Lying liberal press use Lott to set up 2004 election

[Randalll]

Nine o’clock last night, ABC radio news with Dorothy McIntyre, the lead story is about, surprise, Trent Lott, this time following his earlier interview on The Black Entertainment Television cable network. McIntyre allowed Jesse Jackson on this hourly national news update to take his own shots at Trent Lott AND the Republicans. Jackson: “The Republican Party is embarrassed by what Trent Lott has said. They do not change his actions.”

Remember this is the same Jesse Jackson who was called in to minister to President Clinton after the revelations of his adulterous affair with a 21-year old intern, Monica Lewinski, the Jackson who suggested Americans should forgive Clinton, the Jackson who was at the time conducting his own adulterous affair with an employee of his Rainbow Push organization. That employee would eventually become pregnant, and then begin receiving illegal payments from Jackson out of non-profit organization funds. The money was never discussed by the networks. The affair rated a single night’s telecast. His own racist statement, calling New York City “Himeytown” (derisively referring to the Jewish population there), was not considered a disqualifier to now stand in judgment over Lott
either.

ABC is again unwilling to find a single soul in America to defend the Senator. McIntyre hands off the segment to ABC’s John Cochran who finds a black leader near Lott’s home that is likewise not willing to forgive and forget. Cochran: “A black leader in Lott’s hometown said the interview on B.E.T. was nothing more than a publicity stunt. The official said in his twenty years as NAACP president Lott has never met with him. Lott says he thinks he will survive as Majority Leader. And in the interview he said that if fellow Republicans do give him another chance, he will push for an agenda more sensitive to African Americans.”

One hour later, the ABC radio news network is at it again, telling innocent Americans – who have no idea the mainstream press is corrupt, standing as a deceitful daily opponent of all things conservative – that “NAACP Chairman Julian Bond says Lott is unsuited
to serve in the Senate.”

Sadly for Lott, in a continuing and dismal display of his strategy, groveling, again demonstrating his actual lack of suitability for leadership based on not racism but unwillingness to fight against the most clever, most hateful group of Democrats (in politics
AND the press) ever known, announced on B.E.T. that he was now in favor of Affirmative Action without reservations.

The Senator from Mississippi has always been a weak leader in the minds of conservatives, unwilling to set fair ground rules during the impeachment trial of President Clinton, unwilling to counter the massive attacks against the fundamentals of conservatism. On this night, and for the last week, America was again shown a person who can’t figure out how to even defend himself, a truly tragic spectacle. To be fair, the Senator has at times been willing to speak clearly in defense of the Republican agenda, just never loud enough and never often enough, and not with sufficient force to adequately counter the wild accusations from liberals. Suddenly embracing one of the most racist liberal policies, that of racial hiring, he has without doubt stripped himself, as never before, of any position of authority or usefulness to conservatives throughout the country.

In yet another testimony to his lack of understanding about today’s reality, Lott’s thousandth apology while basically becoming a liberal on national cable television did not provide him a single second of respite from the prosecutors at the big three liberal news networks, ABC, NBC and CBS. Actually, to call them liberal is way too kind. Liberal would be acceptable. They are plainly corrupt, willing to lie to Americans on a daily basis, long before the Trent Lott comment. And what of that comment? How many have so far noticed that the news outlets refuse to actually replay what was said? Instead, as the teachers they are, Lott’s remarks at Senator Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday celebration are altered by the press, so that the students in the audience, the American people, will understand what the media wants them to think the Senator said.

Here are the fateful and allegedly destructive words of Senator Lott were:

“I wanna say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. And we’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years.”

That is it. Unable to actually find anything racist in the above three sentences, we end up finding journalists saying something racist in a very clever way to make it sound as though Senator Lott himself said it. Right from the beginning the press was lying, filling in the blanks with words and thoughts they wanted the audience to hear and believe, so we end up with something like this:

“An apology from Senator Trent Lott for a remark he made at Senator Strom Thurmond’s hundredth birthday party, saying the country would’ve been better off had Thurmond won the presidency when he ran in 1948, on a platform espousing segregation.” – Christopher Glenn of CBS News, December 10, 2002.

