By Jeffrey Lord
Shades of Joseph Stalin.
In May of 1920, the founder of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin, gave a speech in an open square in Moscow. There was a picture taken. In the foreground of the picture there was the new “People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs,” one Leon Trotsky. Alas for Trotsky, he would eventually fall into disfavor and was expelled from the Communist Party, then deported to Mexico. There he was later murdered by a Soviet agent who took an ice axe to the ex-Commissar.
But there was more to come for Trotsky. It came in the form of a re-issue of that photograph of Lenin giving his speech in 1920. With Trotsky, once prominent in the photo, literally disappeared from the picture. In fact, Trotsky was only one out-of-favor ex-Soviet leader to face this photographic fate. Which is to say, this was Joseph Stalin’s way of erasing the real history of the Soviet Union and the various leaders he had purged- by simply, literally, removing them from historical photographs as if they had never existed.
This comes to mind as the New York Times is now revealed as planning a Stalin-like re-write of American history on race. The Times project is titled “1619” – the year that slaves were first brought to the New World, specifically the new English settlement of Jamestown, Virginia.
Having read the first couple of installments, it is very safe to say that what the Times is really about is Stalinizing the Democratic Party’s history on race. Erasing that very long and horrendous history completely. So let’s take a look at the Times’ handiwork with its newly revised American history and see how this jewel of left-wing propaganda works.
In the section titled “A Slave Nation Fights for Freedom 1809-1865” the Times begins by saying:
“As demand for cotton grew and the nation expanded, slavery became more systemic, codified and regulated — as did the lives of all enslaved people.”
“Slavery affected everyone, from textile workers, bankers and ship builders in the North; to the elite planter class, working-class slave catchers and slave dealers in the South; to the yeoman farmers and poor white people who could not compete against free labor. Additionally, in the 1830s, President Andrew Jackson implemented his plan for Indian removal, ripping another group of people from their ancestral lands in the name of wealth.”
Notice anything? Mysteriously, in a nation run by elected officials from a political party, the party running the US government – and hence slavery – during this time period is not mentioned. President Andrew Jackson is mentioned by the Times – but the Democratic Party he represented and is in fact considered to be the co-founder of along with President Thomas Jefferson is never mentioned. (There is a reason Democrats still gather for “Jefferson-Jackson Day” dinners.) Not to mention that when Jefferson began the Democratic Party, in the words of Northwest historian Garry Wills, “he depended on them (slaveowners) for his political existence.”
Both Democrat Party co-founders were slave owners, again unmentioned. And when the Democrats began writing political platforms in this period covered by the Times beginning in1840, the first six of them vigorously supported slavery. Nary a word about this is to be found in the Times. The section ends by noting the Civil War and that “the 13th Amendment ensured that the country would never again be defined as a slave nation.” But who “ensured” this? Abraham Lincoln is mentioned – but not his Republican Party. The push for the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery was Lincoln’s and the Republican Party’s top congressional priority. The entire House GOP caucus – 84 in number – voted to abolish slavery. Of the 72 member Democrats, 50 voted against. In the Senate, again the entire Republican caucus voted yes, with 6 of the upper chamber’s 10 Democrats voting against. Not a word about this appears in the Times.
The Times mentions the infamous Dred Scott decision that tried to write slavery into the Constitution and was handed down by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. The Times writes that by “statute and interpretation of the law, black people in America were dehumanized and commodified in order to maintain the economic and political power supported by slavery.” True. Not mentioned? Which “political power” was “supported by slavery”? That would be the Democratic Party. Not mentioned: Taney was Democratic President Jackson’s attorney general, and a Jackson appointee to the Supreme Court.
Writing of South Carolina in the period before the state seceded in December of 1860, the Times writes: “Not surprisingly, enslavers dominated the state’s political class.” Unmentioned? The “political class” that ran the state was the Democratic Party. Every single governor of the period was a Democrat. The Times does not mention. The Times focuses on South Carolina’s John C. Calhoun, Jackson’s vice president and then a longtime Senator from South Carolina. That Calhoun was a staunch supporter of slavery is discussed in detail. Never mentioned? He was a leading Democrat of the day and thoroughly representative of his party’s views on slavery and race.
The Times says that “reactionary white leaders were able to maintain an iron grip on federal offices until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.” Not mentioned? All of them were Democrats. Mentioned? “Anti-lynching laws and some pro-labor legislation died at the hands of lawmakers from the “Solid South”…”. Again, all those lawmakers were Democrats and the Times says nothing.
Remembering this section of the Times 1619 series covers race in America between 1809 and 1865? Smack in the middle of this period – 1840 – Democrats began writing party “platforms” for the party and its candidates from president on down the line to run on every four years. The first six platforms supported slavery, electing hundreds of local, state and federal officials on those pro-slavery platforms. This included three presidents – Polk, Pierce and Buchanan. Not a word of this in the Times.
Post-Civil War the Democrats wrote 20 platforms supporting segregation or being carefully silent on the subject, electing more hundreds of local, state, and federal officials plus another 3 presidents – Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Not a word of this is mentioned by the Times. In fact, Wilson made a point of segregating the federal government while his campaign manager-turned- Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels, an ardent segregationist as a progressive leader and publisher of the Raleigh, North Carolina Observer, segregated the Navy. Daniels deputy as assistant secretary of the Navy? That would be Franklin Roosevelt. Not a peep from the Times on this in this episode of the 1619 series. Never mentioned either is that it was the progressive hero Wilson who made a point of showcasing the film Birth of a Nation at the White House – the now-notorious film that made heroes of the Ku Klux Klan.
There is also something else about Wilson curiously not mentioned by the Times. That would be that the New York Times itself began its 1912 presidential endorsement this way: “The first and vital object to be accomplished to-day (sic) is the election of Woodrow Wilson.” Four years later, after Wilson’s segregation policies were in place, the Times endorsed him again in a glowing editorial – with segregation never mentioned once. You read that right – the New York Times twice endorsed one of the most ardent segregationists to ever sit in the White House. And not a peep in the 1619 project.
Then suddenly the Democratic and Republican parties do get a mention by the Times. This one:
“When Northern liberal Democrats added a civil rights plank to the party platform at the 1948 presidential convention, in an effort to break the Southern conservatives’ hold on the party, 35 delegates from Mississippi and Alabama walked out in protest: the prologue to the ‘Dixiecrat Revolt’ that began the conservative migration into the eventual embrace of the Republican Party.”
Now the Times starts laying out just which party is filled with racists. If you guessed the GOP, you would be right.
Who was responsible for the “massive resistance” movement of the 1950’s in the wake of the Brown v. Board of Education decision? The Times says it was “segregationists” – without saying they were Democrats. But the paper does go out of its way to say that – wait for it – none other than William F. Buckley used his National Review to make a “strikingly blunt defense of Jim Crow.” It does note that Buckley apologized as time went on, but quickly moves to point out that the GOP nominated Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964 and that Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights bill. That was true. Not mentioned, Goldwater was a libertarian – the reasoning for his vote, with which I disagreed, was not racist but libertarian. In fact, Goldwater had a considerable reputation in Arizona as an integrationist, leading desegregation of the Arizona National Guard, the-then lone restaurant at the Phoenix Sky Harbor airport and, once arrived in the Senate, he pushed for and got the Senate’s cafeteria desegregated. Why? Because his black legislative aide had been denied service. Aside from which Goldwater had been a member of both the NAACP and the Urban League, receiving a “Humanitarian Award” from the latter for “fifty years of loyal service” to the Phoenix Urban League in 1991. The Times is silent on all of this.
Not mentioned either was that the 1964 GOP platform on which Goldwater ran explicitly supported:
“Full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen;
Improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times.”
Not mentioned: 82% of GOP Senators voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, compared to 69% of Senate Democrats. In the House, 78% of Republicans supported the bill, as opposed to 60% of Democrats. Among leading Senate Democrats opposed to the bill were Senator Robert Byrd, a one-time leader of the KKK later elected the Senate Democratic Leader. Hillary Clinton described Byrd as her mentor. Arkansas Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright was a leading Jim Crow Democrat. Bill Clinton interned for Fulbright and gave the eulogy at his funeral. Also a Democratic no vote: Senator Al Gore Sr.
Never mentioned either? Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1870 and 1875, as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution that gave blacks due process and the right to vote.
One could go on – and on. But the hard fact here is that the Times 1619 project is shamelessly Stalinizing American history, specifically the Democratic Party’s vivid history of racism. As with Stalin wiping his purged rivals from photographs, the Times is engaged in a massive effort to erase the history of the Democratic Party on race as it pushes the utterly false narrative that racism was the driving force in the creation of the United States of America. Not to mention re-writing history to assign the racist label to the GOP
Which is to say, the 1619 project isn’t history at all – it is left-wing propaganda from a newspaper now run by left-wing activists posing as journalists. And while Donald Trump is without doubt a target, the real goal here is to brainwash new generations of Americans – all the while pushing the 21st century version of the racism that created, fueled – and still fuels – the Democratic Party in the first place – the grandson of slavery and son of segregation known as identity politics.
OP-ED: JEFF ZUCKER: President of the Leftist State Media
By Jeffrey Lord
Over the weekend my old CNN boss, Jeff Zucker, participated in an interview at the South by Southwest (SXSW) gathering in Austin.
According to news accounts he said this of Fox News: https://grabien.com/story.php?id=163609
“Frankly, it is really state-run TV. It is a pure propaganda machine and I think does an incredible disservice to this country. There are a handful of good journalists there, but I think they are lost in what — what is just a complete propaganda machine, and the idea that it’s a news channel is I think really not the case at all.”
Really? With all due respect, one doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Jeff Zucker has said on occasion that he has wanted to run for political office. (And one suspects he would not be running as a Reagan conservative.) But in fact he already holds office – as the de facto president of the Leftist State Media. Nominally he is the president of CNN, but in fact CNN is but one component part of the larger left-wing propaganda machine that composes the Leftist State Media.
One can go for one’s news to CNN or MSNBC or ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press and countless internet outlets and see that Jeff’s presidential domain is considerable.
Every last one of those outlets is about pushing the left-wing agenda of the moment – and oh yes, in this day and age attacking President Donald Trump.
The Leftist State Media in modern America is what in another era, when the Soviet Union was alive and well, was called the Department for Agitation and Propaganda – or the ministry of propaganda whose sole function was shorthanded as “agitprop.” In those days there was only one official newspaper for the Soviet population – Pravda or “Truth.”
In today’s American media world the “Truth” comes from – and only from – the Leftist State Media.
Long before CNN – when Jeff Zucker was barely out of diapers – then-Vice President Spiro Agnew first discussed what he saw – way back there in 1969 – as a real problem with the media of the day. The Vietnam War was raging, and President Nixon had recently addressed the nation. Nixon had been followed by a collection of liberal television commentators who proceeded to tell the American people what they thought Nixon had really said.
In a then-famous speech in, of all places, Des Moines, Iowa, carried live by the television networks of the day (there were only three, and cable news did not yet exist) Agnew said this:
“The purpose of my remarks tonight is to focus your attention on this little group of men who not only enjoy a right of instant rebuttal to every Presidential address, but more importantly, wield a free hand in selecting, presenting, and interpreting the great issues of our nation.
First, let us define that power. At least forty-million Americans each night, it is estimated, watch the network news. Seven million of them view ABC; the remainder being divided between NBC and CBS. According to Harris polls and other studies, for millions of Americans, the networks are the sole source of national and world news.
In Will Rogers’ observation, what you knew was what you read in the newspaper. Today, for growing millions of Americans, it is what they see and hear on their television sets.
How is this network news determined? A small group of men, numbering perhaps no more than a dozen “anchormen,” commentators, and executive producers, settle upon the 20 minutes or so of film and commentary that is to reach the public. This selection is made from the 90 to 180 minutes that may be available. Their powers of choice are broad. They decide what forty to fifty-million Americans will learn of the day’s events in the nation and the world.
We cannot measure this power and influence by traditional democratic standards, for these men can create national issues overnight. They can make or break–by their coverage and commentary–a moratorium on the war. They can elevate men from local obscurity to national prominence within a week. They can reward some politicians with national exposure, and ignore others. For millions of Americans, the network reporter who covers a continuing issue, like ABM or Civil Rights, becomes, in effect, the presiding judge in a national trial by jury.
…A raised eyebrow, an inflection of the voice, a caustic remark dropped in the middle of a broadcast can raise doubts in a million minds about the veracity of a public official, or the wisdom of a government policy. One Federal Communications Commissioner considers the power of the networks to equal that of local, state, and federal governments combined. Certainly, it represents a concentration of power over American public opinion unknown in history.
What do Americans know of the men who wield this power? Of the men who produce and direct the network news, the nation knows practically nothing. Of the commentators, most Americans know little, other than that they reflect an urbane and assured presence, seemingly well informed on every important matter.
We do know that, to a man, these commentators and producers live and work in the geographical and intellectual confines of Washington, D.C. or New York City–the latter of which James Reston terms the “most unrepresentative community in the entire United States.” Both communities bask in their own provincialism, their own parochialism. We can deduce that these men thus read the same newspapers, and draw their political and social views from the same sources. Worse, they talk constantly to one another, thereby providing artificial reinforcement to their shared viewpoints.”
The media problem Agnew described all the way back in 1969 – a full fifty years ago, when Donald Trump was a mere 23 years old and barely a year out of grad school – has now metastasized, dominating the vast media complex of today.
The very prominence of New York’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the bartender-turned-congresswoman and media star, is the literal manifestation of Agnew’s point that the media “can elevate men from local obscurity to national prominence within a week.”
Jeff Zucker also said this of Fox anchors:
“They chose to work at Fox and they don’t get to hide behind the fact that they’re excellent journalists or anchors. The fact is they work at a place that has done tremendous damage to this country.”
That statement all by itself is a perfect illustration of how President Zucker of the Leftist State Media sees his job – which is to arbitrarily declare his decidedly liberal opinion as fact. No wonder Jim Acosta feels free to do exactly the same thing.
It is worth recalling that Fox News was created in 1996 – during the Clinton presidency, when CNN’s lavish pro-Clinton coverage had won it the derisive nickname the “Clinton News Network.” Fox was followed three years later by Rush Limbaugh and the explosion of conservative talk radio.
The reason for the success of Fox News and talk radio is exactly the failure of the Leftist State Media. Millions of Americans, doubtless unknowing in absorbing Agnew’s long-ago point, have had it up to their eyebrows going from one “news” outlet to another only to get some version of the exact same liberal spin.
Here is CNN on the Clinton-Trump race. The headline: https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/08/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-cnn-poll-of-polls/index.html
CNN Poll of Polls: Clinton tops Trump by 10
The story begins:
“(CNN)The post-convention polls are in, and they consistently show Hillary Clinton entering the next phase of the presidential election campaign with the upper hand over Donald Trump.”
Here is the New York Times in its “Upshot” column: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html
Hillary Clinton has an 85% chance to win.
“The Upshot’s elections model suggests that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, based on the latest state and national polls.
Here is The Huffington Post: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/polls-hillary-clinton-win_us_5821074ce4b0e80b02cc2a94
HuffPost Forecasts Hillary Clinton Will Win With 323 Electoral Votes
The HuffPost presidential forecast model gives Democrat Hillary Clinton a 98.2 percent chance of winning the presidency. RepublicanDonald Trump has essentially no path to an Electoral College victory.
And on and on went this business of one Leftist State Media outlet after another all saying exactly the same thing – Hillary Clinton was going to be the next president and Donald Trump had no way open to win.
Change the subject from the 2016 election to, say, abortion, climate change, the economy or any of dozens of issues out there and time after time after time it makes no difference. You will get the left-wing agenda of the moment delivered by whatever outlet of the Leftist State Media you are choosing to watch or read.
Let’s cut to the chase. The real reason for Jeff Zucker’s angst is that Fox News and conservative talk radio, not to mention all manner of conservative internet sites have broken the stranglehold of information that once was the sole preserve of the Leftist State Media. And the only way the LSM chieftains see to get their monopoly back is to literally try and take out Fox News and conservative commentators one by one, with Media Matters and others doing the dirty work.
It is safe to say that that the Leftist State Media has in its midst “excellent journalists or anchors.” But when story after story after story is either wrong or obviously presented to further the Left’s favorite agenda item of the moment, (Hillary certain to win! Trump friend Anthony Scaramucci tied to Russian investment fund! Trump told Cohen to lie to Congress! Trump and son tied to hacked documents from Wikileaks! Climate change report contradicts President! Covington kids confronted Indian elder and Vietnam veteran!) then in fact the Leftist State Media, in Jeff Zucker’s words, is for sure “a place that has done tremendous damage to this country.”
In fact, it is safe to assume at this point that the members of the Leftist State Media simply can’t help themselves. They are so far gone from journalism that they will say and do anything to push the Left’s agenda, damaging not only the country but themselves.
Which is exactly why Jeff Zucker’s CNN, the Washington Post and doubtless soon-to-be-others in the Leftist State Media now find themselves being sued for hundreds of millions of dollars for libeling sixteen year old Covington student Nick Sandmann. They simply could not stop themselves from doing it.
And the irony? It is Fox News and conservative media that has assumed the journalistic task as described by CNN founder Ted Turner the day CNN first went on the air in June of 1980.
“To provide information to people where it wasn’t available before.”
Pick up Jeffrey Lord’s Swamp Wars: Donald Trump and the New American Populism. Out on May 28th. Click here.
OP-ED: POLITICAL BUNK... The Attack on Kellyanne Conway
The White House is a political institution – with a political affairs office
By Jeffrey Lord
Here was the headline from Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/special-counsel-recommends-firing-of-kellyanne-conway-over-alleged-hatch-act-violations
Special Counsel recommends firing Kellyanne Conway over alleged Hatch Act violations
The story said this:
“The Office of Special Counsel recommended Thursday that Kellyanne Conway be fired from the federal government for violating the Hatch Act on ‘numerous occasions.’
The Hatch Act is a federal law that limits certain political activities of federal employees.”
The story caused the inevitable media firestorm it was designed to cause. Kellyanne Conway committing politics in the White House? Ohhhh the horror!
To be blunt? What bunk.
What does the White House have that no Cabinet department or federal agency has?
That would be the White House Office of Political Affairs.
What does the Political Affairs office do? As its name indicates the office is filled with White House staffers who do politics. Every day. Every hour of the working day.
I know this because, yes indeed, I was once an Associate Political Director in the White House – the Reagan White House. As I have noted over there in NewsBustershttps://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/jeffrey-lord/2019/06/01/lame-liberal-media-attack-conway-is-political the White House is itself a political institution. Politics is practiced, as noted, every day.
When a president announces policy X, White House aides are on the phone or in front of cameras to make the political case for that policy X. I would often enough be dispatched to give speeches around the country to both defend the President – and, yes, to attack his opponents.
Example? On one occasion I was sent to North Dakota to give a speech for a Republican Senator running for re-election. The very reason for my presence was to support the Senator and go after his opponent. This was standard operating procedure.
And yet the hypocrisy here of this attack on Kellyanne Conway – whose title is Counselor to the President – is as bold as it can get.
Here is former Obama White House aide Valerie Jarrett as she recently appeared on Fox Business. https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/hatch-act-violation-would-have-gotten-me-fired-fmr-obama-adviser-valerie-jarrett The headline:
Hatch Act violation would have gotten me fired: Fmr. Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett
The story says this, in part:
“You can do whatever you want when you’re on your own time. But from the White House you are restricted from engaging in any political activity,” Jarrett said on “Cavuto: Coast to Coast.”
…Jarrett added that Obama would not have tolerated anyone who had violated the Hatch Act.”
Here’s another story in the New York Times from June of 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/25/us/politics/white-house-comeback-for-political-affairs-office.html The headline:
White House Comeback for Political Affairs Office
The Times story said this, in part, with bold print for emphasis supplied.
“WASHINGTON — President Obama has decided to bring politics back into the White House.
Such considerations are at the center of everything that happens at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, of course. But three years ago, Mr. Obama closed the longstanding Office of Political Affairs at the White House and sent his operatives to his Chicago campaign office and the Democratic National Committee as he prepared for his re-election campaign.
Now the West Wing is reopening the office and promoting David Simas, a top communications aide, to be its new director. Mr. Simas, a strategist from Mr. Obama’s 2012 campaign, most recently served as one of the officials in charge of the rollout of the Affordable Care Act.
The decision extends a restructuring at the White House after a politically disastrous year for Mr. Obama.”
In other words, the Obama White House, contrary to the impression Ms. Jarrett was giving in that Cavuto interview, was, exactly as the Times quite accurately reported, bringing “politics back into the White House” because political “considerations are at the center of everything that happens at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, of course.”
The Times was correct. And to be clear, the Obama White House did nothing wrong in doing this. For the entire existence of the American presidency politics has been at the very center of the institution. All presidents have had White House aides who quite specifically were in the White House to conduct presidential politics – to advocate for the president’s policies, to deal with his supporters – and his opponents. And not infrequently, after the President has left office they carry his political banner through their memoirs of their old boss.
To name just a few of Kellyanne Conway’s predecessors?
Lincoln’s John Nicolay and John Hay, Woodrow Wilson’s Joe Tumulty, FDR’s Louis Howe and Harry Hopkins, Truman’s Clark Clifford, JFK’s Ken O’Donnell and Larry O’Brien, LBJ’s Jack Valenti, Joe Califano and Bill Moyers, Reagan’s Lyn Nofziger, Ed Rollins, Lee Atwater, Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels and Frank Donatelli.
In the case of LBJ’s Califano, the ex-aide wrote in his memoirs that once he joined the White House staff: “In the street fights over the Great Society legislation I learned that politics was not Ping Pong; it was played with metal bats and hard balls.” Indeed.
The real story with this demand from the government’s “special counsel” – an office populated by career bureaucrats with their own political agendas – is that Kellyanne Conway is superb at her job. So, of course, the bureaucrats want her fired.
Here’s a better suggestion. Abolish the United States Office of Special Counsel (OSC). It is there for one reason and one reason only when you get past the mumbo jumbo of its stated mission to protect “merit” employees. The reason: to protect the federal bureaucracy from political staff appointed to carry out a president’s agenda. It is filled with bureaucrats who have won no election, bureaucrats who, in the timeless fashion of bureaucrats, have their own agenda. In this case that is the anti-Trump politics that is animating a federal bureaucracy that overwhelming gave their money and votes to Hillary Clinton.
And their agenda of the moment is to get one of the most effective presidential aides in history out of the White House.
They won’t succeed.