No doubt, yet it was awfully hard to reconcile supporting a woman his wife knew nothing about. I was on board with Herman and that bit just was too much.
You can’t begin to know the sheer disdain I hold for the dems and their treatment of blacks. They are a sick and evil lot and I pray that I see them exposed fully in my lifetime.
Not hard to reconcile at all. He’s a good man who helped a former employee.
She claimed lots of things about Herman, yet we never saw the actual transcripts and what went on between them. That has me suspicious that if we saw them it would become very clear.
If there was smoke, we’d have seen them front and centre.
There was an interesting facet of the secret war within WWII. You presumably know that the time and location of the D-Day invasion of Normandy was an extremely well-guarded secret. The operation to guard that secret with disinformation was called “Operation Bodyguard.” The British and Americans knew that the most obvious attack point was directly across the Channel to the port of Calais, and they were eager that the Germans should believe that Calais was indeed their target. They went to the extent of creating a fictitious massive army, called the "First United States Army Group,” supposedly headed by General George Patton (who in fact was sidelined in disgrace after having slapped some shell-shocked soldiers), synthesizing the communications traffic that the Germans would be unsurprised to detect if such a group actually existed.So much is pretty well known. But what I found fascinating was the fact that the ruse was sustained long after the actual D-Day landings! Even as the invasion in Normandy was solidifying its foothold, the “massive” First United States Army Group was still supposedly the main attacking force, and it was bound for Calais. And the Normandy landing was, supposedly, a mere diversion. Hard as it seems to believe, there was never a moment when the Germans said, “Ach! We have been fooled by this “First United States Army Group” charade, the American Army never had that many troops anywhere! If for no other reason than that “the Germans” was actually just Hitler. Having bought the con, Hitler had put the defensive force concentration near Calais, Hitler had forbidden it to move at all without his specific authorization, and Hitler had refused that authorization at the critical time. And Hitler was not a man to say, “Oops!” Or to suffer fools - still less, wise men pointing out that he had done something foolish - gladly.
But the point of all that is just to say that there will never be a moment when, in a blinding flash, everyone will discard all illusions about the conspiracy against the public of which the Democratic Party is a central, but not the only, part. Because the other crucial piece of that conspiracy is “wire service journalism.”
Understand, I have never been big on conspiracy theories. But still less would you associate Adam Smith with conspiracy theories; he was about figuring out what human behavior follows naturally from what situations. And if there is one thing Smith is famous for and which “liberals” are enthusiastic over, it is his statement about monopoly:
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends . . . in some contrivance to raise prices."But there is something left out of that quote. The full quote is,People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Book I, Ch 10)Notice if you will, dear reader, that there is at least one “trade” which is uniquely suited to cause its practitioners to have a “conversation” - journalism. Journalists’ job is say things, and those things are in the public domain for everyone - including other journalists - to read. There is even an official organization for sharing stories among journalists - the Associated Press. The AP newswire represents a virtual meeting of all major American journalism outlets - one that has been in continual operation since the middle of the Nineteenth Century.If people of the same trade “seldom” meet without conspiring against the public, what are we to think of a meeting of all members of the same trade having a continuous meeting which has been going on for well over a century and a half? It is impossible, after all that time, that they should fail to collude to benefit themselves at the expense of the public. But in what sense should we look at the possibility of their conspiring against us? That is a simple question, which was answered in the first 25 years of the existence of the AP. What does it mean, when a single organization transmits propaganda to the entire nation?When that question was asked in the Nineteenth Century, it was possible to argue that “the AP is an organization of many members, and those individual newspapers are famous for not agreeing about much of anything - so the AP itself is objective.” But is it not the bitterest of jokes now, to assert that newspapers all have different points of view? If you have seen one newspaper now, you have seen them all. All come from the POV that what is important is journalism - that the critic and not the man in the arena is who counts. Journalism now exists to exalt the critic, and denigrate anyone who tries to earn credit for actually doing things which we-the-people need done. In conspiring against those who satisfy the public's needs - for food, water, shelter, clothing, and so forth - the “people of the same trade” of journalism conspire against the public.