Consider Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post. A columnist who writes a biweekly column that uniformly praises Democrats and blasts Republicans. His peevish views exemplify a lifetime of conditioning by Democratic media, and the man reflects that conditioning like few others in the so called mainstream media.
Robinson's conditioning has made him an apologist for an organization that was
responsible for continuing slavery in the South, for forming the Klu
Klux Klan, for lynchings, Democratic governors attempted to bar the door
to prevent black students from entering universities, and all the rest.
And yet, despite all this, 50 years ago black leaders pooled their support into the Democratic Party. We know the result. Democrats promptly enacted laws that have destroyed
the black family, led to criminalization of the community, loss of the will to be educated, allowed
immigrants by the millions to come into the country and who took jobs
and benefits away from blacks - and all this despite warnings from two
studies put together by Daniel Patrick Moynihan on urban planning
precisely detailing the consequences of enactment of these very
policies.
How to understand how someone who appears to be reasonably
intelligent supporting an organization that has essentially
destroyed a large part of the black community? The answer is conditioning.
The Democratic academic and media machine has conditioned people like
Robinson into embracing an organization that is bent not on change
but on maintaining terrible conditions in the black community, in an
effort to ensure continuation of the Party's ability to get votes. I saw this
in action in Newark, NJ where the Juvenile Court was like something out
of Dickens, in a place where Democrats had been in charge for as long as
anyone can remember. Children sans parents sans grandparents being
sentenced to the "Youth House" and caught in the maw of the Democratic
community destruction machine.
It's like Alice in Wonderland - the entire country knows exactly what the
Democrats are doing to the community, but people in the community can't
see it. It's
disheartening to see people like Robinson falling for the lies, the
vicious manipulation, and all the rest. People like Robinson participate in the
fallacy, then act like automatons responding to their conditioning by pointing
fingers at Republicans as the cause of their problems - as if
Republicans have had any say in the community for the last 50 years! No
wonder the frustration since the real power is in the hands of people
who have absolutely no interest in changing anything since under the
present conditions Democrats get all the votes.
In short, the real irony is that change is the last thing Democrats want.
So like a good automaton Robinson participates in the misdirection
campaign. Maybe he actually believes what he says, given his lifetime of conditioning. To
those on the outside it appears like insanity - how else to
explain it? It is a measure of the arrogance of the man that he never
shows any doubt, he has lost the ability to question the framework
underlying his opinions, and that he thinks he can see in the hearts of
those who he blames for the destruction of the community, or a
substantial part of the community.
I would ask whether anyone could have done a worse job of governing
in the community than the Democrats in the last 50 years. And I would
ask why it is that Democrats are never taken to task for it, why no one
ever questions what they have done.
There is a reason for it of course, and for political correctness -
it is a device by which Democratic leaders protect themselves from being
criticized for their dismal performance.
So we wait and wait and wring our hands as we watch the black community being destroyed, and can do nothing about it since people like Robinson are there to shout 'racist' when someone points out what's happening. It is truly depressing.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Friday, August 24, 2012
CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE
Every year one group commits an insane proportion of the crime.
Unbelievably, one can't even mention the statistics,
because Democratic media has trained and conditioned Americans not simply to ignore
it, at the pain of being called racist. So...what is the consequences of this silence?
What this conditioning ensures is that one party maintains full control in the black community - the Democratic Party, the same party that was responsible for maintaining slavery in the South, which enacted Jim Crow laws, which formed and whose members comprised the KKK. And it was Democratic governors who were barring the schoolhouse door seeking to prevent blacks from entering. These are the people who have been in full control of the black community for the last 50 years.
But the foregoing is a minor point - it is northern Democrats who have control of the black community and they are every bit as ruthless as their southern counterparts although with a different strategy and a different face. However, the result are pretty much the same.
One party control means Democrats get just about the entirely of the black vote, while at the same time delivering nothing but decades of misery. The journalistic political correctness standard (and that's what it is), under which Democratic failures in the black community are subject to no outside criticism, arose in the 1980's. Perfect timing, right? Before that time, the blame for economic, social and educational failures in the black community could be directed at remnants of racism, but by the '80's the racism excuse was getting thin. So...Democratic media simply imposed a blanket of protection on Democratic failures in the community. It's still unclear whether this naturally evolved or was intentional.
