MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘New York Times’

The New York Times Finally Discovers Unintended Consequences

Posted by M. C. on February 15, 2021

Perhaps more importantly, he argues that extreme caution can backfire and produce outcomes that have the opposite of their desired effect. He uses the AIDS crisis as an example, pointing out that demonizing sexual intercourse and trying to frighten people away from it had the unintended consequence of increasing unsafe sex.

A similar phenomenon appears to be at work today.

“Telling Americans to wear masks when they’re unnecessary undermines efforts to persuade more people to wear masks where they are vital,” Leonhardt writes.

Jon Miltimore
Jon Miltimore

The New York Times published an article on Friday under a simple headline: “Covid Absolutism.”

The article opens by noting that during public health emergencies, absolutism—the idea that people should cease any and all behavior that creates additional risk—is a tempting response. Times writer David Leonhardt gives various examples of this “absolutism” on display in America today.

“People continue to scream at joggers, walkers and cyclists who are not wearing masks. The University of California, Berkeley, this week banned outdoor exercise, masked or not, saying, ‘The risk is real,’” he writes. “The University of Massachusetts Amherst has banned outdoor walks. It encouraged students to get exercise by ‘accessing food and participating in twice-weekly Covid testing.'”

Examples like these are virtually endless. They invite two key questions, Leonhardt notes: How effective are these behaviors in reducing the spread of the virus? And is there a downside?

As Leonhardt notes, many of these actions are essentially a kind of “hygiene theater,” the subject of a recent article in the Atlantic written by Derek Thompson.

The phrase basically speaks for itself. According to Leonhardt, these actions are not rooted in science, and are primarily a form of theatrical presentation that will have little or no actual impact.

Taking every possible precaution is unrealistic. Human beings are social creatures who crave connection and pleasure and who cannot minimize danger at all times.

“Prohibiting outdoor activity is unlikely to reduce the spread of the virus, nor is urging people always to wear a mask outdoors,” he writes. “Worldwide, scientists have not documented any instances of outdoor transmission unless people were in close conversation, Dr. Muge Cevik, an infectious-disease specialist at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, told me.”

Have there been any documented instances of transmission among unmasked people who are outdoors and *not* in close conversation with each other?

Eg joggers, walkers, bikers, beachgoers, etc. https://t.co/zTo2ddQ5pz — David Leonhardt (@DLeonhardt) February 10, 2021

So the answer to Leonhardt’s first question—How effective are they at reducing the spread of the virus?— is not difficult to answer: they’re not effective.

The second question, and its answer, is more interesting.

One might be tempted to argue that these theatrics still produce positive outcomes, since they are likely to make people more conscious of the pandemic and slow the spread of the virus.

Taking extreme precautions is simply “playing it safe.” What’s the harm in that?

The answer is, “plenty.” First, Leonhardt argues it’s not part of human nature to live in a perpetual state of extreme caution.

“Taking every possible precaution is unrealistic,” he writes. “Human beings are social creatures who crave connection and pleasure and who cannot minimize danger at all times.”

Perhaps more importantly, he argues that extreme caution can backfire and produce outcomes that have the opposite of their desired effect. He uses the AIDS crisis as an example, pointing out that demonizing sexual intercourse and trying to frighten people away from it had the unintended consequence of increasing unsafe sex.

A similar phenomenon appears to be at work today.

“Telling Americans to wear masks when they’re unnecessary undermines efforts to persuade more people to wear masks where they are vital,” Leonhardt writes.

For many, this statement probably doesn’t sound particularly noteworthy. It basically has the ring of common sense, a variation of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, one of Aesop’s famous parables, which taught that false alarms can harm humans by inhibiting their ability to detect actual danger.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a case study in “unintended consequences,” a term popularized by American sociologist Robert K. Merton in the twentieth century. Basically, it’s the idea that virtually every action comes with outcomes that are not foreseen or intended.

The French economist Frédéric Bastiat alluded to this concept in his famous essay, “That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen.”

“In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects,” Bastiat wrote.

The problem, he noted, is that humans rarely pay attention to the unseen or unintended effects of a given action or policy. Ignoring these outcomes is one of the great mistakes in public policy, the Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman once observed.

Unfortunately, ignoring unintended consequences and focusing on intentions is precisely what we saw in 2020, and nobody has been more guilty of this than the Times.

No one is served by ignoring unintended consequences. And the adverse unintended consequences of lockdowns are legion.

If you search for articles discussing the unintended consequences of COVID-19 policies, which are boundless, you’ll find virtually nothing on their site. I was able to find two articles using the phrase “unintended consequences” of COVID lockdowns.

One article, published in September, is a profile of Dr. Bonnie Henry, a Canadian physician and British Columbia’s top doctor who spoke of minimizing the unintended consequences of government interventions. The other is an article in May that discussed how lockdowns could result in a surge of mental illness.

This dearth of coverage is unfortunate. The Times is one of the most influential papers in the world. It has immense reach and a news staff of 1,300 people. And yet—our tiny writing team at FEE has produced more articles on the unintended consequences of lockdowns than the Grey Lady.

No one is served by ignoring unintended consequences. (Well, maybe politicians.) If we’re to understand the damage wrought in 2020 and prevent it in the future, lockdowns must be judged by their actual consequences, not what they were designed to achieve.

And the adverse unintended consequences of lockdowns are legion.

The fact that even the New York Times is finally beginning to discuss the unintended consequences of COVID-19-inspired actions is a sign that we may be, however belatedly, moving in the right direction.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Big Brother comes to America – spiked

Posted by M. C. on February 9, 2021

One of the experts cited by the NYT suggests the Biden administration should set up a Truth Commission. No doubt anyone who questioned the biases of a Biden-led Truth Commission would be written off as a dangerous extremist peddling disinformation.

This all raises a very important question – who gets to decide what is real? The NYT is one candidate no doubt.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/02/08/big-brother-comes-to-america/

Frank Furedi

Experts in the US are calling for the creation of a Reality Czar. They mean a Ministry of Truth.

Frank Furedi 8th February 2021 Big Brother comes to America Share Topics Free SpeechPoliticsScience & TechUSA

At first I couldn’t believe what I was reading. A writer for the New York Times was enthusiastically supporting a call made by ‘several experts’ around the Biden administration to create a Reality Czar. Apparently, a Reality Czar is needed to counter the campaign of disinformation being pushed by bitter conservatives.

The NYT commentator concedes that giving someone the authority to pronounce on what is and isn’t real ‘sounds a little dystopian’, but suggests it is warranted by the threat of ‘disinformation and domestic extremism’. The experts promoting the enthronement of a Reality Czar are unapologetic advocates of giving the government the power to decide what is true, what is real. They hope that the establishment of a reality task force ‘could become the tip of the spear for the federal government’s response to the reality crisis’.

The NYT is not alone in demanding that the government take an active role in determining what is true. Recently, New York University’s Stern Center for Business and Human Rights published an alarmist report about the allegedly distorted perceptions held by millions of conservatives. Apparently, huge numbers of conservatives wrongly believe that their views are suppressed by digital platforms on partisan grounds. To prevent this view from gaining greater influence, the authors of the report call on the government to set up a ‘new Digital Regulatory Agency’. No doubt this agency would become another tip of a spear to be hurled at anyone who accuses the giant social-media companies of showing bias against the political right.

The principal aim of the Stern Center’s report is to restore trust in the moral authority of the mainstream media in the US. It fears that millions of Americans no longer trust the media as a reliable source of information because they have bought into the belief that it is biased. It argues that people’s distrust of the media and their ‘wrong’ belief that social media are biased against conservatives will escalate in coming years, especially as social-media companies increase their ‘fact-checking’ operations.

‘Disinformation about bias contributes to the delegitimisation of the platforms at a time when they’re actually experimenting with more aggressive forms of fact-checking and content moderation – not just in the case of Donald Trump, but also in connection with falsehoods about Covid-19 vaccines and conspiracy theories like QAnon.’

Since the invention of the modern media people have put forward critiques of its sometimes biased nature. That has been a fairly unexceptional feature of the cultural landscape. Yet now, would-be Reality Czars have rebranded such criticisms as a ‘false narrative’ and an example of ‘political disinformation’. When claims of media bias are denounced as a form of malevolent disinformation, it can only be a matter of time before such claims are criminalised.

One of the aims of the current campaign against disinformation is to legitimise and normalise the policing of media content. Campaigners uphold the absurd and long discredited idea of media neutrality in order to discredit alternative accounts about what the media are doing and what the social-media giants are up to. But they also want to go beyond protecting the reputation of Big Tech. Some now want nothing less than to establish a government agency that would act as the infallible source of truth and reality.

One of the experts cited by the NYT suggests the Biden administration should set up a Truth Commission. No doubt anyone who questioned the biases of a Biden-led Truth Commission would be written off as a dangerous extremist peddling disinformation.

This all raises a very important question – who gets to decide what is real?

Even at the best of times, one should approach media outlets and news sources with a critical mindset. In the current era – with the flourishing of fake news and conspiracy theories – it can be challenging to distinguish between fact and fiction. The real problem is not that the media peddle lies, although they do do that sometimes. No, the problem is that politically motivated opinion now masquerades as news. Moreover, in our intensely polarised political and cultural environment, the usual checks and balances that help to maintain a modicum of objectivity have become ever-more feeble.

Cultural polarisation has led to a situation in which there is an unprecedented lack of consensus about the realities facing society. As a reader of numerous newspapers and online publications, I am struck by how many contrasting truths and versions of reality I encounter on a daily basis.

When I want to engage with a narrative that calls into question my reality and lived experience as someone who lives in the UK, I turn to the New York Times. One of its recent headlines struck me as a classic example of disinformation. It said: ‘Britain’s Ethnic Minorities Are Being Left for Dead.’ Any reader of this fantasy story would strongly believe that Britain is an unusually malevolent society. This invented reality of Britain as an almost evil country is part of a broader pattern at the NYT. The paper always seems determined to present British society in the worst possible light. ‘Britain is undergoing a full-blown identity crisis’, gloated a reporter recently, before adding that it is a ‘hollowed-out country’, ‘ill at ease with itself’, ‘deeply provincial’, and engaged in a ‘controlled suicide’.

A truly objective Reality Czar would surely have to busy him or herself with challenging the NYT’s questionable depictions of 21st-century Britain. However, it would be just as wrong for a government-appointed Ministry of Truth to give its verdict on the NYT’s campaign of disinformation against the UK as it would be for it to make pronouncements on those who claim that social media are biased against conservatives.

For centuries, advocates of democracy, tolerance and freedom of speech have upheld the belief that government should not be in the business of dictating a doctrinal version of The Truth. Nor should government try to direct or suppress people’s beliefs and views. This conviction helps to protect freedom of speech in American society. As the legal scholar Steven Gey argued, under the liberal interpretation of the First Amendment ‘it is much easier to defend the protection of speech, because the government is robbed of its usual justifications for suppressing that speech’.

Freedom of speech is truly protected when it is recognised that ‘government has no authority to use its legal authority to identify and enforce any particular version of right and wrong, truth and untruth’, said Gey. And it is when the public accepts that the government ‘has no paternalistic role over matters of the intellect, just as it has no paternalistic role over matters of the soul’, that tolerance becomes a way of life rather than just a shallow gesture.

Whenever the state is given the power to identify or enforce a ‘particular version of right and wrong, truth and untruth’, the freedoms of belief, expression and speech are in serious trouble. The establishment of a Reality Czar and, in effect, a Ministry of Truth would deprive people of the right to determine what they hold to be true. One of the privileges of a citizen in a democracy is that they have both the right and the duty to participate in truth-seeking. Truth is not something handed down to us from on high; it is something we acquire through deliberation and debate.

Underpinning the idea that officialdom should have the authority to pronounce on what is true and what is real is a view of ordinary people as lacking the moral and intellectual capacity to behave as independent-minded citizens. A Reality Czar would not simply explain ‘the truth’ to people – he or she would also seek to alter how misguided people conceive of reality. One of the experts cited by the NYT in its call for a Reality Czar argues that helping the misguided to see the light is a ‘public-health issue’. In other words, those who believe that there is media bias against conservatives, or who believe other things that the NYT and Biden-supporting experts disapprove of, are not only wrong but also sick.

The NYT piece suggests that those who possess hardcore dissident views should be targeted with ‘messages about mental health and mindfulness’. So, the preferred method of these reality police is not to find the truth through argument and debate, but rather to use the paternalistic, soft-totalitarian measures of psychological manipulation to alter people’s view of reality.

Whatever the problems with fake news and disinformation today, the campaigns against these things are a far greater threat to freedom and democracy. These are not disinterested campaigns seeking to uphold the truth. Rather, they aim to defend the moral authority of media platforms from public suspicion and mistrust. And through portraying dissident opinion as a threat to society, they also create a fearful climate that will be more hospitable to media censorship.

The campaign against disinformation is really about policing and censoring the views of millions of people who rightly or wrongly believe they cannot trust the media. It is becoming more and more common for experts and others to say that dissident views are akin to Flat Earth theory and other conspiracy theories. This campaign of delegitimation is likely to continue and intensify.

Zealous campaigns for censorship used to be confined to university campuses. But more recently, especially following the outbreak of the Covid pandemic, calls for the policing of communication and speech have gone mainstream. The return of old-fashioned media censorship is as worrying as the campaign of Biden supporters for the state to become the arbiter of truth.

The fundamental premise of a free and democratic society is that the truth is arrived at through political struggle and debate. No one explained this view with more clarity than the liberal political theorist, John Stuart Mill. In his powerful essay On Liberty (1859), Mill said that censoring someone’s views is always wrong, even if those views are false. Why? Because society’s knowledge and understanding evolve through the ‘collision’ of truth with ‘error’.

In a world where falsehoods proliferate, free debate is more important than ever to help people learn for themselves what is real. Mill understood that placing limits on freedom of speech constitutes a far greater threat to democracy than the erroneous views promoted by conspiracy theorists and fake-news entrepreneurs. Because once the authority of free speech is undermined, then public life itself is threatened, as people come to be deprived of the opportunity to discuss, debate and clarify the issues that confront our society.

Frank Furedi’s latest book Democracy Under Siege: Don’t let Them Lock It Down is published by Zer0 Books.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Report: New Judicial Watch analysis finds 353 counties in 29 states with voter registration over 100% – PaulCraigRoberts.org

Posted by M. C. on November 13, 2020

The NY Times is the deadly enemy of America.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/11/12/report-new-judicial-watch-analysis-finds-353-counties-in-29-states-with-voter-registration-over-100/

Paul Craig Roberts

Report: New Judicial Watch analysis finds 353 counties in 29 states with voter registration over 100%

This is the way Democrats “won.”  Blue states have counties with more registered voters than residents.

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/new-judicial-watch-analysis-finds-353-u-s-counties-in-29-states-with-voter-registration-exceeding-100/

Remember:  The lying scum at the New York Times devoted their front page to the lie that there was no vote fraud.  

Remember: the NY Times made NO INVESTIGATION of vote fraud but knows that none exists.

Remember: the NY Times is not a news organization.  It is part of the Democrat/Deep State Propaganda Ministry. 

The NY Times is for true believers who are convinced that white people are racists and Trump is a Russian agent.

The NY Times is the deadly enemy of America.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The New York Times Attacks Putin for NOT Interfering in the US Electoral Process – Anti-Empire

Posted by M. C. on November 11, 2020

Instead, in a television interview last month, Mr. Putin lauded Mr. Biden as being prepared to extend the treaty. And in what may have been a backhanded compliment, he praised the Democrats as sharing leftist ideals with a party of which Mr. Putin was once a member: the Communists. [One of Putin’s best quips.]

https://www.anti-empire.com/the-new-york-times-attacks-putin-for-not-interfering-in-the-us-electoral-process/

Andrew E. Kramer

How dares he not congratulate Biden at the snap of US regime media fingers?

The morning after Joseph R. Biden Jr. became president-elect of the United States, the Kremlin published a congratulatory message from President Vladimir V. Putin.

It was a happy-60th-birthday greeting to a Moscow theater director.

Unlike his Western European counterparts, who quickly posted congratulations on Saturday, Mr. Putin had not issued a statement on the president-elect even as night fell in Moscow on Sunday. Four years earlier, the Kremlin rushed out a message for President Trump within hours of the American television networks calling the race on election night.

Given the result hasn’t been officially declared yet, and is still contested by the sitting president, wouldn’t any intervention by Putin, at this point, amount to ‘Russian meddling’ in the US election?

Tbf, Michael you’ve just spent 4 years warning about the dangers of this. https://t.co/5AvkcJRzEh

— Bryan MacDonald (@27khv) November 8, 2020

“Putin is a good soldier and does not wag his tail before his enemies,” a prominent pro-Kremlin analyst, Sergei A. Markov, said in explaining the difference.

The early signs indicate that Mr. Putin is preparing for a deeply adversarial relationship with America’s next president. [The “early sign” being he draws the line at actively participating in the regime coup against the possibility of Trump.] While Mr. Trump never delivered on Russian hopes of rapprochement between Washington and Moscow, his America-first foreign policy dovetailed with the Kremlin’s desire to weaken the Western alliance and to expand Russian influence around the world.

Mr. Biden, by contrast, is a president-elect whom Mr. Putin already has many reasons to dread. Mr. Biden sees Russia as one of America’s biggest security threats, promises to rebuild frayed ties with European allies and, as vice president, worked actively to support pro-Western politicians in Ukraine [that’s one way to put it], a country at war with Russia.

To Russia’s governing class, the 77-year-old Mr. Biden was the preferred candidate of an American “deep state” — a huge network of spies and diplomats that, in the Kremlin’s telling, worked to undermine Mr. Trump and his efforts to improve ties with Russia. And Mr. Biden, unlike Mr. Trump, seems to many Russians to be the sort of American politician they detest the most: someone ready to meddle around the world in the name of democratic ideals, rather than respecting spheres of influence and engaging with Moscow in hard-nosed talks.

“There you have it, the notorious deep state that Trump had promised to get rid of,” Mikhail V. Leontyev, a commentator, intoned on the prime-time news in Russia on Saturday, describing Mr. Biden. “We wouldn’t give a toss about this if these guys didn’t try to get involved in all our business, and the probable winner has made it his mission to get involved in all the world’s business.”

As swing states counted votes in recent days, Russian state television increasingly adopted Mr. Trump’s assertion that the Democrats had stolen the election. A reporter in Washington for Russia’s state-run Channel 1 ridiculed the street celebrations of Mr. Biden’s victory as those of people “crying, hopping around and getting drunk.” On a Sunday-night news show, the host Dmitri Kiselyov said the election showed the United States to be “not a country but a huge, chaotic communal apartment, with a criminal flair.”

The vitriol on Kremlin-controlled television, and the lack of a quick congratulations for Mr. Biden, was notable given that Mr. Putin appeared to be trying to distance himself from Mr. Trump as Mr. Biden emerged as the clear favorite in recent months. Some Russian analysts and politicians had even speculated that new leadership in Washington could be a good thing for Moscow.

“There are increasingly few within the Russian elite who see Trump as an objective in himself,” Tatiana Stanovaya, a political commentator, wrote in an essay titled “A Farewell to Trump?” She added that there was “also a feeling of Trump fatigue,” even in the Kremlin.

Indeed, Mr. Putin chose this fall not to give Mr. Trump what would have been a prized foreign policy victory: a renegotiated New Start nuclear arms deal, the last remaining major arms control agreement between the countries.

Mr. Trump’s lead negotiator, Marshall Billingslea, went so far as to announce that the two leaders had a “gentleman’s agreement” for a renegotiated deal. Yet, within hours, a deputy foreign minister, Sergei A. Ryabkov, called the Trump administration delusional. “Washington is describing what is desired, not what is real,” he said.

Instead, in a television interview last month, Mr. Putin lauded Mr. Biden as being prepared to extend the treaty. And in what may have been a backhanded compliment, he praised the Democrats as sharing leftist ideals with a party of which Mr. Putin was once a member: the Communists. [One of Putin’s best quips.]

“We will work with any future president of the United States — the one whom the American people give their vote of confidence,” Mr. Putin said.

The C.I.A. said earlier this year that Mr. Putin appeared to be interfering in the election on behalf of Mr. Trump. The Kremlin has denied meddling in American politics, and many analysts in Moscow noted that no fresh, substantiated allegations of Russian interference had emerged from the United States since Election Day.

Indeed, the notion that Mr. Trump’s departure from the White House could reduce American anger about Russian interference in the 2016 election appeared to be the biggest silver lining of Mr. Biden’s victory, some politicians and analysts said.

“It’s not that we believe in a sobering-up in Washington, but the key irritant might go away,” Konstantin Kosachev, the head of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the upper house of the Russian Parliament, wrote on Facebook. “Wouldn’t that be a reason to resume talks on arms control, for instance? We are definitely ready.”

Mr. Biden could also benefit Russia by bringing the United States back into the nuclear deal with Iran, an agreement to which Moscow is a party, another Russian lawmaker, Leonid E. Slutsky, said. In 2018 Mr. Trump withdrew the United States from the deal, which President Barack Obama had helped broker among world powers to halt Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Even as the Kremlin stayed mum on Sunday, Mr. Putin’s staunchest domestic opponent — the opposition leader Aleksei A. Navalny — offered well-wishes on Twitter to Mr. Biden and Kamala Harris, the vice president-elect. He also congratulated Americans on holding “a free and fair election,” an indirect sideswipe at the Putin government.

“This is a privilege which is not available to all countries,” Mr. Navalny, who is recovering after being attacked with a nerve agent in Siberia, wrote. “Looking forward to the new level of cooperation between Russia and the US.”

The Kremlin and its backers have long claimed, without evidence, that opposition activists like Mr. Navalny are the instruments by which America’s “deep state” implements its anti-Russian agenda. The Russian news media often says that the United States has engineered “color revolutions” across the former Soviet Union.

Mr. Markov, the pro-Kremlin analyst, said he expected Mr. Biden to increase support for Mr. Putin’s domestic opponents — perhaps foreshadowing a message of the Russian state media during Mr. Biden’s presidency.

“Financing for a color revolution against Putin, I believe, will sharply increase,” Mr. Markov said.

Mr. Putin portrays himself as a defender of Russia against an encroaching West. A tougher Russia policy in the United States could play to his advantage, said Sam Greene, director of the Russia Institute at King’s College London.

“Conflict with the West and the United States in particular form an important part of Putin’s legitimacy,” Mr. Greene said.

Source: The New York Times

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Nolte: New York Times Accidentally Confirms Breitbart’s Voter Fraud Reporting

Posted by M. C. on October 27, 2020

There is much noxious clickbait on Breitbart but their lead piece writers are often on the mark.

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2020/10/26/nolte-new-york-times-accidentally-confirms-breitbarts-voter-fraud-reporting/

By John Nolte

The far-left New York Times accidentally confirmed all of the voter fraud reporting we’ve done here at Breitbart News.

So, let me extend my congratulations to all our hard working reporters and editors.

New York Times Headline:

Conservative News Sites Fuel Voter Fraud Misinformation

Sub-Head:

Breitbart, The Washington Examiner, and others amplify false claims of rampant cheating in what a new Harvard study calls a “propaganda feedback loop.”

Complaint:

So far in October, Breitbart has published nearly 30 articles with the tag “voter fraud.” President [Donald] Trump has posted links to several Breitbart articles on Twitter, including one in August in which a Republican-appointed poll challenger estimated that up to 20,000 absentee primary ballots had been improperly counted in Detroit, a city “known for voting heavily Democrat,” the article said. The Detroit News later reported that election officials in Michigan said the problems “weren’t examples of fraud and don’t call into question the integrity of the results.”

Facts to Back Up Complaint:

Crickets: Chirp. Chirp. Chirp.

The Times article is 1300 or so words long and not a single word — not one — is utilized to point out a single fact in a single one of our voter fraud reports that we got wrong.

The Times went through 30 articles we published on voter fraud — thirty! — and could not come up with a single misreported fact, a single example of fake news, or anything we reported that was misleading or deceptive.

You’ll note that the one article they cherry pick, they don’t even dispute the facts. No one claims our reporting was wrong, only that “the problems” — oh, so there were problems! — we reported on “weren’t examples of fraud and don’t call into question the integrity of the results” — which is what I call gobbily-gook.

So to me, the headline here is this: “EXTRA! NEW YORK TIMES CONFIRMS BREITBART NEWS’ REPORTS ABOUT VOTER FRAUD!!!”

Get this… the far-left activists and serial liars at the Times spent heaven knows how many corporate dollars to fine-tooth-comb us and came up with “bup” in one claw and “kis” in the other.

Not a single one of those 1300 or so words backs up the headline or the sub-head or the angle of the piece. Which means the attack on us is pure smoke, pure propaganda, pure fake news…

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The New York Times Has Been Ridiculous for a Long Time – American Thinker

Posted by M. C. on July 18, 2020

Writes Weiss of the Times newsroom, “Truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.”  Indeed, the only difference between the Times and the old Soviet Pravda is that Pravda readers knew they were being lied to.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/07/the_new_york_times_has_been_ridiculous_for_a_long_time.html

By Jack Cashill

The much discussed resignation letter from New York Times op-ed editor Bari Weiss was written in the metaphorical equivalent of Braille.  It allowed even the blind to see what the rest of us have known for years: the Times is a joke.

Writes Weiss of the Times newsroom, “Truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.”  Indeed, the only difference between the Times and the old Soviet Pravda is that Pravda readers knew they were being lied to.

If I had to pick a date that the joke started to become obvious, I would pick July 17, 1996, twenty-four years ago today, the day TWA flight 800, a Boeing 747, crashed off the coast of Long Island, killing all 230 good souls aboard.

As I heard from several reporters who covered this story, the New York Times owned it.  The FBI channeled virtually all new information through the Times, and the Times reported that information very close to uncritically.

The Times’ first full article on July 18 leads with the fact that the FBI had taken over jurisdiction of the investigation.  The reason for the takeover was that “witnesses reported an explosion, raising the possibility that a bomb went off on the jetliner.”

In a separate article on July 19, the Times’ David Johnston introduced the possibility of a missile strike.  “In public,” Johnston wrote, investigators were talking about an “accident,” but “in private,” they hinted at a “terrorist’s missile.”

They had reason to talk about a missile.  As CIA documents would later reveal, the agents on the FBI missile team had interviewed 144 “excellent” witnesses immediately after the crash and found the evidence for a missile strike “overwhelming.”

By July 26, investigators had established the false dialectic that would hold for the next two months.  The cockpit voice recorder captured only a brief sound before it stopped recording.  This, reported Matthew Wald, “added strong support to the theory that a bomb destroyed the plane.”  That much conceded, “aviation experts,” surely the NTSB, could “not exclude mechanical failure.”  There was no mention of a missile.

On August 14, four weeks to the day after the crash, the Times offered the first detailed account of the plane’s break-up sequence.  The most salient revelation was that the center fuel tank caught fire as many as twenty-four seconds after the initial blast.  This meant that the “only good explanations remaining” were either a bomb or missile.

On Friday, August 23, the Times went all in for a bomb with a front page headline reading, “Prime Evidence Found That Device Exploded in Cabin of TWA 800.”

On September 17, two months to the day after the crash, reporter Andrew Revkin wrote an article on internet-based conspiracy theories, one of which suggested that a Navy Aegis guided missile cruiser “let loose a practice shot that went awry.”  The Pentagon denied any involvement, and the FBI assured the Times’ readers that the probability of a Navy misfire was “as close to zero as you can get.”  This was the most probing penetration by the Times of what actually happened on July 17.

On September 19, the government went public with its change in direction, and the Times followed.  “Convinced that none of the physical evidence recovered from T.W.A. Flight 800 proves that a bomb brought down the plane,” Matthew Wald wrote in the lead of his Times article, the NTSB was now planning tests “to show that the explosion could have been caused by a mechanical failure alone.”

The balance between bomb and mechanical failure lasted exactly one day before the weight swung fully the way of “mechanical.”  On Friday, September 20, the FBI released a statement claiming that the TWA 800 aircraft had “previously been used in a law enforcement training exercise for bomb-detection dogs.”   On September 21, the Times’ Matthew Purdy filled in the details.  Reportedly, on June 10, 1996, the St. Louis police used the TWA 800 plane to train a bomb-sniffing dog and left explosive residue all over the plane.

The FBI, however, did not interview the dog trainer until September 21, hours after the Times had given the story its imprimatur.  Even the most cursory reporting would have shown the dog training theory to be total nonsense.  The Times never bothered to follow up.  The editors had their  story, and they were sticking to it.  This was an election year, after all.

By November 1996, with Bill Clinton’s re-election secured, the Times was mocking anyone who challenged the preposterous theory floated by Clinton’s people at the NTSB that a spontaneous explosion in the 747’s center fuel tank brought down the plane.

Recall, however, that on August 14, the Times had reported that center fuel tank caught fire as many as twenty-four seconds after the initial blast.  Recall that on August 23, the Times headlined an article, “Prime Evidence Found That Device Exploded in Cabin of TWA 800.”  No one at the paper ever bothered to explain the inconsistencies.

In the month of November 1996 alone, the New York Times ran four articles with headlines that ridiculed legendary JFK press secretary Pierre Salinger, who credibly advanced the theory that the U.S. Navy was involved in the shootdown.

On November 24, 1996, for instance, just four months after the crash and a year before the FBI closed its investigation, the Times ran an all-too-typical article headlined “Pierre, Is That a Masonic Flag on the Moon?”  In the first sentence, reporter George Johnson singled out the Times’ real target: the internet with its “throbbing, fevered brain.”

Johnson directed his contempt at those ordinary Americans whose internet use threatened the Times’ hegemony on the news.  “Electrified by the Internet,” Johnson complained, “suspicions about the crash of T.W.A. Flight 800 were almost instantly transmuted into convictions that it was the result of friendly fire.”

Incredibly, what Johnson did not do — what no one at the Times did after the first two days — was speak to a single one of the official 258 FBI witnesses to a likely missile strike.  If he had, if anyone at the Times had, the world would have known that those ordinary Americans were right.

@jackcashill’s forthcoming book, Unmasking Obama: The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency, is available for pre-order at https://amzn.to/2VHOnS8.

