This is how the media fools you making sure you don't see reality

Call: (646) 716-5812 – Facebook Live: PDRLive Live stream: BlogTalkRadio Radio Show Date: June 26th, 2018

This is an important illustrating the danger of a mainstream media outlet controlled by a plutocracy subliminally controlling how Americans think.

You can also find previous episodes on YouTube here

Support Politics Done Right: Become a Patron now (http://patreon.com/politicsdoneright).

If you really want to know why Americans continue to vote against their own interest, then a Washington Post articled dissected by FAIR is a classic example. The false equivalencies, the omission of information, the choice of willful ignorance over investigative reporting, and the inability to stop their medium from being used as free propaganda are constants with the mainstream media. This has to stop. It is for this reason that having a Progressive and independent media is essential to maintain our democracy.

From the Newsfeed

SinglePayerHealthcareNow.com: Recently in Nevada, President Trump attempted to blame the premium increases Americans are seeing due to actions by his Administration on the Affordable Care Act. Protect Our Care Executive Director Brad Woodhouse released the following statement in response: “Donald Trump has waged a vengeful campaign which has harmed Americans’ health insurance from the moment he took office. He has supported every health care repeal bill, attempted to tank open enrollment, and introduced alternative junk plans have been projected to increase premiums by as much as twenty percent. As insurance companies announce their proposed rate increases for next year, they are continuously citing actions by the Administration as responsible for the increase. President Trump and Congressional Republicans like Dean Heller should be working on common-sense, bipartisan solutions to lower Americans’ costs rather than lighting the match that starts the fire and then blaming the house for burning down.”

DailyKos.com: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Roberts, for the Trump administration and reversed a grant of preliminary injunction in the Muslim travel ban, sending the case back to the lower courts. Dissenting Justices Sonya Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg likened the ruling to Korematsu, the decision that declared the internment of Japanese-American citizens during World War II was constitutional, writing: “The United States of American is a Nation built upon the promise of religious liberty. […] The Court’s decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle. It leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” because the policy no masquerades behind a façade of national security concerns. But this repackaging does little to cleanse Presidential Proclamation No. 9645 of the appearance of discrimination that the President’s words have created.” Reading from the opinion, Roberts dismissed Trump’s statements, saying “the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility.” The majority says Trump’s order is “squarely within the scope of Presidential authority under the INA {Immigration and Nationality Act], and that the Court “will uphold the policy so long as it can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds.” It concludes that “under these circumstances, the Government has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review. We express no view on the soundness of the policy. We simply hold today that plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claim.”

DailyKos.com: On Monday, the Supreme Court gave Republican gerrymandering a major boost when it reversed a district court ruling that had struck down Texas’ GOP-drawn congressional map for intentionally discriminating against black and Latino voters. A fairer map could have allowed Latino voters to elect their preferred candidates in as many as three more districts, and could have allowed Democrats to win up to five more seats statewide, but now this map will remain untouched. The GOP’s victory was almost total: The Supreme Court’s conservative majority overturned the lower court as to every congressional district it had invalidated, and all but one of the state House districts it struck down. But beyond just this case, the high court’s five-to-four decision further erodes the Voting Rights Act on the fifth anniversary of its landmark decision that gutted a key part of the VRA. This dispute, which has been trudging on for seven long years thanks in part to an apparent slow-walk by conservative judges, has hinged on a key aspect of the VRA that penalizes lawmakers when they act with discriminatory intent. Had the lower court’s ruling stood up, Texas would have been required to draw new maps, and it might have faced further sanction as well. Now it has avoided the former and very likely the latter, too. The Supreme Court’s questionable ruling relied on the dubious notion that the Republicans who crafted Texas’ maps were entitled to a presumption that they acted in good faith. The record, however, shows otherwise.