The New York Times Lays It On Pretty Thick

1/31/11 - Click to Enlarge

As if yesterday's disgusting demonstration of anti-majority drivel wasn't bad enough, the Times lays it on thick today with another article that extolls the virtue of America's changing demographic face entitled "Teacher, My Dad Lost His Job. Do We Have to Move?." The article, published on page A19 of Monday's national edition, by Times communist Michael Winerip (nice name) caught our attention even though it lacks the all-out pro-eugenics propaganda factor that yesterday's "More Americans Identify As Mixed Race", by Times communist Susan Saulny, had in spades.

Indeed, as opposed to Saulny's over-the-top gusher on the god-like quality of mixed race students, Winerip's article today goes back to the usual mind-numbing subtlety and sneaky subliminal suggestion the Times is famous for. That might have something to do with the fact that Winerip looks like this:
...while Saulny looks like this:

Saulny's effusive allegiance to people who look like her can be excused, while Winerip's disgust for people who look like him is something that we have come to expect of good disingenuous white liberals. 

As we have seen, the Times only discusses normal married couples with children - especially if said couples fit the majority demographic - when these people are in some kind of trouble or are the victim of some freakish incident. Today's "Teacher, My Dad Lost His Job" is no exception to this criminal NYT rule of thumb. 

From the article: 

"While Wall Street is pumping, Main Street bleeds. This middle- to upper-middle-class suburban town of 14,000 bordering Columbus has 22 percent of its students getting subsidized lunches. That’s up from 6 percent in 2005, when the economy was booming."

Hmm. So the only reason the Times feels obligated to report on what are presumably mostly good centrist white parents is that their kids get free lunch because evil white bankers caused a recession that cost them their jobs. Righto! 

The Times' choice of cover photo for this article is a clear endorsement of their NWO one-race agenda for the future. Note the pretty little mulatto girl front and center, the mixed race children around her, the lone white male apparently the goofiest looking kid in the glass, pictured in a friendly embrace with his future spouse (he's pre-programmed to make the future a better place). Standard enough subliminal suggestion and wishful thinking for the New York Times...

Der Timez und Der Diversity Enforcement

...but what about this last photo? The caption reads: "Elliot Frank, in his kindergarten class in Ohio,  had some trouble with his behavior, but he has recently made a comeback." 

What kind of insanity is this, where the Times sneers condescendingly at some poor defenseless kid to level the playing field?