I speak to Fr Frank Pavone of Priests for Life at the Catholic Marketing Trade Show
The Left are masters of propaganda: A century of practice from the former Soviet Union, their Cuban minions, and Maoist Chinese perfected the art of altering perception, or, as Lenin himself put it,
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
For instance, how many times have we heard in the past month “Planned Parenthood provides mammograms” (as presidential candidate and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley said), when in fact PP itself declares that its centers do not offer the service?
One of the preferred tactics the media uses to alter perception is create a distraction:
The thing is, Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ front-runner – whose candidacy the media has treated as a coronation – is plummeting in popularity, and can’t seem to shake off those negative stories. The list of distractions is running low by now, which adds to the Dems woes.
Well, if you can’t have Queen Hillary, and King Bill can’t return to the throne, who do you have left?
Princess Chelsea! The WaPo style section paves the way, Chelsea Clinton steps into the spotlight — on her own terms.
The woman got paid $600,000 at cable network MSNBC (which the WaPo itself noticed), and now we’re told “she steps into the spotlight”? Behold the abject obeisance (emphasis added):
Today, the woman who could become America’s only two-time first daughter has decided: If the spotlight must always shine on her, she might as well use it in her favor.
She isn’t quite a celebrity. Or a philanthropist. Or a politician, though let’s not rule that out. Now serving as vice chair of her family’s foundation, she has reinvented herself as a champion of uncontroversial causes, her life an endless string of grand entrances, polite speeches, photo-ops — after which she retreats to her eight-figure Manhattan condominium, expecting the media and the public to preserve the boundaries she has cherished since childhood. Polished, practiced and private, Chelsea Clinton is the closest thing America has to a princess.
throwing jobs, awards, opportunities, speaking fees, and other honors at Chelsea seems to have been a pretty easy way to build goodwill with an ex-president and a future president, and I feel like we’ve all been asked to avert our eyes from this.
Indeed, while this sort of publicity is also paving the way (“though let’s not rule that out”) for a Chelsea candidacy down the line. It would be worth pointing out we are still in a representative republic, not a monarchy. By now, I’m all for excluding any blood relative of a former president from holding the office of POTUS for at least three decades and one generation, whichever is the longest.
If that means no John Quincy Adams, FDR, or GWBush, so be it.
* [Lincoln Chafee (62). Hillary Clinton (67). Martin O’Malley (52). Bernie Sanders (73). Jim Webb (69). Now they may also get Joe “get up Chuck” Biden (72), which would raise the group’s average age to 66, or, what’s known in private enterprise as retirement age.]
UPDATE, Friday Aug. 7:
Oh look, Vanity Fair Sucks Up To The Dear Leader Heir Apparent, Princess Chelsea.
Linked to by Dustbury. Thank you!
Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S. and Latin American politics, news and culture at Fausta’s Blog.
As I watch the planned parenthood story unfold I’ve wondered about the Democrats who have sold their own moralities, particularly those who claim Christianity.
As I’ve pondered it occurs to me that this is a parallel that we’ve seen twice before in living memory.
In the Soviet Union if a person wanted power or position one had to be a member of the communist party and if one wanted to advance in the party there are things one had to do.
When millions were starved to death, when others were banished, or locked up one had to either deny it, convincing oneself that it wasn’t happening and or justify it as necessary for the safety and security of the state. There was no other choice if one wanted to maintain position or even life.
In the Third Reich if a person wanted power or position, one had to be (Col Klink not withstanding) a member of the Nazi party and if one wanted to advance in the party there were thing one had to do.
When Jews business were rounded up, their property confiscated and finally shipped away and killed, one had to either justify it, or ignore it, there was no third choice if one wanted to maintain one’s position or even life.
In the Democrat party of today it is the same.
If you want to advance in the party on the national level one had to go along. If you failed to do so then you would never advance beyond local politics. And today even images of dead children, dissected with people buying and selling them, joking about it over dinner or laughing about it in a lab the party demands that one obey.
Thus the democrat if he wants to maintain his party position has to either pretend that he doesn’t see these atrocities or defend them.
But unlike the Germans of the 30’s and the Russians from the 20′ to the 80’s these democrats have another option. They can always reject their party and join the other. They don’t risk life, only position.
Yet given that choice between rejecting the slaughter and dismemberment of innocents and risking position or staying the course, ignoring or defending those who would do those things today’s Democrat party chooses the latter.
That BTW is why it was so critical for the Democrat party to become secularized, because how else can one continue to live particularly for so many pols over seventy getting closer and closer to their makers. Much better to them not believing in one at all.
I will never get over the willingness of these people to go along with this for the sake of power.
Update: this Piece at Hotair really makes my point
how on Earth can Earnest stand there and earnestly (sorry..) claim that that neither he nor anyone on the Oval Office staff has even seen the videos? He’s “relying on news reports that I’ve seen” from other people who have seen the videos? How many stories have we heard now over the course of the last six years where the White House is claiming that they found out about an important issue by watching television? And given the red hot nature of the story, nobody was dispatched to go watch the videos themselves so that the administration could generate an informed opinion? It simply beggars belief.
I don’t think it begger belief, I think it’s Vital for the white house to make sure nobody follows Jake Tappers suggestion that Well, “somebody at the White House should maybe watch the videos in full.” because once a person in the White House watches them then their deniability is gone.
And that is the single most important commodity when you are defending the indefensible.
Normally I wouldn’t put it this way but right, with a car falling apart, a floor that needs to be torn up and some big debts I’m really in a bind and I’d really appreciate it if you can give me a hand getting out of it.
My goal for 2015 is Twenty Two grand which will give me a nominal living doing this.
That gets all the bills paid. (including my writers like Fausta) If I can get to Forty Thousand I can afford to travel outside of New England and/or hire me a blogger to help me get it done.
Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.
Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.
If you could kick in I’d really appreciate it.