Comment: Strongly Disagree

(See in situ)


Strongly Disagree

Watching them avoid questions about the Bilderberg and about their policies makes them squirm. That sends the message that the people are waking up and not standing idly by. I still say that when someone from the NY Times (Jill Abramson) is unwilling to discuss Bilderberg, that's pretty disconcerting (Charlie Rose, while not NY Times, is another). The media is supposed to represent the people by asking hard questions to the establishment. I didn't know who Matt Lee was until today when I saw that video but I have great respect for him now. However, look at how his question was just brushed aside. Luke's style is more "in your face" but I'm grateful for it because if the establishment isn't forced to speak up then they'll happily keep silent (as will the complicit MSM).

I am a big fan of Ben Swann but I thought he was too polite to Obama during that interview. I wanted follow-up questions that didn't just let Obama off the hook. Obama said he didn't want the "Americans can be detained under the NDAA" provision but, from what I understand, Obama SPECIFICALLY demanded that. As for Al-Awlaki (an American citizen who Obama did kill without a trial), Obama played it off as "I don't discuss specific stuff regarding national security". Why didn't Ben Swann reply back with "what about Al-Awlaki's 16 year old American son?"

My overall point is that TPTB will take as much slack as our media allows them to. In other words, if the interviewer doesn't follow up then TPTB will just leave the public with their well-rehearsed responses. I don't want a series of memorized speeches. I want to hear a real response. Ron Paul criticizes himself for not being a great speaker. However, he's also the only one who doesn't have a memorized response. He doesn't duck questions. He doesn't pull the Mitt Romney "you get to ask the questions how you'd like, I get to answer them how I'd like".