How You React to These Headlines Defines Your Character: Ranchers, Oregon, BLM, Uranium, the Russians & the Clintons


Have you ever read a headline shared by a friend on Facebook leaving you shaking your head and rolling your eyes?  Then you look at the url and notice it's from some website you've never heard of, trying to imitate a "real" news site and you pretty much disregard the content, right?

Think about that process for a moment.  Because you've never heard of the website, you immediately discount the credibility of the story.  That seems reasonable, right?  They haven't built up their reputation as a credible source so there's no reason to proceed, right?  I mean, come on, really?  They're making that claim?  It seems so hard to believe. No way.  I don't believe it.  Dismissed.

Question:  CNN, National Review, the New York Times and Fox News have each been around awhile.  Are they reputable?  Are they biased?  How biased?  When they put out a story, do you believe it?  

How you react to the question I just asked will tell me quite a bit about you and where you are in our modern day "great awakening."

To me, I see three possible answers to these questions:

1.  None are biased.
2.  Only a couple are biased but the others are certainly not.
3.  All are biased.

Scenario:  What if you receive a video in a forwarded email, supposedly from the hacker-group Anonymous, that makes some seemingly far-fetched claims, to say the least.  It has a dramatic music score with quick flashing pictures and video and shows printouts of documents with highlights and red circles of where they want you to read.  They look like official documents and snapshots of websites and they lead to a conclusion you'd expect in some international spy thriller novel or movie.

The video claims there's a Canadian company that's part owned by Putin in Russia that has mineral rights to the uranium in Oregon.  They say that's why there's so much focus on Harney County and getting the ranchers off the land.  I mean, come on. That's crazy.  First off, why are foreign companies buying rights to minerals in the United States?  Who let this happen?  How and why are Russians involved?  Better, yet, why is Putin involved?  Some regular ol' Russian businessman, maybe, but Putin himself? Really?  How?

And lets not forget we're not talking about iron or copper here.  This is about URANIUM! Hello!?!?!

This seems crazy.  Far-fetched.  It must have been manufactured, right?

So, IF you actually took the time to watch the video, do you believe it?  Is it credible? Should you take the claim seriously? Seems crazy, right? How'd they do that? Did they fake the website snapshots and documents? I mean, photoshop is a pretty powerful tool, right?  

Now, let's look at another article.  How Hillary Let Russia Buy 20 Percent of U.S. Uranium-Production Capacity in National Review, April 2015.  

Now they're claiming Hillary Clinton is involved?  This is getting absurd, right? This is the stuff Hollywood puts in movies. This stuff doesn't happen in America. Yes, politicians break promises and lie, but sell uranium to Putin? What? How in the world does this happen?  It has to be fake. This is something only a right-winger publication can produce.  That has to be it.

Keep in mind, this was about the time the President of the Foundation for Government Accountability, author Peter Schweizer, released his latest book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.

Even then, this is such a wild claim that is almost impossible to fathom, you'd probably just dismiss it as biased-reporting and sloppy journalism, right?

Well, do you know what that National Review article quoted extensively?  The New York Times article titled, Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal. 

This is the New York Times

Do you see the picture in that article? That's a sign by the Canadian company mentioned in the video posted earlier supposedly by Anonymous. The caption says, "A Uranium One sign that points to a 35,000-acre ranch owned by John Christensen, near the town of Gillette, Wyo. Uranium One has the mining rights to Mr. Christensen’s property."

So what does this have to do with Oregon?  Go watch that video again.

Or, you can look at this document from 2007 when Uranium One acquired EMC.  When you open the .pdf, search for Oregon, or more specifically, Malheur.

Or, better, yet, take a look at this data dump and do your own research.

Or, based on an interview with Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist, Jo Becker of the New York Times, take a look at this thorough report by Fox News.

How you react to this says everything about you and your character.

These few links and articles don't make up the entirety of this rabbit hole, I assure you. This is just the beginning! How you proceed, however, will define you. Do you dismiss it all as "conspiracy theory" or are you at least a little curious?