaganda’ as I can imagine.

  7. Hi Jay22,

    How has TRNN’s Syria coverage been? I’m not a regular viewer/listener.

    Do they have any coverage of the ongoing US/UN support of the foreign fighters/terrorists? Or is it mostly mentioning of x number of casualties at the hand of government forces, with anonymous or ‘rebel’ sources?

  8. @ Jay 22: Thank you for sharing your disagreement, and doing so in a very civil manner …

    One very common lie shared by many nonprofit and pseudo alternatives is this: we do not accept any corporate money. They qualify it by twisting their large bribery/funding through foudnations set up by the same corporate and establishment. POGO says that. GAP says that. Amy Goodman says that. NPR says that. Yet, the major sugar-daddy foundations such as Soros (and a dozen of his mini sub foundations), Rockefellers (again, via several sub/family foundations), Ford, … sponsor and manage these charlatans. And when they give the dough, they asl for control/100% influence. Nothing is free. There are always major strings attached. I suggest you go and read my series on Corporate-Foundation Sugar Daddies and their lap-dog news and NGOs.

    Paul Jay, a very deceptive and ugly (inside & out)set up his entire phoney ‘alternative news’ and has been running it by the same money sources.

    Now, I suggest you take your questions directly to him. Have him give you the list of his donors (foundations, sub-foundations, and families). Also, while you are at it, ask him to give you an answer on why his ‘Real News’ has been very keen (and consistent) on blacklisting/censoring people like me, myself included, even under major news developments such as my deposition in 2009 under Obama administration when Obama’s DOJ tried every tactic to block it … Even publications like AmericanConservative Magazine covered it. Same with other Obama whistleblowers: including distinguished and credible ones in my coalition (I have over 150).

    Anyhow, I suggest you do that, and after that, if you believe I am less than 100% informed and honest and factual, then, I’d be more than happy to return your subscription donation and have you join the likes of charlatan Paul Jay. Because obviously, all our programs on psyops, smoke & mirrors when it comes to propaganda producing outlets, pseudo alternatives backed by the same establsihment, sugar-daddy foundations, … none of them has gone through- we may be way too late to rescue some.

    Sibel Edmonds

  9. Xicha -

    This has all the recent stuff on Syria:
    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=841

    I haven’t watched most of it, but they have had numerous guests arguing fiercely against intervention. They have also had a lot of very ballsy, on the ground coverage of military crackdowns in Egypt, Greece, and other places that you will never see on the mainstream media.

    Sibel -

    I will indeed be following up with TRNN and asking about their funding, and about your absence from the network. It is indeed inexplicable. TRNN has on guys like Ray McGovern all the time, it makes no sense Paul hasn’t had you on. Having said all that, I consider myself quite attuned to ‘propaganda spewing’ and I just don’t see it on TRNN. Paul has spoken openly about how he thinks there might have been government foreknowledge/involvement in 911. (That’s pretty far from being a govt. mouthpiece.) Some of the guests are more mainstream than others – but it’s still 1000x more diverse than you’ll see just about anywhere else. (Not everyone can live up to the standards of BFP!) Perhaps you could point me to a few more examples of this propaganda spewing? I just didn’t see it in the Swanson interview, I saw Paul challenging him but allowing him ample opportunity to speak his piece… which he did very effectively as another commenter pointed out. How many other networks have on David Swanson?

  10. Thanks, Jay22 – I will check the link you sent.

  11. avatar The Management says:

    As per his request, here is a response from Paul Jay:

    What sparked a hate filled rant by Ms. Edmonds against my work and character is beyond me; I’ve met her once and had no contact with her for years. But as such fabrications tend to go viral, and as Ms. Edmonds has some credibility in certain circles, I will respond to her various accusations:

    1. Edmonds writes in reference to an interview I conducted with David Swanson where he advocated not voting for Obama and supporting progressive third parties in all states, including swing states: “The interviewer, on the other hand, was anything but objective, was antagonistic, and a propagandist who lacked logic and the ability to articulate even a very illogical point of view.”

