Elections at Risk: Media in the Tank for Criminals
Earlier this week, I provided a taste how the modern civil rights industry enables and supports criminal voter fraud. I described a pattern in Alabama and Florida: after arrests for voter fraud, rallies are held at the courthouse complete with spirituals and claims that racism led to the arrests. Guilty pleas often quietly follow, but no matter, the convenient bloody shirt of the past is waved to defend the guilty - as was done in black belt Alabama as described in my book Injustice and as I described at PJ Media.
Today we find work product from the second member of the voter fraud denying trinity, the media. (Academia comprises the third part; more on them another day). Consider Simon van Zuylen-Wood, “Reporter-Researcher” at The New Republic. Simon has this story about landslide passage of the Voter ID referendum in Mississippi last week. It follows the Template used by the media when covering efforts to prevent or curtail election crimes:
1. Present dastardly efforts of the right or the GOP to implement election integrity procedures.
2. Sprinkle a dash of accusatory racism, amount to vary depending on reading audience and whether or not mainstream America will see your work. If the accusations are in Mother Jones or on the steps of a courthouse in Madison County Florida, or other places most Americans don’t venture, go all in. Leave no accusation of racism behind.
3. Quote the Brennan Center for Justice, who in turn quotes either a Department of Justice study or other academic study that found “hardly any voter fraud” (but of course failed even to cite the Ike Brown case in Mississippi.) Assume nobody will question the inadequate methodology of the study, because nobody ever does.
4. Include ominous warnings about sinister plans to roll the clock back to 1954. Provide no specifics, the charge alone flips the switch for the targeted audience.
5. Avoid any mention of case after case after case after case after case after case (some involving Obama campaign staff) of verified proven-in-court voter fraud. (Especially the ones by the NAACP or Democrats). If you do mention a single one, the whole scam unravels. If such cases do get mentioned by opponents, reply they aren’t “widespread” or “rampant.” Insist the frequency of the crimes is more important that the existence of the crimes when considering voter integrity measures.
This is the template used by the media to give a smokescreen to criminal election activity. Simon van Zuylen-Wood’s piece is just the latest example. He writes the piece about Mississippi Voter ID passage but makes no mention whatsoever about evidence and federal court findings in the Ike Brown case in Mississippi. They include rampant absentee ballot fraud, in-person voter impersonation, ballot forgery, ineligible voters voting, cooperation with illegalities by law enforcement officials in league with the defendants, forced assistance inside the polls of hundreds of black voters and on and on and on. And yes Simon, Voter ID would have stopped some of the behavior I described.
But I can understand why you left the facts in the Ike Brown case out of your story. You were just following the Template.
I think the work you’re doing is good and important. This article is one that perhaps touched on a solution to such problems and the rampant combination of Critical Pedagogy/Political Correctness that dogs America.
If your work doesn’t find a larger venue where it can make it into mainstream American consciousness, it is somewhat compromised.
I recommend that any GOP candidate use your work as the basis of talking points to be used in a debate against President Obama that, if used properly, would really expose Obama and his supporters.
Another example of this, one you have recently touched on, is the Penn St. scandal. Jason Whitlock, a columnist at Fox Sports and in my opinion a committed racist in the manner of Melissa Harris-Perry, James Cones, Dr. Boyce Watkins, etc. in his shameless racial advocacy and obsession, has today called for Obama to personally intervene at Penn St. This is putting Obama’s foot in a bear trap.
Obama’s own appointment as a Czar for Safe and Drug Free Schools is any thing but safe but in fact should the man for this job. As a gay propagandist the truth of the matter is that Obama’s own Safe Czar can’t go within 500 miles of Penn St. right now and this is the trap a skillful debater could use to point up the madness that comprises the Democratic Party’s world view. Imagine, a Federally appointed official for safe schools who cannot go to a campus in a time of trouble like Penn St. and who instead must hide. To me, that’s really mind blowing and a powerful weapon.
“If your work doesn’t find a larger venue where it can make it into mainstream American consciousness, it is somewhat compromised.”
Hope you had a chance to read Injustice. It drifted into mainstream consciousness to some extent given the sales.
I wasn’t trying to be disrespectful: we’re up against an ideology that is fixed on many fundamental levels through the mass media, education, music. You’re doing your part, of that there is no doubt.
However there is an opportunity here that should not be missed. Conservative bloggers should be calling for Kevin Jennings, the Safe Schools Czar and Obama appointee, to speak at Penn St. to show that he in fact cannot, that Obama’s judgement is adrift and to expose the rotten core of the philosophy of the Democratic Party.
If you want to see a controversy erupt, try that one on for size. In turn, this could be used as a prominent talking point at future debates with Obama, the most prominent figure at the head of a movement to enforce defacto co-ed situations otherwise not allowed.
The Penn St. women’s basketball couch was taken out a few years ago over this exact issue and she was portrayed as homophobic when in fact it can be argued that she merely disagreed with men showering with women if you think about it. The Dems are severely exposed here and it should be used against them.
I often complain about political correctness without offering solutions; here are solutions. I am not a writer, journalist or blogger: the word should get out for Jennings to be asked to speak at Penn St.
Safe schools? Not hardly. Jennings will be exposed, Obama will be exposed, the Dems will be exposed.
I think it is a given that Obama and his state-controlled media will suppress any effort to expose the voter fraud, which will be on a banana republic or Marxist republic scale (in the millions).
When it gets too close to home, he will use the SEIU, Occupy Movement, MoveOn and other Communist front groups to silence opposition media in the name of “fighting racism.”
This will force Red State America to either play along and let us become enslaved, or to secede and spark a civil war.
The democrats are afraid of elections that they can’t manipulate because they will lose. So they resort to lies and character assaults on their opponents. When that doesn’t work they have to resort to voter fraud. My opinion is that we term/time limit these folks out of office. The founding fathers wanted citizen legislators. We no longer have that. We must require that our elected officials work part time for the government and work part time in private industry. Make their wages low enough that they must have other employment.
I’ve stated before that I think vote fraud should be punished in the harshest way possible because it strikes at the very core of what being a free citizen means. That having been said I offer the theory that the Left knows that elections are messy and unpredicatble things and deep down they know that they will never honestly convince 51% of the people to support their insane policies – hence the need for media manipulation and vote fraud. My theory is that California is the Left’s experimental laboratory. Most crazy ideas start there and then eventually migrate to the rest of the country. I think the November 2010 election was one of their experiments. While the Republicans swept to victory in a historic fashion through the other 49 states, California mysteriously and magically did the exact opposite. Was it truly that Californian’s are a different breed? Perhaps. But equally or even more likely is that the election was decided long before any votes were cast through a combination of shoddy and fraudulent registration, through, who knows how many, fraudulent absentee ballots, to voting without having to show ID – all overseen by a Democrat controlled government infrastructure which would have no interest whatsoever in performing its job with any integrity and with its only goal being to win. Hard and maybe impossible to prove but it strikes me as uncanny that California’s election results were so out of step with the rest of the country – unless you believe that manipulation was used. And if California is in fact a huge laboratory for the Left, then look for the same to be coming to a state near you – in the very near future. Like 2012.