The Federal Government lies as a matter of policy and habit. Occasionally “legitimate” media detect and dissect the lies, but they more often simply report them as true. The resultant “conspiracy theories” are often more believable than the Government lies which spawned them.
From Benghazi to ObamaCare to the Israel – Palestinian “peace process” to the Iran Scam to the Bundy Ranch standoff and beyond, “our” Government has lied to us repeatedly and there have been no signs that it intends to stop or even to slow down. The lies have rarely been for legitimate national security reasons and have far more often been to promote the political security of the party in power. This from the “most transparent” administration in history:
Was there even a scintilla of candor in President Obama’s remarks about the transparency of His administration? More recently, was there a scintilla of candor in His administration’s remarks that the need to preserve desert tortoises required Bureau of Land Management (BLM) actions on the Bundy Ranch? It soon developed that the BLM had several years earlier euthanized many of the same species of “endangered” tortoises because there were too many of them.
Eventually, some relatively old but at best lightly reported news surfaced and “went viral” on the internet. It was about relationships of Senator Harry Reid (D. NV.) with the BLM and those of his son with a Chinese solar entrepreneur — who is alleged to have had arrangements to get the land where Mr. Bundy’s cattle had long grazed for a massive solar energy installation. According to a post at Alex Jones’ Infowars,
The federal government backed down and ended their siege against Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy less than 24 hours after an Infowars exposé connecting the land grab to Harry Reid and a Chinese-backed solar farm went viral, becoming the biggest news story on the Internet.
I generally regard Mr. Jones as a conspiracy theorist. However, when the Government spews lies and then tries to cover up its lies with the connivance of the “legitimate” media, we have to rely on conservative blogs for credible information. In some cases, we also have little choice but to rely on conspiracy theories. Then, even facially credible conspiracy theories become more believable than Government propaganda. That may be unfortunate if, occasionally, the Government tells the truth about important matters and few believe what it says.
Do we all “belong to the Government” to the extent that we have to believe its propaganda?
Would most who enjoy “belonging” to the Government feel that way about belonging to a family, co-op or criminal gang that badgered them with lies as consistently as has the Government administered by the Obama Administration? That seems unlikely.
UPDATE:
Here’s a video of Sharyl Attkisson, late of CBS, explaining why she no longer works there. Her story probably is not unique. Hat tip to Last Refuge.
danmillerinpanama 
Pingback: Media asked to be even more respectful of Islamist sensitivities | danmillerinpanama
Pingback: BPI reblog Daily Archives: April 14, 2014 | Boudica BPI Weblog
I doubt that many people know enough facts to judge what is right or wrong in the Bundy case. At the extremes, it could be that Bundy is exactly right or the government is exactly right. I suspect, as usual, that the truth falls somewhere in the middle. In this case, BLM (probably with guidance from above) did exactly the right thing — they backed off, choosing to press their case another day in another way.
Take another example, where the government did exactly the wrong thing. At Waco, the Branch Davidians were clearly breaking the law, and it was right to try to enforce the law. The government could have backed away and continued to act in ways that were less potentially deadly. They didn’t, and many people, including children, died. At least give them credit for showing judgment and restraint in the Bundy case.
I don’t believe anything Alex Jones and his various extremist organs say unless I see the same thing from a reliable source. Doesn’t mean he can’t be right, just that he rarely is.
What is a “reliable source?” The highly transparent and truthful Obama Administration? A legitimate media now reliably uninterested when a Federal issue is involved?
What is an “extremist?” Anyone so labeled by the Obama Administration? By the legitimate media?
Aside from “I believe I’ll have a drink,” I don’t “believe” much of anything these days. In view of the lies told by governmental entities — see ObamaCare, Benghazi, IRS targeting, etc, etc., etc., I don’t believe anything its various organs say “unless I see the same thing from a reliable source.” That gets us back to the question “what is a reliable source?” Is there one? Where? What?
Well, I’ve listened to a number of Alex Jones’ paranoid rants complete with facts twisted into pretzels, and however one might define a “reliable” source, it ain’t Alex Jones.
So have I. That’s why I generally consider him a “conspiracy theorist.” However, that does not respond to the questions in my earlier comment.
What is a “reliable source?” Well, as Potter Stewart might have said, it may be hard to define, but generally I know it when I see it. There are indicators, including common sense, logic, knowledge of facts, personal experience, and the historical accuracy of a source. It’s also useful to recognize and avoid confirmation bias — for example, if one were predisposed to believe conservatives are racist sexist homophobes who hate poor people and take their marching orders from the Koch brothers, one would be wise to seek information from sources other than the New York Times and Media Matters.
Reblogged this on BPI reblog and commented:
Truth, lies and conspiracy theories
Reblogged this on Brittius.com and commented:
“Government, is, the problem.” -Ronald Reagan