Posted tagged ‘New York Times’

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)

The New Meaning of Collusion

July 11, 2017

The New Meaning of Collusion, Power Line,  Scott Johnson, July 11, 2017

There is no evidence that the Russian lawyer had damaging information to deliver. There is no evidence that the Russian lawyer delivered damaging information. There is no evidence that Trump Jr. asked the Russian lawyer to come back with damaging information. There is no evidence that Trump Jr. would have promised the Russian lawyer anything if she had agreed to return with damaging information. There is no evidence that Trump Jr. came away from the meeting with anything but disappointed expectations.

Is this some kind of a joke?

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

Today the New York Times credits four reporters with the story advancing the latest installment of the “collusion” story involving the Trump campaign and a mysterious Russian lawyer. We are colluding in comedy.

In today’s episode the Times reports that before Donald Trump, Jr. arranged a meeting with “a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer he believed would offer him compromising information about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr. was informed in an email that the material was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy, according to three people with knowledge of the email.” The Times has posted related stories here on the pageant angle to provide context.

In today’s installment of the collusion comedy none of the four Times reporters has seen the email. The Times does not report that anything was delivered in the meeting. So far as we can tell from the story, the thing was some kind of a hoax.

With the reporters’ heavy breathing and the anticlimactic plot, we have a laugh riot on our hands.

Commence the heavy breathing:

The email to the younger Mr. Trump was sent by Rob Goldstone, a publicist and former British tabloid reporter who helped broker the June 2016 meeting. In a statement on Sunday, Mr. Trump acknowledged that he was interested in receiving damaging information about Mrs. Clinton, but gave no indication that he thought the lawyer might have been a Kremlin proxy.

Mr. Goldstone’s message, as described to The New York Times by the three people, indicates that the Russian government was the source of the potentially damaging information. It does not elaborate on the wider effort by Moscow to help the Trump campaign.

Now comes the approach to the anticlimax:

There is no evidence to suggest that the promised damaging information was related to Russian government computer hacking that led to the release of thousands of Democratic National Committee emails. The meeting took place less than a week before it was widely reported that Russian hackers had infiltrated the committee’s servers.

The story continues, but the Times’s four reporters do not pause to itemize other blanks or holes. This is the true anticlimax. “There is no evidence” for much more. The reader is left on his own to draw the relevant inferences.

There is no evidence that the Russian lawyer had damaging information to deliver. There is no evidence that the Russian lawyer delivered damaging information. There is no evidence that Trump Jr. asked the Russian lawyer to come back with damaging information. There is no evidence that Trump Jr. would have promised the Russian lawyer anything if she had agreed to return with damaging information. There is no evidence that Trump Jr. came away from the meeting with anything but disappointed expectations.

Is this some kind of a joke?

Oh No! Trump Jr., Jared Kushner Met With Russian Lawyer!

July 9, 2017

Oh No! Trump Jr., Jared Kushner Met With Russian Lawyer!, PJ MediaMichael Van Der Galien, July 9, 2017

(It appears that the meeting may have been set up by Democrat operatives to create an impression of improper collusion.

The president’s legal team said Saturday they believe the entire meeting may have been part of a larger election-year opposition effort aimed at creating the appearance of improper connections between Trump family members and Russia that also included a now-discredited intelligence dossier produced by a former British intelligence agent named Christopher Steele who worked for a U.S. political firm known as Fusion GPS.

Oh well.  — DM)

Donald Trump Jr., executive vice president of The Trump Organization, discusses the expansion of Trump hotels, Monday, June 5, 2017, in New York. (AP Photo/Kathy Willens)

Donald Trump Jr., the eldest son of US President Donald Trump, along with Paul Manafort, Trump’s presidential campaign manager, and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, met with a Russian lawyer to discuss the suspended program of adoption of children from Russia by US citizens during 2016 election campaign, local media reported Saturday.

Look at those danged traitors! Trying to revive an adoption program for poor Russian children! How dare they bring those future KGBFSB-officers to the grand U.S. of A?

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

The left is convinced that they finally have their smoking gun.

Two weeks after Donald J. Trump clinched the Republican presidential nomination last year, his eldest son arranged a meeting at Trump Tower in Manhattan with a Russian lawyer who has connections to the Kremlin, according to confidential government records described to The New York Times.

The previously unreported meeting was also attended by Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman at the time, Paul J. Manafort, as well as the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, according to interviews and the documents, which were outlined by people familiar with them.

According to the New York Times, this is the first confirmed private meeting between members of Trump’s inner circle and the Russians. And, of course, the truly big news is that both his son Donald Trump Jr. and his son-in-law Jared Kushner were involved.

Oh, my. Lock them up! Lock them up!

Well, wait. Not so fast:

Donald Trump Jr., the eldest son of US President Donald Trump, along with Paul Manafort, Trump’s presidential campaign manager, and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, met with a Russian lawyer to discuss the suspended program of adoption of children from Russia by US citizens during 2016 election campaign, local media reported Saturday.

Donald Trump Jr. explains:

It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow-up.

Look at those danged traitors! Trying to revive an adoption program for poor Russian children! How dare they bring those future KGBFSB-officers to the grand U.S. of A?

All kidding aside, though, this is yet another example of a nothing-burger in RussiaGate. The left continues to desperately search for smoking guns, for evidence that Team Trump and the Kremlin worked together, somehow, to beat Hillary Clinton. The only reason they do so is that they can’t accept what’s obvious to everybody else: that Hillary lost because she was a terrible candidate. Russia obviously interfered in the election in an attempt to sow chaos and mistrust, yes, but Hillary ended up losing because of who she is. Somehow, this fact — that’s rather obvious to any reasonable human being — is lost on the left. There must have been hacks. Trump must have worked with Russia. There has to be a smoking gun. And so they continue their obvious search for anything barely resembling evidence.