A NY Times investigative reporter is caught on video admitting he knew the January 6 protest was not such a big deal, which means his reports about it were deliberately misleading.
Tag Archives: NY Times
Fake News Reporter Preps Hit Piece On Powell, Byrne
Update [3.41 pm, Jan 27 IST]:
I added another tidbit to my comments at DC on Jo Becker’s forthcoming hit piece on Byrne and Powell for exposing Dominion Voting Systems’ fraud:
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/new-york-times-begs-court-to-dismiss-project-veritas-defamation-lawsuit/
The link goes to an article demonstrating the abysmal incompetence and bad faith of major reporters today. The NYT was hit by a defamation lawsuit after it claimed that its video was unsourced, when there were multiple witnesses that the Times just couldn’t be bothered to track down. Then, the Times admitted that its own take on Project Veritas was based on what it read on Wikipedia….
ORIGINAL POST
Over at Deep Capture, Patrick Byrne, former Overstock CEO and crusader against Wall Street and election fraud, has published an email from Jo Becker, a NY Times reporter asking for Byrne’s comment on a piece she is writing about his funding of Sidney Powell to the tune of $500,000 to research Dominion Voting Systems for fraud during the 2020 presidential election, a story she has heard from some unnamed source, she says:
“I have been told and am preparing to report that you gave the lawyer Sidney Powell $500,000 to investigate Dominion and the role it’s voting machines may have played, allowing her to continue to pursue this line of inquiry.”
As I blogged earlier, one of the most important things that digital warriors can do is to provide the background of the pressitutes and hacks that pass for the 4th estate these days.
Jo Becker, with three Pulitzer Prizes under her belt, is clearly a mouth-piece for elite narrative-shaping, because, these days prestigious prizes are awarded mainly to those inclined to play that role.
My comments at Deep Capture summarize what a little research into her history found:
Patrick,
She couldn’t be bothered to research this story so she went with an obviously incorrect tip, if there really was a tip. She couldn’t be bothered to check her grammar, so she added an apostrophe incorrectly to a possessive pronoun.
Any NYT reporter who uses anonymous sources [“have been told”] to prepare media reports to help Dominion in its retaliatory lawsuit against Powell and Guiliani for over a billion dollars, is likely an asset of some kind and not playing fair.
That’s just an educated guess for now, but I would urge the digital warriors on this blog to check into it.
People have been asking what they can do. Well, here it is.
Delve into Jo Becker’s past reporting, any connections to the financial cabal, or even to Coomer himself, proof of Mockingbird status, ties to Dem financiers or hacks, affairs with Coomer’s lawyers, business irregularities, court filings, and the rest of her history. Give these propaganda outlets a taste of the medicine they dish out to others.
Particularly look for her stories covering Trump, RussiaCollusion, and any BFF status with Obama and Hillary associates.
This will extract a price from reporters…and the people behind them… for intimidating anyone who exposes cabal corruption.”
OK guys, got some background.
Becker is a 3x Pulitzer winning reporter, who left the WashPo for NYT.
WashPo is even more of a Mockingbird outlet than any other paper.
So that is strike one.
Strike two. She has an extensive background in negative reporting on Trump, including pushing Russian collusion stuff.
Strike three. Her husband Serge Kovaleski, also of WashPo, now at NYT, is the son of Fred K. who was a CIA spy. Kovaleski goes back decades in interaction with Trump. He is the guy with the disability who was allegedly mocked by Trump. I would say what I dug up in just one minute is already looking bad for her objectivity in writing about Dominion.
[I know I did not put hyphens in some places, but that is because my keyboard isn’t working right not because I cannot be bothered.]
Scholar’s discovery reignites controversy over Jesus’ “wife”
Theologian Mark D. Roberts explains why he’s not overwhelmed by new research that has turned up a 4th century fragment that refers to someone named Jesus having a wife. Notice how many of these “fragments” of later centuries keep showing up in revisionist texts. Before this, there was the Secret Gospel of Mark, which was used to argue that Jesus had homosexual relations with Lazarus and other young men who “loved him.”
I’m now waiting for “Fifty Shades of Jesus,” wherein it will be proved, in the style of all those sites promoting Christian porn or Christian BDSM, that Jesus was actually a sado-masochistic cannibal, who invited his followers to eat him and enjoyed his flagellation, torture and killing on the cross. [Note: THIS IS SARCASM]
The disturbing fact is that in an age of multiple-choice tests and zero-sum debates, the ability to place things in context, balance the weight of a piece of evidence against contradictory claims, the ability to study a text on its own terms without projecting onto it the prejudices and obsessions of the contemporary world, has vanished.
No matter how carefully a scholar frames a question, all the nuances are thrown aside when the media gets hold of a piece of information.
Mind you, I wouldn’t be surprised if Jesus was married. It was a requirement among Jewish rabbis. Perhaps he was married when he was younger and his wife died. Or she herself became a teacher. Or maybe she was a silent part of his ministry. Who knows. Even, if against all odds, this new research finds support in the future, I fail to see how it affects Jesus’ explicit teaching about sexuality. Nor does it alter the judgment of his contemporaries, as recorded in the Gospels, that “there was no sin found in him.”
Since they were looking very very hard for it, I think that’s fairly conclusive just there.
However, knowing that there are many people who have an axe to grind with the traditional Christian teaching that elevates celibacy (which is also elevated in Buddhism and Hinduism), I also know that it isn’t dispassionate scholarship or intellectual curiosity or respectful disagreement that drives these debates. Rather it is political activism that wants to rewrite the people and events of the past into forms more palatable to modern sensibility. I have advice for them. If you don’t like what Jesus had to say, don’t read him or follow him or try to follow him. Get a teacher after your own heart.
“Did Jesus have a wife, after all?
Major news outlets, such as the New York Times, are reporting on the discovery of a new document that refers to Jesus’ wife. More precisely, a small fragment from a previously unknown document contains a statement by a character named “Jesus” referring to “my wife.”
Does this give us new historical evidence for the literal marriage of Jesus of Nazareth to some woman, perhaps Mary Magdalene?
Professor Karen King displays the fragment of the so-called Gospel of Jesus’s Wife. Photo from http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/090512_AncientPapyrus_1714_605.jpg
No, says Karen L. King, the scholar who recently revealed the existence of the manuscript fragment in which “Jesus” speaks of “my wife.” In an article to be published in the Harvard Theological Review, King writes:
This is the only extant ancient text which explicitly portrays Jesus as referring to a wife. It does not, however, provide evidence that the historical Jesus was married, given the late date of the fragment and the probable date of original composition only in the second half of the second century.
Near the end of her article, King, with contributions by AnneMarie Luijendijk, reiterates:
Does this fragment constitute evidence that Jesus was married? In our opinion, the late date of the Coptic papyrus (c. fourth century), and even of the possible date of composition in the second half of the second century, argues against its value as evidence for the life of the historical Jesus.
Of course, King’s measured judgment here will do little to stop the coming tidal wave of claims that we now have definitive evidence if not proof that Jesus was actually married. Dan Brown and his spokesman, Sir Leigh Teabing, appear to have been right all along! At least this is what we’ll hear in the days to come.
In fact, as Karen King rightly observes, the discovery and publication of the fragment known as the Gospel of Jesus’s Wife in fact tells us nothing about the first-century man we know as Jesus of Nazareth. If it is genuine, the fragment of the otherwise unknown document will tell us something about the beliefs of people who lived a century or two after Jesus, though what exactly we should conclude on the basis of this small piece of an ancient manuscript is yet to be determined.”
State Terrorism: The Ukrainian Genocide, 1933
The Ukrainian genocide at the hands of Stalin was as great as the Holocaust engineered by the Nazis, but is much less well known. The silence of prominent Western journalists is one reason why. Walter Duranty of The New York Times, a Pulitzer prize-winner, admitted privately that ten million or so peasants had been intentionally starved and/or killed, but in public he dismissed reports of this as exaggeration and anti-Soviet propaganda. It turned out later that Duranty was being sexually blackmailed by the KGB.
“Estimates of how many people died in Stalin’s engineered famine of 1933 vary. But they are staggering in their scale — between seven and 11 million people.
But despite the horrific number of people who died, the world is relatively unfamiliar with this grisly chapter in Soviet history which claimed lives on the same scale as the holocaust. One of the main reasons is that the Germans were eventually defeated, and thousands of eyewitnesses told their stories about concentration camps and massacres. The experience was also captured unforgettably in photographs, film, and written accounts, and many of those responsible for the genocide were captured and put on trial………
British historian Robert Conquest is an expert on the period and his 1986 study of the famine, “Harvest of Sorrow,” brought much information about the tragedy to Western audiences for the first time. Conquest said another contrast between the famine and the holocaust is that while Adolf Hitler had written down much of what he intended to do, Stalin did not go on record about the famine.
“In the first place, [the Germans] were caught, so it ended and they had themselves got into an operation where they said what they were doing. Stalin never said he was trying to starve anyone to death. He just took away their food. He never went on record. It was all done under the auspices of humanist talk, socialist talk — or else denied altogether. The operations were different. And in other ways they were different, too. Hitler did many horrible things but he didn’t torture his friends to tell lies. The operation was a different one.”
Conquest is in no doubt that the famine was primarily aimed at Ukrainians and that Stalin hated not only the country peasants but even senior Communist leaders, like Mykola Skrypnyk, who eventually killed himself…………
“[Stalin] was trying to break the Ukrainians, as you know, with the leading Ukrainian Bolshevik Skrypnyk committing suicide under the pressures that were put on them when they tried to defend just the ordinary alphabet of the Ukrainians. Here [Stalin] was trying to alter it, things like that. I think he also proved he never trusted Ukrainian Communists. The whole Ukrainian Central Committee was totally purged in 1937, even the ones who supported him. He had this terrific distrust of everybody, but particularly of Ukraine.”
Luciuk of the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association has a different theory for why news of the famine never reached the West. He blamed a number of Western journalists based in Moscow at the time who knew of the forced starvation but chose not to write about it or deliberately covered it up.
The journalist he says played the most influential role in the cover-up was “The New York Times” correspondent Walter Duranty. A drug addict with a shady reputation, Duranty was also an avid fan of Stalin’s, whom he described as “the world’s greatest living statesman.” He was granted the first American interview with the Soviet leader and received privileged information from the secretive regime.
Duranty confided to a British diplomat at the time that he thought 10 million people had perished in the famine. But when other journalists who had traveled to Ukraine began writing about the horrific famine raging there, Duranty branded their information as anti-Soviet lies. Conquest believes that Duranty was being blackmailed by the Soviet secret police over his sexual activities, which reportedly included bisexuality and necrophilia.
The year before the famine, in 1932, Duranty won the Pulitzer Prize, America’s most coveted journalism award, for a series of articles on the Soviet economy. Luciuk says members of the Ukrainian diaspora, as well as Ukrainian politicians and academics, earlier this month launched a campaign to have Duranty’s award posthumously revoked. He said he hopes the campaign will make more people in the world aware of the famine….”
More on ”reporter” Jo Becker and her direct ties to HILARY ROSEN AND KEN MEHLMAN, whose interests evidently guide her reporting.
Becker’s Pulitzer Prize was not given because her gay marriage book was great: it’s been trashed even by the Guardian, from the left, as a kind of rewrite of the history of marriage equality to give credit only to “rich, white” guys….
What the Guardian should have said is that CREDIT WAS ONLY GIVEN TO DEMOCRAT ACTIVISTS.
In other words, those kinds of prizes go to those who promote the CABAL NARRATIVE.
Becker’s book promoted Chad Griffen, who ended up heading HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN, a very important part of the Democrat power base.
Becker’s promotion of Griffen and Human Rights Campaign ties directly to HRC’s HILARY ROSEN, one of the most powerful women in politics, Democrat political strategist, lobbyist, CNN analyst, Trump hater, and handler of Hillary, Feinstein, and other swamp critters on the left.
ON HILARY ROSEN’S TDS
https://dldnews.com/two-elephants-in-the-room/
“Hilary Rosen thinks that media will bitterly regret the day they have started treating Trump as a “normal politician.”
ON BECKER’S BOOK
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chrisgeidner/the-new-book-about-the-marriage-equality-movement
“But Becker’s reliance on the AFER (and, later, HRC) team — primarily lawyers Olson and Boies, staffers Griffin and Adam Umhoefer, and consultants [HILARY] ROSEN and KEN MEHLMAN]— is ultimately the book’s downfall. Almost any contextualizing of the case is done by people with a vested and open interest in advancing the narrative that Griffin, with Olson’s help, rescued a cause that Becker claims “had largely languished in obscurity.”
Correction:
Correction:
I lumped Ken Mehlman in with Rosen as a DEM operative, but in fact he is a gay Republican…one time chair of the RNC, whose position at HRC misled me. A RINO most likely, as he seems to be very active in Green investments. He is chief of Environmental Social governance at KKR, one of the largest private equity firms in the world. We know that private equity is heavily invested in Dominion Voting systems…and I would guess Mehlman has a hand in investments at KKR…and they are likely invested in Dominion as well. Must find a concrete link for that.