Sep 202018

The New York Times

That there are those who would regard the New York Times’ anonymous admission of a crime to be an ‘op-ed’ is astounding: “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration. I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations” reads the Sept 5, 2018 headline.

How is it possible that an admission of this sort can be considered ‘opinion’?

This is no ‘opinion.’ It is an assertion of fact on the part of its writer. It is not possible to argue that claiming to be part of a ‘resistance’ is an ‘opinion.’ Nor does the blind rage and hatred expressed against Trump in the same editorial qualify for ‘opinion’ status since it is utterly baseless and presented without a single example or referent on which that ‘opinion’ is based. It is not opinion; it is hate speech.

All participants in this crime, including the New York Times, which has admitted knowing who the criminal is, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent that US law allows.

It is a glaring admission of guilt on the part of its writer that he/she/they (the ‘op-ed’ alternates between a singular and plural perspective) is/are engaged in a conspiracy with other White House insiders to ‘thwart’ US President Trump. Therefore – in the absence of any evidence to suggest otherwise – we can only conclude that they are also ‘thwarting’ the agenda Americans voted for.

That the criminals conducting such acts would regard themselves as ‘heroes’ is an outright insult and obscenity. Heroes face their opponents, they do not hide behind anonymity and then virtue signal their blatant immoral action as ‘heroic.’ The demonstrable contradictions and lies in this anonymous confession of criminal activity are the focus of today’s show, as sentence by sentence, we expose the true evil and sinister intentions of its writer(s).

We live in dangerous times. One of those dangerous ‘times’ is the New York Times – now ‘the’ leading journal of the False Estate. In future, we strongly recommend that whenever you read anything in the New York Times, assume it to be false and check it against a source that you know you can trust. That way, the odds of getting the story Just Right increases exponentially.

  2 Responses to “574 – The New York Times should do time”

  1. A simple question for you. Are you pro-Trump or anti-Trump?

  2. We’re ‘pro’-Trump whenever we judge his actions as president to be pro-freedom, and ‘anti’-Trump when his policy/proposal(s) would violate the fundamental principles of freedom.

    Has Donald Trump’s administration been more ‘pro-‘freedom than ‘anti’-freedom? Given what listeners can hear on this episode of Just Right, the balance decidedly tilts strongly to the ‘pro’ side of that equation.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.