Posted tagged ‘New York Times’

Holocaust-denying NYT offers ‘A Modest Immigration Proposal: Ban Jews’

January 19, 2018

Holocaust-denying NYT offers ‘A Modest Immigration Proposal: Ban Jews’, American ThinkerEd Straker, January 19, 2018

The biggest falsehood in Stephens’s piece is that Jews were welcomed to the United States in earlier times, but Muslims are blocked now.  In fact, Jews were prevented from coming into the country during the Holocaust, and many of them died because of it.  Muslims, by contrast, have several dozen Muslim countries to choose from if they want to get out of their own…holes of origin.

It’s sad to watch Stephens trying to use the suffering of the Jews as a passport to import more Muslims into this country.

********************************

You would think that a newspaper that helped cover up the Holocaust, the murder of six million Jewish people, would show a little hesitancy before publishing an op-ed entitled “A Modest Immigration Proposal: Ban Jews.”

This insidious piece is authored by the New York Times’ pet “conservative,” Bret Stephens.  Stephens claims he is merely conducting a “thought experiment.”  He says that Jewish immigrants from the early 20th century had much the same characteristics as Muslim and third-world immigrants of today, so banning Muslims today is like banning Jews in the past.

Stephens claims that some Jews who came to America harbored communist views.  True.  He implies we are meant to compare that to Muslims who believe in sharia law.  But there is a difference.

Jews who came to America, even communist Jews, did not blow up the Empire State Building or drive cars into crowds.  They did not murder people screaming, “Moses is great!” or “Abraham is great!”  Some of them had awful views, and they probably had equally awful voting records, but that’s as far as it went, for most of them (except, admittedly, for the awful Rosenbergs).

Stephens also claims that Jews who came to America did not assimilate in succeeding generations.  He must not have been paying attention.  Does Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin look unassimilated?  How about former attorney general Michael Mukasey?  William Shatner?  Jerry Seinfeld?

Stephens also claims that Jews who came to America were uneducated.  Some were, but many weren’t.  Furthermore, Jews valued education and quickly became among the most educated segment of the country, despite rampant discrimination.

Nor can you go around the country and find Jewish “barrios” where all signs are in Yiddish.  When you call a business on the phone, you never have to “press 1 for English” in order to avoid a voice menu in Hebrew.  The Jews, clearly, have assimilated.

So Stephens’s comparison is entirely false.  Many Muslims who come here don’t assimilate, and many not only have radical views, but even act on them, murdering Americans.  As for other “third-world” immigrants, many of them are not only illiterate in English, but illiterate in their own languages as well.

Stephens calls Attorney General Jeff Sessions a “bigot” for having legitimate security concerns about immigrants from Muslim countries.  Stephens, a recent arrival at the New York Times, was formerly a mouthpiece at the Wall Street Journal and was quite at home with the open-borders corporatist crowd that wants cheap imported labor.

The biggest falsehood in Stephens’s piece is that Jews were welcomed to the United States in earlier times, but Muslims are blocked now.  In fact, Jews were prevented from coming into the country during the Holocaust, and many of them died because of it.  Muslims, by contrast, have several dozen Muslim countries to choose from if they want to get out of their own…holes of origin.

It’s sad to watch Stephens trying to use the suffering of the Jews as a passport to import more Muslims into this country.

Ed Straker is the senior writer at Newsmachete.com.

 

As anti-regime protests spread, Trump tweets support for Iranian people

December 31, 2017

As anti-regime protests spread, Trump tweets support for Iranian people, Israel Hayom, Elliott Abrams, December 31, 2017

Friday’s New York Times coverage. . .  is titled “Scattered Protests Erupt in Iran Over Economic Woes.” More remarkably, consider the very first line:

Protests over the Iranian government’s handling of the economy spread to several cities on Friday, including Tehran, in what appeared to be a sign of unrest.

Ya think? “Appeared” to be a sign of unrest? What else was it, a sign of support for the ayatollahs? And note the Times title again, telling you these protests are all about the economy – a conclusion contradicted by the words being shouted by the protesters, as the BBC tells us. In fact, buried down in the Times story, we do find that in Kermanshah “protesters shouted anti-government slogans like ‘Death or freedom,’ ‘Care for us and leave Palestine’ and ‘Political prisoners must be freed.'” Does that sound like a “protest over economic woes”?

***********************************

This piece is reprinted with permission and can be found on Abrams’ blog “Pressure Points.”

In the last few days there have been anti-government protests all over Iran. The BBC reports this as of Friday night, in a story titled “Iranian cities hit by anti-government protests.”

Anti-government demonstrations that began in Iran on Thursday have now spread to several major cities.

Large numbers reportedly turned out in Rasht, in the north, and Kermanshah, in the west, with smaller protests in Isfahan, Hamadan and elsewhere.

The protests began against rising prices but have spiralled into a general outcry against clerical rule and government policies. …

What began as a protest against economic conditions and corruption has turned political. …

Slogans have been chanted against not just Mr. Rouhani but Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and clerical rule in general.

Demonstrators were reportedly heard yelling slogans like “The people are begging, the clerics act like God.” Protests have even been held in Qom, a holy city home to powerful clerics.

There is also anger at Iran’s interventions abroad. In Mashhad, some chanted “not Gaza, not Lebanon, my life for Iran”, a reference to what protesters say is the administration’s focus on foreign rather than domestic issues.

Other demonstrators chanted “leave Syria, think about us” in videos posted online.

Videos posted on social media appear to show clashes between security forces and some demonstrators in Kermanshah.

Now compare Friday’s New York Times coverage. It is titled “Scattered Protests Erupt in Iran Over Economic Woes.” More remarkably, consider the very first line:

Protests over the Iranian government’s handling of the economy spread to several cities on Friday, including Tehran, in what appeared to be a sign of unrest.

Ya think? “Appeared” to be a sign of unrest? What else was it, a sign of support for the ayatollahs? And note the Times title again, telling you these protests are all about the economy – a conclusion contradicted by the words being shouted by the protesters, as the BBC tells us. In fact, buried down in the Times story, we do find that in Kermanshah “protesters shouted anti-government slogans like ‘Death or freedom,’ ‘Care for us and leave Palestine’ and ‘Political prisoners must be freed.'” Does that sound like a “protest over economic woes”?

The Times story is written by its bureau chief in Tehran, Thomas Erdbrink, one of the very few Western reporters (he is Dutch) accredited to report for U.S. media. Must he pull punches for fear of being expelled from Iran? After all, this is a regime that has invaded embassies (most recently, for example, the British Embassy in 2011) and in 2009 the entire BBC bureau there was shut down and the BBC’s correspondent expelled. In 2014, Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian was arrested and then imprisoned for 18 months. He and his wife are now suing the government of Iran for their maltreatment and torture while in captivity.

So perhaps it is wise for reporters in Tehran to watch what they say. But the Times’ report and headline that these are merely economic protests are misleading. Both should be corrected.

Meanwhile the U.S. State Department issued a very strong statement on these protests – which rightly regards them as political:

We are following reports of multiple peaceful protests by Iranian citizens in cities across the country. Iran’s leaders have turned a wealthy country with a rich history and culture into an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed, and chaos. As U.S. President Donald Trump has said, the longest-suffering victims of Iran’s leaders are Iran’s own people.

The United States strongly condemns the arrest of peaceful protesters. We urge all nations to publicly support the Iranian people and their demands for basic rights and an end to corruption.

On June 14, 2017, Secretary Tillerson testified to Congress that he supports “those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of government. Those elements are there, certainly as we know.” The secretary today repeats his deep support for the Iranian people.

The Iranian people rose up against their oppressors in June 2009. Now we are again seeing that this regime rules by brute force, is widely despised, and would be dismissed by the people if ever they got a chance to vote freely.

Elliott Abrams is a senior fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Misrepresenting Germany in ‘The New York Times’

September 26, 2017

Misrepresenting Germany in ‘The New York Times’, PJ MediaBruce Bawer, September 25, 2017

YouTube screenshot from New York Times documentary about a refugee in Germany

It is strange to think that there was a time when I bought The New York Times every morning and pored through it over my coffee, genuinely convinced that I was reading the most reliable news source on the planet. In my defense, I was very young. And The New York Times was a better paper then, although nowhere near as good as I thought it was. It has, in any event, long since become a travesty – a propaganda sheet that systematically, and dangerously, distorts the truth about the most crucial issues of our time.

Case in point: a 14-minute “Times documentary” entitled “Seeking Asylum in Germany – and Finding Hatred.” Credited to Ainara Tiefenthäler, Shane O’Neill, and Andrew Michael Ellis, and posted front and center on the Times website last Thursday, it’s about Abode, a tall, lanky 22-year-old Libyan refugee who, at the beginning of the film, has been living in the Saxon town of Bautzen (pop. 41,000) for over two years.

From the outset, Abode is presented as an innocent victim of racist hatred. We see him in his room at the Bautzen asylum center, talking softly, his large brown eyes oozing sensitivity. We see a cell-phone video in which a young white woman half his size kicks and hits him, apparently without provocation. We see him rehearsing for a hip-hop stage adaptation of Romeo and Juliet in which he plays Mercutio; the theater director, a middle-aged woman, speaks of him glowingly.

Providing contrast to this peaceable young man, we see a ragtag neo-Nazi group in Bautzen’s town square, waving flags and praising Donald Trump. And we see close-ups of racist online comments (in German) about refugees.

Abode says that when he used to see pictures of Europe on TV, he thought it looked wonderful. But now he hates it. “Libya is the land of good,” he says. Germany, by contrast, is a land of Nazis.

“Nazi” is a word he uses a lot. He says he’s had “problems with Nazis and the police” ever since his arrival in Germany. Eventually we discover that he’s been described in the local media as the head of a gang of refugees who engage in rioting and violence. We see a newspaper front page featuring a picture of him aiming a machine gun.

But Abode has explanations. The picture with the gun, he says, was taken at a wedding, where the guests fired rounds to celebrate. He claims that he’s never started a riot, but only acted in self-defense. He admits to having committed an act of violence, but only because he “blew up” at the sight of a Nazi rally. The theater director makes a curious statement: “He is someone who steps to the front when there is conflict.” She makes it sound as if he’s some kind of peacemaker, trying to put an end to conflict – not a gang leader, inciting conflict.

Toward the end of the documentary, we jump to “three months later.” An intertitle reads: “Since last year’s clashes between far-right locals and refugees in Bautzen, the police have opened up two dozen investigations of Abode.” Clashes? Why haven’t we see any of these “clashes”? Investigations? Two dozen? For what? The film doesn’t tell us.

We’re told Abode has been identified as “a public safety risk.” Why? The implicit message is that Abode is a victim of untiring police harassment. We’ve heard him complain about his “problems with Nazis and the police.” The film seems to want us to equate the two.

Finally, we’re shown Abode on the asylum center roof, threatening to jump. An end title informs us that he didn’t jump, has been relocated to an asylum center in another town, and is banned from Bautzen for three months. Finis.

After seeing Abode depicted as an undeserving object of hatred in a town full of neo-Nazis, I turned to the local German newspapers. They told a different story. Abode’s real name, I discovered, is apparently Mohamed Youssef. (The papers do him the favor of reducing his surname to an initial, “T” for Targi.) He came to Germany in 2014.

Here’s one detail omitted by the documentary: our hero calls himself “King Abode,” just as a Mafia don in a Sicilian village might call himself its king. One source points out something that’s obvious from the first moments of the film: while Abode claims to be from Libya, he doesn’t look Libyan – my guess would be he’s really from Somalia.

According to the German papers, Abode has caused plenty of trouble in Bautzen: he’s committed robberies, sold drugs, harassed women, thrown bottles at cops. And more, much more. But town authorities have gone soft on him in the name of “peaceful coexistence.” His asylum application was rejected, but he can’t be deported because it’s on appeal. What’s more, in defiance of the ban mentioned at the end of the film, Abode has returned repeatedly to the asylum center in Bautzen. Instead of punishing him for this, town officials have tried to work out a compromise, such as allowing Abode to stay at the Bautzen asylum center but asking him to stay away from the town square.

To read these stories about Abode is to see the narrative of the Times documentary completely unravel. Far from being a victim of police brutality, he turns out to be a thug who thumbs his nose at the law. Instead of being Nazi bullies, the folks that run Bautzen out of town prove to be toothless — scared to subject even the most dangerous of rejected asylum seekers to even the mildest of punishments. No surprise here, of course: if this town really were full of Nazis, as the film suggests, Abode would’ve beat a hasty retreat long ago — or ended up in a shallow grave in the woods.

The German newspapers make the facts crystal clear: this young man is a predator who’s been allowed to torment and terrorize an entire town for over two years, and whom multiculturalism-infatuated local officials, police, and courts have been terrified to touch.

That’s Germany today – the very opposite of what the New York Times wants you to believe.

New York Times Applauds Far-Left Violence

August 20, 2017

New York Times Applauds Far-Left Violence, Power Line,  John Hinderaker, August 20, 2017

New York Times reporters Thomas Fuller, Alan Feuer and Serge Kovaleski are responsible for this admiring profile of the far-left Brownshirts called antifa: “‘Antifa’ members are ready to literally fight right-wingers.”

Members of antifa have shown no qualms about using their fists, sticks or canisters of pepper spray to meet an array of right-wing antagonists whom they call a fascist threat to U.S. democracy.

Is antifa violent? Well, that depends on what the meaning of “violent” is:

“You need violence in order to protect nonviolence,” she said. “That’s what’s very obviously necessary right now.”
***
“When you look at this grave and dangerous threat — and the violence it has already caused — is it more dangerous to do nothing and tolerate it or should we confront it?” Sabaté said. “Their existence itself is violent … so I don’t think using force or violence to oppose them is unethical.”

The mere existence of supporters of President Trump is violent, so it is OK to attack them with baseball bats. The Times reporters show no sign of disagreeing with this “reasoning.”

Antifa activists have engaged with people who were less than outright neo-Nazis, raising questions about whether there is such a thing as legitimate political violence.

Some antifa members insist that they are merely reacting to aggression. “The essence of their message is violence,” Jed Holtz, an antifa organizer in New York, said of his right-wing foes. “The other side” — his side — “is just responding.”

Here is a photo of antifa responding to a violent window in Washington, D.C. during President Trump’s inauguration:

This violent car was one of many set on fire by antifa during the inauguration:

Here, antifa members burn an American flag, the mere existence of which is “violent”:

I’m not sure what this object is, but since antifa set it on fire at Berkeley it must have been violent:

Antifa rioters at Berkeley beat a violent man who is lying unconscious on the ground:

Funny how the heroes of antifa don’t like to be photographed. Why do you suppose that is?

This bystander was attacked on the street by antifa thugs at Berkeley:

Here, antifa trashes a violent Starbucks store:

This bank must have been really violent. It was destroyed by antifa:

Antifa rioters in Seattle burn another American flag. Those things must be really violent!

Antifa rioters always bring bats and clubs, just in case they encounter anyone violent:

Just think how violent this guy must have been! It took four masked antifas to beat him up:

Antifa is nothing more or less than a fascist organization. Hitler’s Brownshirts had nothing on them. I thought their childish trick of naming themselves the opposite of what they really are wouldn’t fool anyone, but apparently it has fooled the New York Times. Or maybe the Times is just on their side.

Lead on al-Baghdadi went dead after NY Times Leak

July 22, 2017

Lead on al-Baghdadi went dead after NY Times LeakLegal Insurrection via YouTube, July 22, 2017

 

The Jewashing of George Soros

July 21, 2017

The Jewashing of George Soros, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, July 21, 2017

George Soros hates Jews.

He collaborated with the Nazis during the Holocaust and insisted that helping confiscate property from Jews brought him no guilt. “There was no sense that I shouldn’t be there, because that was well, actually, in a funny way, it’s just like in markets that if I weren’t there of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would.” He described the season of these horrors as “the most exciting time of my life.”

Soros grew up in a “Jewish, anti-Semitic home”. He called his mother a “typical Jewish anti-Semite” who hated his first wife because she was “too Jewish”. After undergoing psychoanalysis, he was able to understand that his shame was rooted in his Jewishness. He had a special contempt for Jewish philanthropies after a failed attempt to defraud a Jewish charity in London.

He was booed when he undermined the presentation of an award to a Holocaust survivor by comparing Israeli Jews to Nazis. Elie Wiesel had declared in disgust, “I heard what happened. If I’d been there—and you can quote me—I would have walked out.”

That same year, Soros blamed the Israeli government for a “resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe”. He might have been more honest if he took responsibility considering his funding of groups that traffic in anti-Semitic smears. And his own anti-Semitic allegations that “attitudes toward the Jewish community are influenced by the pro-Israel lobby’s success in suppressing divergent views.”

Soros has defended Hamas and Hezbollah who have called for the extermination of the Jews. He championed the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt despite or because of its support for Hitler. Yusuf al-Qaradawi had claimed that Hitler had been sent by Allah to punish the Jews. “Allah willing,” the Brotherhood’s spiritual leadersaid, “the next time will be at the hands of the believers (Muslims).”

There’s no denying that George Soros is a warped and twisted man. Especially when it comes to the Jews. But he’s also the money man behind a great deal of leftist activism. Especially anti-Israel activism.

And so he must be defended.

An editorial at New York Times by a figure linked to the +972 anti-Israel hate site decries “Israel’s War Against George Soros”. That’s right up there with Poland’s war on Nazi Germany.

What does this war consist of? Has Israel sent drones to the Soros estate? Did Mossad agents drag George out of his featherbed to face the justice of those injured through his actions?

No.

The “war” consisted of one statement. The Israeli Foreign Ministry condemned Soros for “continuously undermining Israel’s democratically elected governments,” and backing hate groups “that defame the Jewish state and seek to deny it the right to defend itself.” Not only is it true, but it’s underwhelming.

Even by the low fake news standards of today’s extremist media, you expect something more from a headline screaming “Israel’s War Against George Soros” than a single restrained criticism.

Do the thousands of hit pieces from the New York Times count as a “War on Israel? That includes the aforementioned Mairav Zonszein screed on Soros which in true Sorosesque fashion pivots from defending an anti-Semite to launching bizarre and hopelessly factless smears at the Jewish State.

Mairav claims that Israel is now aligned with “illiberal, autocratic states like Russia, Turkey and Egypt.” That would be news to Turkey which just accused Israel of a “crime against humanity” and backs Hamas. Or to Russia, which backs Iran and whose S-300 missiles guard Iran’s nuclear program against an Israeli strike. But using the stopped clock principle, getting one of three right isn’t bad for the New York Times.

Soros and the Times were aligned with the illiberal autocratic Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover of Egypt under a leader who had urged Muslims to “nurse our children and grandchildren on hatred” of the Jews.

But there’s nothing anti-Semitic to see there.

According to the New York Times, criticizing an anti-Semite whose Jewishness can only be found with a DNA analysis is anti-Semitic, but attacking millions of Jews defending themselves against genocide isn’t.

The government that represents millions of Jews is anti-Semitic for calling out a left-wing anti-Semite. And the millions of Jews, and even the recently deceased Elie Wiesel, probably are too.

According to Mairav Zonszein, Israel’s criticism of Soros aligns it with anti-Semites. “It takes some gall on the part of Mr. Netanyahu to choose this moment to kick Mr. Soros while he’s down — not only because Mr. Soros is, once again, a victim of anti-Semitism,” Mairav fumes.

By “down”, Mairav means he’s the world’s 22nd richest man and dictates policy to entire governments.

Mr. Soros has not refrained from kicking Israeli families when they were being shot and stabbed by Islamic terrorists. He hasn’t stopped funding hate against Jews or blaming Jews for anti-Semitism.

George Soros funds BDS, an organization run by a terrorist and one that defends the murder of Jews. But there’s mean ole Mr. Netanyahu kicking the 22nd richest man in the world when he’s down.

This shameless Jewashing is despicable and typical. The left shrugs at the murderous anti-Semitism in the Muslim world. And at times it even defends it. It loves Jewashing its hatred of Jews by putting activists with a Jewish last name up front in its anti-Semitic activities. And it will defend anti-Semites like George Soros as victims of anti-Semitism at the hands of the government of millions of Jews.

When it’s convenient, George Soros takes a break from fond recollections of the most exciting time in his life, helping rob Jews, to play a victim of the Holocaust. And if it’s useful, he’ll even take a break from defending Hamas and Hezbollah, from funding the types of terrorists who call the murder of Jews “resistance” and from supporting Islamist groups that praise Hitler, to play the victim of anti-Semitism.

George Soros hates Jews. So do his apologists and supporters. They just can’t say so in public. Yet.

There are a thousand euphemisms. They’re not anti-Semites, they’re anti-Zionists. Yes, they just happen to be reviving the Nazi boycott against the Jews. And their favorite Muslim Brotherhood hate groups drew organizational inspiration from the Third Reich. But they’re only concerned for social justice. The social justice they’re concerned with just happens to require the persecution of the Jews. They just happen to disrupt Holocaust memorial events and Jewish holidays to bring attention to the cause of the oppressed Muslim terrorists whose heroic figures had egged on Hitler to wipe out the Jews.

And if you doubt their commitment to opposing anti-Semitism, watch them defend George Soros. Then when the Jewashing is done, they can go back to demanding that we fund the terrorists murdering Jews.

George Soros is not a Holocaust survivor. He has spent much of his life collaborating with totalitarian movements whose goal is the extermination of the Jewish people.

He is not a victim of anti-Semitism. He is a perpetrator of anti-Semitism.

The only thing more despicable than the left’s obsessive hatred of Jews is its Jewashing of anti-Semites. Hating Jews is anti-Semitic no matter what your last name might be. Collaborating with the murderers of Jews is attempted genocide no matter what your DNA may say. When you defend Hamas, fund BDS and defend anti-Semitism, no amount of lies and spin will Jewash your hatred and guilt away.

New York Times prints ‘annotated’ US Constitution

July 21, 2017

New York Times prints ‘annotated’ US Constitution, Fox News via YouTube, July 3, 2017

(According to the New York Times article, the U.S. Constitution is outdated and should be changed or often ignored. Jonathan Turley disagrees.– DM)