    As you will see below, the main contention of Ms. Edmonds is that I challenged David Swanson in such a manner because TRNN is funded by corporate foundations that are pro-Obama. In fact, I conducted several interviews with people that agreed with David, including Chris Hedges and Glen Ford. If TRNN has such a pro-Obama agenda (which is ridiculous on the face of it for anyone that actually watches our work), why give this amount of airtime to people who were opposed to voting for Obama? She also fails to point out that I conducted interviews with people who supported voting for Obama in swing states, and challenged them as well.

    That’s my job as an interviewer, to challenge guests to make their arguments. As you will see below, the funding accusation is completely spurious.

    2. Edmonds writes: “In late 2006, Mr. Paul Jay contacted me and Ray McGovern to introduce himself and invite us both to a small dinner gathering in order to present to us his newly conceptualized TV news project- The Real News.”

    Not a big point, but not true. When I first met Ms. Edmonds, I already knew Ray McGovern who was a fan of The Real News. Ray suggested I meet Ms. Edmonds because she was having trouble getting her story out in mainstream media and asked if I could help. It was not a small dinner gathering, but a lunch where the only people gathering were Ray, Ms. Edmonds and myself. I do believe the meeting was in the fall of 2007, but I could be wrong about the date.

    3. One of Edmonds accusations is that TRNN censored her voice by not having her on as a guest. This is also deliberately misleading. After this lunch with Ray and Ms. Edmonds, we tried several times to book her for an interview. She continuously ducked the booking. I asked Ray for help and he told me he didn’t know why she wasn’t cooperating. We gave up after awhile. When one sees how she writes about her negative impression of me, I guess now we know why she refused the interview requests.

    At no time after that did Edmonds or anyone on her behalf request that we interview her. After having been rebuffed in our first attempts, we didn’t pursue her further. The idea that we censored her is bizarre.

    If she would now like to be interviewed, we would still be happy to oblige. But the first interview must be where she either defends these defaming accusations or apologies on air.

    4. Ray McGovern has appeared on TRNN dozens of times and writes regularly on our site. He did a series of interviews in our DVD that also featured Gore Vidal titled “History of the National Security State”. He has many times publicly praised and supported our network and called on people to contribute financially. David Swanson also regularly appears on TRNN and calls on people to support the network and he distributes our videos far and wide.

    5. Edmonds writes: “Unfortunately, even Ray’s great company was not enough to take away from an ego-centric and opportunist host, and the very disturbing birth of his new opportunist product, geared strategically to spit partisan propaganda benefitting partisan corporates and their foundations in Washington DC.”

    Ignoring the first of several ad hominem attacks, quite slanderous on a personal level (in another place she writes “Paul Jay, a very deceptive and ugly (inside & out)”, her substantive charge is TRNN was “geared strategically to spit partisan propaganda benefitting partisan corporates and their foundations in Washington DC.” I’m not entirely sure what “partisan propaganda benefitting partisan corporates” means, but she offers not a shred of evidence to back up her claim. Anyone that has viewed TRNN knows we have been far from partisan of any political party or anything else for that matter.

    If she is implying partisan support for President Obama, Ray McGovern can attest to the fact we were highly critical of Obama during the primary campaign (see our stories on Rev. Wright and my support for his “chicken comes home to roost” speech). We have published hundreds, perhaps thousands of stories and interviews containing savage criticism of Obama’s last four years. You can also find our story denouncing Hillary Clinton’s attempt to have the Iranian Revolutionary Guard put on the terrorist list, a move she made in tandem with various neo-cons.

    6. I was not in DC to raise money from corporate foundations. I don’t know of any corporate foundations that are based in Washington (perhaps there are, but we have never approached them). I was in DC to cover news stories and prepare for our move to establish a bureau there. Ms. Edmonds should furnish the name of a single corporate foundation I approached or received funds from in Washington.

    7. Edmonds writes “Mr. Jay was in DC to meet with all the known corporate-foundations to raise money for his ‘The Real News’ TV project, which was being marketed as ‘alternative news to be ready by 2008 in order to counter another party during the elections.’ That was the main gist of this project.” This is a complete fabrication. I have never pitched our project as being for or against any party, and frankly because we refuse to play this role, we in fact have received very little “corporate foundation funding” or partisan donor funding.

