New York Times Editors Support Fascist Extremism

Times editors deplore democracy. They consider sham US elections legitimate ones.

Truth is the mortal enemy they fear most. They support the world’s worst tinpot despots as long as they’re US allies.

They glorify perpetual war in the name of nonexistent peace. They’re comfortable with letting Wall Street run things.

They turn a blind eye to Israel’s worst crimes. They consider cold-blooded serial killer Netanyahu a legitimate leader.

They support every dirty war of aggression without mercy Washington wages.They call them liberating struggles.

They consider carving up whole continents for profit economic development. They call wage slavery job creation. They want America’s social contract abolished.

They ignore fundamental international, constitutional and US statute laws in justifying Washington’s genocidal crimes.

They believe might makes right. They feature managed news misinformation rubbish instead of hard truths on issues mattering most.

It bears repeating what other articles stressed. All the new they claim fit to print isn’t fit to read.

They support Ukrainian Nazis Washington installed to replace democrats. Throughout months of conflict, they backed their mass slaughter of their own citizens.

They oppose Donbass freedom fighters struggling for rights everyone deserves. They consistently, irresponsibly and maliciously blame Russia and rebels for US/Kiev crimes.

They practically accused Putin of murdering Boris Nemtsov. Anyone paying attention knows it’s inconceivable to believe he had anything to do with it.

No more so than blaming Obama if a prominent American was gunned down in the shadow of the White House or Capitol Hill.

The Times is in full propaganda mode hyping the Nemtsov incident. It ludicrously claims fear now grips Russia.

It hyped Nemtsov’s Big Lie claiming Moscow’s involvement in Ukraine’s conflict. It ignored Obama’s full responsibility for what’s ongoing – including the scourge of fascism’s reemergence in Europe’s heartland..

It practically accused Putin of plans to eliminate Kremlin critics one by one. its irresponsible reporting mocks legitimate journalism….

By Stephen Lendman – Freedom’s Phoenix –

Obama to restrict media’s reporting of anti-jihad articles

At Monday’s White House press briefing, chief spokesman Josh Earnest indicated that in light of the terrorist raid of Charlie Hebdo’s Paris offices by jihadists, President Barack Obama would be taking a serious swipe at the First Amendment freedom of the press as it pertains to future anti-Jihadist articles.

The Daily Caller reported:President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation’s defenses forces, the White House’s press secretary said Jan. 12.

“The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of
our men and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House’s daily briefing.

The unprecedented reversal of Americans’ civil-military relations, and of the president’s duty to protect the First Amendment, was pushed by Earnest as he tried to excuse the administration’s opposition in 2012 to the publication of anti-jihadi cartoons by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

Back in Sept. 2012, then-White House Press Secretary Jay Carney criticized Charlie Hebdo for its publication of cartoon images lampooning Mohammad….

By Michael Dorstewitz – Liberty Unyielding –

26 Ways the Media Botched Their Reporting on the Latest Benghazi Report

It neither “exonerates” nor “debunks.”

It specifically states that it is not the final word on Benghazi.

Yet national press outlets claimed all of the above about the House Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi released on Nov. 21.

The Washington Post stated that “the panel’s findings were broadly consistent with the Obama administration’s version of events,” though many of the administration’s versions of events have been discredited or proven incorrect.

USA Today portrayed the report as a sweeping effort that “cleared the Obama administration of any wrongdoing” and the Associated Press claimed the report concluded “there was no wrongdoing by Obama administration officials,” though it didn’t examine most aspects of the administration’s actions regarding Benghazi. For example, the committee did not attempt to dissect White House actions or decision-making. And it did not generally “assess State Department or Defense Department activities” (page 4).

What the House Intelligence Committee did do was focus on a narrow slice of Benghazi: the intelligence community. As such, the report largely defends the CIA….

At times, the committee report—as it defends the intelligence community’s performance during Benghazi—flies in the face of evidence. It relies heavily on witnesses who have previously given inaccurate information or testimony: then-CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

1) The committee concluded, “the CIA ensured sufficient security for CIA facilities in Benghazi.” Yet security was insufficient to prevent terrorists from overrunning the CIA Annex, killing two of the four Americans who lost their lives on Sept. 11, 2012.

2) The committee found “no evidence” of a “stand down order.” But that is at direct odds with testimony from some eyewitnesses. Three security operators stated they were given a “stand down” order in the immediate aftermath of the attacks….

By Sharyl Attkisson – The Daily Signal –