Fake News: Promoted (and Practiced) by Democrats


Democrats’ Words on “Fake” News

Hillary’s Complaint Starts a Whirlwind

In a 9 December 2016 Daily Mail article, Hillary launched the current Democrat wave of action when she complained about the effects of “fake news.”

“An epidemic of fake news is putting lives at risk, Hillary Clinton warned yesterday.

The failed Democratic presidential candidate said that false stories could have ‘real world consequences’.

She called on companies including Facebook and Google to ‘step up’ and take action.

Fake news – false stories and conspiracies propagated on the internet – became a major issue during the presidential campaign.

During a speech on Capitol Hill Mrs Clinton said: ‘It’s now clear that so-called fake news can have real world consequences.

‘This isn’t about politics or partisanship. Lives are at risk. Lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days, to do their jobs, contribute to their communities.

‘It’s imperative that leaders from the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our democracy and innocent lives.’ ”

(Read more at the Daily Mail)

For Hillary Clinton or any of the Obama administration to complain about “fake” news after their weeks of insisting that Benghazi fell due to “an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with,”
demonstrates the utter depravity of Democrats.  They figure, connive, and say what they will since they think Americans are too dumb or too completely bought to hold them to account.



Democrat Representative Eliot Engel admits “I haven’t heard from from intelligence sources”

The Washington Free Beacon reported in a 12 December 2016 article that the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee had not been briefed by the CIA as late as Monday:

“The CIA reportedly found that the Russia hacks were part of an effort to help put Donald Trump in the White House, a conclusion that the president-elect strongly rejects.

‘Did you hear from intelligence sources that Russia’s intent was to put Donald Trump in the White House?’ CNN host Carol Costello asked Engel on Monday.

‘I haven’t heard from intelligence sources,’ Engel said. ‘I only know what I’m reading in the newspapers, but intelligence sources have not contacted members of Congress. I’m calling on the intelligence sources to brief the members of Congress to give us a thorough briefing as to what they know and why they came to the conclusion that they came with.’ ”

(Read the entire article at The Washington Free Beacon)

It seems almost as if the Democrats have introduced their own operative into the CIA so that they can get him (or her or zer) to spout the party line.


Main Stream Media toes the Democrat line

New York Times claims CIA story about Russian hacking of US elections is built on evidence

The “news” organization who allowed Hillary to edit their stories and whose writers blatantly abandoned journalistic standards (the New York Times) now claims in a 11 December 2016 story that recent reports from the CIA come from a “swell of evidence.”

“American spy and law enforcement agencies were united in the belief, in the weeks before the presidential election, that the Russian government had deployed computer hackers to sow chaos during the campaign. But they had conflicting views about the specific goals of the subterfuge.

Last week, Central Intelligence Agency officials presented lawmakers with a stunning new judgment that upended the debate: Russia, they said, had intervened with the primary aim of helping make Donald J. Trump president.

The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome.

It is unclear why the C.I.A. did not produce this formal assessment before the election, although several officials said that parts of it had been made available to President Obama in the presidential daily briefing in the weeks before the vote. But the conclusion that Moscow ran an operation to help install the next president is one of the most consequential analyses by American spy agencies in years.

Mr. Trump’s response has been to dismiss the reports by citing another famous intelligence assessment — the botched 2002 conclusion that the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, had weapons of mass destruction — and portraying American spies as bumbling and biased.

‘I think it’s ridiculous. I think it’s just another excuse. I don’t believe it,’ Mr. Trump said on Sunday in an interview on Fox News. Some top Republican congressmen have said the same, although with less bombastic language, arguing that there is no clear proof that the Russians tried to rig the election for Mr. Trump.

Yet there is a loud chorus of bipartisan voices, including Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, going public to accuse the Russians of election interference.”

American intelligence officials believe that Russia also penetrated databases housing Republican National Committee data, but chose to release documents only on the Democrats. The committee has denied that it was hacked.

(Read as much as you can stand at the New York Times)

One part of this article that the New York Times never fact-checked was the claim that the RNC was hacked. As reported by numerous venues, RNC Chair Reince Priebus denied that the Republican National Committee had been hacked during the election season.


Main Stream Media points out inconsistencies in the “fake” news narrative

USA Today points to differences in the FBI and CIA assessments

A 12 December 2016 USA Today asked the following questions and answers:

Q: On what points of the new Russian assessment do the CIA and other intelligence authorities differ with the FBI?

A: The FBI does not dispute that the CIA’s assessment could be accurate, said a U.S. official with knowledge of the matter. The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions. While the CIA develops assessments based on a broad interpretation of available data, the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, requires a standard of proof that could sustain a possible criminal prosecution.

There have been differences, the official said, in how much weight to ascribe a range of possible motives: Were the Russians specifically seeking to tilt the election in favor of Trump? Was the effort designed to damage Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s future ability to govern, believing that she was destined to win? Or was the operation a hedging of bets to sow confusion and undermine confidence in the process?

Of the assessment that the Republican Party systems were likely breached, the official said the picture is not entirely clear. While not dismissing the intelligence community’s conclusion, the official said a more definitive determination has not yet been reached.

Q: Is there suspicion that Russian hackers may have tampered with votes?

A: No. Federal officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and FBI Director James Comey, have said that the decentralized nature of voting systems across the U.S. poses a difficult target for hackers.

‘In our judgment, it would be very difficult to alter a ballot count in any one place and have a significant consequence,’ Johnson said in an interview last month with USA TODAY.”

(Read the rest at USA Today)

At least this Q&A correctly points out that the American system of voting makes it almost impossible to hack all of the component voting systems.


Reuters reports top intelligence office does not endorse the CIA report on Russian hacking

Reuters reported on 13 December 2016 that the office overseeing intelligence efforts has not come on-board with the Obama administration and CIA regarding their assessment of Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election.

“The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA’s analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as “ridiculous” in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.

Trump’s rejection of the CIA’s judgment marks the latest in a string of disputes over Russia’s international conduct that have erupted between the president-elect and the intelligence community he will soon command.

An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.

‘ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can’t prove intent,’ said one of the three U.S. officials. ‘Of course they can’t, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow.’

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA’s analysis – a deductive assessment of the available intelligence – for the same reason, the three officials said.”

(Read more at Reuters)

Former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Debunks Claims of Russian Involvement in US elections

In a 10 December 2016 post, Former UK ambassador Craig Murray responded:

“I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption.

The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.”

The Washington Times lists ten stories originating from main stream media that proved false

A 6 December 2016 article by The Washington Times reminds us of the main stream media’s part in promoting the lies invented by Democrats:

“Since ‘fake news’ is all the rage within the mainstream media, here’s the top 10 ‘real’ news stories they reported on — and some downright propagandized — that turned out to be, well, fake. It’s the reason this new narrative of ‘fake news’ will never catch on, and why Americans’ trust in the press is at an all-time low.

  1. If you like your health care plan, you can keep it

In selling his health care overhaul, on at least 37 separate occasions, President Barack Obama pledged that Americans would be allowed to keep the plans they liked. In 2013, about 4 million Americans got cancellation letters, and PolitiFact labeled the statement the lie of the year.

But that didn’t stop reporters from writing repeated stories beforehand on how great Obamacare would be, even though, the administration knew at the time they were making the statements, some health coverage would be lost.

  • Hands Up, Don’t Shoot‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ didn’t happen in Ferguson, Missouri, but that didn’t stop the narrative from spreading throughout the news media and in Black Lives Matter protests. Faulty witness accounts spread the rumor that Michael Brown had his hands raised in surrender, and mouthed the words ‘don’t shoot’ before being shot by cop Darren Wilson.

    A grand jury couldn’t confirm the narrative, and neither could the Department of Justice in its own investigation of the shooting. What was confirmed was that Brown fought with the officer and tried to take his gun. The popular ‘hands up’ slogan couldn’t be corroborated by any ballistic evidence, reliable witness statements, or DNA samples.

    According to the DOJ report: ‘Although some witnesses state that Brown held his hands up at shoulder level with his palms facing outward for a brief moment, these same witnesses describe Brown then dropping his hands and ‘charging’ at Wilson.’

    It was all a lie.

  • The Iran deal was negotiated with moderate Iranians, not the radical mullahsThis was the narrative in the mainstream media while the deal was being made. It was not until an insightful New York Times Magazine piece did we see how the Obama administration snowballed the press with its lies.

    ‘All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,’ Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told The Times in May. ‘Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change.

    ‘They literally know nothing,’ he said.

    That’s how Mr. Rhodes was able to shape the narrative that the U.S. was negotiating with moderate Iranians, not the hardliners. In The Times piece, Mr. Rhodes admits the administration wasn’t ‘betting on’ moderates taking charge in Iran, but that he was just selling the deal to a gullible press in order to further his boss’s legacy.

  • Bowe Bergdahl exchange was hard-fought/negotiatedIn 2014, the Obama administration allowed five detainees at Guantanamo Bay to be transferred to Qatar in exchange for the release of Army Sgt Bowe Bergdahl, who was being held by the Taliban. The exchange was lauded by the press and at the Rose Garden, where President Obama held a ceremony saying Mr. Bergdahl was ‘never forgotten.’

    ‘Sergeant Bergdahl has missed birthdays, and holidays and simple moments with family and friends which all of us take for granted. But while Bowe was gone, he was never forgotten’ — not by his family or his hometown in Idaho or the military, Mr. Obama said. ‘And he wasn’t forgotten by his country, because the United States of America does not ever leave our men and women in uniform behind.’

    It was later revealed Mr. Bergdahl deserted his unit, and that’s why he was captured by the Taliban. He’s been ordered to face a general court martial on two charges, which could impose a lifetime sentence. Mr. Bergdahl has requested a pardon from Mr. Obama.

  • Benghazi attack inspired by online viral videoAccording to the Benghazi Report released this year by Congress, the Obama administration knew almost immediately after the attack on the American consulate it was one of terrorism, but were unwilling to admit it to the American public. The media was all too willing to swallow the administration’s weak lie the attack — which happened on Sept. 11 — was a spontaneous event spurred by protests of an online video that was offensive to the Prophet Muhammad.
  • Climate change will produce more storms like Hurricane KatrinaIn the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the media and liberals like Al Gore were predicting more storms in our future because of the rapid pace of climate change.

    In 2006 CBS’s Hannah Storm predicted Katrina-like storms would happen ‘all along our Atlantic and Gulf coastlines,’ and CBS anchor Russ Mitchell said there was ‘no end in sight’ for big hurricanes a month after Katrina hit landfall.

    On Sept. 18, 2005, NBC Nightly News anchor John Seigenthaler said, ‘scientists studying the earth’s climate say we are experiencing stronger hurricanes in this century, a trend that’s likely to continue.’

    Guess what? The U.S. hasn’t experienced a storm like Katrina since it hit more than a decade ago.

  • Cuba has great health care; murderous dictator Fidel Castro was goodAfter the death of Fidel Castro this month, the mainstream media went out of its way to romanticize the leadership of the murderous dictator — saying although the country was communist, he was a great orator who inspired his people and healthcare and literacy improved under his watch.

    ‘How Cubans Live as Long as Americans at a Tenth a Cost,’ an Atlantic headline read on Nov. 29, four days after Mr. Castro’s death. ‘Lessons of physical prosperity in a despotic regime.’

    The Los Angeles Times wrote in an opinion piece: ‘Fidel Castro, human rights violator that he was, did plenty of good for Cuba.’

    Oh really? Mr. Castro oppressed his people for 59 years, torturing and killing an estimated 15,000 of his own citizens who opposed him. His reign was so idyllic, over an eighth of the island’s population chose to go into exile, with about 700,000 coming into the U.S. prior to 1980.

  • Myth of the killer cop epidemicIf you were to listen to the Black Lives Matter movement and it’s sympathizers in the media, you would think that white police officers were out targeting and killing black men at an unprecedented tick. Black Lives Matter, and all of its umbrella organizations, has claimed that every 28 hours a black man is killed by a police officer.

    The figure comes from an April 2013 report called ‘Operation Ghetto Storm,’ by the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement. The report ‘is a window offering a cold, hard, and fact-based view into the thinking and practice of a government and society that will spare no cost to control the lives of Black people,’ the preface reads.

    The Washington Post’s fact-checker gave the claim four Pinocchios, saying the victims studied in the report were not all unarmed, and they were not all killed by the police. The group was including those who rushed and or ambushed police in their report as well as those killed by ‘police officers, security guards or vigilantes.’ As you can imagine, the term vigilantes was loosely defined.

    A Harvard study has also disproved Black Lives Matter’s notion that there’s racial bias in police shootings.

    The paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, which examined thousands of incidents at 10 large police departments in California, Florida and Texas, concluded that police were no more likely to shoot non-whites than whites after factoring in extenuating circumstances.

  • Donald Trump’s adviser Steve Bannon is a white supremacistThere is absolutely no evidence of this, but the mainstream media loves to splash the idea around — or at least infer that Mr. Bannon, because of his association with alt-right website Breitbart, is a white supremacist, racist, bigoted, xenophobe, etc.

    ‘White nationalists see advocate in Steve Bannon who will hold Trump to his campaign promises,’ a CNN headline read.

    ‘Steve ‘Turn on the Hate’ Bannon in the White House,’ The New York Times editorial board wrote.

    The New York Daily News added fuel to the fire writing: ‘Here’s why white supremacist groups love Stephen Bannon.’

    It’s all in an effort to smear the man who won Mr. Trump the White House, and therefore the president-elect himself.

  • Donald Trump can’t win the White HouseMr. Trump’s campaign manager Kellyanne Conway said during a Harvard University panel last week that the mainstream media’s narrative saying Mr. Trump could never get the 270 electoral college votes he needed to win the White House was the biggest fake news of them all.

    And she was right.

    Going into Nov. 8, here’s a sampling of the mainstream media’s headlines — heck, Newsweek thought Hillary Clinton had it such in the bag they printed out copies of their magazine ahead of time with the title: ‘Madam President.’

    NBC: ‘On eve of election day, Clinton maintains her lead over Trump’

    Washington Post: ‘Hillary Clinton has enough electoral votes to win the White House in final Fix map’

    New York Times: ‘Inside Donald Trump’s Last Stand: An Anxious Nominee Seeks Assurance’

    CNN: ‘CNN’s Poll of Polls show Clinton leading Trump by a 4-point margin’ “


I almost started my own “fake” news list starting with Major Nidal Hasan’s attack being called “workplace violence” by Obama, then I saw this:


Don’t forget that Democrats have been very friendly to Russia in the past

In 2012, Obama mocks Romney for not being friendly to Russia

As a gentle reminder, you might refer to how Obama chided Romney for seeing Russia as an enemy when Obama said:

“”Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that al Qaeda is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said ‘Russia.’  The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.””

Let’s also not forget that Obama did much to both placate and strengthen the Russians by:

Obama to Medvedev: “I will be more flexible”

In 2012, Obama to Russians: “I will be more flexible after election”

Remember back to the 2012 Presidential race when President Obama was caught by a hot mike as he told a Russian representative to wait until after the election as reported in a 26 March 2012 Reuters aticle).

“President Barack Obama was caught on camera on Monday assuring outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have ‘more flexibility’ to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election.

Obama, during talks in Seoul, urged Moscow to give him ‘space’ until after the November ballot, and Medvedev said he would relay the message to incoming Russian president Vladimir Putin.

The unusually frank exchange came as Obama and Medvedev huddled together on the eve of a global nuclear security summit in the South Korean capital, unaware their words were being picked up by microphones as reporters were led into the room.

U.S. plans for an anti-missile shield have bedeviled relations between Washington and Moscow despite Obama’s ‘reset’ in ties between the former Cold War foes. Obama’s Republican opponents have accused him of being too open to concessions to Russia on the issue.”

One has to wonder what Ukraine would look like had Obama not been re-elected and given more “space” to allow Russians to act.  Now he accuses Trump of being pro-Russian.



Ted Kennedy asked the Russians to flip the Reagan Revolution

A 27 August 2009 Forbes article shared how Senator Ted Kennedy tried to work with Russians to undermine the election of Ronald Reagan.

“Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

‘On 9-10 May of this year,’ the May 14 memorandum explained, ‘Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.’ (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) ‘The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.’

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. ‘The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. ‘These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.]

Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

First he offered to visit Moscow. ‘The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.’ Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.

Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. ‘A direct appeal … to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. … If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. … The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.’

Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.

Kennedy’s motives? ‘Like other rational people,’ the memorandum explained, ‘[Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations.’ But that high-minded concern represented only one of Kennedy’s motives.

‘Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988,’ the memorandum continued. ‘Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.’

Kennedy proved eager to deal with Andropov–the leader of the Soviet Union, a former director of the KGB and a principal mover in both the crushing of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the suppression of the 1968 Prague Spring–at least in part to advance his own political prospects.

In 1992, Tim Sebastian published a story about the memorandum in the London Times. Here in the U.S., Sebastian’s story received no attention. In his 2006 book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, historian Paul Kengor reprinted the memorandum in full. ‘The media,’ Kengor says, ‘ignored the revelation.’

‘The document,’ Kengor continues, ‘has stood the test of time. I scrutinized it more carefully than anything I’ve ever dealt with as a scholar. I showed the document to numerous authorities who deal with Soviet archival material. No one has debunked the memorandum or shown it to be a forgery. Kennedy’s office did not deny it.’

Why bring all this up now? No evidence exists that Andropov ever acted on the memorandum–within eight months, the Soviet leader would be dead–and now that Kennedy himself has died even many of the former senator’s opponents find themselves grieving. Yet precisely because Kennedy represented such a commanding figure–perhaps the most compelling liberal of our day–we need to consider his record in full.”



So How Do We Avoid “Fake” News?

To keep from being tainted by “fake” news, please take in these considerations:

  1. Consider the source — Look at the history of that source of information. If that source has made false claims (like the New York Times) or tends to report from one point of view (as the New York Times reports from the left and Mark 1:1 posts from a Christian conservative position), then take that in mind while proceeding to the next step.
  2. Consider your audience — If you are compiling blog posts that might be used as source material for people arguing against the liberal left, consider news sources esteemed by the left (like the New York Times). If you are writing a term paper for a liberal professor, consider the snob power of the New York Times or a peer-reviewed journal.
  3. Consider the content of the story — Does the story fall outside the realm of possibility?  If it does, take a pause (but keep looking).  Does the story (or versions of it) appear in other publications?  If not, consider widening your search.
  4. Consider the other side of the story — Consider opposing views.  Think about how their views might effect or help the view of the story you want to communicate.

With all of that in mind, you might consider how the story matches with the overall message of your life.


The Central Truth: The Word of God

Getting the true message out has always been a central point for God and his people.

What Jesus, Paul, Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah have to say about false prophets

Because the spiritual wealth of all of us works as a central consideration to God, Christ made it clear that all we need for spiritual growth is the will to diligently ask, seek, and search for it.

Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him! (Matthew 7:7-11 NASB)

On the other hand, when we search for spiritual growth, we must be on the lookout for those who want to have us follow other gods.

If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall follow the Lord your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the Lord your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NASB)

Additionally, we must be on guard for our own tendency to seek out comfort.

For this is a rebellious people, false sons, Sons who refuse to listen To the instruction of the Lord; Who say to the seers, “You must not see visions”; And to the prophets, “You must not prophesy to us what is right, Speak to us pleasant words, Prophesy illusions. (Isaiah 30:9-10 NASB)

Along the same line, we should not let ourselves be tricked by false prophets (since God has made the true message very evident through His Word).

For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. Behold, I have told you in advance. So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them. For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. (Matthew 24:24-28 NASB)

As students of the real message, we must abandon things that do not contribute to the real message. That is to say that we must seek to be a slave to Christ and not to deceive to get our own way.

Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting. (Romans 16:17-18 NASB)

Just as we should avoid really “fake” messages around us (so that we can communicate a real message to those around us), we must be on the lookout for fake messengers.

I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears. (Acts 20:29-31 NASB)

On the good side, we can know the real message and the real messengers by the acts and results they produce.

You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. (Matthew 7:16-20 NASB)

Most of all, we must be able to examine God’s Word and apply it to our life.

Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. (Acts 17:11 NASB)