Jack’s 2016 book, TWA Flight 800: The Crash, the Cover-Up, the Conspiracy is available at https://amzn.to/2Os1zXb.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Woke Revolution – PaulCraigRoberts.org

Posted by M. C. on July 13, 2020

The signatories to the letter do not understand that time has passed them by. Free speech is no longer a value.  Free speach is an ally of oppression because it permits charges against Western civilization and the white racist oppressors to be answered, and facts are not welcome.  The purpose of the woke revolution is to overthrow a liberal society and impose conformity with wokeness in its place.  Whiteness has been declared evil. There is nothing to debate.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/07/12/the-woke-revolution/

Paul Craig Roberts

150 prominent intellectuals and Ivy League academics of leftish persuasion have signed a letter in Harper’s protesting the breakdown in civilized debate and imposition of ideological conformity.  The signatories made the obligatory bow to denouncing Trump as “a real threat to democracy” and called for “greater equality and inclusion across our society.”  But this wasn’t enough to save them from denunciation for stating these truthful facts:

“The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.”

https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/

The signatories to the letter do not understand that time has passed them by. Free speech is no longer a value.  Free speach is an ally of oppression because it permits charges against Western civilization and the white racist oppressors to be answered, and facts are not welcome.  The purpose of the woke revolution is to overthrow a liberal society and impose conformity with wokeness in its place.  Whiteness has been declared evil. There is nothing to debate.

The signatories do not understand that today there is only one side.  In place of debate there is denunciation, the purpose of which is to impose ideological conformity.  It is pointless to search for truth when truth has been revealed: Western civilization and all its works are a white racist construct and must be destroyed.  There is nothing to debate.

To make clear that in these revolutionary times not even prominent people of accomplishment such as Noam Chomsky are entitled to a voice different from woke-imposed conformity, the letter was answered by a condescending statement signed by a long list of woke journalists of no distinction or achievement, people no one has ever heard of. The 150 prominent defenders of free speech were simply dismissed as no longer relevant. https://theobjective.substack.com/p/a-more-specific-letter-on-justice

Noam Chomsky and the other prominent signatories were dismissed as irrelevant just as the prominent historians were who took exception to the New York Times 1619 project, a packet of lies and anti-white propaganda. The famous historians found that they weren’t relevant. The New York Times has an agenda that is independent of the facts.

The message is clear: shutup “white, wealthy” people and you also Thomas Chatterton Williams, a black person with a white name.  Your voices of oppression have been cancelled.

The “oppressed” and “marginalized” voices of woke revolutionaries, who have imposed tyranny in universities, the work place, and via social media, are the ones that now control explanations. No one is permitted to disagree with them.

Lining up on the woke side are CNN, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Slate, and other presstitute organizations desperately trying to remain relevant. Everyone of these institutions quickly took the side of the woke revolution against facts and free speech.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/10/opinions/the-letter-harpers-cancel-culture-open-debate-yang/index.html

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2020-07-09/cancel-culture-harpers-letter

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/10/arts/open-letter-debate.html

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/07/harpers-letter-reality-debate.html

The revolution is over unless the guillotine is next. Academic freedom no longer exists. Free speech no longer exists. The media is a propaganda ministry. Without free speech there can be no answer to denunciation.  White people are guilty. Period.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

How the Pentagon failed to sell Afghan government’s bunk ‘Bountygate’ story to US intelligence agencies  | The Grayzone

Posted by M. C. on July 11, 2020

The Times reported first on June 28, then again on June 30, that a large amount of cash found at a “Taliban outpost” or a “Taliban site” had led U.S. intelligence to suspect the Russian plot.  But the Times had to walk that claim back, revealing on July 1 that the raid that turned up $500,000 in cash had in fact targeted the Kabul home of Rahmatullah Azizi, an Afghan businessmen said to have been involved in both drug trafficking and contracting for part of the billions of dollars the United States spent on construction projects.

https://thegrayzone.com/2020/07/07/pentagon-afghan-bountygate-us-intelligence-agencies/

Another New York Times Russiagate bombshell turns out to be a dud, as dodgy stories spun out by Afghan intelligence and exploited by the Pentagon ultimately failed to convince US intelligence agencies.

By Gareth Porter

The New York Times dropped another Russiagate bombshell on June 26 with a sensational front-page story headlined, “Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says.”  A predictable media and political frenzy followed, reviving the anti-Russian hysteria that has excited the Beltway establishment for the past four years.

But a closer look at the reporting by the Times and other mainstream outlets vying to confirm its coverage reveals another scandal not unlike Russiagate itself: the core elements of the story appear to have been fabricated by Afghan government intelligence to derail a potential US troop withdrawal from the country. And they were leaked to the Times and other outlets by US national security state officials who shared an agenda with their Afghan allies.

In the days following the story’s publication, the maneuvers of the Afghan regime and US national security bureaucracy encountered an unexpected political obstacle: US intelligence agencies began offering a series of low confidence assessments in the Afghan government’s self-interested intelligence claims, judging them to be highly suspect at best, and altogether bogus at worst.

In light of this dramatic development, the Times’ initial report appears to have been the product of a sensationalistic disinformation dump aimed at prolonging the failed Afghan war in the face of President Donald Trump’s plans to withdraw US troops from it.

The Times quietly reveals its own sources’ falsehoods

The Times not only broke the Bountygate story but commissioned squads of reporters comprising nine different correspondents to write eight articles hyping the supposed scandal in the course of eight days. Its coverage displayed the paper’s usual habit of regurgitating bits of dubious information furnished to its correspondents by faceless national security sources. In the days after the Times’ dramatic publication, its correspondent squads were forced to revise the story line to correct an account that ultimately turned out to be false on practically every important point.

The Bountygate saga began on June 26, with a Times report declaring, “The United States concluded months ago” that the Russians “had covertly offered rewards for successful attacks last year.” The report suggested that US intelligence analysts had reached a firm conclusion on Russian bounties as early as January. A follow-up Times report portrayed the shocking discovery of the lurid Russian plot thanks to the recovery of a large amount of U.S. cash from a “raid on a Taliban outpost.” That article sourced its claim to the interrogations of “captured Afghan militants and criminals.”

However, subsequent reporting revealed that the “US intelligence reports” about a Russian plot to distribute bounties through Afghan middlemen were not generated by US intelligence at all.

The Times reported first on June 28, then again on June 30, that a large amount of cash found at a “Taliban outpost” or a “Taliban site” had led U.S. intelligence to suspect the Russian plot.  But the Times had to walk that claim back, revealing on July 1 that the raid that turned up $500,000 in cash had in fact targeted the Kabul home of Rahmatullah Azizi, an Afghan businessmen said to have been involved in both drug trafficking and contracting for part of the billions of dollars the United States spent on construction projects.

The Times also disclosed that the information provided by “captured militants and criminals” under “interrogation” had been the main source of suspicion of a Russian bounty scheme in Afghanistan. But those “militants and criminals” turned out to be thirteen relatives and business associates of the businessman whose house was raided.

The Times reported that those detainees were arrested and interrogated following the January 2020 raids based on suspicions by Afghan intelligence that they belonged to a “ring of middlemen” operating between the Russian GRU and so-called “Taliban-linked militants,” as Afghan sources made clear.

Furthermore, contrary to the initial report by the Times, those raids had actually been carried out exclusively by the Afghan intelligence service known as the National Directorate of Security (NDS). The Times disclosed this on July 1. Indeed, the interrogation of those detained in the raids was carried out by the NDS, which explains why the Times reporting referred repeatedly to “interrogations” without ever explaining who actually did the questioning.

Given the notorious record of the NDS, it must be assumed that its interrogators used torture or at least the threat of it to obtain accounts from the detainees that would support the Afghan government’s narrative. Both the Toronto Globe and Mail and the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) have documented as recently as 2019 the frequent use of torture by the NDS to obtain information from detainees.  The primary objective of the NDS was to establish an air of plausibility around the claim that the fugitive businessman Azizi was the main “middleman” for a purported GRU scheme to offer bounties for killing Americans.

NDS clearly fashioned its story to suit the sensibilities of the U.S. national security state. The narrative echoed previous intelligence reports about Russian bounties in Afghanistan that circulated in early 2019, and which were even discussed at NSC meetings. Nothing was done about these reports, however, because nothing had been confirmed.

The idea that hardcore Taliban fighters needed or wanted foreign money to kill American invaders could have been dismissed on its face. So Afghan officials spun out claims that Russian bounties were paid to incentivize violence by “militants and criminals” supposedly “linked” to the Taliban.

These elements zeroed in on the April 2019 IED attack on a vehicle near the U.S. military base at Bagram in Parwan province that killed three US Marines, insisting that the Taliban had paid local criminal networks in the region to carry out attacks.

As former Parwan police chief Gen. Zaman Mamozai told the Times, Taliban commanders were based in only two of the province’s ten districts, forcing them to depend on a wider network of non-Taliban killers-for-hire to carry out attacks elsewhere in the province. These areas included the region around Bagram, according to the Afghan government’s argument.

But Dr. Thomas H. Johnson of the Naval Postgraduate School, a leading expert on insurgency and counter-insurgency in Afghanistan who has been researching war in the country for three decades,  dismissed the idea that the Taliban would need a criminal network to operate effectively in Parwan.

“The Taliban are all over Parwan,” Johnson stated in an interview with The Grayzone, observing that its fighters had repeatedly carried out attacks on or near the Bagram base throughout the war.

With withdrawal looming, the national security state plays its Bountygate card

Senior U.S. national security officials had clear ulterior motives for embracing the dubious NDS narrative. More than anything, those officials were determined to scuttle Trump’s push for a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan. For Pentagon brass and civilian leadership, the fear of withdrawal became more acute in early 2020 as Trump began to demand an even more rapid timetable for a complete pullout than the 12-14 months being negotiated with the Taliban.

It was little surprise then that this element leapt at the opportunity to exploit the self-interested claims by the Afghan NDS to serve its own agenda, especially as the November election loomed. The Times even cited one “senior [US] official” musing that “the evidence about Russia could have threatened that [Afghanistan] deal, because it suggested that after eighteen year of war, Mr. Trump was letting Russia chase the last American troops out of the country.”

In fact, the intelligence reporting from the CIA Station in Kabul on the NDS Russia bounty claims was included in the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) on or about February 27 — just as the negotiation of the U.S. peace agreement with the Taliban was about to be signed. That was too late to prevent the signing but timed well enough to ratchet up pressure on Trump to back away from his threat to pull all US troops out of Afghanistan.

Trump may have been briefed orally on the issue at the time, but even if he had not been, the presence of a summary description of the intelligence in the PDB could obviously have been used to embarrass him on Afghanistan by leaking it to the media.

According to Ray McGovern, a former CIA official who was responsible for preparing the PDB for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the insertion of raw, unconfirmed intelligence from a self-interested Afghan intelligence agency into the PDB was a departure from normal practice.

Unless it was a two or three-sentence summary of a current intelligence report, McGovern explained, an item in the PDB normally involved only important intelligence that had been confirmed.  Furthermore, according to McGovern, PDB items are normally shorter versions of items prepared the same day as part of the CIA’s “World Intelligence Review” or “WIRe.”

Information about the purported Russian bounty scheme, however, was not part of the WIRe until May 4, well over two months later, according to the Times. That discrepancy added weight to the suggestion that the CIA had political motivations for planting the raw NDS reporting in the PDB before it could be evaluated.

This June, Trump’s National Security Council (NSC) convened a meeting to discuss the intelligence report, officials told the Times. NSC members drew up a range of options in response to the alleged Russian plot, from a diplomatic protest to more forceful responses. Any public indication that US troops in Afghanistan had been targeted by Russian spies would have inevitably threatened Trump’s plan for withdrawal from Afghanistan.

At some point in the weeks that followed, the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency each undertook evaluations of the Afghan intelligence claims. Once the Times began publishing stories about the issue, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe directed the National Intelligence Council, which is responsible for managing all common intelligence community assessments, to write a memorandum summarizing the intelligence organizations’ conclusions.

The memorandum revealed that the intelligence agencies were not impressed with what they’d seen. The CIA and National Counter-Terrorism Center (NCTC) each gave the NDS intelligence an assessment of “moderate confidence,” according to memorandum.

An official guide to intelligence community terminology used by policymakers to determine how much they should rely on assessments indicates that “moderate confidence” generally indicates that “the information being used in the analysis may be interpreted in various ways….” It was hardly a ringing endorsement of the NDS intelligence when the CIA and NCTC arrived at this finding.

The assessment by the National Security Agency was even more important, given that it had obtained intercepts of electronic data on financial transfers “from a bank account controlled by Russia’s military intelligence agency to a Taliban-linked account,” according to the Times’ sources.  But the NSA evidently had no idea what the transfers related to, and essentially disavowed the information from the Afghan intelligence agency.

The NIC memorandum reported that NSA gave the information from Afghan intelligence “low confidence” — the lowest of the three possible levels of confidence used in the intelligence community.  According to the official guide to intelligence community terminology, that meant that “information used in the analysis is scant, questionable, fragmented, or that solid analytical conclusions cannot be inferred from the information.”

Other intelligence agencies reportedly assigned “low confidence” to the information as well, according to the memorandum. Even the Defense Intelligence Agency, known for its tendency to issue alarmist warnings about activities by US adversaries, found no evidence in the material linking the Kremlin to any bounty offers.

Less than two weeks after the Times rolled out its supposed bombshell on Russian bounties, relying entirely on national security officials pushing their own bureaucratic interests on Afghanistan, the story was effectively discredited by the intelligence community itself. In a healthy political climate, this would have produced a major setback for the elements determined to keep US troops entrenched in Afghanistan.

But the political hysteria generated by the Times and the hyper-partisan elements triggered by the appearance of another sordid Trump-Putin connection easily overwhelmed the countervailing facts. It was all the Pentagon and its bureaucratic allies needed to push back on plans for a speedy withdrawal from a long and costly war.

Gareth Porter

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist who has covered national security policy since 2005 and was the recipient of Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in 2012.  His most recent book is The CIA Insider’s Guide to the Iran Crisis co-authored with John Kiriakou, just published in February.

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Poll: Americans Believe Russia Paid Taliban to Kill US Troops – News From Antiwar.com

Posted by M. C. on July 9, 2020

Taliban have been killing US soldiers for 20 years for free.  Russians are not stupid.

Someone has been paying to have US soldiers killed. You and me.

https://news.antiwar.com/2020/07/08/poll-americans-believe-russia-paid-taliban-to-kill-us-troops/

Late last month, reports began emerging claiming that Russia had been paying substantial bounties to the Taliban to kill US troops in Afghanistan. A new poll shows that 60% of Americans view that allegation as “believable.”

Claims Russia did something bad are usually easy to sell, and a claim repeated enough usually gets believed by many. Still, the evidence is not at all on the side of this particular allegation, which the Pentagon tried, and failed, to sell to the US intelligence community.

Centcom head Gen. Frank McKenzie says that when he heard the report it was “worrisome,” but that he’s still not clear anyone was killed on the basis of this. Moreover, he says the US did not change its Afghanistan operations.

It seems clear at this point it was never true, but the New York Times ran with the story, and ran hard, and the poll points to Americans buying the story.

The poll shows that they view Russian President Vladimir Putin as a “threat,” and support a new round of US sanctions against Russia. Alarmingly, 9% even supported attacking Russia outright.

This is undercut by the strong evidence that this plot isn’t true, and never was. The danger is, the US could escalate hostilities and the majority of the public is fine with it.

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

The Fourth Estate Has Murdered America – PaulCraigRoberts.org

Posted by M. C. on July 4, 2020

The claim iitself is so absurd that it indicates the media regard Americans as completely stupid. The US and Taliban have been killing each other since October 2001 when the Cheney/Bush regime illegally attacked Afghanistan. For 19 years the Taliban has known who its enemy is and does not need Russian bribes to kill US occupiers.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/07/01/the-fourth-estate-has-murdered-america/

Paul Craig Roberts

The “news service” of multi-billionaire Bloomberg echoes the New York Times lie that Russia paid the Taliban to kill US occupying troops:

“Lawmakers from both U.S. political parties demanded President Donald Trump hold Russia accountable over allegations it offered cash bounties for the killing of American troops. Trump has denied reports by several major news organizations that he was briefed on the matter; he has not demanded an investigation of the allegations; and he has yet to even threaten Moscow with retaliation should the reporting be confirmed. Trump’s lack of action has reignited concerns that the Republican is more interested in maintaining cordial relations with Vladimir Putin than defending American interests—including its troops.”

Notice all the innuendos in this dishonest report:  “Trump has denied,” “he has not demanded an investigation,” “he has yet to even threaten moscow,” ‘Trump’s lack of action,” “more interested in cordial relations with putin than defending American troops.”

The claim iitself is so absurd that it indicates the media regard Americans as completely stupid. The US and Taliban have been killing each other since October 2001 when the Cheney/Bush regime illegally attacked Afghanistan. For 19 years the Taliban has known who its enemy is and does not need Russian bribes to kill US occupiers.

To me, it is extraordinary that the New York Times and the proprietor of Bloomberg News are so devoid of integrity that they make up out of thin air false allegations for the sole purpose of convincing Americans that their president is a Russian agent more concerned with getting along with Putin than protecting US soldiers.  This latest lie from NYTimes/Bloomberg is an effort to resurrect the Russiagate hoax.

Here is what happened. Some Democrat or anti-Trump member of the military/security complex planted a lie on the New York Times.  The NY Times knew it was a lie, did not investigate, and quickly published the lie for which the NY Times had no evidence.  Indeed, it is possible that the NY Times simply made up the story itself.

Once the lie is published, the rest of the presstitutes, such as Bloomberg, quickly spread the lie. Democrat and even Republican politicians start agitating for explanations and investigations of why Trump took no action against Russia.

The Department of Defense issues a statement that there is “no corroborating evidence” to support the New York Times’ fake news.  But the Democrats, presstitutes and liberal pundits dismiss the DOD statement as covering up for President Trump.  Once again an obvious lie is being turned into a proven fact.

The New York Times is supposed to be a newspaper, “the paper of record,” and Bloomberg is supposed to be a news service.  But both are propagandists dispensing lies in order to help the American Establishment get rid of Trump who represents the working class.  In American politics, representing the working class is no longer permissible.

The liberals, the progressives, and the left are the actual forces aligned against America.  They are far more dangerous to ordinary Americans than are North Korea, Iran, China, and Russia. They are dangerous to all races that comprise the US Tower of Babel, because they are bringing America down in a spasm of disinformation and hate.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »