Entire post below ad
You can support the P4B by visiting Po River for P4B Gear or Trump Gear or other cool stuff.
Childish race baiting by the “Gray Lady”.
I caught an article in the NYT the other day. What the hell has happened to the rag? Everyone knows they’ve been snuffling like piglets in the crotch of the Dem party since FDR. But for decades they at least made an effort to cover their tracks with some care in their content. They’d report the stories as news, then argue their bias in the editorial columns. And they allowed Op Eds.
Now as they report stories with a brazenly Left bias, they do it with adolescent zeal! They flash their political titties in news stories and they limit the level of disagreement they will permit from the great unwashed…or from republicans.
Who remembers the reaction to Tom Cotton’s Opinion piece about the many months of riots by Antifa, political organizers and the lowest common denominators in our society? It would have been okay if he had pussy footed around the issue. But he didn’t.
An editor got shitcanned over it. Because the opposition demonstrated in the piece was too direct and honest. We can’t have people running around willy-nilly and speaking their mind in public like that. So a bunch of 20-somethings at the Times, with zero real world experience, cried and whined until instead of getting themselves fired, they got the editor who allowed a forthright opinion to be advanced - fired.
For the record, I had misgivings about the article myself. But I had no issue with the fact that somebody said it. It gave the discussions about the gratuitous looting and violence a whole new avenue of discussion. And it said a lot of the quiet part out loud. Now, I can’t find the original piece. It’s been taken down. It’s been flushed down the memory hole.
Orwell was a god!
Perhaps I’ll create a database of stories you can review to demonstrate how skewed left NYT’s work has become, what a mouth piece they have become. But today, I will stick to their story about a recent SCOTUS decision.
Case in point
Lawmakers in South Carolina did a little redistricting in recent years. The GOP found an area to expand into that might provide them with an advantage.
Naturally, the Dems immediately cried “gerrymandering”. That’s the term EVERYONE in BOTH parties uses every single time the party in power does a snip here and a stretch there to improve their odds of winning an election. There are no exceptions to the rule. The party in power does what they are legally permitted to do, and the party out of power coopts the court system to fight their political battles for them.
I have opinions on how districts should be established. They shouldn’t look like a Rorschach test. They should be based on the incorporation of the towns they touch. Precincts in districts in larger towns should be delineated using straight lines. But that’s just me. Sadly for my state and the nation, I am not a legislator.
The courts, all the way to the Supreme Court, have been tasked with doing the jobs of the legislators. And in a 6-3 decision (the 3 being the actual racists in this case, I’ll explain presently) SCOTUS came down in favor of the new districting map.
And the NYT showed themselves to be race obsessed Lefties in their own subtitle for the story we’re discussing. The Supreme Court decision is in the headline and the subtitle speaks of the decision as if it were a racial affront when they say “when Black voters overwhelmingly favor Democrats.” It seems Black people are the property of the Dems and the GOP should respect that and facilitate it or they will be labeled as “racist” by the actual racists who think Black people should be pigeonholed into a political machine that keeps them on the plantation.
In the case of “blue” cities, it also keeps them in misery.
Think about it. In every single case of redistricting you have different races, different cultures, different religions. Among each group you have a party that dominates and one that does not. But in many areas you do have a binary population of Black and White.
So if you were to move a line around the map to improve your chances in the next election there is an excellent chance you’d be scooping up members of one race and discarding another.
The color of the skin means nothing to politicians, especially among the ones who pretend to care about it. Again - blue cities - they don’t give a crap about any of you. Winning means everything. And if there was a town that happened to be predominantly Black professionals and tradesmen who voted their OWN personal interest, the GOP would be more than happy to absorb them into a GOP district.
In this day and age it would be absurd to think the new districts included no Black, Hispanic, Asian or Lithuanian people in it. There is almost no population centers left in this country that are all one thing.
And the ONLY evidence we have for the GOP’s motivations for redistricting is from the GOP itself. They saw an opportunity to win elections. They said nothing about race in any of their proposals. That was the entirety of the evidence available.
It was the Dems, in what can fairly be called race baiting, who claimed the ability to read minds, and said the motivation was based on race. And that became the basis of their case that went to SCOTUS.
IN the end Clarence Thomas had the best argument on the matter. In his concurring opinion, Thomas opined that SCOTUS should get out of the redistricting business. The cases are often frivolous and blatantly political.
A few decades ago my hometown was absorbed into a different district. Yeadon was an incorporated borough and a part of Delaware County. We had nothing to do with the City of Philadelphia. But a large segment of the city’s Black population had moved into Yeadon in previous years. The Democratic Party saw an opportunity to win there. Why? Because the people moving there were BLACK! But they were also predominantly Democrat.
Which factor dominated? If they were a solid block of Democrat Albanians, an ambitious, smart Dem politician would have made the same move.
When I heard about the redistricting that absorbed Yeadon into a Philly voting district, I was very angry with it. I don’t care about the race issue. Yeadon was Yeadon. I was angry because the interests of Yeadonites were not represented well by politicians in a corrupt and failing city. All Yeadonites of all races should have rejected the idea out of hand. The people who moved to Yeadon didn’t do so to Philly up their new town. But that is what happened.
The NYT article refers to the “bleaching out of Black voters”. What happened in Yeadon? The “inking out of white voters”? Or was it just politics as usual, with all the corruption attached to such programs.
The bottom line argument advanced in this silly article, by what is supposed be the premiere newspaper in the United States, is that when redistricting you must not consider race as an issue, and no members of any race must be affected by the redistricting. Because the people who will inevitably stand against the redistricting will do so based entirely on race.
Make that make sense.
Please make liberal use of all the buttons and links to support the P4B! (And by “liberal” I don’t mean poofy, Lefty “liberal”. I mean a lot of use.)
The P4B Book List
A strong P4B recommendation: The Mysterious Case of Rudolf Diesel: Genius Power and Deception on the Eve of WWI by Douglas Brunt A real-life murder mystery.
An easy, fun read with lots of follow-ons: After Dunkirk by Lee Jackson. Part 1 of a WWII historical fiction series.
A studious and interesting study. Excellent reading. Jefferson's Godfather, the Man Behind the Man: George Wythe, Mentor to the Founding Fathers by Suzanne Munson. See Suzanne’s appearance on the P4B here.
The Winds of War by Herman Wouk This the first in a two part epic. Like After Dunkirk, it is a WWII historical fiction. But it is a much deeper dive. Very well written. You will get lost in it. I will do a complete review here later. But I’ll cut to the chase…*****
Spotify:
Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/TheP4B
Amazon: https://a.co/d/7BNt2Dg
Substack: www.streetpolitics.us
The New York Times, The Supreme Court and Racism.