I live near Los Angeles. Oftentimes our local news will cover a story of national interest, primarily because Hollywood is here, and those stories are actually of local interest too.
Since the election, there has been over a thousand people swearing affidavits that they witnessed or experienced election fraud. At hearings in Pennsylvania, Arizona and Michigan, dozens of witnesses appeared before the representatives of state governments to testify about what they saw. Statisticians have proven that there are election results in the battleground states that are impossible to achieve unless someone was cheating. Whistleblowers are coming forward to expose additional malfeasance.
The point is, there is a lot of hard evidence that the election was rigged. There is a lot of hard evidence presented by people willing to stand in front of a camera, state their name and swear to what they saw.
Although this is a huge story, the local news channels here remained silent about any of it. Their silence on the issue is, in my opinion, a good thing because while of national importance, the results in California have never been in dispute so election fraud isn’t a local story.
Last night, I was waiting to watch the weather forecast (which, I know is ridiculous because the weather is always the same here) when they reported a story about a rumor that Rudy Giuliani asked President Trump for a pardon. Apparently, the story was broken by CNN and was given to them by an anonymous source.
Really. How is that a local story? A story about Rudy Giuliani is no more a local story than election fraud in Pennsylvania. Even worse, the story about Rudy is based on a rumor while the accusations of election fraud are based on hard facts and evidence. How can they justify ignoring hard evidence for nearly two months and yet choosing to run a story based on information obtained from an anonymous source?
It’s shameful that rumors and innuendos from unnamed sources carry more weight with “news organizations” than the words of more than a thousand people willing to swear to what they saw.
I asked a friend of mine if he thought that the election was rigged. He said that he believed that Biden received more votes than Trump and that he won fairly.
Now, I’ve known this guy for nearly 50 years and he’s a smart guy. I believe that if he were informed of the facts, he’d think differently. But he isn’t, so he doesn’t. He’s uninformed, and therefore ignorant, because he gets his news from mainstream sources. And, mainstream sources are simply ignoring anything and everything that has to do with the overwhelming evidence of election fraud.
People who want to know what’s really happening are forced to go to alternative sources of news like The Epoch Times, Newsmax and OAN. These are sources that Liberals continuously brand as far-right and illegitimate. The Liberals and mainstream media accuse anybody who’s not them of spreading rumors and innuendos. So, those are places at which almost no Liberals care to look.
But here’s the thing. These alternative news sources aren’t spreading rumors and innuendos of election fraud. They’re providing information based on facts provided by sworn testimony and expert witnesses. They’re giving us an opportunity to view for ourselves, live videos of witnesses testifying in front of government officials. In other words, they’re reporting the facts, not ignoring them. Isn’t that what we should expect from any legitimate news source?
CNN, the New York Times, MSNBC and most every other mainstream news source have devolved into the very thing that they claim to be against. Instead of telling people the facts and the truth, they are the ones spreading lies, speculation and innuendo. And, as long as people continue to believe that the mainstream media is a legitimate source for the truth, there will continue to be a lot of uninformed, ignorant people.
Where would you rather get your information, from sources that present facts and evidence or from sources that spread rumors?
I know which one I choose.
