0
qbqb 0 points ago +1 / -1

it loads for me, maybe a caching error on your side

0
qbqb 0 points ago +1 / -1

Jeff Rense, I used to be on his chats back in the day

0
qbqb 0 points ago +1 / -1

Sent Project Veritas an offer for access to thousands of audio recordings implicating the Clintons in everything from terrorism to murder. Never heard back from them after providing some samples.

Project Veritas is a news organization, but it is a GOP news organization. They will publish the biggest scandals that do not hurt the GOP (and generally help them in some way by exposing a democrat), but they will not publish the "GOP-Killer" scandal, the one that ends the GOP. So what do you think, if a journalist censors just ONE newsworthy story, can they still be called a journalist? Or can a journalist have "freedom of religion" to refuse to promote stories which can actually turn the public against a specific religious belief that they hold dear (like for Project Veritas, a specific interpretation of Christianity that the leader of the organization holds dear). Can a person be a police officer, a judge, a journalist or a lawyer while still being a member of a religion (which has rules that can override their loyalty to their career?).

When it comes to journalism, a true journalist understands that a truthful religious belief can never be shaken by any newsworthy story (except but for those which the human mind can never conceive without direct intervention by god). Based upon this principle, it is impossible for any one human on this earth today (because there are no prophets that walk on this earth today) to collapse the entire theology behind a large-scale religion. The pope himself can be caught red-handed molesting a hundred children and Catholicism will still hold firm in the minds of all those who are interpreting it correctly. So if you are a journalist and you fear that release of a particular news story that kills both the GOP and the Democrats as a party, may also cause the public to "collapse your religion," then in reality you were never a true believer in your own religion. A journalist's capacity to publish newsworthy stories that are harmful (even to leaders of their own religion) is sacred, and if you don't have the psychological ability to do so then you are just a propagandist whose boundaries of journalism are shaped by the religious structures to which you belong (in which case you are a religious preacher, and not a journalist, and you are probably someone who also does not even believe in their own religion if you are so scared it is on the verge of collapse 24/7).

Real journalism that covers the topics of human mistakes (no matter who they are) is not restricted by a true journalist's religious beliefs (especially if they believe in them). If your religion restricts your ability to report on human activity that occurs on this earth, then you are a religious preacher and not a journalist (still a noble profession for some, but not the same thing). All hail Church Veritas. They do wonderful work for the Church.