PHONY liberal media turns Republican Romney into HERO for sticking it to Trump (just like it did McCain & Bush)

CAP

Mitt Romney is the latest token Republican being hoisted up on the shoulders of the mainstream media thanks to his “courageous” decision to defy Donald Trump by voting with Democrats to impeach the president.

You would think the Utah senator single-handedly defeated Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) and then rescued a few kittens out of trees on his way home the way the media is writing about him.

The New Yorker declared that the former presidential candidate “seized” a chance to “rewrite his own place in history” with his impeachment vote.

An opinion piece in the Washington Post deemed the decision “courageous,” and Twitter was full of love for the man once eviscerated by liberal commentators for simply saying “binders full of women.”

The lionization of Romney is nothing new. The mainstream media always keeps a few token Republicans around, and they usually have one they deem worthy of their praises, so long as that person happens to fit with the current agenda, and the current agenda is opposing Trump, so Romney is temporarily safe from the usual scorn his party affiliation and faith receive.

Others have also found themselves walking down that path of praise, past mockery cast aside so they can be deemed heroes for daring to break from Republican ranks and oppose the president.

John McCain

Romney has been crowned the new McCain.

“Like McCain before him, Romney rebukes Trump,” Roll Call wrote after Romney’s impeachment vote.

CAP

Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin applauded Romney’s impeachment vote speech by calling it “McCain-esque.”

CAP

McCain wasn’t always liked though. When he ran against Barack Obama in 2008, the late Arizona senator was painted as an over-the-hill Republican grouch with racist policies. The Pew Research Center found in the weeks leading up to the election, negative stories about McCain were three to one. Obama, meanwhile, had the opposite problem. Only about a third of stories written about him were negative.

Google McCain’s name today and you’d be hard-pressed to find a bad word about him. Why is that? Could it be his time spent as a prisoner of war in Vietnam? No, it’s because he was one of Trump’s most consistent Republican critics.

The New York Times, the same paper that ran an editorial in 2008 accusing McCain of possibly running racist ads, published piece after piece defendingMcCain from Trump attacks. Quite a flip.

Like Romney, McCain was a defeated political opponent later praised as an elder statesman and protector of all things good simply because he didn’t like Trump.

Anthony Scaramucci

He may have only served as the director of communications in the White House for eleven days, but that hasn’t stopped Scaramucci from turning himself into a self-appointed expert on the president.

Once one of Trump’s most loyal supporters, Scaramucci did a complete 180 degree turn in recent months and now appears to oppose everything he once promoted. What’s ironic about him now appearing on CNN and MSNBC or writing op-eds for Huffington Post and Washington Post about how he saw the wrong in his views is the same left-wing media he now frequents is the reason he was out of a job in the first place.

Scaramucci was fired after an interview with the New Yorker where he said some pretty vulgar things about White House officials, including Steve Bannon. Scaramucci thought the comments were off the record and was just as shocked as everyone else when he saw them in print.

George W. Bush

Before the possibility of Trump becoming president was ever a reality, George W. Bush was sold by the mainstream media as the worst Republicans had to offer. He was blasted as racist, incompetent, cowardly, on and on it went. The hysteria over Bush was so bad conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer coined the term “Bush Derangement Syndrome” — sound familiar? — to describe the extremeness that came with critiques of the man.

Leftists like Michael Moore blasted Bush and higher-ups in his administration as war criminals for starting the war in Iraq. Former Los Angeles prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi wrote an entire book about prosecuting Bush for murder, and he’s the same guy who wrote ‘Helter Skelter’, the book about cult leader Charles Manson!

A film was even released fantasizing about Bush’s assassination, ‘Death of a President’, and it premiered at the Toronto Film Festival. And before there was ever a push for Nancy Pelosi to impeach Trump, she was being pushed to impeach Bush. It was hard to imagine at the time that any politician could ever inspire the vitriolic hate that Bush did.

Then Trump came into the picture and knocked W.’s brother Jeb out of the running for president. George W. Bush in turn criticized Trump. He even defended the media as “essential to democracy” while Trump popularized terms like “fake news” in his war with the press.

Bush went from a threat to democracy to an “unlikely savior,” as the New York Times so subtly put it. He has been so redeemed in some eyes that more loyal leftists have become a tad uncomfortable with the man ranking on ‘most admired’ lists and hanging with celebs like Ellen DeGeneres. They have taken to trying to remind people of the good old days where people fantasized about everything from the man in prison to in the grave on a daily basis.

Republicans are ‘actual demons,’ ‘zombies,’ says New York Times Nobel Prize-winning columnist

CAP

New York Times columnist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman has doubled down on denouncing the Republican Party as “bad people,” insisting that there’s nothing wrong with “demonizing” opponents who “actually are demons.”

Krugman refused to budge from his declaration that “Republicans are bad people” during an interview with PBS’ Firing Line on Thursday. When interviewer Margaret Hoover pressed the Nobel Prize-winning economist on the risks inherent in “demonizing” political opponents, he only doubled down, taking his ad hominems into the mythical realm.

Is it demonizing if they already actually are demons?

While Krugman stressed he was referring to “professional Republicans,” and not “someone I might meet over lunch who declares herself a Republican [who] can perfectly well be a perfectly nice person,” he stood firm in his attacks on a party he described as “irredeemable, devoid of principle or shame” in a Times opinion column last month.

Nor were demons the only horror-movie monster Krugman saw in the GOP. He likened debating Republicans to “arguing with zombies,” declaring that “zombie ideas about fiscal policy, about climate change, about a whole range of ideas – healthcare policy – have completely taken over official Republican discourse.”

While he admitted the party’s calcified platform “doesn’t mean that every Republican in America is like that,” he maintained that “to be a serving Republican member of Congress right now” supporting the Trump administration “makes you a bad person.”

Krugman has been wearing his hatred for Republicans on his sleeve for years. Regular readers of his column will recall that he has blamed Republicans for everything from climate change to antisemitism, and has insisted that “good people can’t be good Republicans” since at least 2018.

NYT columnist ‘finds’ child porn on his computer – and rushes to the Times to save him

CAP

Eventually, however, even an Ivy League intellectual runs out of names to call one’s enemy, which is perhaps why Krugman called for the party to be “dismantled and replaced with something better” in last month’s ‘Republicans have no shame’ oped.

For someone so passionate about Republicans, Krugman had little interest in who would win the Democratic presidential nomination, telling Hoover it made “almost no difference” who ended up running against Trump. At the same time, he praised candidate Elizabeth Warren, his personal friend, as a “progressive.” Warren was a Republican until two decades ago. Hoover neglected to ask the Princeton economist if he makes the sign of the cross before meeting Warren for lunch.

Propaganda 101: The New York Times pumps another ‘evil Russia’ plot

CAP

By Finian Cunningham

The “newspaper of record” New York Times arguably holds the record for peddling anti-Russia scare stories. This week the NY Times delivered yet another classic spook tale dressed as serious news.

Among its splash articles, under the headline ‘Top Secret Russian Unit Seeks to Destabilize Europe, Security Officials Say’, readers were told of an elite Russian spy team which has, allegedly, only recently been discovered.

It’s called “Unit 29155” and purportedly directed by the Kremlin to “destabilize Europe” with “subversion, sabotage and assassination.”

According to the NY Times, this crack squad of Russia’s most ruthless military intelligence agents were involved in an attempted assassination of an arms dealer in Bulgaria in 2015; the destabilization of Moldova; a failed coup against the Montenegrin government; and the alleged poisoning of former double agent Sergei Skripal in England last year.

The article states: “Western security officials have now concluded that these operations, and potentially many others, are part of a coordinated and ongoing campaign to destabilize Europe, executed by an elite unit inside the Russian intelligence system skilled in subversion, sabotage and assassination.”

The NY Times adds: “The purpose of Unit 29155, which has not been previously reported, underscores the degree to which the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, is actively fighting the West with his brand of so-called hybrid warfare — a blend of propaganda, hacking attacks and disinformation — as well as open military confrontation.”

This is all because, the readers are told, “The Kremlin sees Russia as being at war with a Western liberal order that it views as an existential threat.”

In response, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissed it as more of the “pulp fiction category” which Western news media have manufactured with seeming increasing intensity over recent years. Peskov pointed out that Moscow has repeatedly stated its desire to normalize relations with Western states and the European Union in particular, contradicting the theme of the NY Times’ piece.

Indeed, the Russian Embassy in Britain recently published a compilation of false articles peddled by Western media over the past four years. The NY Times features prominently as one of the main purveyors of scare stories about alleged malign Russian activities, from hacking into presidential elections, to targeting American power grids, to covert collusion with President Donald Trump.

For students of Propaganda 101, this week’s tale makes a case study of how disinformation is disseminated in the guise of “news reporting.”

First of all, the NY Times reporter, Michael Schwirtz, gives a meandering account of lurid dirty deeds performed in various international locations allegedly carried out by the supposed “elite” Kremlin hybrid warriors. But tellingly, there are no details evidencing Russian involvement. It’s all lurid speculation spiced with fear-mongering, which reads like a pallid John le Carré spy novel.

Then, the usual giveaway that the NY Times is engaging in disinformation, it quotes anonymous security officials for apparent verification of its claims about “Unit 29155”. This is tacit admission of who the real authors are: Western spooks.

READ MORE: Problem of NYT 1619 Project isn’t that it sees America through slavery, it’s that it tells untruths

Next, a neat effort to give the lame story some legs is to quote named public figures. But these sources don’t confirm the existence of the alleged Kremlin unit; they are merely invited to speculate on its existence and presumed malign purpose. One of those named sources is MI6 chief Alex Younger. Yes, that’s right, the paper of record is quoting British military intelligence as a reliable source for public information. Another named source is Peter Zwack, who is described as a former US military intelligence officer who worked at the American Embassy in Moscow. Zwack is quoted as describing Russians as “organically ruthless” (whatever that means), while the paper actually admits that “he was not aware of the unit’s existence.”

The purpose of throwing a few names into the reporting mix is to lend a veneer of credibility to the nebulous, unverifiable, scary stuff that the anonymous spooks feed the reporter.

A special mention must be given to a third named source quoted by the NY Times. He is Eerik-Niiles Kross, an Estonian lawmaker and former military intelligence chief in Tallinn. He styles himself as “Estonia’s James Bond,” and is known for his salacious Russophobic warnings of “imminent invasion of the Baltic states” – over the past three decades. Kross is quoted to speculate on the existence of the alleged Kremlin hybrid warfare unit. Of course, he dutifully serves up his notorious anti-Russian fear-mongering. But he is not confirming. His speculation is pseudo-validation of information that is essentially fictional.

All in all, the latest installment of anti-Russia propaganda from the NY Times this week is a damp squib among many previous baseless reports of alleged Kremlin malign activity. If it serves any purpose, it is perhaps a choice illustration of how disinformation is sneakily, insidiously presented as ‘news’. The fact that this should appear in a Pulitzer Prize-winning, supposedly premier, American newspaper is the disturbing part.

But it is no surprise to those who have long studied how the US corporate media has been under the control of state intelligence agencies for many decades, especially after the Second World War and during the subsequent Cold War against the Soviet Union.

In a seminal essay in 1977 for Rolling Stone magazine, award-winning journalist Carl Bernstein documented how the CIA systematically cultivated hundreds of reporters, columnists, editors, publishing executives and broadcast networks to function as conduits for disinformation – much of it directed at demonizing the Soviet Union.

“From the outset, the use of journalists was among the CIA’s most sensitive undertakings,” writes Bernstein.

He added: “By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.”

How the CIA goes about planting false stories in the American and European media is outlined in this candid interview by John Stockwell, who was former National Security Council coordinator for the agency during the 1970s. Stockwell also added: “Enemies are necessary for the wheels of the US military machine to turn.”

You may wonder, if the Cold War ended nearly 30 years ago when the Soviet Union dissolved, why then do the NY Times and other Western media outlets continue to pump out anti-Russian propaganda? But that assumes the Cold War was primarily about the US opposing the ideology of communism. It wasn’t. It was, and still is, all about imposing control over the masses so they don’t ever challenge the power structure that deprives them of full democratic rights and decent livelihoods.

In a recent interview, philosopher André Vitchek makes the point that Western politicians and media like the NY Times keep harping on Cold War scare stories about evil foreigners in order “to distract their citizens from thinking about their increasingly limited freedoms and diminishing standards of living.”

The Cold War continues, and anti-Russia hysteria is but a distraction, as was the anti-Soviet hysteria. The aim is to distract the public from the real Cold War which is a war by the elites against democracy ever being actually realized among the masses.

 

US Attorney Recommends CRIMINAL CHARGES Against Andrew McCabe – DOJ Rejects His Last Minute Appeal

CAP

 

US Attorney Jessie Liu has recommended charging former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

The potential charges against McCabe are related to his false statements to feds in the FBI’s investigation into Hilary Clinton.

Via Mark Meadows–

CAP

Fox News reported:

U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu has recommended moving forward with charges against Andrew McCabe, Fox News has learned, as the Justice Department rejects a last-ditch appeal from the former top FBI official.

McCabe — the former deputy and acting director of the FBI — appealed the decision of the U.S. attorney for Washington all the way up to Jeffrey Rosen, the deputy attorney general, but he rejected that request, according to a person familiar with the situation.

A source close to McCabe’s legal team said they received an email from the Department of Justice which said, “The Department rejected your appeal of the United States Attorney’s Office’s decision in this matter. Any further inquiries should be directed to the United States Attorney’s Office.”

Comey confidant Benjamin Wittes said in a Lawfare blog post a couple weeks ago that he expected former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to be indicted any day now.

Wittes wrote in a blog post that he was “shocked” to find out federal prosecutors were in the final stages of deciding whether to indict McCabe on charges he lied to federal investigators, referring to the New York Times bombshell released a couple weeks ago.

The potential indictment of McCabe stems from the Inspector General’s findings that the FBI official lied to federal investigators.

McCabe was criminally referred to the US Attorneys office for prosecution in the Spring of 2018 and they are finally getting around to (maybe) indicting him.

The process has been dragged out because of internal deliberations and the case is taking so long that the term expired for the grand jury evidence. One of the lead prosecutors on the case has since left the DOJ out of frustration, according to the NYT.

Some airplanes did something?! New York Times article ‘de-terrorizes’ 9/11 attacks

CAP

On the anniversary of the most devastating terrorist attack on US soil, a story by the New York Times suggested that “airplanes” brought down the twin towers. The seeming shift of responsibility did not sit well with readers.

“18 years have passed since airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center,” read a tweet from the New York Times on Wednesday. “Today families will once again gather and grieve at the site where more than 2000 people died.” Inside an accompanying article, the same bizarre sentence was repeated.

Though technological dystopia was all the rage in 2001, what with the success of ‘The Matrix’ two years earlier and the passing of Y2K after that, the 9/11 attacks were not carried out by sentient airplanes, but by terrorist hijackers. Enraged readers made sure the NYT knew that, slating the newspaper for omitting the terms ‘Islamic terrorists’ or even the less-loaded ‘Al Qaeda’ from its story.

CAP

CAP

The Times later deleted the tweet and amended its story, which, this time around, read: “Eighteen years have passed since terrorists commandeered airplanes to take aim at the World Trade Center and bring them down.” Responsibility was placed squarely with Al Qaeda in the updated article.

But why the strange phrasing in the first place? The Times did not report the recent mass shootings in Texas as the work of a disembodied AR-15. Nor does the paper attribute President Donald Trump’s executive orders to levitating pens, or climate change to fossil fuels deciding to burn themselves.

CAP

To some observers, the watered-down description of the attacks was an effort to… not offend anybody, including ordinary Muslims who risk guilt-by-association for sharing their religious beliefs with the perpetrators. “Some airplanes did something,” jibed one commenter, comparing the Times’ coverage to a much-maligned soundbite from Democratic Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar earlier this year, in which Omar summarized the attacks as “some people did something.”

CAP

CAP

To be fair, radical Islamic terrorists aren’t alone in having their deeds sanitized by the New York Times in recent days. The paper marked the 43rd anniversary of Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong’s passing on Monday with a tweet describing how Chairman Mao “began as an obscure peasant” and “died one of history’s great revolutionary figures.”

After a similar backlash, the tweet was deleted, with the paper apologizing for not providing “critical historical context;” namely the famines that occurred on Mao’s watch and his role in the 1966-1976 ‘Cultural Revolution,’ events that left tens of millions of Chinese citizens dead.

 

NYT: Trump ‘Siding with Autocrats’ by Weighing Terror Label for Muslim Brotherhood

Members of the Arab-Israeli Islamic Movement chant slogans during a protest in support of deposed Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi (portrait) and against the army crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood supporters, in the northern Israeli city of Nazareth on August 17, 2013. AFP PHOTO / AHMAD GHARABLI (Photo credit should read AHMAD …

By Edwin Mora

U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration would be “siding with autocrats and roiling [the] Middle East” if it joins several Islamic countries in designating the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) a terrorist organization, the New York Times (NYT) argued this week.

NYT has itself in the past sided with several leftist leaders including Russia’s Joseph Stalinin lying about the Soviet genocide; with Cuba’s Fidel Castro in inflating the size of his guerrilla prior to the Cuban Revolution; and taking money for ads from socialist Nicolás Maduro’s regime.

The Trump administration has been considering labeling MB a terrorist group since soon after taking office in January 2017.

NYT has joined opposition to the move expressed by the likes of Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), which leads the world in jailed journalists.

On Monday, the Times argued that designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization would “ignite a firestorm in the Middle East,” adding:

Government lawyers had warned that the Muslim Brotherhood did not meet the legal criteria to be designated a terrorist organization. And in a volatile region where American troops were already battling Islamist extremists, the three men believed, taking on the Brotherhood was one fight too many.

The newspaper goes on to note that Trump officials who opposed labeling MB a terror group – namely former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, former Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, and Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, the president’s former national security adviser – are now gone.

Their departure has reportedly opened the door for “autocratic leaders” like Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt to influence the U.S. to move forward with the designation.

NYT reported:

The Trump administration has resurrected the proposal to brand the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, prompting a fierce debate between the government’s political appointees and its career experts.

The designation would impose wide-ranging American economic and travel sanctions on companies and individuals who interact with the loose-knit Islamist movement that was founded in Egypt and is recognized as a legitimate political entity in many Muslim-majority governments.

It is the president’s latest major foreign policy decision that appears to have been heavily influenced by autocratic leaders without first being fully vetted by career American government officials.

NYT identified the “autocratic leaders” as Sisi, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), all of whom have already outlawed MB in their respective countries.

The newspaper said those leaders “revile” MB simply because they consider the group a political opponent.

Several Muslim-majority countries — Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt — and Russia have already outlawed MB.

Qatar, which has long housed the group, and Turkey appear to remain ardent supporters.

Nevertheless, the Washington Post (WaPo) argued on Monday that “calling the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group would make all Muslims scapegoats.”

In December 2017, MB threatened to “wage war” against the United States in response to Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the American embassy there, a move that angered several Muslim countries and jihadi groups like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL).

For NYT, that is not reason enough to label the group terrorists. On the contrary, the paper claimed that “unlike the Islamic State or Al Qaeda, there is no evidence that the Egyptian group has called for, or directed, terrorist attacks against American interests.”

Critics have linked the NYT to anti-semitism in recent weeks. Citing unnamed Trump officials, the news outlet noted that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and John R. Bolton, the current national security adviser, have expressed support for the terrorist designation for MB.

The U.S. has already designated top MB offshoot Hamas, a Palestinian group intent on destroying Israel, a terrorist organization.

NYT did not identify the so-called opponents of the designation within the Trump administration.

“Beyond Turkey and Qatar, the Brotherhood or offshoots are also a recognized political party or represented in governments in Morocco, Mauritania, Tunisia, Jordan, Bahrain, and Kuwait,” it reported.

The newspaper acknowledged that officials under former President Barack Obama also considered naming MB a terrorist group. NYT, however, did not accuse of Obama of “siding with autocrats” over the consideration as it has with President Trump.

For years, some Republicans in Congress have been proposing the label.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