    Please review our coverage of the 2008 elections, where we probably spent more time being critical of Obama and the Democrats than we did focusing on the Republicans. I pointed out many times that the election was a choice between two sections of the American elite, and the idea that “we are all in the same boat” and such was meant to cover up the reality that we live in a class society dominated by a financial and military-industrial complex that controlls both parties. That Edmonds puts this charge in quotes, as if she is quoting me or one of our documents, is deliberately deceiving.

    8. No news outlet in North America has been more critical of Israel, the occupation, the pro-Israel lobby in the US, Israeli plans to urge sanctions and an attack on Iran, and so on, than TRNN. We had a full time journalist based in Israel that reported on the racist character of Israeli society and it’s brutal practices in Gaza and the West Bank. This is not the strategy of an organization trying to raise funds from US corporate foundations.

    9. Edmonds writes “It was not going to be about giving voice to censored voices. It was not about countering wars outside approved and measured borders. It was not about civil liberties. And it was certainly not going to be about ‘the real news.’”

    Ms. Edmonds apparently has not watched TRNN, or if she has, she is deliberately ignoring our actual record. We have featured interviews with hundreds of “censored voices”. We have interviewed several recipients of the Sam Adams awards (given to whistle-blowers by, amongst others, Ray McGovern). We have carried regular interviews with Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights who has been uncompromising in his critique of Obama’s record on human rights. Mr. Ratner is on our board. We carried dozens of stories and interviews attacking the NDAA provision that allows the military to hold people indefinitely without trial. We have carried hundreds, perhaps thousands, of stories and interviews attacking US interventions and the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, the drone strikes in Pakistan, violation of international law in Libya, threatening war against Iran. From Larry Wilkerson to Chalmers Johnson, and many others we have featured voices that denounced the Project for a New American Century and the fundamental empire assumptions of US foreign policy. On many occasions our interview subjects have called Bush, Cheney and Obama war criminals. These interviews include David Swanson who has appeared on TRNN dozens of times.

    10. Edmonds writes “One memorable Mr. Jay quote that stuck with me from that dinner: “If the liberal foundations don’t dish out I’ll go to the other side. So, they better!”

    Another complete lie, even a laughable one. All our documents and everyone I ever talked to about TRNN was told our plan was to seek some seed funding from liberal foundations and then get off that source of funding and replace it with mass small donor funding as soon as possible. We have never threatened any “liberal foundation” with going to the “other side”, nor have we ever attempted to source such money. Ms. Edmonds should show some evidence to the contrary, other than her fantasy quote. It would be a completely idiotic strategy any way, even if we use Edmonds logic. How could we sell our project as meant to “counter another party” and then suggest foundations from “the other side” could buy us. It’s completely ridiculous.

    11. Edmonds writes “Well, the ‘Liberal Corporate Foundations’ did in fact dish out the dough. Please be my guest and check out the alphabets of corporate foundations behind this not so real ‘The Real News.’

    Yes, let’s be your guest. Please enlighten me and your readers on the names of the alphabet of corporate foundations who dished out the dough. The checks must have been lost in the mail, because we never received them.

    In the more than ten years since we started working on The Real News, we have received money from three corporate foundations. In 2005, we received $250,000 from the MacArthur Foundation. The same year we received $100,000 from Ford Foundation. Once we started producing our news in the fall of 2007, we never received another penny from either foundation. The problem was, we did what we said we were going to do, uncompromising journalism. We were directly told by one of the foundations that our news was too challenging for their board. The only other corporate foundation grant we received was $250,000 from the Knight Foundation in 2010 for improving our website. It had no editorial purpose at all. That’s it, in ten years. All this is a matter of the public record and can be searched by looking up our tax returns.

    12. In the comments section of her blog, Edmonds writes “And when they give the dough, they asl for control/100% influence. Nothing is free.” Of course, she has no evidence of this. And everybody knows, that’s not the way corporate foundations work. In our experience they asked for no control at all. What they have is the implied threat you will not get future funding if you don’t stay within certain boundaries. We didn’t, and received no further funding.

    13. TRNN funding comes from two primary sources. About a third from small donors, and the balance from small family foundations or large donor individuals. None of the money comes with any strings attached and none of it promotes a partisan approach towards politics.

    Ms. Edmonds has completely missed the fact that TRNN started in Canada and the majority of our seed funding came from small Canadian foundations and individual donors.

    She also seems not to know I produced the television show counterSpin on CBC in Canada for ten years before starting TRNN. On that show we were the only mainstream program in the English speaking world that immediately countered the post 9/11 narrative that lead to the Afghan and Iraq wars. Three days after 9/11 we did a debate on whether or not Canada should join the “war on terror” and several of our guests said no, and connected US foreign policy with the attacks. We did daily shows for years where guests attacked the invasion of both countries. Some people have suggested we played a role in keeping Canada out of the Iraq war.

    14. Ok, here’s the whopper of the tales in Edmonds blog. She writes “Oh, and as one of the consistent conditions, the corporate foundations gave Mr. Jay a list of their ‘To-Be-Censored’ truth-tellers and whistleblowers. I was honorably placed on that list (truly my honor) among almost all other truth-tellers, some of whom attended that dinner.”

    Please, Ms. Edmonds . . . show us the list. You are supposed to be an expert about certain documents, and I’m sure you would never state there was such and such a document without having it in your possession. So, produce it. Produce any evidence such a list ever existed.

    Of course this is sheer nonsense. There was never any such list. Anyone who examines our guests will see we have never shied away from interviewing truth tellers and whistle blowers of all kinds.

    I’m not aware of ever being at a dinner with Ms. Edmonds, but if she is referring to a dinner I attended after we filmed the Sam Adams awards, it’s rather ironic because that’s exactly what we did. Shoot the speeches of whistle blowers who received that award and ran those interviews on TRNN. People who gave some of those speeches published on TRNN were at that dinner. Another complete fairy tale by Ms. Edmonds.

    15. Ms. Edmonds owes myself and TRNN an apology and a retraction.

    Paul Jay

    CEO and Senior Editor

    The Real News Network

    paul@therealnews.com

    http://WWW.THEREALNEWS.COM

  12. You should have made him pay for a membership to comment, just like everyone else. He can probably afford it ;)

    Mr. Jay, what you don’t talk about, in this comment, and what you should know is REAL is the concept of “controlled opposition”. Ever heard of it? It’s where you (I mean the fascists – through you) give people the sense that they are fighting the fascists, but the reality that they are actually spinning their wheels. “I feel so wonderful that I gave my 10 bucks a month to NPR, Democracy Now, TRNN, etc.” Comfortably pseudo-informed.

    Maybe you didn’t even realize it? You should come to BFP more often.

  13. Following is an email Ray McGovern wanted added to the conversation:
    —————————–

    Dear Sibel,

    I’ve just read your extraordinary attack on The Real News Network and Paul Jay. My initial reaction? — Either Karl Rove hacked into Boiling Frogs, or you wrote that piece from Colorado or Washington State, after having taken advantage of now-legal recreational marijuana. If it’s the latter, you need to come to and come clean.

    I have not known you before to be one who makes stuff up. But, since you mention me in connection with some of the imaginary events you adduce, I need to tell you (and your readers, if you choose to let them read this) that it didn’t happen — none of it!

    I’m old enough to realize that there are some things one simply cannot understand, no matter how much one tries. I joke, of course, about the Rove-hacking and about the marijuana; but sometimes one has to joke rather than get really angry, as we Irishmen tend to do. For your hatchet job on Paul Jay truly is one worthy of Karl Rove.

    I cannot see how you could of thought I would not become aware of it, or that our friendship might prompt me to remain silent. That’s not what I do.

    You need to confess you made it all up. If you do not, than it seems to me it is incumbent on you to make public whatever proof you think you have for your allegations — and, toot sweet, as we say in the Bronx. As for the allegations about things you claim I was a part, let me just say they must have come from a bad dream. They are as imaginary as the “evidence” of weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq.

    For the record, in my view — and in the view of serious people like Larry Wilkerson — The Real News Network and Paul Jay are the real deal. I have been interviewed a good many times by a good many people; Paul Jay is at the top of my list in terms of integrity, experience, and in willingness and ability to confront those he interviews.

    I am all too aware of the highly emotional fracas over recent months over lesser-evil-ism. None of the “solutions” offered caught my fancy, so I held my nose, dreading the possibility that I would wake up Wednesday morning and learn that Romney took Virginia by one vote — and, thus, the election.

    As for Dan Ellsberg, I never thought I could admire him still more, but I had before. He cares passionately about this country. And precisely that was why he felt a responsibility to stick his neck out and share widely his own thinking and suggestions. He knew what reaction he would get; he didn’t have to say anything; he did because he is a patriot…an unalloyed patriot.

    While, amidst all this, friends like David Swanson, strongly as he felt about all this, never impugned my integrity for making that reluctant decision on voting, others — including other close friends — did…..a sad sign of how incredibly emotional the fracas/argument had become.

    For me, it was mostly a matter of arithmetic, not emotion. And I see a lot of that residual emotion slopping over into your right-out-of-the-Rove-toolbox attack on Paul Jay.

    Let’s get on with it. We need to move TOGETHER to confront Obama now, not one another, and make him do the things that have to be done if our democracy is to survive.

    Best regards,

    Ray McGovern

  14. Absolutely freaking amazing. Arguing about voting for the lesser of two evils. I am beyond that. Done that for 30 years and I’m done with that. Kudos to David Swanson on all counts…perfect argument, completely well formed and he won’t back down. I can no longer vote for evil and lie to my self saying one side is less evil than the other. That is totally absurd. Sibel is on point…doing that is idiotic…I’d say doing that shows ignorance. I watched both 3rd party debates and I chose to write in a candidate that I heard on only one radio interview…that one person was the only candidate that could articlute why he wanted to be POTUS. I am a true independent. I now have the moral high ground when talking to anybody on the subject.

    As for Paul Jay: he is still arguing to vote for the lesser of two evils…he simply thinks the lesser of the evil is O. So what? Ron Paul thought R would be marginally better than O. Ron Paul is just as ignorant.

    What we see today is political theater. And, why not? I am surrounded by actors almost everywhere I go. Newscasters (MSNBC/ABC,Fox etc), reporters, my neighbors and co-workers…just about everybody today is acting and playing games. It is all showbiz 24/7. We have an entertainment culture. Paul Jay is another actor putting on a show…it is totally clear from this interview that he is playing devil’s advocate. I don’t think he really believes O is a lesser evil than R. I think he told the truth and is in it for the money…and that is a true actor. If he thinks Sibel will hurt his following, then he will act to keep his present funders. If the Koch brothers offered him more to kiss Sibel’s rear, he’d happily do that, too…he’d interview Sibel and play devil’s advocate with her, too. This is the problem with our culture…none of it means any thing…it is all showbiz…for money…for influence.

    Now my argument logically extends to Ray McGovern…showbizster…professional actor. I thought McGovern was completely disingenuious for the first interview I heard. How can you be surprised? Everybody from the CIA is an actor…that’s what they are paid to do. Who in their right mind would go into the CIA, NSA or any of the other intelligence services and not learn real quick how to act. Then after decades suddenly get God and blow the whistle? Bullsh. And, once again he puts out more bullsh in the email above…even tries the trick of picking Ellsburg, holding him out as a true patriot, an unalloyed patriot, leads the reader to understand “Christ-like”, someone to idiolize…in an attempt to shame Sibel. I love it…well done Mr. McGovern…great acting. Here is the best way to sort the liars from the truthtellers: Record their speech and then play it backwards…the incongruencies come out every time: it’s called Reverse Speech and it was developed by John David Oates in Australia. Learn how to do and you’ll never be fooled again. When you find the liars, simply delete their comments from the blog…keeps BoilingFrogs clean and on track.

    We all want to be with like minded people. We all need support. One of my favorite radio hosts says with salt and a lime wedge “If you don’t agree with me at least 90% of the time, then it is time to move on. But if you do agree with 90% or more that’s all I expect.” But no one needs an ulcer or a headache or to be de-motivated in their kick-some-a** mission.

Speak Your Mind