Ernie, you will have to go a long way to find someone as skeptical as I am about anything printed, televised or broadcast for public consumption.
I have had too many government officials and others flat out lie to my face. Reporters today generally are working for a left leaning editor and therefore that is the angle presented. The same with televise and radio.
The few who do appear to be leaning to the right many times are simply putting out disinformation. I wish I could remember the outfit I came across that was fueling from both sides. It had something to do with gun magazine publishing, in fact owned by an anti-gun conglomerate. They saw the cold cash available and got in line.
My questions regarding the UN are so that I can get a feeling of your regard for them. They are not an organization that broadcasts their intentions to the public unless they are looking for cash/support votes.
Following the money has done me well in my private research.
Ernie, if you are looking for the truth remember what Gustave Le Bon said;
“The masses live by, and are ruled by, subconscious and emotional thought process. The crowd has never thirsted for the truth. It turns aside from evidence that is not to its taste, preferring to glorify and to follow error, if the way of error appears attractive enough, and seduces them. Whoever can supply the crowd with attractive emotional illusions may easily become their master; and whoever attempts to destroy such firmly entrenched illusions of the crowd is almost sure to be rejected.”
Just attempting to get someone to view a topic without their inbred prejudices is very difficult. They don't want to stand on the other side of the fence and look in at themselves. "Too difficult" is the short phrase I hear every time I suggest it.
Keep your mind open to the idea that ex FBI employees can be very dangerous to the Bureau's upper management and that may be why the Bureau took the time and money to publicly defame them. Or perhaps there was some prodding from Congressional memebers.