Yesterday’s “anonymous op-ed’ from the New York Times stinks to hell. There’s something very odd about it. Is it the New York Times finally admitting the Deep State is real and they are colluding with it to stage a soft coup of Trump? Or is it just pure and complete BS propaganda from the New York Times masquerading as an op-ed?
As the mystery continues to grow over who wrote the now infamous New York Times op-ed about President Donald Trump’s chaotic White House, First Lady Melania Trump offered her own thoughts on the editorial Thursday afternoon.
A New York Times report warning of an impending bloodbath in Idlib downplays the fact that the Syrian province is controlled by Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists, portraying the “rebels” as humanitarian-minded administrators.
For many years now, the New York Times has sanitized radical Islamic groups, militant Islamic leaders and even Islamic terrorist attacks. The paper has does this by deliberately omitting critical details that would discredit Islamist groups. For example, the Times routinely describes the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) as either being a civil rights or a Muslim advocacy group. In reality, CAIR was started as a front for Hamas and continues to serve as one. But over the course of more than two decades, the Times has never reported on any of the many government documents and official transcripts that prove CAIR’s role as a front group for Hamas.
On Thursday, The New York Times came under fire for hiring The Verge’s Sarah Jeong, due to her 4-year-old anti-white racist tweets. While Jeong explained these as “satire” and expressed her “deep regret” about them, she blamed her remarks on bullying from “trolls.” Yet, last year she demanded outlets stop publishing New York magazine’s Andrew Sullivan over his allegedly racist article.
Sarah Jeong, the newest editorial board member of The New York Times, is also responsible for extensive anti-cop and anti-men tweets.
The New York Times stood by Jeong on Thursday after the internet surfaced her old racist tweets, however her full Twitter history reveals her ire was not only directed toward white people.
Anti-white racism is endemic among liberals. For liberals, it is permissible to show disdain for white people in a way that would be totally, totally unacceptable to show for blacks, Hispanics, or people of other “colors” of the liberal rainbow.
This is clearer than ever now that we have been exposed to the ravings of The New York Times’ latest hire, editorial writer Sarah Jeong.
Read this entire thread. This was not a “one off”.
I decided to wait until now to talk about Sarah Jeong because I didn’t want to be part of the “outrage mob” on either side.
— Nick Monroe (@nickmon1112) August 3, 2018
The New York Times announced this week that it had hired Sarah Jeong as a new member of its editorial board. As is the unfortunate custom in the modern media age, this hiring led to a dissection of Jeong’s Twitter history in the hopes of finding something offensive. It did not take long for offensive things to be discovered. But in this case the offensive content came with a twist unique to the age of privilege. What the tweets described — and there were many — was how horrible white people are.
If Twitter is looking to weed out the racism on its platforms, it may want to start with The New York Times. The paper recently published one of the most racist tweets you’ll ever see: “New Hampshire is 94% white. It is now trying to figure out how to change that.”
Attached to the tweet is a bigoted screed about New Hampshire’s whiteness infestation.
New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger says he is worried about threats against journalists, even as his publication has all but ignored more than 500 attacks against President Trump and his supporters.
WASHINGTON — New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger said he warned President Trump at a face-to-face meeting July 20 that Trump consistently referring to the media as “the enemy of the people” will lead to violence.
Sulzberger said the meeting was off-the-record as agreed, and he decided to issue a statement about it only after Trump tweeted about it this morning.
In one instance, an application that Mr. Frank said he submitted in 1938 languished in an American consulate in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, amid a swell of similar applications and was lost in a bombing raid in 1940. Mr. Frank wrote to a friend that the extensive papers he had gathered as part of a visa application “have been destroyed there.”
In 1941, as Mr. Frank was again attempting to navigate the matrix of paperwork and sponsors necessary to immigrate, the United States government imposed a stricter review of applications for visas, grew suspicious of possible spies and saboteurs among Jewish refugees, and banned applicants with relatives in German-occupied countries.
The new research comes at a time when President Trump’s attempts to curb immigration have been likened to those in the World War II era. Mr. Trump has repeatedly sought to justify letting fewer people into the country by arguing that criminals and terrorists could be among the immigrants and refugees seeking to enter.
Mr. Breitman underscored those similarities, pointing to debates over immigration policy today and after Sept. 11. Mr. Breitman said that as Mr. Frank was trying to get to the United States, the country was instituting an “extreme cutback” on immigration.
According to a front page New York Times news (not opinion) article by Adam Liptak “Weaponizing the First Amendment: How Free Speech Became a Conservative Cudgel,” we must adopt a stance of skepticism toward all this talk of free speech: if we wish to be sophisticated and sensitive, as all good Times readers aspire to be. Free speech? So passé. Only conservatives care about free speech anymore.