Trent Lott NEVER said he wished Thurmond had won “on a platform espousing segregation.” Yet listeners to the radio news update could assume nothing else, as the thought was so efficiently attached to what he actually did say. It has gone on that way the entire time, hundreds of stories, all excluding what the Senator said, all needing the imaginations of lying, liberal journalists.

ABC’s Sherri Preston, writing what she imagined or wished had been stated: “Lott said recently that the country would’ve been better off if segregationist candidate Strom Thurmond had been elected in 1948.” – ABC radio news, December 12, 2002.

Look again at Lott’s statement. Nothing of the sort was ever uttered. But take note of how easy it would be to take Preston's description of Lott's comments as his own words. And don't think for a second that these professional wordsmiths fail to realize that.

They can not accomplish this task of assassinating the character of the Senator and, by proxy, the entire Republican Party, if the audience is ever allowed to hear the real words from that awful night just a couple weeks ago. So, to date, the very comments that
are costing a man his career, costing him his reputation, those words are being censored by the press because the simple act of saying what they were will reveal who the guilty party is during this entire fiasco.

Press sweethearts and Bush critics from within the Republican party, Senators John McCain and Richard Shelby have offered statements in support of Lott. The press has not allowed those voices to be heard nationwide.

The Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson (a black man) will not be quoted by the press on this matter either or most others because he has opinions, as published in a Newsmax.com article, like this: "We have to realize that the liberal media, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton
and those people, they are desperate right now to regain power, and any little thing they can jump on to make the Republicans look like racists, they are going to use that to further their agenda."

Senator Mitch McConnell stated outright that a vote to censure Lott would entail bringing up Democrat statements bordering on racist, such as that uttered this year by former Klan member and Democratic Senator, Robert Byrd. While keeping citizens informed each hour about the many people refusing to come to Lott’s defense, the press has meticulously kept the voices of those who are defending the Senator from reaching the ears of Americans.

This morning, 8 am, CBS radio news leads again with the same item, this time expanding the theme that all Republicans are racist, allowing the liberal leader of the NAACP to fire unanswered missiles at the opposition party, like this:

“CBS News, I’m Christopher Glenn. The chances Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott, embroiled in controversy over words with racial overtones he spoke, will get to keep the post appears slimmer than ever this morning. The White House has indicated it will not join any fight on the leadership question. NAACP Chair Julian Bond says there’s a message in Lott’s troubles for the Republican Party itself.” Bond: “You’d hope that this is a wake-up call for them, that there are other ways to success as a political party, that you don’t have
to continually divide Americans, turn whites against racial minorities.”

Take note of one perfect illustration of a liberal Democrat once again accusing his opponents of practicing the exact evil tactics the liberals have perfected into a science, and of course given a microphone by CBS, and of course without allowing the
other viewpoint.

We are witnessing a hatchet job, one for the history books, one of the most blatant displays of corruption in our time, a tale of good versus evil, inside the black hearts of those who spoon feed selective information to the impressionable citizens of their
own country. It is another very sad day.

Republicans have unfortunately closed their eyes to the strategy of the media mafia, now allowing themselves as a Party to be branded, failing to see how their own time may come if the slightest opportunity ever surfaces, and how their effectiveness is blunted anyway until they expose the press and Democrats for who they are. Reagan took on the media head-on. Very few Republicans since then have been able to figure out what is actually the only way to get them to shut up.
While keeping Republicans cowering in fear, and while waiting for some action that can be twisted into a career killing image, the press will be satisfied to simply misrepresent the entire political philosophy of conservatives to the public, hoping to make up for letting the 2002 election slip away due in large part to fewer blacks showing up to vote.

 

[fin]

From your essay it doesn't appear that the "liberal press" is lying. They are merely choosing which facts to present to their audience. The media doesn't care who did something wrong; they just want a popular story.

Media mafia? This sounds too much like a conspiracy theory.

 

[David Gould]

Those lying, low-minded, licentious, libriform, liberal media. (Well, okay - maybe I can let them off on the libriform charge; I got carried away).

The question here is: what did Lott mean when he made the statement that he did make? If the media are wrong in their interpretation, did Lott correct them? It seems to me that he did not; rather he apologised for the statement, seemingly confirming that he did mean it in the way that it was interpreted or that Lott understood how it could have been interpreted the way it was. (I suspect the latter).

In that case, Lott has also explicitly recognised that what he said could so easily have been take offence to and as such he should not have made the statement or have clarified it at the time.

To me, it is clear that there is a clash between the 'conspiracy theory' and Lott's own actions during the controversy.

Of course, that must mean that he has been subverted by the conspiracy.



Edited for hiding the use of bad language behind the asterisks. It is quite clear what word was used. Please refrain from using asterisks in this manner. Thank you.

 

[Starscream]

Yeah, those darn evil liberals, won't they ever stop!? 

Originally posted by Randalll
Here are the fateful and allegedly destructive words of Senator Lott were:

“I wanna say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. And we’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years.”

That is it. Unable to actually find anything racist in the above three sentences, we end up finding journalists saying something racist in a very clever way to make it sound as though Senator Lott himself said it. Right from the beginning the press was lying, filling in the blanks with words and thoughts they wanted the audience to hear and believe

Perhaps you need to take the matter up with good ol' Dubya - who strongly spoke out against Lott's comment.

Nuthin' like some liberal bashin'.  Yep.  I reckin' that'll fix dir wagin' good.

 

[Randalll]

To fin, David and Starscream

Fin, do they still label people conspiracy nuts when there really is a conspiracy? May I recommend mrc.org to discover some disturbing facts? Ratherbiased.org is another excellent resource. I would say that anyone today who does not fully realize there is indeed the most obvious conspiracy is either not paying much attention or restricting his attention to only the mainstream press, wherein the subject of leading the audience with propaganda never comes up.

Now, the conspiracy may not at all include reporters knowing about it. All it takes is the owners, who then hire people that are liberal to the core, and fire anyone who ends up changing along the way. There are a ton of books on this with massive evidence. I DO NOT wish to believe in conspiracies, for the record. On the other hand, neither do I wish to ignore the obvious. Books:

The Planned Destruction of America
The False Prophet

Bias, a CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News
En Route to Global Occupation
The Iron Curtain Over America

Hell to Pay
Slander, Liberal Lies about the American Right

And so many more.

David, what do we care what Lott MEANT? We now must read his thoughts to determine the appropriate punishment? Why he does not defend himself is explained in my post. It’s because he has a tender backbone and a weak strategy for overcoming this mess. He adopted the recommendations of liberals, which are of course a trap. And he fell in head first. EVERYONE who works with the man, even opponents, say he has not a racist fiber in his body. I have personally wished he would step down for years just the same. But this topic is actually about the press.

Starscream, BECAUSE we have such a liberal press, we end up with a Republican candidate who is by far the least conservative of those running (well, except for McCain, who they tried very hard to get in) for the job in 2000. And Bush is himself terrible at defending either his own decisions or the conservative cause. He mostly adopts the Lott strategy, just hoping it will all go away. Big disappointment to those of us who would love to see someone in that office tell the truth about what is taking place in our country. It is a disgrace that Bush failed to defend Lott more forcefully. Then again, not that awful when taking into account how he allowed the same type of media frenzy to convince millions that 911 could've been prevented if only someone had been doing a better job. He did the same on the press feeding frenzy surrounding his possible use of cocaine, declining to ever ask why it was okay for numerous witnesses to claim they saw Bill Clinton  use cocaine, and the press cared naught, but with Bush and no witnesses, zero, the story ran for weeks. I can't explain his strategy. So far it's not kept him from power. Yet the masses are denied the benefit of hearing the truth from the most powerful office in the world.

 

[David Gould]

Originally posted by Randalll
To fin, David and Starscream



David, what do we care what Lott MEANT? We now must read his thoughts to determine the appropriate punishment? Why he does not defend himself is explained in my post. It’s because he has a tender backbone and a weak strategy for overcoming this mess. He adopted the recommendations of liberals, which are of course a trap. And he fell in head first. EVERYONE who works with the man, even opponents, say he has not a racist fiber in his body. I have personally wished he would step down for years just the same. But this topic is actually about the press.

What do you mean, appropriate punishment? You were talking about the so called distortion that the media put on Lott's comments. If it was distortion, why didn't Lott call it as such, rather than apologising?

Your essay does not address this that I can see except calling Lott weak. But this makes no sense - why would Lott apologise rather than simply explain what he meant? 

It seems to me that you are arguing that Lott knows it is distortion and but is accepting the blame for something he did not actually mean. What is his motive for doing that? Please explain this to me as I do not understand.

 

[David Gould]

With regard to your books, I have read many books about the way the right controls the media. I think it is pretty obvious that if either side of politics controlled the media they would be in power all the time.

But guess what? The Republicans are in now, and prior to Clinton's 8 years had a 12 year run in power.



Edited for using bad language behind the use of asterisks.

 

[fin]

"Fin, do they still label people conspiracy nuts when there really is a conspiracy?"

Not that I am aware of. Conspiracy theorys are basicaly flawed though. They rely on a large number of people always agreeing in ideology and actions. From what I have seen large numbers of people can never keep a secret. Like the old saying goes; two people can keep a secret when one is dead.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

The press has always been biased, and not necessarily to the right or left. Why get all up in arms about it now? Because of your precious election? Let tomorrow worry about tomorrow.

The only thing that's not biased is milk, good clean milk.

 

[Texas Lynn]

The claim the press is 'liberal' is a big lie. More correctly, the media is corporately biased. Enough liberals and Democrats have been where Lott is now to prove the myth of liberal bias is just that, a myth.

Fact: Lott has a history of racist words and deeds. The Democrats cannot rightly be expected to ignore this.

Lfe goes on. You win some and lose some.

 

[Randalll]

David, Lott did say the media got the story wrong, on a few occasions already. He has said that is not what he meant. The only difference is, his strategy and overall demeanor keeps him from being confrontational, sticking the truth in their faces as a good Democrat would, as I would, maybe you too. But the words have been said. His apologies were not for saying something racist, but for saying something that did not take into account how it could be perceived as racist. He evidently considers himself dumb for THAT, not guilty for racism. 

As for the conspiracy of news ownership, I simply don't believe that you've read books telling you the right-wing owns the media. How about humoring me by offering a title, then doing some homework by actually picking up one of the titles I mentioned? The Republicans most certainly did not control the government for 12 years before Clinton. Not a single bill could get passed during that time without bowing down to the liberal God of Congressional power, then controlled by Thomas P "Tip" O'Neill. Democrats controlled the lower house for 50 straight years until 1994. About that election Peter Jennings from ABC said the voters had a temper tantrum.

The conservative movement does have a broadcasting voice for the first time since the advent of television finally. First it was a teeny voice in the form of local radio talk show hosts. Rush Limbaugh changed that probably forever in 1989. Since then the phenomenon has blossomed into a surplus of conservative talk radio hosts, in addition to internet sites. And The Washington Times brings the movement into mainstream print. Finally, even a television network in the form of Fox News.

Yet all of those together do not draw the audience that Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings get on a single night. And before the conservative revolution of recent years, there was nothing to counter the lies of the liberal establishment press. Today they still reach more people. But at least the warriors of truth can get heard these days. Thank God. Oh, and don't forget about the nearly communist NPR, plus the thoroughly communist Pacifica Radio, both nationwide. Then there's The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe. I'd say those who would deceive the citizens of their own country still hold plenty of power.

Fin, there is no secret. The conspiracy has been talked about thousands of times, even written about by some of the adherents. Try Carroll Quigley's book Tragedy and Hope. He was one of Clinton's teachers. Try Toward a Socialist America by H. G. Wells. These people have been publishing millions of words. You just haven't been getting information from the proper sources to figure it out. I have a hundred page book called the History of Education in Quotable Quotes. What is written inside would frighten America into a panic, all the statements from the very people claiming both a desire to overthrow the Christian system in America, then finding themselves in the very positions to do so. There most certainly is a conspiracy. It is not just talked about but bragged about, and has been going on for a long time.

Here, let me just pour in a primer, a quote from long ago:

“Those who manipulate the organized habits and opinions of the masses constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of the country” – Edward Bernays (Sigmund Freud’s nephew), from his 1928 book, Propaganda. He was hired the same year by CBS founder William Paley and given the position of chief adviser.

And another:

“The Society should inspire and even own portions of the press, for the press owns the minds of the people.” – Cecil John Rhodes, from his book Confessions of Faith, 1875. Rhodes formed a group called the Society of the Elect, which would later evolve into the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization whose membership today includes many of the top names in broacasting and politics. The Rhodes Scholarships are another of the remnants from his fortune and world view.

Those are two. I have thousands. I don't think even evidence will convince certain people though. But at least you won't be able to walk away saying it was all from my imagination. I would love to be wrong about that, since we dearly need more people to find out and become angry again, to wake up from our long season of slumber to see the war taking place for the minds and souls of children, many of whom are already adults with their own children.

Wait, let me grab just one more at least:"The New York Times today is deliberately pitched to the so-called liberal point of view …. Positively and negatively, the weight of The Times has generally fallen on the side of the communists since the end of World War II." – Herman Dinsmore, foreign editor of The New York Times from 1951 – 1960, from his book All the News that Fits. (1969).

The alarm bell is ringing. Wake up, you sleepy head.

 

[caley]

There's no "Yes, because everyone in the government should step down, 'cause we don't need them anyway" option.

...hey, cut me some slack. It's been awhile since I've spouted off my anarchist political views here.

 

[cenimo]

Jimmy the Greek makes a remark, he's gone. Howard Cosell makes a remark, he's off the air. John Rocker says something to a reporter, gets traded, ruins his career. Now Lott should resign.

What about Faarakhan saying blacks should kill whites? Sharpton? Jesse Jackson? Yet another double standard?

 

[Rae]

Every racist in every leadership position in this country should step down immediately, including Lott. How's that? That would free up an awful lot of positions for deserving young non-racist women here :cough Like Rae cough:.

Hey, I can go for that. Anyone else?

 

[ocean]

Originally posted by caley
There's no "Yes, because everyone in the government should step down, 'cause we don't need them anyway" option.

...hey, cut me some slack. It's been awhile since I've spouted off my anarchist political views here.

Anarchist?! Are you going to bomb the white house or something?

 

[Starscream]

Originally posted by cenimo
Jimmy the Greek makes a remark, he's gone. Hoard Cosell makes a remark, he's off the air. John Rocker says something to a reporter, gets traded, ruins his career. Now Lott should resign.

What about Faarakhan saying blacks should kill whites? Sharpton? Jesse Jackson? Yet another double standard?

While campaigning for President, George W. Bush cowardly calls someone a "major league bleep-bleep" into a what he thought was a dead mike and he's gone!

Oh wait, no, he became the most powerful man in the world.

 

 

[seebs]

Well, maybe the guy *was* a major league bleep-bleep.

 

[Starscream]

Originally posted by seebs
Well, maybe the guy *was* a major league bleep-bleep.

That's exactly what the lying liberal press would have you believe.

(This thread is stupid - it only proves that some people really hate liberals)

 

[Morat]

I'd be the very first to state that the mainstream press isn't liberally biased. I'd also state that there isn't a right-wing conspiracy.

However, only because I don't count one man with scads of money and a pathological hatred of liberals as a "conspiracy".

 

[Shane Roach]

This is the point at which I tend to weave away from the Republican party. This is not any sort of hidden media bias, except in the more subtle sense that equal coverage of southern Democratic racists is being played down. The bottom line is that several decades of the Democratic party getting the vast majority of the black vote is not a trick, it is the result of a long term resentment of working class whites against the methods of desegregation and so forth. In essence, blacks vote for the Democrats because the Democrats have appeared at least to try to help them, whereas the Republicans have not, at all.

It's really no more complex than that. If you get large numbers of white activists sometime, you will again see this divide the parties, but racism of that virulent stripe is on the declaine, and whites no longer vote in large numbers solely on the basis of racial politics.

Lott is going to come out of this smelling like a rose if this tour and co-writing of some anti-racism legislation with the gentleman from Georgia (can't remember his name) goes through. Just take a deep breath Randall.