Don't Believe Anything you see on the TV or in the paper.

...At least not until the"news" is at least a week old.

Case in point;

"GE Paid No Taxes!"

My first response was "I highly doubt that. They employee 287,000 people around the world. I lay you odds they are paying  tens of millions in payroll taxes. They are also paying property taxes at the least, most likely totalling in the millions of dollars also. This is nothing more then 'Hate the rich' propaganda."

Then the House passes their budget surrender.

"Ahhh, The media was prepping people not only to hate and envy the rich, but to hate the Republicans. I bet there is more to this than they are reporting."

I was right.

That "Tax cut for the rich" was a lowering of the highest tax bracket, true. But the House also closed many of the loopholes. This means that if the Senate will pass the House's bill, most rich will be paying more in total dollars even if they are paying less in percentages.

And now the real kicker: The whole "GE paid no taxes" was a down right lie! Some blogger wrote up a piece making that claim and wired it to the news companies. They ran the story without checking it out. Why would they do that? Because even if the story turned out to be false, most people would forever believe that GE paid no taxes in 2010. In other words, the media (TV and most newspapers) is the propaganda arm of the Democratic  Party and they are engaging in warfare.

The truth is that, yes, GE did not file any taxes on April 15th. However, few businesses did. They are required to file and pay every three months and that seldom actually falls in April. GE has been paying their taxes all year long, just like other businesses of all sizes.

Now they did take a big tax break. Between their loss this year (few or no profits) and the tax incentives the DEMOCRATS insisted on passing for working on alternative energy, GE got a big reduction. They were also able to defer a bit of their bill to next year in hopes of actually making enough money to pay the bill by then.

This is not the first case of propaganda I have caught the media in.

I saw the verdict of the Iran-Contra trial live. Then I saw a report of the verdict. The report showed a judge saying "President Reagan made a mistake." The original verdict said, "President Reagan made a mistake, but other presidents have made much worse mistakes." That half a sentence changes the whole meaning of the verdict!

Every 10 second clip you see represents hours of interviews. The media picks and chooses which clips best support their view, not the ones that represent the truth like we are led to believe. Case in point; A report was done on the argument between pro and anti abortion people. The pro person was shown in his air conditioned office, in an expensive three-piece suit, with expensive law books in the background calmly and quietly saying how important it was to protect a woman's right to control her own body. The anti leader wanted to be filmed in his office but the TV station insisted it would make a better show to put him at the protest going on. It was summer in Arizona. So his clip showed him yelling (to be heard over the protesters) in a plain dress shirt with sweat stains saying "We must end abortion!" I lay odds he laid out a very reasoned argument on why abortion should be stopped but they only showed what looked like his lunatics rant.

I also understand that when Palin resigned from governor, a bunch of reporters hightailed it to Alaska to get the true story. They sent articles to their editors BEFORE THEY EVEN LANDED IN ALASKA saying "...An FBI indictment is expected any day now." Imagine their disappointment when they landed and talked to the FBI who told them "We're not investigating Palin. We never have investigated Palin." (From a FBI department that just a couple of years before had sent several Alaskan congress members from both parties off to wear orange jumpsuits and pick up trash by the side of the road. They are not a lax branch of this department.) The reason she resigned? The open warfare that was being waged against her was keeping her from doing her job as governor and she felt it wasn't right to keep getting paid for not doing the job. All those ethics claims filed against her? It costs nothing to file. The filers would then tell the media they had filed (which is illegal). She had to hire a lawyer to defend herself. All but one claim was found to be- well- stupid. She was found Innocent of the one that did see a judge. But conviction  wasn't the point. They ruined her reputation and nearly drove her into bankruptcy defending herself. That was the point. A conviction would have just been ice cream.

This isn't the first conservative politician they have done this to.

Have you ever noticed how often Republicans, especially really conservative Republicans, get brought up on ethics charges and how seldom Dems do? The world view for most liberals is that morals change with the season. Thus there is no absolute right and wrong. This means there is nothing wrong with destroying your opponent any way you can. Repubs Generally believe there is absolute, timeless morals. A victory won dishonorably is no victory. Thus the Dems play dirty but the Repubs generally won't (if they do try they are accused of being racists, fascist pigs who hate women, babies and butterflies, so they can't win anyway. the Media is in the Dems pocket.) I am not saying the Repubs are more righteous. I doubt either party is any different on that front. I just see that the Dems are better at using the media as a weapon.

Anyway, the point is, when watching the news don't believe what you see or hear. Wait a week or so and then look up the other side of the fence. Put the two together and examine the evidence. You will come closer to finding the truth that way.

Certainly don't believe what you see.