When you’re a multi-billionaire Social Media mogul slumbering in the plush progressive plantation of news, entertainment and education indoctrination, your perception of invincibility comes to a screeching halt after being summoned by a Congressional ethics panel to explain sharing the private analytics of your over 2 billion users with data pirates. While I freely admit such behavior was an egregious violation of Facebook’s “unofficial” confidentiality agreement, it is but a symptom of a much more nefarious disease: cognitive dissonance. Those who possess far less respect for the rights and opinions of the “common man” are far more motivated by losing 100 billion in stock value, the lack of personal shower space in prison, than any real contrition for abusing the public trust. If you need “warm and fuzzy” marketing campaigns to convince the rational world you’re a humble family man and not a commercial harvester of voting demographics, political censorship appeals to the human trafficker grooming sheep deep inside your virtual basement.
Whereas Donald Trump kickstarted the cultural phenomenon “Fake News” to combat the incessant disingenuous coverage of his campaign and presidency, a pretty obvious observation backed by irrefutable empirical evidence, the exposed media establishment is now aggressively targeting anyone threatening their stranglehold on public perception with but another politically-perverted medium of control. The same Mark Zuckerberg who pledged to “resist the path of becoming arbiters of truth ourselves”, banning the suburban, middle-aged duo of “Diamond and Silk” for being “unsafe” and “inaccurate” – a description which aptly describes the bulk of the mainstream media – has found a more palatable means to silence political dissent and demonize conservative viewpoints: “independent” fact-checkers. Following behind the two left footsteps of Yahoo and Google who conveniently highlight “fact-checking” websites at the top of pre-tagged search results, Facebook has contracted with “Snopes” to serve as the official face of their now more esteemed Thought Police.
Founded in 1994 by the now estranged California couple of David and Barbara Mikkelson as a home enterprise for debunking cultural myths and urban legends, Snopes eventually morphed a front for political activism packaged as factual investigation. Half owned by the ad agency Proper Media, their income is entirely derived from third-party advertisers whom they routinely placate by intentionally addressing issues relevant to their cause, politics or industry. In wine-tasting terms, that’s called foreshadowing, shameless pandering, with a partisan cheese tray. Are you a fortune 500 company committed to fighting Global Warming? Why yes, it is man-made and carbon-based lifeforms, plants, are to blame.
Amid growing complaints of favoritism, the former data-mining website called About.com, owned by the liberal tabloid New York Times, went out of its way to chastise Snopes’ critics by releasing this statement: “Neither of the operators of Snopes.com has any affiliation with, has ever made a donation to, or has ever publicly expressed support for any political party or candidate.” And how does such an evasive statement ensure impartiality within its ranks, especially considering the owner himself refused to confirm to Forbes whether or not a Snopes employee had run for political office? What we do know is that Kim Lacapria, Snopes’ main political fact checker, modestly described herself as “openly left-leaning” despite slandering Tea Party members as “teahadists.” And here I assumed an unwavering commitment to objectivity, factual integrity, demanded adhering to the strictest standards of professionalism, transparency and accuracy. Ironically enough, unlike the “Occupy Wall Street” movement and fascist benevolence of masked Antifa militants, Tea Party members held massive rallies in support of federal reform without advocating violence and discord, let alone triggering widespread arrests for loitering, theft, destruction of property, assault, rape or drug possession.
I have no problem whatsoever giving everyone the benefit of sincerity, but I cannot give much credence to any investigator who touts the journalistic resume of CNN and ABC, only to lambaste “conservatives” as conspiracy theorists by insisting Barack Obama has no ties to the Muslim faith; even despite the proven fact his step-father, Lolo Soetoro, enrolled him in an Indonesian school in Jakarta as a Muslim during his youth. Barry himself referenced memories of Koranic studies at the school in his autobiography, “Dreams From My Father”, and once made the infamous Freudian slip, subconscious affirmation, “My Muslim Faith” during a televised interview. Either way, regardless of his current religious affiliation, anti-Semitic views or antagonistic comments toward Christians, it’s facetious at best to claim Barack Hussein Obama has no historical ties or affinity for Islam when his life’s journey, personal associations, scream otherwise.
Sadly, the more recent incarnations of Factcheck.org and Politifact are not much better in terms of focus or reputation. They are all, however, extremely adept at deceptively selecting the most controversial obsessions of right-minded voters, falsely stereotyping such views as standard Republican paranoia, to inevitably cast a “Red Herring” or shadow of doubt on much more legitimate digressions. During a presidential debate in the 2016 election, Politifact once deemed Donald Trump’s assertion that Hillary Clinton was for open borders as “mostly false”: similar to the cultivated hysteria over the infamous “Clinton body count”. There was only one small problem with their “astute” findings…her mouth. The Duchess of Duplicity once gave an overpaid speech where she prophetically uttered, “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.” Hmm…now I may not be Sherlock homes, a skilled translator or a lauded historian, but I’m going to certify their “scientific” conclusion as complete and utter bullshit or “categorically false”. In honor of the Snopes family, William Faulkner would be proud!
No matter what the issue or the researcher of choice, one salient detail is clear: the unlicensed doctors of Truth or Don’t You Dare are adamant about defending Democratic leaders, their ingrained ideologies, but twice as quick to dispute any conservative claim or candidate threatening the progressive narrative on issues like gun control, immigration, Islamic terrorism, Christian “radicalism”, police brutality, transgenderism and Russian election tampering. I’m also willing to bet the barb wire media plantation that if I walked in any of these “independent” firms at any given moment, 90% or more of their research staff are registered Democrats or voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. Although we all carry weighted predispositions, I don’t need the partisan baggage of a sponsored editorialist telling me mine is too heavy to appreciate the hidden agenda of his. My value as a sentient being does not require any “official” validation or “fake” notice of eviction.