Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘The New York Times’

Did The New York Times Admit Joe Biden Is Corrupt So Democrats Can Get Rid of Him?


REPORTED BY: JOY PULLMANN | MARCH 23, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/did-the-new-york-times-admit-joe-biden-is-corrupt-so-democrats-can-get-rid-of-him-2657022515.html/

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris wearing facemasks

It is painfully obvious, as was predictable, that Joe Biden’s presidency is a dumpster fire. As demonstrated by the party’s destructive callousness towards children, the elderly, and the poor during their Covid lockdown frenzy, Democrats care about none of these real-world results of their policies. But they do care about polling, and Joe Biden’s is abysmal.

According to even heavily politicized polls, Biden is at least performing as badly as Donald Trump. Biden is between the third- and fifth-most ratings-underwater president ever in American history at this point in his first term.

Biden of course also has the advantage of a wildly favorable press and social media monopoly while Trump had the strong headwind of a wildly negative one. That factor obscured for a great many of American voters actions that easily demonstrated long before his election that Biden was unfit for the presidency.

Now that he’s president, however, and very publicly bungling essentially every major issue all the way up to U.S. national security, Biden’s weakness and incompetence have been impossible for the corrupt media to entirely cover up. Biden’s appalling withdrawal from Afghanistan may have been the first major blow to public confidence in his governing ability, and it’s been followed by blow after blow: the repercussions of ending U.S. energy independence, historic inflation caused by massive government spending, aggression by America’s foreign foes, a tacitly open border with human trafficking of historic proportions, not to mention fueling America’s legalized mass killings of unborn infants and forcing schools to inflict gender dysphoria on the children in their care.

So yes, the polls look bad. That’s why Democrat officials suddenly switched away from their Covid mania, lifting mask mandates in blue states, ending the daily falsified “body counts” on TVs and newspapers, and jumping immediately into European war hysteria. But that’s not been enough to turn those polls around. Historic indicators presently suggest a “red wave” in the upcoming midterms.

That brings us to The New York Times’s recent limited hangout“: its highly suspicious, very late acknowledgment that, hey, that laptop containing evidence that Joe Biden is just as corrupt as his son Hunter Biden told Russian prostitutes — that laptop is real, and so is its data. Yes, the United States’s top foreign adversaries likely have blackmail material on the U.S. president, and likely paid him some very big bribes.

Oh, and yes Twitter and Facebook did use their global communications monopolies to rig the election for Joe Biden by hiding this information (and who knows what else).

Why would The New York Times do this — and Facebook and Twitter not ban this information release just like they did before? Well, one explanation is hierarchy reinforcement. As I wrote Monday, like forcing their “minions” to wear face masks, the ridiculously belated laptop confirmation also equals the ruling class “flexing their power to say things they won’t allow their political opponents to say.”

There’s another explanation, though. It’s that Joe Biden is no longer useful to the ruling class. After being used to win an election, he’s now making it impossible for them to credibly foist on Americans the idea that his party could win another one with him on their masthead. The donkey is showing through the lion skin, and so they need a new donkey.

So while it seems utterly legitimate to insist on accountability such as appointing a special counsel to investigate the Biden family’s apparent corruption, that also could relieve the Democrat Party of their greatest liability. They’d probably deeply appreciate that, in fact. Biden got the ruling class what they wanted, and they don’t need him any more. Getting rid of him now would in fact be highly convenient for maintaining their power.

There’s only one problem with that. Kamala isn’t at all going well for them either.

Enjoy that bed you made for yourselves, Democrats. I hope it’s at least as uncomfortable as that bed you’ve made for all the Americans whose long-term outlook is more suffering, thanks to Democrats’ criminal prioritization of power for themselves above all else.


Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children. Sign up here to get early access to her next ebook, “101 Strategies For Living Well Amid Inflation.” Her bestselling ebook is “Classic Books for Young Children.” Mrs. Pullmann identifies as native American and gender natural. She is also the author of “The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids,” from Encounter Books. In 2013-14 she won a Robert Novak journalism fellowship for in-depth reporting on Common Core national education mandates. Joy is a grateful graduate of the Hillsdale College honors and journalism programs.

The New York Times Doesn’t Care If You Know That Big Tech Helped Rig Joe Biden’s Election


REPORTED BY: JOY PULLMANN | MARCH 21, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/21/the-new-york-times-doesnt-care-if-you-know-that-big-tech-helped-rig-joe-bidens-election/

Joe biden and hunter biden

On March 17, 2022, The New York Times stated it had verified the authenticity of a laptop and its data as belonging to the president’s son, Hunter Biden. This was the same laptop holding information that Twitter, Facebook, and other corporate media immediately suppressed when The New York Post, a right-leaning competitor of The New York Times, reported on it three weeks before the 2020 presidential election.

If they had known about one of the Biden family scandals, such as the Hunter Biden laptop information, 17 percent of Joe Biden’s voters wouldn’t have voted for him, found a 2020 post-election poll. This means big tech’s suppression of this story likely made enough difference to tip Joe Biden into his low-margin win in the Electoral College.

Back in October 2020, Twitter and Facebook immediately responded to The New York Post’s publication of information from Hunter Biden’s laptop by effectively banning it from their platforms that effectively monopolize public discussion. Twitter punished the Post for reporting the repeatedly authenticated laptop information by suspending its account for two weeks.

“What this means is that, in the crucial days leading up to the 2020 presidential election, most of the corporate media spread an absolute lie about The New York Post’s reporting in order to mislead and manipulate the American electorate,” commented independent investigative reporter Glenn Greenwald.

Major National Security Implications

That laptop provides evidence Joe Biden was involved in Hunter Biden’s pay-for-play schemes with foreign oligarchs, an obvious national security risk. Some of these corrupt deals involved Ukraine, a notoriously corrupt country that is currently petitioning the Biden administration to engage militarily with Russia on their behalf.

Russia also has blackmail material on Hunter Biden, according to videos from his laptop, and the FBI knew about this as early as 2019, according to Federalist reporting: “This explosive revelation establishes that either Joe Biden lied to the American public, or the intelligence community lied to him,” wrote Federalist Senior Contributor Margot Cleveland in 2021.

Other Hunter Biden business deals involved China, the United States’ top security threat. Texts between business partners indicate Joe Biden was financially involved in Hunter Biden’s China deals, contrary to Joe Biden’s public claims.

China also has blackmail material on Hunter Biden and possibly on Joe Biden. All of this means major conflicts of interest for the president’s foreign policy at a time of significant global instability. It also was deliberately hidden from the voting public by collusion between big tech companies and the Democrat Party.

Hiding Democrats’ Dangerous Scandals

The same presidential administration that benefitted from Big Tech hiding damning true information is openly colluding with Big Tech to maintain and expand these information operations. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters in July 2021, “We’re flagging posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.” Soon after, Psaki confirmed, “We’re in regular touch with social media platforms…about areas where we have concern.” You might call it a public-private partnership.

Democrats have demanded that the Biden administration create a task force to suppress “misinformation” and “disinformation.” What did corporate media and big tech call the laptop information they suppressed in 2020, only for The New York Times to confirm in 2022? That’s right: Disinformation.” In fact, as Greenwald notes, intelligence operatives immediately enacted a real disinformation campaign against the New York Post reporting in 2020, pushing the false narrative that the Hunter Biden laptop was “disinformation.”

That’s called projection, and you should assume that’s one of the things going on every time the media runs some wild news cycle—such as accusing the Republican president of treasonous collusion with Russia when it’s actually the Democrat presidential candidate who did that.

Reinforcing the Power Hierarchy

This New York Times article, after all the lies and manipulations about the Hunter Biden laptop, is also a chilling public affirmation that the ruling class believes Americans are helpless to choose their own government. They’re even bold enough to confirm their power openly.

Just like requiring only the hired help and those under the thumb of government agencies to wear masks while their masters wine and dine mask-free, The New York Times openly revealing that corporate media including itself, Twitter, and Facebook lied and got away with it is a hierarchy flex. It’s a display of their power. They are saying, “We can lie to Americans and get away with it.”

They’re also flexing their power to say things they won’t allow their political opponents to say. Again, Covid is another clear example, as when Trump advisors such as Scott Atlas faced vicious media smears for pointing out facts that The New York Times finally acknowledged months later, such as that kids don’t need to wear masks and it’s perfectly safe for them to go to school. In the intervening time, children needlessly suffered, but The New York Times doesn’t care. They owned the rubes, and that matters more to them than truth or children’s suffering.

People this corrupt don’t deserve to have media platforms, control of the presidency, or any power of any kind. At the very least, those who use their power this cynically should be respected by absolutely no one.

Big Tech Is a Threat to Democracy

Big Tech is also clearly manipulating public discourse for highly partisan ends. Social media has become what the “big three” cable news networks were decades ago: falsely “nonpartisan” manipulators of elections. Like ABC, CBS, and NBC, Twitter and Facebook’s ability to control culture and politics through brain drips feeding lies into millions of Americans’ minds needs to end, yesterday. This is not a pissing contest. It’s about our continued existence as a nation.

Greenwald notes the corporate press and big tech “all ratified and spread a coordinated disinformation campaign in order to elect Joe Biden and defeat Donald Trump.” That’s not a democracy, no matter how many slogans about that word propaganda outlets put out. It’s tyranny.

When elections are an elaborate charade and their outcomes are openly manipulated by giant special interests, we don’t have self-government, self-determination, democracy, constitutional government, representation, or any of the above. For those of us who love these things because we believe they are our God-given and precious rights and responsibilities, this is a dark reality to behold.

One might call this world the left wants to live in Chinese communism with American characteristics. Well, I don’t want to live in that world, and neither do at least 74 million other Americans. We’re not going to keep being abused by our own government quietly. And we’re not going to believe these liars, no matter what they say.

The top names on everyone’s mind when they hear the word “disinformation” ought to be The New York Times, Twitter, Facebook, The Atlantic, and all their corrupt, self-congratulating Aspen Institute friends. That’s something we can all work to help our neighbors see.


Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children. Sign up here to get early access to her next ebook, “101 Strategies For Living Well Amid Inflation.” Her bestselling ebook is “Classic Books for Young Children.” Mrs. Pullmann identifies as native American and gender natural. She is also the author of “The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids,” from Encounter Books. In 2013-14 she won a Robert Novak journalism fellowship for in-depth reporting on Common Core national education mandates. Joy is a grateful graduate of the Hillsdale College honors and journalism programs.

The Studies Cited To Support Gender-Bending Kids Are Largely Junk Science


REPORTED BY: NATHANAEL BLAKE | MARCH 10, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/the-studies-cited-to-support-gender-bending-kids-are-largely-junk-science-2656908394.html/

New York Times building

The transgender misinformation machine is at it again. The New York Times recently published an extensive essay arguing against screening before medical transition — if someone says she wants hormones or surgery, doctors should immediately break out the syringes and prep the operating room.

The article, by Alex Marzano-Lesnevich of Bowdoin College, exemplifies how the transgender movement uses misinformation to advance its agenda. Marzano-Lesnevich asserts, “That gender-affirming health care saves lives is clear: A 2018 literature review by Cornell University concluded that 93 percent of studies found that transition improved transgender people’s heath [sic] outcomes, while the remaining 7 percent found mixed or null results. Not a single study in the review concluded negative impact.”

That seems dispositive — unless you look at the studies. The cited literature review was titled the “What We Know Project” and was directed by the LGBT scholar and activist Nathaniel Frank, who cited it in his own New York Times piece on transgenderism a few years ago, writing that “Our findings make it indisputable that gender transition has a positive effect on transgender well-being.”

Poorly Conducted Studies

These proclamations that the science is settled are a bold facade on rickety scaffolding. When this New York Times article invokes the authority of science, it seeks to evoke the image of careful statisticians sifting through data collected by diligent doctors.

But it is actually appealing to self-selected online surveys with cash prizes, studies with tiny samples, and studies that are missing more than half of their subjects. Stacking a bunch of weak studies on top of each other doesn’t provide a strong result, but The New York Times presumes readers won’t bother to check the details — the editors certainly didn’t.

Back in 2019, I took a closer look at the studies the What We Know Project cites, and found a methodological mess. Many of the studies had serious flaws, beginning with small sample sizes. As I noted, “Of the fifty relevant papers identified by the project, only five studies (10 percent) had more than 300 subjects, while twenty-six studies (52 percent) had fewer than 100. Seventeen studies (34 percent) had fifty or fewer subjects, and five of those had a sample size of twenty-five or less.”

The flaws extended far beyond small sample size, and the largest studies tended to be the weakest, often consisting of little more than online surveys with a self-selecting sample. Nor should we put much faith in a study that recruited subjects for an online survey by advertising “on online groups and discussion forums that were dedicated to FTM [female-to-male] members. . . . Upon survey completion, participants were entered into a lottery drawing for cash prizes.”

Even the better-designed long-term studies were often plagued by poor response rates. A European study had 201 out of 546 respond — just 37 percent. And though missing data is, by definition, missing, it is reasonable to suspect that those with poor outcomes are overrepresented among those who could not or would not respond.

Regret Rates

Nor did The New York Times check Marzano-Lesnevich’s claim that “gender-affirming health care has some of the lowest rates of regret in medicine. A 2021 systemic review of the medical literature, covering 27 studies and 7,928 transgender patients, found a regret rate of 1 percent or less.” But read the paper and it is quickly apparent both that the review has significant weaknesses and that The New York Times allowed its conclusions to be misrepresented.

Of the 27 studies used in their analysis, the review authors ranked only five as “good” and only four as having a low risk of bias. Many of the studies had the same flaws as those examined in the What We Know Project (indeed, some studies were used in both).

Another problem is that the majority of the data in the 2021 review came from a single study conducted by a Dutch group retrospectively examining the records of their own gender clinic. But a retrospective review of medical files will only identify regrets from patients who shared them with the gender clinic that performed their surgeries. Furthermore, the study only identified regrets following gonadectomy, and not those who regretted other surgeries, or who never had surgery but did regret taking cross-sex hormones or puberty blockers.

In addition to the problem of allowing a flawed data set to dominate the 2021 review, this illustrates another persistent difficulty with studies of transgender regret, which is that they are often conducted by those who provide medical transition, rather than independent researchers. People whose livelihoods and reputations depend on facilitating medical transition might be less than diligent and rigorous in looking for regret.

To their credit, the authors of the 2021 review do discuss some of the limits and difficulties of their work, writing that various problems:

represent a big barrier for generalization of the results of this study. The lack of validated questionnaires to evaluate regret in this population is a significant limiting factor. In addition, bias can occur because patients might restrain from expressing regrets due to fear of being judged by the interviewer. Moreover, the temporarity of the feeling of regret in some patients and the variable definition of regret may underestimate the real prevalence of ‘true’ regret.

None of these qualifications regarding regret were even hinted at in the published column. Despite The New York Times’ citing it, the 2021 review does not prove that “gender-affirming health care has some of the lowest rates of regret in medicine.”

As the authors note, regret is not only an imperfect measure, but it is often difficult to measure, with no set criteria defining it. In one Swedish review cited by the What We Know Project, it was defined “as application for reversal of the legal gender status among those who were sex reassigned,” which excludes those who succumbed to depression or addiction, or who lived unhappily after transition without seeking to legally detransition.

Gatekeeping before Transition

Furthermore, even if we uncritically accept the results of the 2021 review, it does not support the argument that gatekeeping before medical transition is unnecessary and harmful. Rather, the authors claim that the low regret rate they found “reflects and corroborates the increased [sic] in accuracy of patient selection criteria for GAS [gender affirmation surgery].”

In short, the review argues that medical gatekeeping keeps regret rates low. That The New York Times allowed this review to be used as evidence against medical screening, and in favor of self-ID for medical transition, exemplifies the persistent practice of American transgender activists using studies of (mostly) carefully screened European adults to argue against screening before medical transition, even for children.

Unfortunately, the aggregation of (often questionable) studies, and the exaggeration of their conclusions by activists, is only part of the problem. These efforts to spread misinformation are augmented by the intimidation of dissenting scientists and the suppression of results that trans activists dislike.

Suppressing Dissent

Researchers have learned to fear the wrath of LGBT activists, and take pains to avoid it. Results that undermine the narrative have to be carefully presented lest the public draw the wrong conclusions. Thus, when scientists concluded that there is no “gay gene” they “worked with LGBTQ advocacy groups and science-communication specialists on the best way to convey their findings in the research paper and to the public.”

With regard to transgender ideology, the intimidation is even more overt. For example, Lisa Littman’s qualitative study describing the phenomenon of rapid-onset gender dysphoria met a ferocious response from transgender activists. Similarly, activists smeared Canadian psychologist Kenneth Zucker and forced him out of his position as the leader of a gender identity clinic, even though he sometimes supported transitioning children. He was just more cautious about it than activists wanted. He was eventually vindicated, but targeting him still sent a warning to any researchers who are seen as insufficiently pro-trans.

As these cases demonstrate, the science is being manipulated to fit transgender ideology. Shoddy studies — often conducted by activists and doctors with a stake in medical transition — are boosted if they support the trans narrative, while results and researchers who challenge it are suppressed. This skewed data is then used by trans activists and their allies to shape the discourse.

Uncomfortable facts and stories are kept out of the official narrative. Insightful and moving first-person accounts of transition and detransition are confined to non-traditional outlets such as Substack, as are the warnings of leading trans doctors about the reckless rushing of children into transition. The information bubble is the point.

Going forward, disagreement will be labeled “misinformation” and banned from social media, and dissidents will be labeled as bigots who should be fired from their jobs. Doctors will be required to practice only according to the approved narrative, and educators will encourage children to transition without parental knowledge and consent. Worse still, the government will take children from parents who do not support transition.

The purpose of the transgender misinformation machine is not so much to persuade, but to provide justification for coercion. The point of the lies and distortions is to impose transgender ideology on all of us, especially children.


Nathanael Blake is a senior contributor to The Federalist and a postdoctoral fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

The New York Times Continues To Ignore Report That A Chinese Spy Was Able To Get Close To Intelligence Committee Member Eric Swalwell


Reported by SHELBY TALCOTT, MEDIA REPORTER | December 14, 20201:03 PM ET

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2020/12/14/new-york-times-ignores-eric-swalwell-chinese-spy-story/

The New York Times does not appear to have covered a story detailing Democratic California Rep. Eric Swalwell’s contacts with an alleged Chinese spy. Christine Fang, the suspected spy, became close with Swalwell and even participated in his 2014 reelection campaign, according to a Dec. 7 report published by Axios. Fang, who is also accused of having an affair with at least two U.S. mayors, did not donate money and there isn’t evidence of illegal contributions.

Fang reportedly planted an intern in Swalwell’s congressional office, according to the report. Swalwell was informed of Fang’s suspected ties in 2015 by the FBI via a “defensive briefing,” cut ties with the alleged spy and has not been implicated in any wrongdoing.

The NYT is not the only outlet that has avoided reporting that a suspected Chinese spy was able to get close to multiple politicians. The Washington Post wrote articles about the news as recently as Friday after first ignoring the report. (RELATED: Media Largely Ignores Report Of Swalwell’s Involvement With Suspected Chinese Spy)

The NYT did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller.

Swalwell briefly addressed the Axios report after it became public. He condemned the leak and suggested that it somehow involved President Donald Trump while talking to CNN’s Jim Sciutto on Dec. 9.

“I was shocked,” Swalwell said. “Just over six years ago, I was told about this individual and then I offered to help, and I did help and I was thanked by the FBI for my help and that person is no longer in the country and I was a little surprised to read about my cooperation in that story, because the story says that there was never a suspicion of wrongdoing on my part.”

Swalwell’s view on this leak is a far cry from that of a 2017 Trump-Russia related leak considered to include highly classified intelligence information. In 2017, Swalwell pushed a leak about the FBI obtaining Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against Carter Page, Trump’s former policy adviser. Swalwell did not condemn this particular leak and suggested that Page could be hiding something.

Republican Wisconsin Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner is now demanding the House Ethics Committee “immediately open an investigation” into the situation, as Swalwell sits on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence – and still, the NYT is silent.

“Allowing an international spy to forge a close relationship with a member of Congress and then allowing personnel decisions to be influenced by a Chinese national does not reflect creditably on the House,” Sensenbrenner wrote according to Fox News.

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: