What politicians don't seem to understand, or are deliberately exploiting, is that many people are worried, they are scared to death they will lose their jobs, they are preoccupied with their bills, spouse, children, and day-to-day affairs. And, they are not concerned with political ideology. They are looking for practical answers from a politician who appears to be trustworthy and capable of delivering on their campaign promises.
At this point in time, the only politician from either party who has bucked the his party and the establishment -- and attempted to fulfill his campaign promises is our current President Donald J. Trump. This in spite of a near-continuous attack by the media, the opposition party, some members of his own party, and elements within the highest levels of his own executive branch of the government.

Never before have we seen such a concerted effort to disparage, disable, and destroy a sitting president.  


Political Philosophy

Bernie Sanders

Oldest/White Socialist

Francis “Beto” O’Rourke

Younger/White Socialist

Eric Holder

Black Socialist

Kamala Harris

Woman/Minority Socialist

Elizabeth Warren

Feminist/”Not Minority” Socialist

Why, if these candidates have a college education, are they so blind to the evils of socialism?

Generally speaking, I personally believe there are four root causes:

(1)  They were not educated but indoctrinated by an academic system infiltrated by socialists and communists and subjected to historical revisionism that excused or minimized the evils of socialism.

(2)   Like most progressives, they ignore  both history and logic and substitute “how they feel” for “what they should know.” The same feeling as Barack Obama’s belief that he was so smart he could “wing it” without political experience. And we know how that turned out.

(3)   Like most progressives, they ignore the evil that is socialism in favor of the unattainable, but the more pleasant promises of socialism – social justice and the unicorn society. That is, they judge socialism based on its intentions, not on its historical results.

(4)   They are all corrupt and self-serving, capitalizing on the opportunity to dance on the national stage and willing to put party and progressive politics over our nation’s best interests.

I continue to wonder about the “useful” idiots who fully embrace the progressive socialist democrats and their demonstrably evil philosophy. In fact, I often wondered why good people could adopt such an evil philosophy. Well, it turns out that most of these people, good-natured as they might be, simply overlook historical facts. The character flaw that allows this corrupt view of the world is that they are willing to turn blind eye to the historical precedents that saw hundreds of millions enslaved, killed, starved, or placed into total servitude of their respective governments and judge the corrupt and evil politicians by their intentions rather than their results.

The majority of the mainstream media has lost any semblance of journalistic ethics …

For those of you who believe that the mainstream media, notably led by the New York Times, can be trusted when it comes to progressive politics, consider that one of their reporters, Walter Duranty won the 1932 Pulitzer Prize for “13 articles written in 1931 analyzing the Soviet Union under Stalin. Here is how the New York Times excused his failure to tell the truth about the people who were being killed by Stalin…

New York Times Statement About 1932 Pulitzer Prize Awarded to Walter Duranty

Duranty, one of the most famous correspondents of his day, won the prize for 13 articles written in 1931 analyzing the Soviet Union under Stalin. Times correspondents and others have since largely discredited his coverage.

Duranty’s cabled dispatches had to pass Soviet censorship, and Stalin’s propaganda machine was powerful and omnipresent. Duranty’s analyses relied on official sources as his primary source of information, accounting for the most significant flaw in his coverage – his consistent underestimation of Stalin’s brutality.

Describing the Communist plan to “liquidate” the five million kulaks, relatively well-off farmers opposed to the Soviet collectivization of agriculture, Duranty wrote in 1931, for example: “Must all of them and their families be physically abolished? Of course not – they must be ‘liquidated’ or melted in the hot fire of exile and labor into the proletarian mass.”

Taking Soviet propaganda at face value this way was completely misleading, as talking with ordinary Russians might have revealed even at the time. Duranty’s prize-winning articles quoted not a single one – only Stalin, who forced farmers all over the Soviet Union into collective farms and sent those who resisted to concentration camps. Collectivization was the main cause of a famine that killed millions of people in Ukraine, the Soviet breadbasket, in 1932 and 1933 – two years after Duranty won his prize.

Even then, Duranty dismissed more diligent writers’ reports that people were starving. “Conditions are bad, but there is no famine,” he wrote in a dispatch from Moscow in March of 1933 describing the “mess” of collectivization. “But – to put it brutally – you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.”

Some of Duranty’s editors criticized his reporting as tendentious, but The Times kept him as a correspondent until 1941. Since the 1980’s, the paper has been publicly acknowledging his failures. Ukrainian-American and other organizations have repeatedly called on the Pulitzer Prize Board to cancel Duranty’s prize and The Times to return it, mainly on the ground of his later failure to report the famine.

The Pulitzer board has twice declined to withdraw the award, most recently in November 2003, finding “no clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception” in the 1931 reporting that won the prize, and The Times does not have the award in its possession.


In spite of being owned by a Jewish family, the New York Times minimized or buried the news of Hitler’s treatment of the Jews leading to the Holocaust…

150th Anniversary: 1851-2001; Turning Away From the Holocaust
By MAX FRANKEL -- NOV. 14, 2001

AND then there was failure: none greater than the staggering, staining failure of The New York Times to depict Hitler's methodical extermination of the Jews of Europe as a horror beyond all other horrors in World War II -- a Nazi war within the war crying out for illumination.

The annihilation of six million Jews would not for many years become distinctively known as the Holocaust. But its essence became knowable fast enough, from ominous Nazi threats and undisputed eyewitness reports collected by American correspondents, agents and informants. Indeed, a large number of those reports appeared in The Times. But they were mostly buried inside its gray and stolid pages, never featured, analyzed or rendered truly comprehensible.

Yet what they printed made clear that the editors did not long mistrust the ghastly reports. They presented them as true within months of Hitler's secret resolve in 1941 to proceed to the ''final solution'' of his fantasized ''Jewish problem.''

Why, then, were the terrifying tales almost hidden in the back pages? Like most -- though not all -- American media, and most of official Washington, The Times drowned its reports about the fate of Jews in the flood of wartime news. Its neglect was far from unique and its reach was not then fully national, but as the premier American source of wartime news, it surely influenced the judgment of other news purveyors.

While a few publications -- newspapers like The Post (then liberal) and PM in New York and magazines like The Nation and The New Republic -- showed more conspicuous concern, The Times's coverage generally took the view that the atrocities inflicted upon Europe's Jews, while horrific, were not significantly different from those visited upon tens of millions of other war victims, nor more noteworthy.

Only six times in nearly six years did The Times's front page mention Jews as Hitler's unique target for total annihilation. Only once was their fate the subject of a lead editorial. Only twice did their rescue inspire passionate cries in the Sunday magazine.

Although The Times's news columns in those years did not offer as much analysis or synthesis as they do today, the paper took great pride in ranking the importance of events each morning and in carefully reviewing the major news of every week and every year. How could it happen that the war on the Jews never qualified for such highlighted attention?

There is no surviving record of how the paper's coverage of the subject was discussed by Times editors during the war years of 1939-45. But within that coverage is recurring evidence of a guiding principle: do not feature the plight of Jews, and take care, when reporting it, to link their suffering to that of many other Europeans.

No article about the Jews' plight ever qualified as The Times's leading story of the day, or as a major event of a week or year. The ordinary reader of its pages could hardly be blamed for failing to comprehend the enormity of the Nazis' crime.

As Laurel Leff, an assistant professor at the Northeastern School of Journalism, has concluded, it was a tragic demonstration of how ''the facts didn't speak for themselves.'' She has been the most diligent independent student of The Times's Holocaust coverage and deftly summarized her findings last year in The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics.

''You could have read the front page of The New York Times in 1939 and 1940,'' she wrote, ''without knowing that millions of Jews were being sent to Poland, imprisoned in ghettos, and dying of disease and starvation by the tens of thousands. You could have read the front page in 1941 without knowing that the Nazis were machine-gunning hundreds of thousands of Jews in the Soviet Union.

''You could have read the front page in 1942 and not have known, until the last month, that the Germans were carrying out a plan to annihilate European Jewry. In 1943, you would have been told once that Jews from France, Belgium and the Netherlands were being sent to slaughterhouses in Poland and that more than half of the Jews of Europe were dead, but only in the context of a single story on a rally by Jewish groups that devoted more space to who had spoken than to who had died.

''In 1944, you would have learned from the front page of the existence of horrible places such as Maidanek and Auschwitz, but only inside the paper could you find that the victims were Jews. In 1945, [liberated] Dachau and Buchenwald were on the front page, but the Jews were buried inside.''

A story buried but not, over time, forgotten.

Read more at the <New York Times>

Bottom line...

It is almost unbelievable that our American press has broken down to the extent that they are serving as the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party and willfully blind to the socialist threat to America and all Americans. In the case of the New York Times, self-described as the "newspaper of record," what can you expect. The Times downplayed Ukrainian genocide under Stalin and the Holocaust under Hitler. Different from the world of Bernie Sanders and his ilk … but on the path to the abyss.

We are so screwed.

-- steve 

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS