Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘The New York Times’

Science As God: Tech Hearing And COVID Show Us Exactly Where Censorship Is Headed


Science As God: Tech Hearing And COVID Show Us Exactly Where Censorship Is Headed

In all the back and forth of Tuesday’s Big Tech hearing, Democratic Sen. Chris Coons’ exchange with Twitter’s Jack Dorsey stood out most starkly, offering a window into the next step of the left’s long-championed Big Tech censorship of scientific dissent from liberal orthodoxy.

“You do, Mr. Dorsey, have policies against deep fakes or manipulated media, against Covid-19 misinformation, against things that violate civic integrity,” the Delaware senator began, “but you don’t have a standalone climate change misinformation policy. Why not?”

Our policies are living documents,”Dorsey replied. “They will evolve, we will add to them, but we thought it important we focus our energies and prioritize the work as much as we could.” And then:

Well, Mr. Dorsey… I cannot think of a greater harm than climate change, which is transforming literally our planet and causing harm to our entire world. I think we’re experiencing significant harm as we speak. I recognize the pandemic and misinformation about Covid-19 manipulated media also cause harm but I’d urge you to reconsider that because helping to disseminate climate denialism in my view further facilitates and accelerates one of the greatest existential threats to our world.

This has been ongoing for years in corporate media. In 2019, Chuck Todd pompously announced his show would no longer “give time to climate deniers.” Two years before that, when The New York Times’ Bret Stephens used his debut column to call out “The Climate of Complete Certainty” that seeks to shut down completely reasonable dissent, the paper faced vicious backlash labeling Stephens a “climate denier.” For more than a decade before this, more of the same — often trickling up, from activists to the reporters who sympathize to the powers that can truly silence voices.

Four years ago, reporters demanded then-President Barack censor fake news, pushing Press Secretary Josh Earnest into the awkward position of having to remind apparent journalists of the First Amendment four times. The targets that day were the Bat Boy-like farces they blamed for Her 2016 loss, but it was already obvious the definition of “fake news” would rapidly expand. Once President Donald Trump assumed office, corporate media and allied politicians bypassed the White House and turned to Silicon Valley, which fell in line quickly enough.

COVID-19 provided the first preview of the new alliance, where even doctors and scientists were censored for carefully — we once said “scientifically” — questioning the alarmists’ narrative of the day. At the same time, Democrats, corporate media, and even corrupt, foreign bodies like the World Health Organization have been permitted to push whatever information supports that day’s goal post.

Completely rational appeals are met with absurdities like “the science is decided,” as if constantly evolving experimentation in search of knowledge can be bottled into some oracle-like decree to support the mob’s latest demand. Rather than decided science, these decrees are mere hypotheses susceptible to support and opposition, but through the alliance of Democrats, corporate media, and Silicon Valley, they become unquestionable edicts ranging from No Business to Eternal Mask-Wearing to No Family For Thanksgiving.

Coons’s comments are a good reminder that what is COVID today is climate tomorrow. Indeed, COVID policy has offered Americans a perfect preview of what will happen if climate alarmists get their way: Science not as method, but as god. And not the strong and mysterious God of the Jewish and Christian faiths, but a shifting one, whose every dictum and desire is whispered to the kings and enforced at their whims.

Do you have a problem with that? You can take it up with The Science. And The Science is decided.

Christopher Bedford is a senior editor at The Federalist, the vice chairman of Young Americans for Freedom, a board member at the National Journalism Center, and the author of The Art of the Donald. Follow him on Twitter.

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Everyone’s Urinating On The Dossier Now!”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | 

I was minding my own business reading about Bob Woodward, the GREATEST INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER IN THE HISTORY OF OUR REPUBLIC (as he will be the first to tell you), and came across this bit of genius from his book. According to The New York Times, Woodward is flabbergasted that former FBI Director James Comey released the Russian dossier, when he had the “airtight” report of 17 INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES.

Woodward writes: “It would be as if I had reported and written one of the most serious, complex stories for The Washington Post that I had ever done, and then provided an appendix of unverified allegations. Oh, by the way, here is a to-do list for further reporting and we’re publishing it.”

You will know, if you have read a much better book about the Trump hysteria, “Resistance Is Futile! How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind,” that, eventually, this is what the Resistance says about every part of the Russian collusion story. Oh, that old yarn? Yeah, we hysterically oversold that one, but maybe you’d be interested in this other scandal we tried pushing a few months ago!

(Thus, according to the Times: “Woodward has never been a graceful writer, but the prose here is unusually wooden.”)

The Russian collusion story isn’t a story at all, but a constantly changing kaleidoscope with the same glass panes appearing, disappearing and then reappearing under the same headline: RUSSIAN COLLUSION PROVED! Each time, we’re supposed to pretend it’s an all-new “breaking news” story that hasn’t been disproved six times already.

Among the kaleidoscope panes are:

  • The Russia dossier!
  • Roger Stone tweeted something mean about John Podesta!
  • Jeff Sessions met with the Russian ambassador!
  • Carter Page went to Russia! (But unlike Bernie Sanders, NOT on his honeymoon — ed.)
  • George Papadopoulos talked about Hillary’s emails!
  • The GOP platform on Ukraine was changed!
  • Seventeen intelligence agencies say Russia hacked the DNC’s emails to help Trump!

Of all these, it was the dossier that dominated the news for most of Trump’s first year in office. Here was the proof that Trump was owned by the Russians. The dossier had to be true — it just had to be! Then, suddenly, 10 months later, that kaleidoscope pane completely disappeared. The dossier was an irrelevancy, a red herring, a conspiracy theory, a misnomer. Why do Republicans keep talking about the dossier?

Extra credit if you remember why the dossier got dropped like a hot potato in October 2017.

ANSWER: After lying to the public all year about the dossier being funded by a “Republican donor” — just a random concerned citizen! — a judge finally forced the media to cough up the truth: The dossier was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton — deviously, of course, using a law firm to pimp for her. The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee had paid $12 million for that dossier.

But during the 10 glorious months before we found out that the Russian dossier was nothing but Hillary’s oppo research, the media stamped their feet and demanded that we all swear to believe the dossier. They deny this now, but I have Nexis.

With every other proof of Russian collusion discredited (except the actual collusion by both Hillary and the FBI), now they’re apparently going back to the 17 INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES!

The 17 INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES gag is what liberals do whenever they have no evidence, no facts and no argument. They cite a surprisingly large, but meaningless, number.

  • Three thousand scientists agree there is man-made global warming! (On closer examination, most of the “scientists” are ACLU lawyers.)
  • President Trump has made 4,713 false or misleading claims! (Actually, only two: That bombing Syria was in America’s “national security interest” and “we’ve already started building the wall!”)

The allegedly “airtight” report of 17 INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES was not what anyone would call “airtight.” In fact, it was kind of the opposite of “airtight.” Scratch the part about “airtight.” It could more accurately be described as a “complete joke.”

Russian scholars scoffed at it, cyber-security experts said it was impossible to know who hacked the DNC, and intelligence veterans churlishly pointed out that the report contained not a speck of evidence. Until Trump won the election, even the media laughed at Hillary’s claim that Russia hacked the DNC to help Trump.

President Obama took the claim that Russia had hacked the DNC so seriously that he boldly told Vladimir Putin to — I quote — “cut it out.”

In lieu of evidence, the report merely asserts conclusions. It reads like a stiffly worded, bureaucratic version of Hillary’s talking points: We assess that president-elect Donald J. Trump has said degrading things about women in the past. We further assess that president-elect Trump will continue to develop capabilities to fat-shame women in the United States, judging from past practice and current efforts. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

Maybe it’s time for the Resistance to wheel out the one about Sessions meeting the Russian ambassador again.

Snopes Gets Punked With New Revelations In Wikileaks Emails About Hillary & NYT Collusion


Reported by Tim Brown

Snopes, the left leaning self-proclaimed “fact checker” that hires dominatrixes and former porn stars and hookers to do their “fact checking has once again been debunked for covering for The New York Times and failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

What’s so great about this latest “punking” of Snopes is that it comes by way of Infowars and assertions they made more than a year ago about Hillary Clinton colluding with the New York Times by getting information in advance about negative stories that would have an impact on her.

“It is standard journalistic practice for reporters to ask the subjects of their news stories for comment before publishing, and Times reporters Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman were doing their due diligence as professional journalists, said Frank Girardot, a former editor with the Los Angeles News Group and author of several true crime books,” responded Snopes to Paul Joseph Watson’s story on the collusion, and that assertion is correct, but contacting people for a response to a story and warning them of a potentially negative story coming out are two different things.  One is journalism and the other is collusion.

However, here’s what Paul Joseph Watson tweeted out.

Notice, there is no questioning for a story, but rather a notification that a story was about to break. Now, of course, everyone knows that Clinton and NYT were colluding to deceive the American people due to emails released by Wikileaks.

Paul Joseph Watson updates:

Now Snopes has been embarrassed further by the revelation that a New York Times reporter used to email Hillary Clinton’s State Department days in advance to warn them of stories that were about to be published.

In one 2010 example, NYT national security reporter Scott Shane contacted Philip Crowley, who was at the time the United States Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs under Clinton’s State Department, listing the topics of all the different stories that the New York Times was set to run over the course of a week.

This proves that the New York Times was indeed colluding with Clinton’s State Department by giving them a heads up on stories that were about to run, just as the newspaper colluded with the Clinton campaign during the election in the same manner.

Having initially fallen flat with its weak denial that the NYT colluded with the Clinton campaign, this email again underscores how the New York Times routinely colludes with government bodies and political campaigns it is friendly with, and that this is not just “standard journalistic practice”. 

Snopes has long been known to be nothing more than a propaganda outlet for Socialists, Communists, Islamists, Marxists and other criminally minded politicians in our government in both major parties. Why any organization (shoutout to Facebook) would consider them unbiased “fact checkers” is beyond me, but perhaps that gives us insight into the minds of those that Snopes colludes with in order to put out their propaganda to the people.

Can You Spot What Iran’s Khamenei Was Holding During His Speech on the Nuclear Deal? The Mainstream Media Ignored It


In their coverage of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s speech on Saturday during which he made his first public comments on the agreement over Iran’s nuclear program, major media outlets either intentionally or inadvertently failed to mention that the top Iranian figure was holding a rifle at the podium.

In video of the speech posted by Iran’s PressTV, the firearm was visible in his left hand at 8:51, 12:05 and 18:20. Toward the end of the speech, the gun was leaned against the podium – as seen at 26:50 and 27:40.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei held a gun during his Saturday speech during which he commented on the nuclear agreement. (Image source: YouTube/PressTV)

Toward the end of his remarks, Khamenei let go of the gun and balanced it on the podium. (Image source: YouTube/PressTV)

To drive home the point, the supreme leader’s official website posted a close up photo captured from beside the podium of the gun which even showed the magazine jutting out.

This photo was posted on the supreme leader’s official website. (Image source: Khamenei.ir)

TheBlaze reviewed articles on the speech posted by the Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse and The New York Times.

Some journalists made efforts to include expert opinion in their articles, offering analysis of Khamenei’s words (“to pacify” or “quiet” hardliners); others pointed out that it was “carried live by state television” and noted that the speech was given after holiday prayers marking the end of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, offering atmospheric color.

But the most potent sign of all reflecting his message – the gun balanced under his left hand holding his speech notes – was left unmentioned.

It’s unlikely that if the speech had been given by an American or any Western politician that this scene setting detail would have been overlooked, especially given the hotly debated issue of guns.Picture3

The AP’s website had this photo of Khamenei holding the gun, but it was not mentioned in the copy in the accompanying article:

This photo accompanied AP’s coverage of the speech, but the gun was not mentioned in the copy. (Screenshot: APBigStory)

This video report from AFP-TV also did not include even one shot of Khamenei holding the gun, instead showing his face close up.

During his speech, Khamenei said Iranian policy toward the “arrogant U.S. government” would not change as a result of the nuclear agreement. “Our policy toward the arrogant U.S. government won’t change at all,” Khamenei said. “We have no negotiations with America about various global and regional issues. We have no negotiations on bilateral issues.”ObamaIranian-Flag-WORD-ARTmuslim-obama

He also praised Iranian demonstrators who a week before chanted “Death to Israel” and “Death to the U.S.” during protests marking the pro-Palestinian Al Quds Day commemoration. The ayatollah said that the slogans “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” would continue to be heard in Iran.Keys taken

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday pointed to Khamenei’s speech as offering proof that Iran would not change as a result of the nuclear agreement. “If someone thought that the extraordinary concessions to Iran would lead to a change in its policy, they received an unequivocal answer over the weekend in Iranian ruler Khamenei’s aggressive and contrary speech,” Netanyahu said.

freedom combo 2

Ann Coulter Letter: There’s A Reason We Mostly Hear About ‘Micro-Aggressions’


waving flag Ann Coulter  | 

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://humanevents.com/2015/06/24/theres-a-reason-we-mostly-hear-about-micro-aggressions

There's A Reason We Mostly Hear About 'Micro-Aggressions'

The massacre of black churchgoers in Charleston by an evil psycho is a hideous thing. The case is especially sickening because the victims were chosen specifically because of their race. Thank God it’s extremely rare for whites to target black people for attack.

And yet the public is being told by The New York Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC and Salon that the Charleston massacre is one small example of white racists rampaging through the country. It’s like saying we have an epidemic of men flying gyrocopters onto Capitol Hill. Yes, there’s that one time, but I notice you keep citing the same case. 

In The Washington Post, for example, columnist Lonnae O’Neal blamed the Charleston attack on “white supremacy,” claiming that “racial sickness is all around us.” (I guess the one upside of the horror in South Carolina is that we can FINALLY have a national conversation about race.) insane

The media’s WHITES ARE TERRORIZING BLACKS campaign reflects reality as accurately as the media’s other campaign, WHITE MALE COLLEGE STUDENTS ARE RAPING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT!

In a country of more than 300 million people, everything will happen eventually. That doesn’t make it a trend. Go up to any ordinary, sentient person and ask: Which race assaults the other race more?

Remember the “knockout game” — or as its devotees called it, “polar bear hunting”? Black teenagers would go looking for white people to knock unconscious with a single punch, videotape the attacks and post them online. The knockout game was a real trend — which the media denied was a trend.

Just last month, we saw videos of white reporters from the Daily Caller being mugged by black men in Baltimore.

Ask around. You might be surprised at how many whites you know have been physically attacked by a black person at least once in their lives.

Ordinary people keep hearing that we are in the middle of an epidemic of white-on-black violence and think, Surely the media wouldn’t be making this up, so I must be misinformed.

According to a preposterously, laughably, ridiculously bogus report on “hate crimes” produced by Eric Holder’s Justice Department, blacks are far more likely to be victims of hate crimes than whites are. It would be like a government report asserting that most rapes are committed by elderly white women. Holder’s DOJ got to the desired outcome by:

(1) Defining “hate crime” only as those in which the perp uses a racial epithet. (Because that’s what people fear most: I don’t mind getting the crap kicked out of me — as long as no one calls me a “cracker”!)

(2) Defining Hispanic perpetrators as “white.” (Yes, according to our federal government, Hispanics are “Hispanic” when they are victims of crimes, but “white” when they are the perpetrators.)

(3) Defining less than 0.1 percent of all violent crimes as “hate crimes.” (According to the FBI’s detailed crime victimization report, there were about 1.2 million violent crimes in 2012, but Holder’s Justice Department characterized less than 1,000 of those as “hate crimes.”)

The FBI’s crime victimization surveys tell a very different story, one more in line with a normal person’s life experience. In 2008, the most recent year for which such data seems to have been collected, FBI surveys show that, out of 520,161 interracial violent crimes, blacks committed 429,444 of them against whites, while whites committed 90,717 of them against blacks.Picture4

In other words, blacks commit more than 80 percent of all interracial violent crime.

Going for the element of surprise, columnist Brit Bennett recently complained in The New York Times that “white violence is unspoken and unacknowledged” by the media. Yes, I barely heard a thing about such alleged white-on-black crimes as: Tawana Brawley (hoax), the Duke lacrosse gang rape (hoax), Trayvon Martin (self-defense), Ferguson (hoax) and Eric Garner (justified police arrest). Other than the wall-to-wall, 24/7 coverage for months on end, there was barely a peep out of the media about these cases. The media will pounce on any suspicion of a white-on-black crime, spend a year being hysterical about it, and, if it turns out to be a false alarm, refuse to apologize, before quickly moving on to the next hoax.

The Charleston church shooting is the first case in a very long time in which blacks really were targeted by a white person because of their race (and had the misfortune of being in a gun-free zone). Even Bennett had to reach back to stories her grandmother told her about the Ku Klux Klan (100 percent Democratic) to come up with a previous example of whites terrorizing blacks.

The Charleston attack was a hideous, sickening crime. But that’s why we should thank our lucky stars that it was so unusual. White-on-black violence is freakishly rare everywhere in America, except liberal imaginations.freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: