Tag Archive for: New York Times

VIDEO: Setting the Record Straight on the Iran Nuclear Program Bombing Against Enemy Propagandists NYT – CNN

This is so excellent.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump and Hegseth GO NUCLEAR on fake news reporter for insulting the troops

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column with video posted by is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

New York Times: Fighting Antisemitism is Bad for the Jews

At least when it’s leftist antisemitism.

In surprising news, the newspaper that published a list of Jewish members of Congress with yellow marks over their names during the Iran Deal vote (not in 1939 but in 2015) thinks fighting antisemitism is a bad idea.

Or at least leftist antisemitism and antisemitism from its Islamist allies.

The Times promotional headline for its op-ed by Wesleyan president Michael S. Roth is ‘Trump’s Crusade Against Antisemitism Is Extremely Bad for the Jews’. The op-ed on the site has the slightly less ironic title ‘Trump Is Selling Jews a Dangerous Lie’.

I said slightly less ironic because as “the first Jewish president of a formerly Methodist university”, Roth is the one selling Jews a dangerous lie.

Roth defends Hamas supporters who terrorized campuses and called for the murder of Jews as activists and graduates. His argument basically boils down to “First they came for the antisemites, then they came for the Jews.”

“Abductions by government agents; unexplained, indefinite detentions; the targeting of allegedly dangerous ideas; lists of those under government scrutiny; official proclamations full of bluster and bile — Jews have been here before, many times, and it does not end well for us,” Roth contends.

There’s a number of problems here, but the most obvious one is that they already came for the Jews.

Threatening the Jews that they’ll be next after the Hamas supporters is a lot like saying, “First they came for the Nazis, then they came for the Jews”. The Nazis are a bigger threat than whoever they undefined ‘they’ are.

Rather than address antisemitism on the Left and on campus, Roth throws in Candace Owens (described as a Trump supporter even though she turned on him a while back), Nick Fuentes (ditto) Andrew Tate, and even Elise Stefanik, misattributes and misquotes multiple conservative figures, and wrongly insists “Shalom Columbia” is derogatory toward Jews.

And much of the op-ed is spent insisting that the handful of Jewish people who oppose Israel are equivalent to those who support it thereby actually doing what he wrongly accuses Trump of doing in Charlottesville, insisting on bothsideism.

Roth virtually offers no examples of leftist antisemitism, especially on campuses, that might have occasioned Jews to feel that “there is a great temptation for Jews to embrace anyone who denounces antisemitism, regardless of the moral contradictions.” Is he too unwilling or too afraid to do so?

“In the second and first century B.C., the Jewish kingdom of Judea aligned itself with Rome to protect itself from the domination of Greek culture. Rome obliged, and conquered Judea for itself,” Roth concludes. That’s bad history, but worse still, Roth is missing the point. He means it as a critique of Jews supporting Trump, but he might consider what if it’s really a critique of Jews supporting the Left?

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump: ‘Iran is in great danger’ if talks fail, ‘because they can’t have a nuclear weapon’

NYC: Masked and armed pro-Hamas protesters shut down Grand Central Station

Pro-Hamas Brownshirts are Presenting Themselves as the True Victims of the Demonstrations at Columbia

UK: Two Muslims arrested on suspicion of being members of Hizballah and preparing for jihad massacres

France: Muslim migrant who bombed bakery says ‘As a Muslim, I have no moral lessons to receive from the French’

Sweden: Islamic Republic of Iran recruited teen members of Muslim gangs for attacks on Israeli and Jewish targets

Afghanistan: Taliban apprehend two lesbians and ex-Muslim as they tried to flee the country

RELATED PODCAST: Robert Spencer discusses antisemitism on the Never Again Is Now

EDIOTORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The New York Times’ Double Standards

In the bias and malevolence of its coverage of the IDF and Israel, the New York Times has few equals in the American mainstream media. Just now it has been reporting on those, both Palestinians and soldiers, who accuse the IDF of using Palestinians as human shields in Gaza. More on the Times’ credulous coverage of this story can be found here: “Double Standards as New York Times Accuses IDF of Using Palestinians as Human Shields,” by Simon Plosker, Algemeiner, October 22, 2024:

Replete with a headline designed to tarnish Israel’s entire military, The New York Times recently published an investigation alleging that IDF soldiers were using Gazans as human shields during operations in the Gaza Strip.

The idea seems to be that the IDF uses Palestinians to accompany them when they first enter an area, and to go first into buildings that may be booby-trapped, before the IDF soldiers go in, or they are made to walk alongside IDF tanks, as a putative protection against attack by Hamas. No one has produced any evidence to support such charges.

In order to make its case, The New York Times says it “interviewed 16 Israeli soldiers and officials who knew about the practice, as well as three Palestinians, on the record, who were forced to take part in it.”

While the small number of Palestinians are named, the Israelis are not. It is always problematic to present anonymous testimony in a story where we don’t know the motivations behind those who are talking to the journalists.

Why were the 16 Israeli soldiers not named? Could it be because they knew their claims were doubtful, and didn’t want to be exposed? Some of them may have been far-left peaceniks, trying to arouse public anger in Israel against the IDF, in the hope of forcing the government to agree to an immediate ceasefire. Some may have genuinely misunderstood what the Palestinians present at IDF operations were doing. A Palestinian accompanying an IDF patrol might be voluntarily aiding the IDF to locate Hamas operatives and weapons, in the hope of sparing his home or hometown from being massively shelled.

Two of the Israelis, however, were connected to The New York Times through Breaking the Silence, whose motivations are very clear.

The organization, which was founded in 2004 by former IDF soldiers who are highly critical of Israel, claims to “expose the public to the reality of everyday life in the Occupied Territories” using testimonies that are purported to be “meticulously researched” while “all facts are cross-checked with additional eyewitnesses.”…

“Breaking the Silence” is a group of former IDF soldiers who are critical of Israel, and want to “expose the public to the reality of everyday life in the Occupied Territories.” The very fact that they use the phrase “Occupied Territories” indicates their embrace of the Palestinian cause, and their willingness to blacken the image of the IDF. A number of soldiers who have provided testimonies of IDF misconduct to Breaking the Silence turn out to have been paid to provide their stories; one wonders how much was real, and how much was made up by these soldiers in order to receive payments from the group.

Yet when it comes to New York Times coverage of and investigations into the IDF, it’s impossible to ignore the Gray Lady’s wider agenda that continuously seeks to delegitimize Israeli self-defense against the terrorists who are currently attacking it from multiple fronts.

For example, only days ago, the paper published an article that accused Israel of committing war crimes and “shooting children at point-blank range.” That story also relied on questionable testimonies and even more questionable X-rays purporting to show IDF bullets lodged in the heads of Palestinian children. The very authenticity of the X-rays was called into question, as the entire story was torn apart online….

Forensic experts who examined the X-ray photographs of dead children’s heads with bullets lodged in them concluded that they were fakes. For more on that particular scandal, in which The New York Times credulously accepted the Palestinian story, and refused to accept the scathing testimony of experts that debunked the claims of “65 Palestinian doctors and nurses,” see here.

Hamas’ policy of embedding its operatives, and hiding its weapons, within areas populated by civilians, is central to its war making. It does everything it can to increase civilian casualties, because it knows that their deaths will aid its propaganda campaign against Israel. As Yahya Sinwar said, the deaths of Palestinian civilians are the “necessary sacrifices” that must be made in fighting the Zionist enemy.

AUTHOR

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Winston Marshall on the history of evil of the New York Times, Zuckerberg, YouTube, Google and the political establishment

In the aftermath of Mark Zuckerberg’s open letter to Jim Jordan and the arrest of Telegram’s Pavel Durov, renowned investigative journalist Ashley Rindsberg exposes the troubling history of media and social media bias and censorship at the highest levels.

In this interview, Ashley reveals how the New York Times has shilled for authoritarian regimes from Stalin to Hitler and again today in America.

He unpacks the troubling capture of Wikipedia by progressive interests and it’s relationship with YouTube, Google and the political establishment.

The conversation explores the broader “digital civil war” as alternative voices challenge the establishment’s grip on information control.

RELATED VIDEO: Senator Tom Cotton exposes NBC’s fake news Arlington hoax

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column with video posted by Eeyore is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Constitution Comes Under Fire, Identified As Possible ‘Threat’ To American Politics

The New York Times non-fiction book critic Jennifer Szalai claimed the Constitution was “frozen in amber” while reviewing a book by University of California law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky.

Chemerinsky’s book, “No Democracy Lasts Forever,” released Aug. 20, argues that the United States Constitution has become a “threat to American democracy” that is “beyond redemption.” Szalai claimed that “Constitution worship” was possibly damaging the American political system in her review, citing arguments made by Chemerinsky and other liberal legal scholars, who say the document created a situation where a minority held tyrannical power to thwart.

WATCH: Socialists want to eliminate the U.S. Constition and replace it with a ‘national democracy’

“According to this line of argument, the damages of Constitution worship extend to the structure of the political system itself. National politics gets increasingly funneled through the judiciary, with control of the courts — especially the Supreme Court — becoming a way to consolidate power regardless of what the majority of people want,” Szalai wrote. “This disempowerment of majorities, combined with political gridlock and institutional paralysis outside the judiciary, fuels popular disaffection. The document that’s supposed to be a bulwark against authoritarianism can end up fostering the widespread cynicism that helps authoritarianism grow.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued rulings on abortion, gun rights, presidential immunity and former President Donald Trump’s eligibility that have angered liberals, who have suggested either imposing term limits on the justices or expanding the court in response.

Szalai noted that some of the reforms Chemerinsky sought could be achieved by passing a constitutional amendment, but then seemed to imply that such a change would be unlikely after dismissing the 1992 ratification of the 27th Amendment, claiming the ratification of the 26th Amendment in 1971, which lowered the voting age to 18, was the last “major” change to the document she asserted was “frozen in amber.”

Chemerinsky argued in an Aug. 23 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times Americans should look into a new governing document, criticizing the equal representation of states in the “egregiously undemocratic” United States Senate and objecting to the filibuster.

Democrats have sought to abolish the filibuster during the Biden administration, but were thwarted by then-Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

Chemerinsky also argued against the Electoral College in his Los Angeles Times op-ed, citing the 2000 and 2016 elections, when Republicans George W. Bush and Donald Trump won the presidency despite losing the popular vote.

AUTHOR

Harold Hutchison

RELATED ARTICLES:

Law School Dean Tells MSNBC It’s Time To Scrap Constitution

UN May Arm Governments With ‘New Weapon’ To Censor Speech, Watchdog Says

Journalist Warns Bill Maher Young Men ‘Breaking To Trump’ Might ‘Be Fatal For’ Harris’ Campaign

RELATED VIDEO: Kamala will shut down X if she wins

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

By Ignoring the Bidenites’ Advice, the Israelis Managed to Eliminate Many Hamas Jihadis

The New York Times insists that if Israel rejects the Bidenites’ advice to pull out of Gaza, it does so at its peril: “NYT admits US officials were wrong about the IDF in October, and wrong about Rafah, but thinks they are right now,” Elder of Ziyon, August 15, 2024:

So these officials were completely wrong in October. They were also wrong about Israel’s taking Rafah, which they now admit is exactly what destroyed Hamas’ supply lines from Egypt – and cost far fewer casualties thna they had confidently predicted.

By ignoring warnings from the Americans not to seize Rafah because of worries over civilian casualties, the IDF managed to kill a great many terrorists who had fled to the southernmost city in the Strip both from Gaza City and from Khan Yunis. Its control of Rafah has also made it easier for the IDF to control the Kerem Shalom crossing and to seize the Philadelphi Corridor, control of which has allowed the IDF to locate and destroy many tunnels bringing smuggled weapons from Egypt into Gaza.

But the US wants to send a message to Israel, and the New York Times is more than happy to do their bidding:

William J. Burns, the C.I.A. director, is due in Qatar on Thursday. Brett McGurk, President Biden’s Middle East coordinator, has headed to Egypt and Qatar. Amos Hochstein, a senior White House adviser, landed in Lebanon. One of the messages the officials are expected to deliver is that there is little more Israel can accomplish against Hamas.

Which is the entire point. This article isn’t reporting; it is a mouthpiece for Biden administration talking points.

If you look at what Israel has actually been doing, you would see that its success is not diminishing, but increasing. As it gathers more intelligence from captured terrorists and taking materials it discovers, it is getting more and more accurate than when it started….

Consistently, Israel has gotten better and better at targeting the terrorists. The entire reason that the Palestinians made up huge casualty lies about the airstrike on the Al Taabin school is becase [sic] it was a triumph of intelligence, taking out over 30 terrorists gathered in the mosque – a proportional attack by any definition of the term under international law….

In its latest statement on the airstrike, the IDF has now identified by name 38 Hamas terrorists killed at the command-and-control center functioning inside the Al Tabin school. That means in that operation at most 55 civilians were killed, and the ratio of civilian-to-combatant deaths was 55:36, or 1:5:1, an unheard-of ratio in the annals of warfare.

Many Hamas commanders, and leaders of its “political” wing, too, are being systematically eliminated by the IDF. Ismail Haniyeh, head of Hamas’ “political wing,” was recently blown up in at a Tehran guesthouse. Hamas’ military commander in Gaza, Muhammad Deif, was killed on July 13. A deputy commander of the Al-Qassam Brigades, Marwan Issa, was killed in March. And dozens of other high-ranking Hamas combatants have also been killed, as the IDF continues its relentless campaign of targeted assassinations.

Those in Washington who predicted last October that an Israeli invasion of Gaza to destroy Hamas would not succeed were proven wrong. Those who then insisted that the IDF should refrain from entering Rafah because it could not possibly evacuate more than a handful of its estimated one million inhabitants were proven wrong again. In May, the IDF managed in a matter of weeks to move 950,000 people out of the city.

Now the Bidenites are urging Israel to end its war in Gaza because, they claim, there is not much more of Hamas to destroy, and the IDF needs to avoid further civilian casualties. Neither is correct. Though the IDF has had a stunning success in dismantling Hamas, killing at least 17,000 of its combatants, there remain roughly the same number who, if not seriously wounded, are still capable of fighting, and they need to be smashed as a fighting force even if they cannot be entirely eliminated. As for civilian casualties, in the last three months Hamas has continued to claim roughly 38,000-39,000 casualties, as usual without distinguishing between civilians and Hamas operatives. The IDF has over the past nine months honed its ability to minimize civilian casualties, having ever greater success in warning people away from places about to be targeted, by making greater use of precision weapons, and by relying less on airstrikes and more on ground troops in its operations.

When Hamas recognizes reality, and agrees to the deal that Israel now is willing to accept, this war in Gaza will stop, and the IDF can turn its full attention to much more threatening enemies — Hezbollah and its puppet-master Iran. The IDF high command has not forgotten the Talmudic injunction: “If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first.”

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLE: Kamala’s Jewish Liaison: Biden Pretended to Support Israel Only to Stab it in the Back

RELATED VIDEO: This Week In Jihad with David Wood and Robert Spencer (Who The F*** Is Allah Edition)

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

New York Times hires another hater of Israel to cover Israel

Yet there are still people who think these are news organizations, and don’t realize what they really are: extremely well-heeled, sophisticated propaganda mills, buttressed by the full weight of the approval of the Western intelligentsia, which sends bogus ideologically based “fact checkers” such as NewsGuard to defame, discredit and destroy all dissent.

NY Times Hires Another Anti-Israel Extremist to Cover Israel

by Gilead Ini, CAMERA, July 5, 2024

The New York Times has a type.

It hired a reporter who once said she can’t bring herself even to look at Israelis, and who admitted that her objectivity “got thrown out the window.”

It hired another who in college was an apologist for Hamas and Hezbollah, denying that the terror organizations are terror organizations, that they are fundamentalists, and even that they have murdered Israeli civilians.

It hired another not long after she expressed outrage that Israel struck a Hamas commander after the terror group fired a barrage of rockets toward Israeli civilians — and even charged that the strike amounted to “murder.”

Shortly after the Oct. 7 massacre, the newspaper commissioned a journalist who had posted on social media, “How great you are, Hitler.”

So it is unfortunate, but hardly surprising, that the New York Times has hired Bora Erden to cover the Israel-Hamas conflict. Erden was a committed anti-Israel activist prior to joining the Times last October. In May 2021, after Hamas rocket attacks into Israel and a consequent round of fighting, Erden signed a letter supporting what was termed the “Palestinian struggle against Israeli colonial rule and its apartheid system.”…

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: New Muslim MPs have ties to Hamas and other jihad groups, call for BDS

Palestinian Authority Again Shows How ‘Moderate’ It Is

French-Israelis call on Jews to flee France and join them

UK: New Labour prime minister claims ‘urgent’ need for Gaza ceasefire

Canada: Pro-Hamas demonstrators smash windows at McGill University, scream ‘Globalize the intifada’

The Remarkable Story of Yaron Avraham: From Muslim to Jew

RELATED VIDEO: Trump Challenges Biden to a New Debate

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

NY Times Reporter: ‘I Wish Somebody Would Kill Trump’

This is where we are. Reporters for the NY Times, long the newspaper of record in the United States, is calling for assassination of the political opposition. And nobody bats an eyelash.

NYT Reporter Cuts to the Chase: ‘I Wish Somebody Would Kill Trump’

By: EVOL, July 7, 2024:

A New York Times reporter has said the quiet part out loud while expressing how the Left really feels about President Donald Trump.

John McWhorter, the prominent academic, author, and New York Times reporter bluntly declared that he hopes Trump will be assassinated.

McWhorter didn’t try to mask his desires, however, and simply cut to the chase by declaring: “I wish somebody would kill Donald Trump.”

McWhorter dropped the charade during an appearance on the new episode of “The Glenn Show” podcast, hosted by Brown University economics professor Glenn Loury.

“I have taken a great deal of heat for saying, for implying, that I wish somebody would kill Donald Trump,” McWhorter said.

“That is exactly what I was implying.

“It was irresponsible of me to say that in a public space.

“I really shouldn’t have said it here.”

But then McWhorter acknowledges that it wasn’t a one-off.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Killing Trump is Deep State’s ‘Plan C,’ Warns Advisor Roger Stone

“BURN IT DOWN”: American Flag BURNING Hamas Mobs Terrorize NYC Streets on July 4th Hate March

Self-hating Jew Bernie Sanders congratulates pro-Hamas anti-Semite Jeremy Corbyn on reelection

‘Is it right to think of the Nazi massacres on October 7? I think it is right to do so, because Hamas itself wanted to evoke the memory of the Shoah.’

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

More Anti-Israel Bias at the New York Times

The New York Times displays every day in its reporting, in its columns, and in its editorials, its bias against Israel. Ira Stoll takes on some subtler examples of this, in the choice of pejorative adjectives and adverbs the Times deploys in describing Israel but refrains from using when describing Hamas. You can find his piece here: “Jewish Leader Slams New York Times for ‘Dreadful’ Bias as Paper Faults ‘Ferocious’ Israel, ‘Rabidly Partisan’ Adelson,” by Ira Stoll, Algemeiner, June 28, 2024:

For a telltale indicator of New York Times bias, keep an eye on the adjectives and adverbs.

Two recent front-page Times articles offer examples of this particular problem skewing the coverage.

Times article purporting to show how Israelis “feel little sympathy” for Gazans suffering includes the line, “Michael Zigdon, who operates a small food shack in Netivot’s rundown market and had employed two men from Gaza until the attack, expressed little sympathy for Gazans, who have endured a ferocious Israeli military onslaught for the past eight months.”

The reporter notes that Zigdon had hired two workers from Gaza — hardly an indication of someone with “little sympathy” for the people of Gaza.  After the October 7 attack, he may have feared that the two Gazan workers he had been trying to help by giving them work at salaries many times greater than what they could earn in Gaza, had been providing Hamas with useful information as to possible targets inside Israel. All the employees from Gaza working in Israel were discharged on October 8.

The “ferocious” adjective gets hurled by the Times a second time in the same article, which goes on, in case any reader failed to absorb the point the first time, to say that “the death toll in Gaza has spiraled to at least 37,000 since Israel began its ferocious offensive.”

The Israeli self-defense operation gets described by the Times as “ferocious,” [“a ferocious Israeli military onslaught”] while the Hamas attack of Oct. 7 earns no such label. My Webster’s Second defines ferocious as “having or exhibiting ferocity, cruelty, savagery, etc.; violently cruel.” Ferocity is defined as coming from the Latin root ferus, meaning wild, “as the ferocity of barbarians.

That qualifies as slander of Israel, opinion masquerading as New York Times news writing. If the Times news writers and editors want to accuse Israel of waging barbaric, savage, wild, violently cruel warfare against Gazans, they are welcome to make a factual case for that. I think they’d have a hard time of it, given all the evidence about the care that Israel has used to limit noncombatant casualties. But making the accusation in a backhanded, backdoor way by sprinkling tendentious adjectives into news articles is a kind of deception so subtle that a lot of Times readers might not even notice it.

Readers’ eyes skim over the words; they see the adjective “ferocious” twice and think nothing of it, but the word’s meaning has entered their minds nonetheless. Israel’s military onslaught is thus described, with the single adjective “ferocious,” as “having or exhibiting ferocity, cruelty, savagery, etc; violently cruel.”

What do you think? Has Israel’s onslaught in Gaza displayed “ferocity, cruelty, savagery”? No, it has not. Israel has made colossal efforts to minimize civilian casualties. To this end, by March it had dropped nine million leaflets, sent 16 million text messages, made 15 million robocalls and 100,000 personal calls, all to warn civilians to leave cities or areas or neighborhoods about to be targeted, and the same warnings were given to civilians living or working in buildings that contained Hamas operatives, weapons, and command-and-control centers. This is not “ferocity, cruelty, savagery.” In fact, British Colonel Richard Kemp has described the IDF as “the most moral army in the word,” and West Point Professor John Spencer has described the IDF in similar terms, writing that “in my long career studying and advising on urban warfare for the U.S. military, I’ve never known an army to take such measures to attend to the enemy’s civilian population, especially while simultaneously combating the enemy in the very same buildings. In fact, by my analysis, Israel has implemented more precautions to prevent civilian harm than any military in history—above and beyond what international law requires and more than the U.S. did in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Perhaps the Times’ writers will keep that in mind before they next decide to describe the IDF’s war against Hamas as “ferocious.”

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Who’s Funding The Violent Anti-Israel Protests On American College Campuses?

NPR Interviews Member of Palestinian American Medical Association Without Identifying Him As Such

Dr. Adam Hamawy of the Palestinian American Medical Association Appears on NPR

Princeton: Muslima claims keffiyehs were confiscated at Princeton High School’s pro-Hamas encampment

Spain: Muslim migrants beat man to death after he stopped them from raping a 15-year-old girl

Palestinian Islamic Jihad fires rockets into Israel in response to ‘crimes of Zionist enemy against our people’

Louisiana: Imam prays ‘Oh Allah, annihilate the Jews and the Christians…Oh Allah, count them, kill them one by one’

Vandalizing LGBTQ Materials is a Crime Unless You Support Hamas

Serbia: Man converts to Islam, hits cop in the neck at Israeli embassy with bolt fired from crossbow

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

New York Times ‘Journalist’ Accused of Participating In Oct. 7th Hamas Attacks Wins Journalism Award

The New York Times proudly announced last Monday that it had “won three George Polk awards, including two for its coverage of the Israel-Hamas war.” Those prestigious journalism awards went to “Samar Abu Elouf and Yousef Masoud of The Times” for “photojournalism for their photographs of the conflict from inside Gaza, capturing the horrific toll of Israel’s airstrikes on civilians, including the death and injury of many children.” The Times neglected to mention, however, one telling detail: Masoud has been unmasked as a member of Hamas who participated in the Oct. 7 jihad massacres inside Israel.

The Paper of Record shows no sign of firing Masoud or returning the George Polk award he won, but the Jerusalem Post had the story on Thursday, noting that the media watchdog Honest Reporting had “highlighted his accreditation to a photo provided to the Associated Press, with the caption, ‘Palestinians wave their national flag and celebrate by a destroyed Israeli tank at the Gaza Strip fence east of Khan Younis southern Saturday, Oct. 7, 2023.’ How had Masoud gotten on the scene so quickly, so as to be in a position to take this picture? Honest Reporting “questioned Masoud’s explanation of his presence that he’d been woken up at 5.30 a.m. by rocket fire even though the firing only started an hour later.”

What’s more, “Masoud’s name was included in an investigative report from November showing that journalists from leading news outlets, including The New York Times, AP, Reuters, and CNN, joined Hamas terrorists from the Gaza Strip on October 7 to document the events with their cameras.” The New York Times responded indignantly: “The accusation that anyone at The New York Times had advance knowledge of the Hamas attacks or accompanied Hamas terrorists during the attacks is untrue and outrageous. It is reckless to make such allegations, putting our journalists on the ground in Israel and Gaza at risk.”

Honest Reporting, however, said that claims it had “jeopardized the safety of all media working in Israel and the Palestinian territories” were nothing more than “a deliberate attempt to deflect from the real issues we raised.” And that’s true. Why doesn’t Masoud explain how he came to be on the scene of a Hamas operation on the morning of Oct. 7, and why he stated that he was awakened by rocket fire an hour before the rocket fire started?

After all, there is nothing remotely implausible about the idea of a New York Times “journalist” being a Hamas operative. Honest Reporting pointed out the Times’ “backing of a decision to rehire Gazan freelance filmmaker Soliman Hijjy despite HonestReporting previously revealing how he had praised Hitler on social media.” What’s more, the Times and the rest of the establishment media have for years been consistently anti-Israel, and have worked assiduously to whitewash the bloody reality of Islamic jihad. Why would the Times, or any other establishment propaganda arm, hesitate to hire a supporter of Hamas and fanatical hater of Israel and Jews? Media observer Hugh Fitzgerald states that “save for a single columnist — Bret Stephens — the New York Times has no one on its staff, among its hundreds of reporters, columnists, and op/ed contributors, who could be described as willing to give Israel a fair shake.”

We have just recently discovered how closely the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) collaborated with Hamas, allowing the jihadis to operate on UNRWA premises, employing Hamas operatives, and teaching hatred of Jews and Israel in its textbooks for Palestinian schools. If this could happen before the eyes of a watching world, what would possibly prevent a “journalist” from a deeply biased and essentially pro-Hamas outlet from going whole hog with his support for the jihad terror outfit?

The New York Times has a great deal to answer for, far beyond Yousef Masoud. Masoud may indeed have been a Hamas jihadi, in which case his George Polk award should be rescinded and the Times should not use him again. But the fact that none of that is likely to happen is in large part a result of the Times’ indefatigable efforts to make support for jihad violence respectable and mainstream. The Times should at this point perform a thoroughgoing soul-searching, and a wholesale reevaluation of its uncritical support for jihadis. But nothing is much less likely.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Yet Another Muslim Journalist Working for The New York Times Praises Hitler

WATCH: IDF hits top Hamas propagandists posing as ‘journalists’ in Gaza

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Finally, The New York Times Begrudgingly Admits It Was Wrong About the Gaza Hospital Attack

When there was an explosion at the parking lot at the Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza last week, the New York Times was quick — much too quick, rather — heedless, off the mark, claiming that an Israeli airstrike was to blame for the attack “on the hospital,” and that nearly 500 people were killed. How did the Times know? It didn’t. It simply acted as a dutiful amanuensis, transcribing what Hamas dictated to its reporters. It ran with their account of the incident, without waiting for the Israelis to provide their detailed explanation of the blast. Within a matter of hours, Israel responded with its version of events: first, it said that an errant rocket fired by Palestinian Islamic Jihad had caused the explosion; second, the explosion was not in the hospital, which was largely unscathed, but in the parking lot of the hospital; third, that while it could not provide an exact figure, it believed there were far fewer than 500 people killed. But the damage was done. The Times had put out the story as Hamas wanted it, and Israel suffered terribly in the kangaroo court of public opinion.

Now, many days after it became crystal clear, through visual and audio evidence, including a view of the very small depression left by the blast, and after the American government, conducting its own forensic investigation, determined that Israel’s version of the incident was correct, the Grey Lady finally, albeit reluctantly, has had to admit it was wrong. The Times did not, of course, apologize for such an egregious and grievous error, nor take note of the likely violent consequences of disseminating that false claim, which in fact cam quickly to pass, with violent anti-Israel demonstrations all over the Arab and Muslim world. The Times is far too arrogant an institution to do that. More on how the high-and-mighty New York Times was brought low when it had to admit its error in the way it had covered the “hospital blast” story, can be found here: “NYT admits error in Gaza hospital report,” by Matt Berg, Politico, October 23, 2023:

The New York Times walked back its initial coverage on the explosion that killed hundreds of Palestinians at a Gaza Strip hospital last week, saying in an editors’ note that the newspaper “relied too heavily on claims” made by the Hamas militant group.

Just “an editors’ note”? On an inside page? The admission of its error ought by rights to have appeared where the misleading report had appeared — that is, on the front page, and in the same size type as the original.

Soon after a huge blast rocked the al-Ahli Hospital on Tuesday, finger-pointing over its source began.

Hamas, which has been battling Israel since its Oct. 7 surprise attack on Israeli soil, called the blast a “horrific massacre” and blamed the Israeli government. Israel, however, blamed the Islamic Jihad, a smaller, more radical group that often works with Hamas….

“The Times’s initial accounts attributed the claim of Israeli responsibility to Palestinian officials, and noted that the Israeli military said it was investigating the blast,” reads the Times’ editors’ note published on Monday. Early coverage “relied too heavily on claims by Hamas, and did not make clear that those claims could not immediately be verified.”

It took the Times six full days, from when the Israeli and American governments had presented their separate conclusions that Israel was blameless and that an errant rocket, launched from Gaza by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, had caused the “parking lot blast.” Why so long? What is it that makes the Times so reluctant to own up to its errors?

The newspaper’s coverage had a clear impact, according to the note: “The report left readers with an incorrect impression about what was known and how credible the account was.”…

That’s too weak. Make it stronger: “All the evidence supports Israel’s version of the incident.” Israel has explained, and provided the evidence, for what happened. The visuals show the rocket coming from Gaza toward Israel, and then suddenly breaking up, then heading downward and landing on the ground where the light of an explosion can be seen. And we have, too, the recorded telephone conversation of two Hamas operatives, discussing the fact that the rocket was fired by Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Why doesn’t the Times mention any of that in its “Editors’ Note”?

Five days ago, PBS presented Israel’s version of the cause of the blast. Three days ago the AP accepted Israel’s version after Washington had confirmed it. Two days ago, it was CNN that held Israel blameless. But the New York Times waited until six days had passed, long after everyone in the Western world had learned that the American government, having conducted its own investigation, had concluded that Israel was blameless.

Here was what National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson tweeted the day after the blast: “While we continue to collect information, our current assessment, based on analysis of overhead imagery, intercepts and open source information, is that Israel is not responsible for the explosion at the hospital in Gaza yesterday.”

The Times stopped short of an apology for its initial coverage but said editors should have been more careful with the way the blast was represented….

Here’s what one would have wished from the Times: a full-throated, unbegrudging apology for the haste of its initial report, its credulous acceptance of a Hamas libel, and its unwillingness to wait just a few hours for Israel’s response. Surely it knew that putting the blame on Israel was likely to cause, and did cause, outbursts of anti-Israel hate all over the Arab and Muslim lands. Nor does the Times explain why the admission of its mistake came so many days after everyone else had admitted that Israel’s explanation of the blast was correct. Why was that? Perhaps the Times can assign a reporter to provide an “anatomy of an error ” to supplement that “Editor’s Note,” so that readers can find out exactly how, and why, that initial mistaken report came to be.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Rashida Tlaib has extensive fundraising ties to Hamas supporters

What caused the Hamas massacre? Western pressure on Israel

Notes From The Underground: British Tube Driver Leads Anti-Israel Chant

Perilously Little Is Known About the CCP-Mideast Terror Connection

Hamas jihadi calls his father: ‘I killed them with my bare hands, your son killed Jews!’

Germany: Muslim arrested on suspicion of planning attack on pro-Israel demonstration

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Recovering a more perfect union: A rebuke of the 1619 Project

A new book describes the importance of memory, history, and national identity in saving America from desolation.


One of the worst sins of the present — not just ours but any present — is its tendency to condescend toward the past, which is much easier to do when one doesn’t trouble to know the full context of that past or try to grasp the nature of its challenges as they presented themselves at the time.
— Wilfred M. McClay, Land of Hope: An Invitation to the Great American Story

Jay Leno used to do a regular schtick, Jaywalking, in which he would interview random persons on the street, often young ones, and ask them questions about American history, such as: “Who did America fight in the Revolutionary War?” “How many branches of the U.S. government are there?” “What year was the War of 1812?” Invariably, they could not answer the question, standing mute with Leno’s impertinent microphone pointed at their gaping mouths, or they gave a ridiculous answer.

As deflating as these performances were, it turns out that the state of American education is even worse than Leno documented. Not only does ignorance characterise so much of the citizenry, but Americans are now also imbibing, i.e., being taught, pernicious lies or partial truths about the founding and history of the United States from a tendentious, ideological, and solidly left-wing perspective.

Twisted narrative

This sorry state of affairs is documented in excruciating detail in Timothy S. Goeglein’s enlightening, depressing, and, ultimately, hopeful new book, Toward a More Perfect Union: The Moral and Cultural Case for Teaching the Great American Story.

The distortion of history now routinely fed to elementary and high school students, as well as those attending hopelessly “woke” universities and colleges, has produced many young people who are “cynical, entitled, and aggrieved.” Continues Goeglein:

Rather than being thankful, they are indignant. Rather than proud, they feel ashamed. Rather than feeling free, they feel oppressed. Rather than wanting to fix America’s faults, they want to burn America down. Rather than asking what they can do for their country, they demand to know what their country can do for them — and the answer is increasingly to “cease to exist.”

We have created “a citizenry divorced both intellectually and emotionally from its heritage.” Further, “[w]hen we disassociate history — and memory — from facts, we are lost,” writes Goeglein, a former special assistant to President George W. Bush, a former Senate staffer, and, presently, vice-president of external and government relations for Focus on the Family.

Our predicament is exemplified by the absurd, anti-historical 1619 Project of the New York Times, an initiative repudiated by many respectedliberal historians. It is being taught in roughly 4,500 schools nationwide.

In a feat of historical and moral inversion, it maintains that the American Revolution was designed primarily to protect the institution of slavery from being destroyed by the British Empire.

Such a one-sided view of history will alienate Americans from one another, given the dissolution of a common identity and love of country, and disregards those who struggled to make the Declaration of Independence a reality in spite of its obvious flaws, such as slavery.

On the matter of slavery, always a leading complaint against America’s founding, the Washington Post’s George Will has rightly observed that the founders’ Constitution “gave slavery no national validation. It left slavery solely a creature of state laws and therefore susceptible to the process that, in fact, occurred — the process of being regionally confined and put on a path to ultimate extinction. Secession was the South’s desperate response when it recognized this impending outcome that the Constitution had facilitated.”

So, it comes as no surprise that, as “a 2020 Pew Research study found a month before the presidential election, roughly eight in ten registered voters in both camps said their political disagreements with others were about core American values, with roughly nine in ten — liberal and conservative — worried [that] a victory by the other would lead to ‘lasting harm’ to the United States” [emphasis added]. We are now in a situation in which tribe is pitted against tribe, race against race, rich against poor, red against blue states.

We have succumbed to the “termites of self-loathing,” to use a term coined by Ben Stein. There is hardly a historic personage — Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Columbus, St Junípero Serra — who is not vilified, “cancelled,” and banished into outer darkness by woke activists and educators. One should be grateful that at least Frederick Douglass and Dr Martin Luther King Jr are spared such treatment, given their devotion to American ideals in the Declaration of Independence, classical literature, and Scripture. They are just ignored.

Dearth of patriotism

Recently, a friend whose daughter attended one of the tonier prep schools in Washington, DC, related that his conversations with her on US and Western history were disappointing. She, and her friends, showed no “piety” toward her country or heritage.

It was an interesting word choice and recalled my own school days studying Virgil’s Aeneid, an epic poem written between 29 and 19 BC. It tells the story of the Trojan Aeneas, who fled the destruction of his city, travelled to Italy, and would later become the ancestor of the Romans.

I remember my Jesuit instructor lauding “pius Aeneas,” “pious” being the most used adjective throughout the poem. In following the will of the gods — he even left the captivating Dido in Carthage — Aeneas demonstrated pietas, a virtue in the eyes of Virgil and my teacher, in his devotion to family, country, and mission. Such piety is no longer encouraged in our educational institutions, or so it would seem.

Major culprit

What brought America to this sorry state? In the beginning there was the “Original Zinn” — Howard Zinn, that is, a Boston University professor of political science and “the godfather of the radical attack on America’s history”, as Goeglein outlines in a pivotal chapter of Toward a More Perfect Union.

Zinn’s “epic screed,” A People’s History of the United States (1980), and his supplemental book for high schoolers, A Young People’s History of the United States (2007), have had an unparalleled impact on social studies teachers. The historian refram[ed]” and “reimagin[ed]” facts to fit a Marxist critique of the US and a Western civilisation marred, claimed Zinn, “by the religion of popes, the government of kings, the frenzy for money.” For Zinn, “standards of historical analysis are merely ‘technical problems’ to be dismissed.”

“You wanna read a real history book?” Matt Damon’s titular character, Will, asks Robin Williams’ Dr Sean Maguire in the movie Good Will Hunting (1997). “Read Howard Zinn’s People’s History of the United States. That book’ll f***ing knock you on your ass.” Indeed, it does. It also boggles the mind.

Zinn claims that the nation “has been taken over by men [the founders] who have no respect for human rights or constitutional liberties.” Again, in service to ideology, Zinn does not believe in objective history as documented by Mary Grabar, PhD, a refugee of communist Yugoslavia, on whom Goeglein draws heavily.

Nikole Hannah-Jones, the main author of the 1619 Project, backtracked after respected historians critiqued her work. She claimed that the project was not about history but about “memory.” This is not historically grounded memory, but memory saturated with ideology and politics. This is pure Zinn in methodology. Hence, noted historians such as Arthur Schlesinger Jr, Eugene Genovese, and Michael Kammen — hardly a crowd of right-wingers — criticised Zinn as a “polemicist, not a historian.”

“His ultimate goal is not a historical one but a political one,” writes Goeglein. “[H]e wanted to depict the United States as an illegitimate enterprise, one demanding a revolution.”

Pushback

According to the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, today, only 18 percent of colleges require that students take a US history or government class to graduate. Maybe that is a blessing, given what passes for “history” in today’s woke environment. Ultimately, however, this is devastating to national unity.

Goeglein describes survey after survey that all indicate Americans’ ignorance of their rights under law and history. When the Constitution is taught, it is derided as being not radical enough in terms of the outcomes desired by left-of-centre teachers and advocates.

Toward A More Perfect Union does not specify a political agenda for reform, although it does note efforts made by some governors to reign in educational bureaucracies on, say, critical race theory. It does make a plea for parents to make a concerted effort to teach and counsel their children on the history of the nation and to pay close attention to what their schools are teaching.

It points to excellent resources available with which parents can educate themselves and their children on the complete story of American exceptionalism, not excluding the darker chapters. Parents who can afford the cost should look for alternatives to public schools that sacrifice true learning for the sake of ideology. “Classical” schools, home schooling, and parochial schools — all of which boomed during the COVID lockdowns — are possible options.

Parents who cannot afford private schools or who have special-needs children “must be extra vigilant and expect to receive the full wrath of Leftist activists if they stand up and demand that civics be taught while also standing against the indoctrination their children are receiving.” Specifically, they need to insist on the rights to inspect curricula, to opt out of the teaching of certain subjects, and to insist that controversial issues be discussed impartially. No easy tasks these.

Goeglein concludes:

[W]e must rededicate ourselves to the teaching of history — true, verifiable, factual history, with all its glories and tragedies. We need not fear to teach the ugly truths about America alongside the beautiful ones, because America’s founding vision is pure and her ideals are noble. Our failures do not change that.

Toward a More Perfect Union makes a compelling case that the country’s future, as one nation, demands a reclamation of our educational system and a recovery of the authentic teaching of history and constitutional government rightly understood.

This article has been republished from The American Spectator with permission.

AUTHOR

G. Tracy Mehan III

G. Tracy Mehan, III, was Assistant Administrator for Water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the Administration of President George W. Bush. He is an adjunct professor at Scalia Law School,… More by G. Tracy Mehan III

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Yet Another Muslim Journalist Working for The New York Times Praises Hitler

What if Honest Reporting hadn’t revealed anything about Soliman Hijjy? Would he still be working for the Times? Sure. They’re only concerned about this kind of behavior when they get caught.

Unearthed: Another Hitler-Praising New York Times Gaza Journalist

by Ira Stoll, Algemeiner, August 28, 2022:

After the New York Times terminated its relationship with a Gaza-based journalist who said he favored killing and burning Jews “like Hitler did,” the newspaper is looking into additional reported instances of its journalists praising Hitler on social media.

The same watchdog group, HonestReporting, that unearthed the post by Fady Hanona also dug up a 2012 Facebook post by a Times videographer, Soliman Hijjy, who HonestReporting said wrote “How great are you, Hitler.” Hijjy also shared variants of the post again in 2018 and 2020, HonestReporting said.

HonestReporting also expressed concern about social media posts made between 2011 and 2018 by Hosam Salem, a freelance photographer whose work has appeared in the Times.

The Times told HonestReporting it reviewed the concerns and took “appropriate action.”…

And, at least in Hijjy’s case, a video he created for the Times, “Gaza’s Deadly Night: How Israeli Airstrikes Killed 44 People,” was denounced when it came out as a “shocking” “hatchet job.” So the issue isn’t just the social media posts, it’s the nexus between the social media posts and the hate-filled agenda that filters through into the New York Times journalism….

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

France: Muslim butchers his housemate with an axe, admits he did it because he was Jewish

Nigeria: ‘We are dealing here with a sustained campaign to wipe out Christianity. No Christian is safe.’

UK: Muslim already convicted of spreading ISIS videos on Whatsapp and Instagram convicted of spreading them on Facebook

Iranian journalist: Khamenei’s fatwa against nuclear weapons ‘can be reexamined’

Australia: International media coverage of ‘Islamophobia’ as Lebanese Christian shouts at Muslima, denounces Islam

Islamic scholar: Morocco’s normalization with Israel is ‘mark of shame,’ if king ‘called for jihad, we are ready’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The More Unpopular He Gets, the More Radical Biden Becomes

He doesn’t work for the voters, he works for the Left.

The new New York Times poll is bad news for Biden and bad for America.

It’s not just the 33% approval rating that’s truly worrying. Biden has hit a new polling low, but he hits new polling lows every week. 70% of Democrats still claim to approve of Biden, much as they would a diseased cat, the propped up corpse of Osama bin Laden, or small piece of dried spaghetti as long as it was a Democrat. But only a quarter of the party wants Biden to run again.

Biden’s few remaining brain cells aren’t worried about the 2024 election. They’re worried about the Democrat primaries that he barely survived last time around. And isn’t likely to this time.

64% of Democrats want someone, anyone, other than Biden to run in 2024.

As Biden’s poll numbers have slid down the slopes faster than a falling skier, he hasn’t moved to the center, but to the fringes. Like most of his party, the primary threat comes from the Left. And the more unpopular Biden becomes, the harder he pivots leftward to protect his primary options.

Even if they’re mostly imaginary.

That’s why the poor poll numbers are nothing to celebrate. Biden pretended to run from the center, but never governed from the center. And his growing unpopularity has only made his administration more extreme. Biden doesn’t need America and doesn’t have it anyway.

He needs the Left.

Leftists and Americans wanted opposite things from the Biden administration. Americans wanted stability, sensible policies and an end to the chaos. Leftists wanted endless spending on their agendas, identity politics and a perpetual state of crisis. Biden took office in a locked down city with a heavily military presence, appointed an attorney general bitter at having a Supreme Court seat taken from him and tasked with pursuing partisan grievances. Gargantuan spending bills aggravated the already unstable economy and pushed the country to the brink.

Everything else followed from that.

Biden locked his administration into a leftist worldview that alienated most of the country. The more the rest of the country shuns him, the harder he clings to the “one that brought” him.

Barack Obama.

Biden isn’t popular, but he never was. He first got to the White House riding leftist coattails. He certainly wasn’t elected based on his own popularity, but because the Left waged a scorched earth campaign. The only reason someone so corrupt and inept ever ended up in the White House was as a beneficiary of the outpouring of rabid leftist hatred against conservatives.

The 2020 strategy of lying low and letting the Left rage got him in the White House. And Biden knows that his only shot of getting back in is once again letting the Left do its worst.

Biden’s national poll numbers don’t matter because he didn’t win a popularity contest.

It doesn’t matter if he’s at 41% or 33% or 6%. Biden’s gambit will be once again lying low and letting the Left shape the battlefield. Faced with the likelihood of being a one-termer, his staffers are leftists who aren’t in it for the money or the career development, but are true believers in the “cause”. And he needs leftist donors who aren’t invested in personalities, but in ideology.

Much like Xi, Biden understands that the ‘party’ matters and the public doesn’t. And ‘party’ doesn’t mean the official one with a donkey on the box, but the ideological leftist movement that cares about the things he’s vigorously promoting from critical race theory to gender identity to modern monetary theory and all the theories that in their sum add up to Marxist theory.

Joe Biden likely doesn’t believe any of it, but just as Hunter didn’t have to read Mao’s Little Red Book to cut business deals in China, Biden doesn’t have to understand what he’s promoting.

Biden came into office after outsourcing much of his administration’s policy apparatus to the Bernie and Warren people. The “Big Guy” doesn’t care much about policy. Biden has been anti and pro-abortion, pro and anti-terrorism, and pro and anti-racism depending on the moment.

What Biden cares about is having the big job and whatever benefits flow from it. An egomaniac who kept on lying about his college grades while running for president, he accidentally landed in a position commensurate with his inflated self-image. And one that offers plenty of rewards.

Much as Hillary, another compulsive liar, wrecked her own party and then the country while trying to cling to power no one thought she should have, Biden, even in his diminished state, is not going to let go. In that, Biden is no different than the rest of a gerontocratic oligarchy, men and women like Speaker Pelosi and Senator Bernie Sanders, claiming to speak for the youth.

After generations in power, none of them are eager to let go and accept the inevitable. Especially since the inevitable is no longer as inevitable as it once used to be.

It’s inevitable to most that Biden won’t run and won’t win if he does. And in the normal state of things, that would be true. But we are in a post-polling world in which public opinion is no longer just a reaction to events, but can be directly shaped by manufacturing a series of crises.

And if Biden works hard enough for the Left, perhaps the Left will work to keep him in office.

Some race riots, lockdowns, and crises yet to be unleashed can do wonders for changing people’s perspective. It likely won’t work and may not even be tried, but Biden doesn’t have any other cards to play. And he never did. Biden can’t win elections on his own. So he won’t try.

The more unpopular he becomes, the less likely he is to even bother going through the motions.

Biden may sit in the White House (when he’s not vacationing in Delaware), but he doesn’t work for the American people. He works for the Left. And he may not remember much of anything else, but that is the one thing he has never forgotten. It’s the only reason why he’s here.

AUTHOR

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden’s Speech At Ben Gurion Airport: Some Good Parts, and Some Statements That Called for Rewrite

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Propaganda Machine

Open letter to Dean Baquet
Executive Editor of The New York Times

Good day Deano,

I hope today finds you well at your desk, as the Executive Editor of the iconic New York Times.  It seems your tabloid itself has been very much in the news as of late. Those radical right wingers are at it again, questioning your tabloid’s veracity and dedication to journalistic integrity—the nerve Deano!  Well let’s put together some facts and let the public judge for themselves, shall we old sport?

Hunter’s Laptop

Well is seems Joey Robinette’s prodigal son, Hunter (former energy expert, now famous artist), is back in the news again.  When will these right wing lunatics stop their relentless assault on the Biden crime family, um, I mean Biden family?  I thought that we had solved the issue of Hunter’s laptop during the Presidential installation of 2020.

Remember Deano—when about a month before the installation, the New York Post reported that Hunter’s laptop was discovered in a Delaware repair shop, with some very incriminating emails on it.  This was verified, in part by interviewing recipients of emails, from said laptop.  Some of the evidence even pointed to the angelic, morally uncompromised, Joey Robinette (aka, the Big Guy, Mr. 10%).

The New York Times to the Rescue

Thank goodness, a legitimate trustworthy news outlet such as The NY Times was able to squash this hyped-up propaganda immediately.  I believe the ‘go to’ battle cry at the time was, “Russian disinformation.”   Together with the aid of such other credible stalwart outlets like: CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, The Washington Post—as well as social media icons Twitter and Facebook, you were able to slam that door shut.  In addition, we had unbiased celebrities and talk show hosts; and of course with credible political powerhouses like Chardonnay Pelosi and Adam Schiff, we were able to silence this vile propaganda.   Of course, let’s not forget those 50 “intelligence officials,” who concurred wholeheartedly.  The FBI too, who has had said laptop in their possession for years now.  Calm down Conservatives, the Gestapo, I mean FBI have their hands full, you know, investigating Joey’s daughter’s diary.   These investigations take time unless of course……….. it involves the “insurrection”.  Then the FBI perform with lightning fast efficiency.  Conservatives see it a very different way Deano, let’s look at it from their viewpoint.

“The news that is fit to print”………..Sometimes!

Conservatives point out that you, Dean Baquet, recently ran an article in The Old Gray Lady in regards to this matter.  It seems now, 17 months after that original story ran, you are NOW corroborating this New York Post article.  Even in this article, you waited until the 24th paragraph to mention these facts (must have been an oversight by your editing department).  Have you taken leave of your senses, Deano old boy?  Have you drank the proverbial right wing Kool-Aid?  Why the admission of this evidence now?

Conservatives say that there is no reason to withhold the truth anymore.  No reason to omit, lie, or censor factual information— the mentally addled, corrupt puppet Joey Talibiden has been installed.  That it was a concerted effort by tabloids such as yours, that omitted or better yet, “fact-checked,” these incriminating emails.  They refer to you and your ilk as journalistic disgraces, who long ago sold your souls and integrity to become a political arm/hack of the Democratic/Progressive Party.  They add, this combined with your blatantly deceitful arrogance and hubris, has done irreparable harm to the core of honest, unbiased journalism. With your printing or omission of your vile, fictional tripe, I say bravo, Deano!

Mission Accomplished

So, I guess you ruffled a few Conservative feathers Deano.  I’m with you buddy, the end justifies the means, as far as I’m concerned.  The main objective of course, was to block elected President Trump from being legitimately re-elected; partly, by hiding any incriminating criminal evidence against the Houseplant-in-Chief, and his corrupt family. So what if some fraud had to be committed to secure the vote……no harm, no foul, right Deano?  So what if you had to run a little interference (many say, a lot), to get the job done.  It’s all good.  President Trump is a racist!

Is Joey Gonna have to Take a Dive?

I understand there is another train of thought here champ.  A few unnamed sources (WAPO trick I picked up), feel Joey Bidenflation has worn out his welcome with his puppet masters.  You know, those behind the scenes, who are hard at work destroying this great country while using the Vegetable-in-Chief as a mouthpiece – a very bad one at that, they add.  They are saying, he is in the process of being Cuomo’d.

From what I understand, these powers that be are not happy with little Joey’s, in-the-toilet poll numbers, and his never ending slew of screw-ups.  Sources say, Deano, your admission to the authenticity of Hunter’s (famous artist) laptop, is proof that Joey may be being set up to step down.  Of course, I know your honesty and professionalism are pure as the driven snow, but the timing does seem a bit peculiar champ, I mean 17 MONTHS?

Moral Compass Gone Astray Deano?

Unnamed source’s say Conservatives want to know how you push out this blatant partisan nonsense, day in and day out.  They are curious how people like you, or the Minister of Propaganda, Jen Goebbels Psaki do this everyday and then go home to your families?

They wonder if you guys teach the golden rule at home for you children: tell the truth, be responsible for your actions, own up to your mistakes, treat others the way you would like to be treated?  Do you then, turn that switch off in your heads once you get in the car and head out to work?  Or do you teach your kids to lie, deflect, and connive from the time they start to talk?   Do Peppermint Patti Psaki’s kids run to the door when Mom comes home and ask, “what lies did you tell today Mommy?”  It takes a certain type of person to pull that off……..you should be proud!  President Trump is a racist!

Andy’s Back!

I see Andy boy may be throwing his hat in the political ring again.  He shouldn’t let all those nursing home deaths and sexual harassment issues get in the way. As Andy said, “what can I say, I’m Italian.”  Word is he will be handing out cannoli’s at polling places. I see Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, reported that ole Andy severely under reported the number of nursing home deaths.  Funny though Deano, people were screaming for these numbers for months while Andy was still governor, and Tommy D. remained silent. Then Andy starts hinting he may venture back into politics and …………voila, Tommy had those numbers likkity split.  Remarkable!  Who says Tommy DiNapoli isn’t on the up and up!
Will The Times, as usual be endorsing ole Romeo Cuomo?

NATO Summit

It is good to see our fearless leader Joey Talibiden, heading overseas to meet with NATO leaders. I’m sure he will be setting policy and showing who is in charge over there. In the meantime, it is nice to see the other world leaders leading Joey around by the arm—pointing in the direction of the bathroom—wiping the spittle off his chin after his juice box and mac and cheese lunch, and waiting with him until “Dr.” Jill picks him up.

Reportedly, Heels Up Harris was originally supposed to be representing us over there in Brussels.  I was shocked that she was shelved, seeing as she did so well last time she was abroad.  When asked to comment on this Kalamity said, “we have to go, in order to go, I will go, to go where they go, we have to make sure we go, ultimately we will go, in order to go. Thank you, no more questions.”

That’s it for today Deano.  Keep up the great work at The Old Gray Lady.  With all the madness going around, we can always count on The Times…….for entertainment, if nothing else.  Remember this, when you get home to tell the family all the lies, I mean reporting you oversaw today as the Executive Editor of the New York Times.  Well done Dean Baquet, we’ll done.

Sincerely,

Chris Cirino

©Christopher Cirino