« Ataturk Airport - 29 June 2016 | Main | "We talked about his grandchildren" Loretta Lynch »

29 June 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Well, ya. I'm glad people are finally figuring this out - just ask any Sanders supporter if they think the media is pro-Clinton. She's their go-to gal. She'll rep anyone who pays her fee. And so will they. It's the kind of corruption that caused the reformation and the inquisition and generations of conflict. Why we choose to be ruled by the worst among us is mysterious to me.


Some of you may be interested in investigating the concept of the 'Cathedral' that was developed on the Unqualified Reservations blog.


It's Chomsky turned on his head.


Colonel Lang,

I am one of those who is "way to the left of you". Nevertheless, I have always enjoyed reading your website and have gained much insight from the time I spend doing so.

You may find it amusing, but I keep the bookmark to your site listed under my "Anti-War" category. It is a category that I created when Bush The Younger began his wars. Of all the sites that I listed under this category, yours is the only one still up and running. I hope it will continue to do so for a long time to come.

As for the upcoming election, I would have voted for Bernie Sanders, or Jim Webb (had he been able to pull off a miracle).

As it is now, I will vote for Jill Stein and the Green Party in what I have decided will be my last presidential voting endeavor. In the future I will only vote in my local, small town, upstate New York elections (where by the way, in spite of my left leaning political view, I almost invariably vote Republican).

My father who died at the age of eighty-five (six years ago), stopped voting entirely after voting for Richard Nixon for a second term. After that vote, he decided that the country might be better of without his vote.

Sorry, for the ramble, but please keep up the good work on this site, as long as you are willing and able.


Dave Solomon

SoCal Rhino

Colonel, that may not be obvious to die hard HRC partisans but I think it is to everyone else who pays any attention at this point.



I am anti-war in principle but unwilling to surrender to true evil. pl


There is a movement "Progressives against Clinton Dynasty" and most of them will vote for Jill Stein or other 4th candidate or write in Sanders. Some will even vote for Trump but can not admit it in their own social circle, except close friends, for fear of reticule.


I will largely agree with this, but with the caveat that it was the intense media coverage of Trump (all Trump, all of the time), including the coverage of his gaffs, that helped him win the primary.



In the early decades of our Republic, we had a proliferation of newspapers and journals. Even if they were not "objective," which they often were not, the sheer number of publications created a climate of genuine public debate. I remember marveling that there were, at one time, a dozen daily newspapers in Brooklyn, New York alone. Better that there is no pretense of objectivity or neutrality than faking it, as Col. Lang so correctly characterizes MSM/The Borg today.


Way to the left of you Col. Lang and completely agree with your assessment of the media. Enjoy your blog and the discussions.



Thanks for making the point that the corporate media are actively campaigning against Trump.

When one has Hank Paulson, Brent Scowcroft, Richard Armitage, et al endorsing the Borg Queen and George Will reregistering as an independent it is clear the Borg is quickly closing ranks. We are witnessing big money, big media and the entire political and financial elite using all their resources to scare the American people on a Trump presidency. Today, Paul Singer, a very successful hedge fund manager and a financier of GOP candidates stated we'd have a depression if Trump is elected. This is reminiscent of the scare tactics of Cameron, Osborne and the Remain campaign during the recent Brexit referendum in Britain. I can really empathize with the English who withstood the scaremongering and voted to make a statement of their disgust with their establishment that had sold them down the river.

I haven't voted for the duopoly in decades, but I may vote for The Donald this November as the stakes could not be more stark. IMO, the election of the Borg Queen will usher in a triumphalism of the Borg. With the full backing of the duopoly establishment, a social engineering project that we've never seen will be unleashed to eviscerate the remaining shreds of constitutional republicanism. And of course the ziocons will strut, as they take the US military into many more confrontations around the world with unknown consequences.

If, on the other hand despite the media assault, the fully paid "ground game" and the most intense propaganda of fear, enough voters in Nevada, Florida, Ohio and Virginia pull the lever to reclaim their sovereignty over the Borg, it would be epic. A shot that will ring around the globe to inspire people to assert their sovereignty over the elites. I believe we Americans are entering a pivotal moment in our history. If we miss this chance at a peaceful rejection of the Borg, it will create the space for extremist demagogues who will incite violence as the method of redress.


I think the establishment media sees Trump as unreliable. He doesn't really think through his positions, relies too heavily on the fear drummed up over domestic terrorism, and in the end, his position papers seem to have been lifted from the Republican party platform. I don't have any confidence that he'll be any less reckless than Hillary Clinton. The scariest thing about this government is that the politicians truly believe that they can do anything they want domestically if they can get a war and get the media to push up their poll numbers like GHWB, Both GWB and HRC have said words to that effect.


You're in good company, I support Bernie Sanders & Green Party's Dr. Jill Stein also since they have same policies -and Colonel Lang mentioned he supports Bernie Sanders too (great minds think alike).

Since I was trained as scientist, I go by empirical evidence & scientific data instead of ideology so instead of reading mainstream propganda news, I read Colonel Lang's site & German NATO military officer B's site www.MoonofAlabama.org
--both of them give the straight up answer opposite the mainstream propganda that pushed for 2003 Iraq War, Libyan War, & Syria War

Thus, for foreign policy/news, the best analyst sites by military intelligence officers are Colonel Lang (as well as B -he was German NATO military officer daily intel site wwww.MoonofAlabama.org ) who give deeper insight &
behind-the-scenes analysis instead of the propaganda mainstream newsmedia

For economic policy/news that also gives the straight up answers/analaysis opposite the erroneous mainstreasm propaganda, I read
http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com because Norman goes by empirical data/evidence also & has been correct in his years of economic predictions & analysis -he
chief economist at Thomas James & regularly on Bloomberg, CNBC, FoxBusiness, etc giving correct analysis while debating mainstream commentators who were clueless because they spout outdated gold-standard based economic myths


Col, I know you arent an economic determinist, but I also know that you do not ignore the role that financial & economic forces play in the lives of individuals, groups, institutions and corporations. The media that I know-of is an equal opportunity manager of theatrics that drive victory in the competition for eyeballs (aka ad revenue). We are witnessing a battle to over-blow the easy & exciting tilt between the bitch and the asshole. Sure, the NE media elites are considered "liberal" (whatever that means anymore) but they arent exactly worldly philosophers. Heck, they arent even journalists. I have been fortunate to know some in the TV news biz in DC who have uniformally described how much distrust and real personal animosity Hill & the Media have for one-another.
I see more intellectual laziness and shallow careerism than I do ideology among them. I see them salivating for a political ratings-breaking Battle Royale, not a competition of ideas. You may be giving them too much credit.


Colonel, this reader most probably has been tilted to your left on politics, but with regard to the US' MSM doing everything they can to damage Mr. Trump, I a long time democrats supporter, completely agree with you, IMO most of commentators here on SST including this reader on this regard feel the same as you do, including how you feel about voting in this coming elections.


As another way to the left of the colonel I am acutely aware that the MSN is pro hillary all the way. It is so bad I resent their anti-Trump bias and,at an emotional level, find myself rooting for him. If he could only begin to stop saying stupid stuff!


"A new report released this week by Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy found Clinton has received far more negative coverage than any other candidate in the race thus far. The study was based on an analysis of news statements from CBS, Fox, the Los Angeles Times, NBC, the New York Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post."


"Trump has gotten nearly $3 billion in ‘free’ advertising.

Donald Trump has gotten the equivalent of nearly $3 billion in free advertising since last May, according to the latest statistics from the firm mediaQuant, blowing away rivals in both Parties".


Trump is being Trump, it's hard to report on Trump, with out going negative. If you fact check him, you are going negative. If you report what he said, negative. If you report on his past, negative.

The only way of "reporting" on Trump, with out going negative a lot of the time, would be to engage in stenography.

"The Donald’s whoppers have turned the media focus from gaffes—the fuel of election coverage past—to lies. Michael Kinsley applauds—but wonders if it will matter."


It really doesn't matter one way or another, most peoples "minds" were made up a long time ago on both Hillary and Trump,

And Trump had an easy Media ride through the Primaries.


ya, most people are anti-war & are fine with bombing/droning ISIS --it's the neocon wars of choice bombing Syria or Libya, regime-change policies overthrowing other countrie's govs, & 'no fly zones' vs. Russia that most of us object too.

According to surveys, Ron Paul & Bernie Sanders have the most support among the military because they're not for using the US military for imperial wars of choice overthrowing other countrie's govs using propaganda of fake WMDs hoax in Iraq or false flag chem attacks in Syria

Full disclosure:
My brother was captain in US Army (2 tours in Iraq), cousin was combat medic in 173rd Airborne US Army in Afghan (2 tours in Afghan),& I was US Air Force 4 year ROTC scholarship (I declined though when my 20/800 vision disqualified me from being pilot)


I mostly lurk here. But yes, I am far to your left, a Sanders supporter who will vote for Clinton as the lesser evil compared to Trump and yet I agree with you about the press. As divadab said above, this was obvious to all us Sanders supporters during the primaries. It's true on other subjects as well--I read this blog and others precisely because it is one way to escape the propaganda system.


Colonel IMO the leading MSM supporter of HRC is CNN, which is Clinton News Network


IF we actually had a free and neutral press, the fact that AG Lynch spent 30 minutes in a private meeting, on her plane, with Bill Clinton, would be front page news. It's not. We might as well throw a fair and neutral criminal justice system out the window, along with the press.


Christopher Fay

I like what I call your true conservative believes and understand you as anti-war especially as to the way it is practiced now. You would probably call me way to your left.

I will support Trump in the general, voted Bernie and still support him. Hillary is evil in her criminality and needs to be stopped.



Can you recall an era when the U.S. media were even remotely neutral in anything? Why bother with the myth of media objectivity?

Heads on Pikes

I am not happy with our choices, but I have to say I have never seen anything like this election cycle and Their Media's behavior. I mean, Richard Nixon got better press than Trump is getting - and that's saying something.

Here's what I have noticed:

When Trump speaks, they feature his voice, but often cut off either the beginning or end of a statement to present it in the worst possible light.

With Clinton, they show you video of her speaking, but often have a voice-over provided by a far more attractive woman with a more pleasant tone, who tells the viewer what the candidate is saying.

Of course, unless you are prepared to dig a little deeper into who "they" are and what their agenda is, this is all sort of beside the point. So long as an anti-American 5th column controls our screens, almost everyone over the age of 50 is going to be gaslighted - as they have been their entire lives.

Fortunately, people under 35, despite the ideological training they have received, understand almost intuitively that nothing on a screen is ever objective, and that they are constant targets of manipulation. This is one reason why Sanders did so well with them against Clinton: whatever his policy positions, he was utterly authentic, and this was obvious. Clinton is obviously calculating constantly, and never says anything that has not been tested on focus-groups.


I fully believe that the MSM is backing Hillary. They are businesses and Trunmp isn't good for business. Not that it matters any more. He blew his brains out with the call to end NAFTA the other day. The money in the Republican party will never get behind him now.

Bill Herschel

A symptom of minority rule.

I read SST to keep my sanity about the wars the U.S. is fighting and the nearly trillion dollars a year it spends to fight them. All at a time when you are just as likely to be killed by a bullet fired by a fellow civilian in the U.S. as you are to be killed in a car accident. A statistic, just like the amount of money spent on "defense", that has no parallel in the civilized world.

If being in favor of strict gun control makes me a Leftist, so be it. But you know as well as I do that nearly every French male hunts and yet about 300 people a year get killed by guns in France, half of them committing suicide. Yes, recently there have been terrorist attacks, but arming the population doesn't seem to prevent that.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad