The New York Times Plays Cop of the Internet

 As we and others have shown, the New York Times is not always a dependable news source. Yet the NYT's editors believe they are worthy of helping to police the Internet and it seems that the NYT has singled out certain statements or affirmations as being lies a priori, without investigation. Here is one such lie on the NYT's part that it would have the reader believe are a rejection of others' lies:

And there is no evidence that an "overwhelming amount of fraud" tipped Pennsylvania in 2020  [toward Biden instead of Trump] . . . .  [NYTimes 5 November 2022 --NYT Int'l ed; 8 November 2022; p 8]

Well, Rudolph Giuliani, who was highly respected as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York [chief federal prosecutor for NewYork City and surroundings] and later as a two-term  mayor of New York City, produced eyewitnesses who testified on Fox TV that they had observed election irregularities in Philadelphia, the largest city in Pennsylvania. These people had been Republican election observers and complained of being kept away from the actual counting  by officials working for the city and county of Philadelphia run by a Democratic mayor and other Democrats. Of course, even eyewitnesses can be cross examined and their testimony can be judged. But that requires an impartial investigation. Until there is a proper investigation and the witnesses can testify in court, the NYT has no call to claim "no evidence." 

Meanwhile, there is significant circumstantial evidence pointing to massive voting fraud in Pennsylvania [not only in Philadelphia] in the 2020 presidential election. But before bringing out that evidence, let us quote what the NYT article quoted above writes admitting its efforts to help police the Internet in favor of its own partisan cause in which opposing arguments are called "lies," "falsehoods" having "no evidence" to support them.

Youtube said it had removed a number of videos that The New York Times had flagged for violating its policies on spam and election integrity and it had determined that other content did not violate its policies. [emph. added; NYT 5 November 2022-- NYT Int'l ed; 8 November 2022; p8]

Flagged here means identified and pointed out to others, in  this case to Youtube. The sentence above is the NYT's admission, or perhaps modest boast, that it takes part in policing the Internet.

The circumstantial evidence relating to Pennsylvania is that on the evening of 3 November 2020, after the polls had closed, President Trump was reported as having a lead of more than 600,000 in that state. Now, Pennsylvania had 9,090,962 certified registered [eligible] voters for the presidential election of 2020, with a turnout of 76,5%, adding up to 6,553,695 actual voters [according to official statistics, not necessarily reliable]. So more than 600,000 is no small or narrow margin for a state with a population of 13,002,700 and approximately 6,553,000 actual  voters. Trump's leading margin over Biden on the night of election day was nearly 10% of  actual voters [by official numbers]. That is, nearly 10% of the perhaps fraudulently inflated "final count." And would have been significantly more than 10% of the count on election day after the polls closed.  Yet in a few days of counting newly found mail-in ballots [and the like], the president's margin had been outnumbered by pro-Biden ballots whereas one would think that many of the ballots that came in or were newly found after election day would have gone to Trump and that even if his lead would had been whittled down, he would have remained in the lead with enough votes to win. 

By the way, it was reported on Fox [Evil Fox, we are to believe] a truck carrying Pennsylvania ballots set out from the New York city area and went to Harrisburg [the state capital of PA] and to the city of Lancaster. But somehow that ballots that the truck was carrying were not accepted in either city. All very peculiar. 

Now, there is also circumstantial evidence involving the country as a whole. The vote for the House of Representatives in a presidential election year almost always favors the party of the newly elected president, when the newly elected president is not the incumbent but new to the office of president. Yet in 2020, the newly elected president's party, Biden's party, lost seats to the Republicans. 

A midterm election usually favors the party out of power [that is, the party not occupying the White House]. For example, the Republicans won the 1994 midterm election when Democrat Clinton was president. The Republicans again won a majority in  the House of Representatives in 2010, the midterm elections of Obama's first term. Following the rule, the Democrats won a majority in the midterm elections of Donald Trump's presidency in 2018.

Nevertheless, in the 2020 presidential  election year, Biden's Democrats lost seats in the House. They went from 235 seats in the 2018 midterm election to 222 in the 2020 presidential election year, when  their candidate for president, Biden, presumably won election for president. Yet going by the traditional pattern of elections to the House in years when somebody new becomes president, his party gets a majority in the House of Representatives. So the 2020 anomaly suggests that there may have been much more fraud in the presidential election than in the elections for the House which elect 435 representatives in 435 congressional districts. This anomaly and others suggest the possibility or likelihood of widespread fraud in the presidential election. And for those not familiar with the United States, election fraud has a long history there. Chicago, ruled for many years by the Richard Daley Democratic Party machine, was especially notorious for voting fraud. Indeed, the Daley machine was accused of "voting the cemeteries." Why voting fraud could not also take place in Philadelphia, Detroit, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Phoenix [Arizona] and so on, is a mystery to me. Yet the NY Times denies an "overwhelming amount of fraud" in the 2020 presidential elections in Pennsylvania. Isn't it comforting to know that the New York Times is policing the Internet to protect us from fake news?

Barry Obama Brings Me a Bellylaugh

Barack Obama and his campaign have a strong instinct for unconscious humor. The Obama campaign recognized that they had a problem with the white American working class that had voted heavily for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries. So they looked and looked for a candidate to fit the working class role. But all they found was Joe Biden who really doesn't fit the bill. But the Obama campaign can always pretend. There's no law against it and Obama has been doing it all along in so many ways, making him the biggest fake in this year's presidential campaign, although politicians as a group tend to pretend. But Obama's gang goes very far into the ludicrous with their claim that Senator Biden belongs to the working class because he takes a train from Wilmington, Delaware, to Washington. Try to see the humor in the absurdity:

Sen. Obama has recently inserted a more populist tone into his stump speeches, an attempt to better connect to the white, working class voters who largely backed Sen. Clinton during the primaries.
On Saturday, he touted Sen. Biden's working class roots and told the crowd repeatedly that Sen. Biden lives in Wilmington, Del., and takes the train to Washington for Senate business. "This working-class kid from Scranton and Wilmington has always been a friend to the underdog," Sen. Obama said to the 35,000 people gathered outside the Old State Capital in Springfield.
[Wall Street Journal, 26 August 2008]

Do you get that? Riding the train is a sign of being working class. Actually, riding the train can be a pleasant way to travel, and it is more convenient to go to Washington by train from Wilmington than by air travel. This is because the cities are so close and the train stations are located in the center cities. Thereby, the train avoids all the inconveniences of traveling by air, such as the trip from an airport in the DC suburbs to the Capitol building in downtown Washington. These inconveniences include the security checks, the waiting in line, the tight space on a plane, etc. Trains are more spacious and safer than airplanes. They're generally comfortable, especially if you travel first class as Biden surely does. The Amtrak train that goes from Boston to Washington through New York, Philadelphia and other cities, does have first class accomodations.

I recall my one trip on a first class train, the Talgo, going from Barcelona to Madrid. Passengers could get a hot meal served at their seats by a waiter in a starched white jacket. I didn't eat on the train but I did walk to the bar car and got an excellent cup of espresso coffee.That was when prices in Spain were cheap. We took the Talgo after taking a third class train from Port Bou on the French border to Barcelona. I feared for my wife's safety on that trip on account of some of our fellow passengers, while I stood all the way. Anyhow, traveling by train is not a hardship by any means especially if you travel first class.
On the other hand, if Biden could prove that he traveled to DC from Wilmington on a Trailways bus, then I would be impressed that he wanted to mingle with the hoi polloi. Even the slightly more upscale Greyhound bus might show that. But citing the train as proof is absurd. Either Obama and his campaign advisors are foolish or stupid or naive, or they think that the voters are dumb and are cynically deceiving the voters on this as on so many other matters.

Apparently, the Obama campaign is hard up for proof that Biden came out of the working class. Their other"proof" of Biden's working class origin is that his father was an auto dealer. A very working class profession, especially if you are hiring a half-dozen salesmen, a few secretaries, a receptionist, a bookkeeper and/or accountant, and several auto mechanics to work in your garage. The Wall Street Journal tells us that Biden's staff

labored hard to turn one of his [Biden's] potential liabilities --his long career in Washington-- into a strength. Point one: Sen. Biden took the train out of Washington almost every night to go home to Delaware. Two: his humble roots as the son of a car dealer in Scranton, Pa., a pivotal state for Democrats. Biden's aides pushed the idea that their man could help with working class whites who eluded Sen. Obama during the primaries.
[WSJ, 8-26-2008]

These arguments are just too funny. Maybe Biden and his gang and Obama and his gang think that their potential voters are really stupid or that --if not stupid-- they will believe almost anything that their demigod tells them. I can't answer those implied questions. By the way, who is supposed to believe Obama's claim above about Biden?

"This working-class kid from Scranton and Wilmington has always been a friend to the underdog" [Ibid.]

Isn't that "always . . . a friend to the underdog" a bit much? On the other hand, there is a real flesh and blood Biden who has benefitted from substantial contributions over the years from trial lawyers and their lobby, the National Association of Trial Lawyers. Now, here is a real underdog group!! One of Biden's contributing lawyer friends from Mississippi, one Richard Scruggs, was convicted of trying to bribe a judge. What exactly was his connection with Biden? was he trying to bribe him too with his contributions?? [Wall Street Journal, 12-10-2007 & WSJ 8-26-2008]

. . . he's [that is, Biden] also collected $6.5 million in campaign contributions from lobbyists, lawyers and law firms since 1989, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. That includes $214,000 from executives of former credit card giant MBNA, now a unit of Bank of America Corp., the center said. He's been a strong supporter of the home-state [that is, based in Delaware] bank, backing a tough bankruptcy bill in 2006 that was one of MBNA's top legislative priorities. [WSJ, 8-26-2008]

Biden is in good odor with some bankers too. But Obama and McCain also have gotten money from very wealthy interests. It's legal. But what irritates me about Obama is that he pretends to represent the "poor" and "the disenfranchised." His pretense to be different is outrageous. It also makes him sinister. Something like William Randolph Hearst who likewise pretended at one stage of his career to represent "the poor." Obama's demagogue persona is menacing.

By the way, is it not curious that Obama, who is younger than Biden, patronizes him as a "working class kid"??

I know that Biden is not the issue today [Nevertheless, also see, Susan Schmidt & John R Wilke, "Biden's Ties Come under Scrutiny," WSJ 8-26-2008].

Now it's the economic crash. But let's try to keep our sense of humor and see the humor in the bizarre antics of the power-hungry.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Coming: More on Obama the war candidate, More on the anti-Jewish racism of the "Peace Process," Republicans, Democrats & Jews [FDR and Eisenhower and Carter and George Bush Sr]; Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, the Land of Israel, archeological updates, peace follies, propaganda, etc