So, despite 50 years of Democratic control, year in and year out black leaders are always positioning themselves as demanding more for the poor because their community - year in and year out, decade after decade, remains poor, and with horrid (and not often disclosed thanks to P.C.)stats on crime, and dismal education and economic achievements. So....always the demands for money, the claims of racism, but the truth is something else entirely - Democratic policies which encouraged single families, a victim mentality, and dependence on government have destroyed the community. What money does go into the community - and there is plenty of that - enriches those who purport year and year out to assist the community but in reality these people get rich, while year in and year out the community remains poor. And those bloodsuckers who get the money never pay a price for their lack of success - they simply claim that not enough money was spent.
The screams from Democrats about police brutality, and all the nonsense about stop and frisk are desperate attempts to get the attention away from their own failures - which are readily seen, but, thanks to the political correctness standard, never talked about, nor is there any price to pay for failure. For example, you don't hear, since Obama was elected, the demand for more jobs in the community from black Democratic leaders. It's as if they knew this demand was a sham, but the reality is that for Democrats the worst that could happen is community improvement.
What it is, is like Alice in Wonderland. Plain insane.
So, like trained seals, the rest of us ignore what goes on, leaving it to black Democratic leaders to govern their own community, which they do with an iron fist - and God forbid anyone says anything it - the Democratic media is there with the racism label, an instant career killer. After all how can anyone possibly prove that they are not a racist?
The result? For 50 years the community has been ground down by the Democratic Party - the people doomed to be raised where, ironically, real change is discouraged - and failure is always the fault of those on the outside. Where change is always talked about but where nothing ever changes.
No wonder there is anger - but it is misdirected.
It's not as if there isn't a ready and simple solution to the problems in the community- repair the family, put the father back in the home, discourage divorce and discourage single parenting. But, Democrats definitely do not want this - so they claim that family is a Republican issue and that Republicans are the enemy. And encourage and subsidize single parenting and make it acceptable through the example of Democratic media - where even drug abuse is excused.
Yes, it's a bleak picture, but it is also reality. No one ever talks about it because there is a price to be paid.
So if you wonder how a Democratic leader can complain about stop and frisk without mentioning the lopsided crime statistics, then bitch about the LACK of crime prevention while at the same time that police are attacked for 'brutality' and being called racists, you need to understand that Democratic leaders are desperate to pin the blame on others for their own failures.
Because, after all, after 50 years of solid control in the community, Democrats have run out of excuses, and at the worst time, before a Presidential election. Like three card Monte players Democrats must maintain as many distractions as possible.
Because, once the people Democrats have ruled for all this time understand - truly understand - what has been done to them, how they have been used, abused, pillaged, raped, and murdered by a coterie of corrupt, parasitic politicians, so called journalists and entertainers, there
is surely going to be hell to pay.
And when the Truth Commission gets going there will be lots of questions for Democrats.
What this conditioning ensures is that one party maintains full control in the black community - the Democratic Party, the same party that was responsible for maintaining slavery in the South, which enacted Jim Crow laws, which formed and whose members comprised the KKK. And it was Democratic governors who were barring the schoolhouse door seeking to prevent blacks from entering. These are the people who have been in full control of the black community for the last 50 years.
But the foregoing is a minor point - it is northern Democrats who have control of the black community and they are every bit as ruthless as their southern counterparts although with a different strategy and a different face. However, the result are pretty much the same.
One party control means Democrats get just about the entirely of the black vote, while at the same time delivering nothing but decades of misery. The journalistic political correctness standard (and that's what it is), under which Democratic failures in the black community are subject to no outside criticism, arose in the 1980's. Perfect timing, right? Before that time, the blame for economic, social and educational failures in the black community could be directed at remnants of racism, but by the '80's the racism excuse was getting thin. So...Democratic media simply imposed a blanket of protection on Democratic failures in the community. It's still unclear whether this naturally evolved or was intentional.
So, despite 50 years of Democratic control, year in and year out black leaders are always positioning themselves as demanding more for the poor because their community - year in and year out, decade after decade, remains poor, and with horrid (and not often disclosed thanks to P.C.)stats on crime, and dismal education and economic achievements. So....always the demands for money, the claims of racism, but the truth is something else entirely - Democratic policies which encouraged single families, a victim mentality, and dependence on government have destroyed the community. What money does go into the community - and there is plenty of that - enriches those who purport year and year out to assist the community but in reality these people get rich, while year in and year out the community remains poor. And those bloodsuckers who get the money never pay a price for their lack of success - they simply claim that not enough money was spent.
The screams from Democrats about police brutality, and all the nonsense about stop and frisk are desperate attempts to get the attention away from their own failures - which are readily seen, but, thanks to the political correctness standard, never talked about, nor is there any price to pay for failure. For example, you don't hear, since Obama was elected, the demand for more jobs in the community from black Democratic leaders. It's as if they knew this demand was a sham, but the reality is that for Democrats the worst that could happen is community improvement.
What it is, is like Alice in Wonderland. Plain insane.
So, like trained seals, the rest of us ignore what goes on, leaving it to black Democratic leaders to govern their own community, which they do with an iron fist - and God forbid anyone says anything it - the Democratic media is there with the racism label, an instant career killer. After all how can anyone possibly prove that they are not a racist?
The result? For 50 years the community has been ground down by the Democratic Party - the people doomed to be raised where, ironically, real change is discouraged - and failure is always the fault of those on the outside. Where change is always talked about but where nothing ever changes.
No wonder there is anger - but it is misdirected.
It's not as if there isn't a ready and simple solution to the problems in the community- repair the family, put the father back in the home, discourage divorce and discourage single parenting. But, Democrats definitely do not want this - so they claim that family is a Republican issue and that Republicans are the enemy. And encourage and subsidize single parenting and make it acceptable through the example of Democratic media - where even drug abuse is excused.
Yes, it's a bleak picture, but it is also reality. No one ever talks about it because there is a price to be paid.
So if you wonder how a Democratic leader can complain about stop and frisk without mentioning the lopsided crime statistics, then bitch about the LACK of crime prevention while at the same time that police are attacked for 'brutality' and being called racists, you need to understand that Democratic leaders are desperate to pin the blame on others for their own failures.
Because, after all, after 50 years of solid control in the community, Democrats have run out of excuses, and at the worst time, before a Presidential election. Like three card Monte players Democrats must maintain as many distractions as possible.
Because, once the people Democrats have ruled for all this time understand - truly understand - what has been done to them, how they have been used, abused, pillaged, raped, and murdered by a coterie of corrupt, parasitic politicians, so called journalists and entertainers, there
is surely going to be hell to pay.
And when the Truth Commission gets going there will be lots of questions for Democrats.
Monday, August 20, 2012
DEMOCRATS NEVER TELL THE TRUTH (THEY DON'T HAVE TO)
No one expects political memoirs to be objective. Even for these books, however, there is a minimum truth requirement, or, rather there used to be. With the recent revelations that Obama's books are filled with lies about his past shows that the test for accuracy in memoirs is this: Democrats can say anything and get away with it. Republicans better stick to the truth - or else.
But it's more than that, much more - it's part of a decades long protection of Democratic candidates and politicians. Early in WWII John F. Kennedy had a dalliance with a German spy - with the FBI in the next room recording all of it (See Dan Simmon's book "The Crook Factory"). In disgust Joe Kennedy told the State Department to transfer JFK to combat duty, where he distinguished himself as a PT boat commander by promptly getting run over by a Japanese destroyer. In order to avoid the embarrassment Kennedy was given a medal and later, a fawning Democratic media made a movie about the episode, that played right into the myth they were creating about their "war hero": "PT 109."
But JFK's many adulteries, even when President, were carefully hidden by a media that could say nothing bad about a Democratic candidate. Would they have done the same for a Republican? I think not. What's said is that "in the old days" the media protected politicians who couldn't control themselves - the truth is that the protection was there for Democratic politicians, not Republicans.
So when Marilyn Monroe sang "Happy Birthday Mr. President" the media knew full well what had gone on between Monroe and JFK, but of course, said nothing. This wasn't the last gasp of the old boy system, this was protecting a fellow Democrat. And it was something that continues to this day.
And so it goes. The National Enquirer had story after story about John Edwards, but somehow none of it made the Democratic media until there was simply no choice but to cover the story. Ditto Clinton and Monica - the excuses and protection of the Democratic media (along with a half million dollar payoff to NOW to buy its silence) allowed Clinton to remain in office. When a Democrat strays, it's cute or ignored entirely, when a Republican does the same thing, it's called disgusting and they are hounded from office.
Yes there are exceptions but very VERY few.
Could any Republican have survived, as did Barney Frank, whose lover operated a brothel out of his Washington apartment? Or Marion Barry, who made a political comeback even after being caught red handed in a motel room smoking crack with a prostitute, at the same time that crack was devastating the young people of the city in which he was mayor?
Or Bill Clinton, whose political career best exemplifies the protection and double standard of the Democratic (say it like it is, that's who they are) media. Forget about the past - the lies, including perjury committed by Clinton - it was only a few short years ago that the same National Enquirer that had run stories on Edwards' foibles were running stories about Clinton as well. And what was the magazine saying about Clinton? Not just adulteries, but front page photographs of Clinton's long time mistress - all this plastered in magazines easily seen right in the supermarket checkout aisle. These stories were confirmed in the recent book "Game Change" about the McCain campaign which discussed Hillary Clinton's concern about Bill Clinton's many adulteries and his long term relationship with the woman whose photograph was plastered on the front page of the National Enquirer.
Yet, somehow, the Democratic media (and, let's face it, the conservative media, which simply gave up on being able to communicate to the public on these issues) ignored the story, and continues to do so. In fact, Bill Clinton will speak at the Democratic convention, so his political career has been completely unaffected by his playing around, more or less at will, and with full knowledge of Democratic media.
Would this media have done the same for a Republican? Of course not. In fact, when the Democratic media has nothing they simply make it up, as they did with McCain and Bush I. Pure fabrications, but that's the way the game is played in the Democratic media, silence for one party, LIES for another.
So when it is found that Obama made up his auto-biography, that it is filled with lies of the worst sort meant to fit his story line, has the Democratic media said a word? It's is disgusting, how they can excuse someone who is almost pathological when it comes to telling the truth - truth simply doesn't matter.
In other words, forget about Clinton, JFK, Ted Kennedy (who, it was recently revealed, tried to rent out a brothel in Chile in the early 1960's), even Frank - what kind of a person makes up these phony stories for all the world to see - and check? And why did it take three years into his Presidency for people to know that much of what he put out in books about himself were lies?
In short, what kind of a man have we elected President? How could Obama, heck anyone write a book that contains so many falsehoods, how could he ever think it possible that he would get away with it?
The true irony, of course, is that he DID get away with the whole thing - that he not only got away with writing a book that had facts completely made up, but it is now known that he did it, and he has not suffered a bit from it. I've not even heard a word about it from the Administration, and you can bet the Democratic media won't be asking about it.
What does that say about American media? What does it say about Democrats? Should we ever expect the truth or anything close to it from Democratic politicians and candidates after this - what incentive is there to tell the truth, to have character, which seems to be utterly lacking in every Democratic leader on the planet.
Today we hear Obama making speeches filled with assertions that are simply untrue. And he is never called on it since in Obama there is conditioning on two levels - the first based on race, the second based on party. If Obama says that two plus two is five, you won't hear anyone challenging it - in fact, we will have columnist after columnist making the case for him. This state of affairs can only be viewed as sick, very sick, as sick as our society has become. There sense of things falling apart, a feeling that hasn't been in America since the worst days of Jimmy Carter.
But it's more than that, much more - it's part of a decades long protection of Democratic candidates and politicians. Early in WWII John F. Kennedy had a dalliance with a German spy - with the FBI in the next room recording all of it (See Dan Simmon's book "The Crook Factory"). In disgust Joe Kennedy told the State Department to transfer JFK to combat duty, where he distinguished himself as a PT boat commander by promptly getting run over by a Japanese destroyer. In order to avoid the embarrassment Kennedy was given a medal and later, a fawning Democratic media made a movie about the episode, that played right into the myth they were creating about their "war hero": "PT 109."
But JFK's many adulteries, even when President, were carefully hidden by a media that could say nothing bad about a Democratic candidate. Would they have done the same for a Republican? I think not. What's said is that "in the old days" the media protected politicians who couldn't control themselves - the truth is that the protection was there for Democratic politicians, not Republicans.
So when Marilyn Monroe sang "Happy Birthday Mr. President" the media knew full well what had gone on between Monroe and JFK, but of course, said nothing. This wasn't the last gasp of the old boy system, this was protecting a fellow Democrat. And it was something that continues to this day.
And so it goes. The National Enquirer had story after story about John Edwards, but somehow none of it made the Democratic media until there was simply no choice but to cover the story. Ditto Clinton and Monica - the excuses and protection of the Democratic media (along with a half million dollar payoff to NOW to buy its silence) allowed Clinton to remain in office. When a Democrat strays, it's cute or ignored entirely, when a Republican does the same thing, it's called disgusting and they are hounded from office.
Yes there are exceptions but very VERY few.
Could any Republican have survived, as did Barney Frank, whose lover operated a brothel out of his Washington apartment? Or Marion Barry, who made a political comeback even after being caught red handed in a motel room smoking crack with a prostitute, at the same time that crack was devastating the young people of the city in which he was mayor?
Or Bill Clinton, whose political career best exemplifies the protection and double standard of the Democratic (say it like it is, that's who they are) media. Forget about the past - the lies, including perjury committed by Clinton - it was only a few short years ago that the same National Enquirer that had run stories on Edwards' foibles were running stories about Clinton as well. And what was the magazine saying about Clinton? Not just adulteries, but front page photographs of Clinton's long time mistress - all this plastered in magazines easily seen right in the supermarket checkout aisle. These stories were confirmed in the recent book "Game Change" about the McCain campaign which discussed Hillary Clinton's concern about Bill Clinton's many adulteries and his long term relationship with the woman whose photograph was plastered on the front page of the National Enquirer.
Yet, somehow, the Democratic media (and, let's face it, the conservative media, which simply gave up on being able to communicate to the public on these issues) ignored the story, and continues to do so. In fact, Bill Clinton will speak at the Democratic convention, so his political career has been completely unaffected by his playing around, more or less at will, and with full knowledge of Democratic media.
Would this media have done the same for a Republican? Of course not. In fact, when the Democratic media has nothing they simply make it up, as they did with McCain and Bush I. Pure fabrications, but that's the way the game is played in the Democratic media, silence for one party, LIES for another.
So when it is found that Obama made up his auto-biography, that it is filled with lies of the worst sort meant to fit his story line, has the Democratic media said a word? It's is disgusting, how they can excuse someone who is almost pathological when it comes to telling the truth - truth simply doesn't matter.
In other words, forget about Clinton, JFK, Ted Kennedy (who, it was recently revealed, tried to rent out a brothel in Chile in the early 1960's), even Frank - what kind of a person makes up these phony stories for all the world to see - and check? And why did it take three years into his Presidency for people to know that much of what he put out in books about himself were lies?
In short, what kind of a man have we elected President? How could Obama, heck anyone write a book that contains so many falsehoods, how could he ever think it possible that he would get away with it?
The true irony, of course, is that he DID get away with the whole thing - that he not only got away with writing a book that had facts completely made up, but it is now known that he did it, and he has not suffered a bit from it. I've not even heard a word about it from the Administration, and you can bet the Democratic media won't be asking about it.
What does that say about American media? What does it say about Democrats? Should we ever expect the truth or anything close to it from Democratic politicians and candidates after this - what incentive is there to tell the truth, to have character, which seems to be utterly lacking in every Democratic leader on the planet.
Today we hear Obama making speeches filled with assertions that are simply untrue. And he is never called on it since in Obama there is conditioning on two levels - the first based on race, the second based on party. If Obama says that two plus two is five, you won't hear anyone challenging it - in fact, we will have columnist after columnist making the case for him. This state of affairs can only be viewed as sick, very sick, as sick as our society has become. There sense of things falling apart, a feeling that hasn't been in America since the worst days of Jimmy Carter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)