Connect with us

Published

on


After spending months spilling ink to delegitimize stories implicating President-elect Joe Biden in his son’s corrupt overseas business dealings, the New York Times has found a new favorite Democrat to protect.

As of this writing Monday morning, the nation’s most influential newspaper — boasting more than 7 million subscribers — has yet to dedicate a single article or news item to the compromising revelations surrounding Democratic House Intelligence Committee member Eric Swalwell cultivating a relationship with a Chinese spy.

The story, first reported by Axios earlier this month, chronicles an alleged relationship between Swalwell and a since-vanished Chinese national named Fang Fang, who placed an intern in Swalwell’s office and helped fundraise for the California congressman’s 2014 re-election campaign. Fang Fang’s influence on the Democratic representative with access to the nation’s top secrets on the Intelligence Committee raised enough alarm within the FBI that in 2015, according to Axios, federal authorities provided Swalwell a “defensive briefing” regarding Fang Fang’s threat.

While federal intelligence officials told Axios that Fang Fang engaged in sexual conduct to manipulate at least two midwestern mayors in the past, the outlet did not report whether Fang Fang had been romantically involved with Swalwell but leaves the likelihood of a romantic relationship an open question. That question, however, has remained unanswered as the Bay Area-representative has refused to disclose such details.

Reporting of Swalwell’s conduct has provoked growing calls from Republicans to remove Swalwell from the House Intelligence Committee. On Friday, Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy was given an FBI briefing on the matter alongside House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. While Pelosi left the meeting without making comments to reporters, McCarthy left sounding more convinced than ever that Swalwell should be stripped of the assignment.

“He should not be on Intel,” McCarthy said as he left the briefing. “I just think there are definitely 200 other Democrats that I know could fill that place.”

Swalwell, a primary culprit in weaponizing his role on the Intelligence Committee to perpetuate the Russia hoax — alongside California colleague Adam Schiff, who chairs the committee — has continued to deny any wrongdoing and has reverted a favorite Democratic Party narrative of collusion accusing Trump of leaking the story to Axios.

Despite the calls from more than a dozen House lawmakers calling for Swalwell’s removal, including the House minority leader, combined with credible reporting on the scandal from outlets the Times has routinely cited for major stories, the legacy paper has yet to offer a single column to the blockbuster revelations. Given the Times’s relentless four-year coverage of the Russia hoax implicating President Trump as a covert agent of the Kremlin, however, one could easily imagine how the paper might react differently had the representative in Swalwell’s seat held an “R” next to their name.

The refusal of the Times to cover the Swalwell story might also stem from motivation to protect the paper’s Chinese interests as opposed to mere naked partisan activism.

Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, who owns more than 17 percent of the New York Times Company and saved the paper in 2009 with a $250 million dollar loan has also invested millions in Chinese interests. In 2017, Slim’s Giant Motors partnered with China’s JAC Motors to begin manufacturing Chinese-designed and -manufactured vehicles in Mexico to circumvent U.S. trade restrictions.

The Swalwell cover-up is not the first time the American paper has recently illustrated its Chinese influence. In October, the Times published Chinese propaganda glorifying the Chinese Communist Party’s crackdown in Hong Kong.




Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments

News

The Old Order Returns

Published

on

By



The central question Americans ought to consider on this Inauguration Day as The Old Order returns is whether what they are seeing in their country is happening because it is strong or because it is weak.

On its face, a capital city packed with a military presence — an occupation hailed by the media, as the swamp protects itself — may seem like a show of force, a reiteration of law and order above all else. As Chris Bedford writes this morning, all that needed to happen for Tom Cotton’s idea to become reality was for the seat of the powerful to be attacked instead of the neighborhoods in Kenosha. Had the federal government and the Department of Justice been willing to do what Donald Trump wanted them to do this summer, perhaps people would’ve learned earlier that rioting does not pay. But that’s not what they learned, and for good reason.

Wiser observers will understand that a capital city in need of such an overwhelming military presence — if only for the mental and emotional stability of the so-called leaders who inhabit it — also indicates a vast maw of weakness. The frail leadership of the United States is the great unremarked phenomenon of this moment. In this moment of crisis, we have what appears to be the most elderly class of political elites in the history of the nation. The octogenarian and septuagenarian set of Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn, Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, Dick Durbin are white knuckling it to the end of their careers — attempting to make their mark before leaving the stage and passing things on to people who share none of their memories of the time before.

This brittle leadership class in our politics inhabits the same America as a much younger leadership class of corporatist tech oligarch, unmoored from any deep understanding of what made the nation the envy of the world. They believe they have inherited the godhead of the universe, with the ability and the duty to reshape the globe as they see fit. Where the aged elected officials dither, they have the ability to act to make the world a better place. They have, and they will. And they will do it by controlling to the greatest degree possible what people see, what they know, how they think, and ultimately, how they vote.

One class is frail, old, and out of touch in a rapidly changing world. The other is out of touch, too — lacking any of the humility necessary for leadership — but is absolutely convinced of its abiding power and wisdom. After all, if you can come up with so many products consumers want, wouldn’t it stand to reason they will also enjoy your total control over their lives?

The crumbling facade of America’s elites has been a bipartisan problem for two decades. Four years ago, Donald Trump thrived on being the only politician to say this explicitly, even to the extent of his inauguration speech and much to the disgust of the ruling class. But the reaction to this pandemic has only degraded trust in this class further. It is unlikely to reverse course upon the ascendancy of its first Silent Generation president, particularly when his policies will serve to reinforce the belief that our political leadership is not an advocate for the people, but a puppet on the strings of those who run the country.

This is what many people will think. And they will be right.

In such a moment, we should in no way expect a return to a sedate class of political leadership, but instead a continued rise in the appeal of new populist leaders in our politics and culture who have the ability to stand and say: There are no strings on me.




Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Of Course We Don’t Need A 9/11-Style Commission On The Capitol Riots

Published

on

By



Such a commission will achieve nothing but further division in our country.

In the wake of the tragic riots at the Capitol on Jan. 6, there has been no shortage of hyperbolic response. We had an absurd and pointless impeachment, 25,000 troops were sent to Washington, D.C., and talking heads prattled on pretending we had been minutes away from the destruction of the republic. The latest nonsensical notion is that we now need a 9/11-style commission to investigate the events at the Capitol.

We have heard from Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, a whole host of TV hosts and left-wing politicians demanding this kind of sweeping commission is deeply needed. It’s ridiculous and dangerous. First of all, the Capitol riots were on a drastically smaller scale than 9/11. We lost 3,000 Americans in that attack, iconic New York buildings were leveled, and a hole was blown into the Pentagon. The comparison would be laughable if it were not so insulting.

In addition, thus far law enforcement, including the FBI, has been enormously successful in finding and arresting the fools who forced their way into the seat of our government. More than 100 have been arrested with more arrests happening daily. There is simply no reason to believe that American law enforcement is not capable of getting to the bottom of the attack, which is exactly what their job is.

Importantly, the 9/11 commission was formed at a time when our country was incredibly unified. There were no sides; there was very little politicking. If we followed that model, with an equal number of Republicans and Democrats on a commission to get to the bottom of what happened, would they even be able to agree on issues of scope of the investigation, or who should be targeted? Clinton thinks Trump might have been on the phone with Putin. Members of Congress have baselessly accused their colleagues of coordinating the attack. What exactly would be investigated?

But the deeper civil liberties fear would have to do with those who only attended the peaceful rally and march and never set foot in the Capitol — perhaps even anyone who ever supported Trump whom many on the left seem to think need “deprogramming.” How deeply will these Americans’ lives be investigated and for what?

Will the commission be looking for signs of white supremacy? Because leftists see white supremacy literally everywhere. They find it in statues of Abraham Lincoln commissioned by freed slaves, they find it in all of our great works of literature, and they certainly find it in anyone who does not support progressive political positions. Do we have any doubt that they will find this white supremacy in any of the tens if not hundreds of thousands of Americans who attended Trump’s rally?

The violence at the Capitol was roundly and all but universally condemned by American conservatives even as it was going on. There were no attempts to justify or couch the actions in some cloak of justice. As a result of this, there have been no copycat events, no attacks on state capitols, no hordes gathered across the Potomac ready to lay siege to our nation’s capital. Jan. 6 was a shambolic mess of poor security in which a handful of very bad actors failed miserably to rally support for their cause.

If incoming President Joe Biden’s desire truly is to lower the temperature and bring some measure of unity, then this commission is the worst thing that his Democratic allies could possibly do. A wide-sweeping investigation of whether 75 million Americans are racists ready to overthrow the government will not lower the temperature. It will make the fever spike.

For four years, the left predicted that the country could not survive a full term from president Trump and did all in their power to thwart his administration. Nonetheless, he leaves office with some remarkable accomplishments, including the creation of the vaccines that will end the nightmare of COVID-19 deaths and lockdowns. There is no reason to put the country through a divisive circus of a commission meant mostly to attack and embarrass Trump and his millions of supporters.

Let the country move on now. Let our politicians work to better the lives of the American people, not to relitigate the past four years. Trump’s supporters will not be convinced that he was anything but a great president, and his poll number among Republicans show that. Progressives will always view him and his supporters as white supremacists. No commission will ever change that basic dynamic. It is now time to look forward, not to look backward in an attempt to settle scores.

David Marcus is the Federalist’s New York Correspondent. Follow him on Twitter, @BlueBoxDave.




Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Media Release Torrent Of Biden Puff Pieces After Years Maligning Trump

Published

on

By



After years of raging against Donald Trump, often misconstruing his words and crafting a narrative focused solely on criticizing his leadership, the corporate media has returned to writing fluffy filler pieces and praises about the incoming administration.

Now, instead of publishing headlines about how the president is a fascist and a white supremacist who deserves two rounds of political impeachments in the House of Representatives, the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and other corporate media outlets are returning to their pre-Trump state, writing articles about important topics such as Vice President Kamala Harris’s choice of shoes, the inauguration playlist, and President Joe Biden’s love for ice cream and lovely new agenda for the country.

In lieu of hurling criticisms every which way at the politicians in charge of the country, CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, and many others welcomed Biden and his team with open arms, hailing the new president as a “healing” leader and echoing his rhetoric about uniting the country.

“Let the healing begin. We have needed this,” one CNN journalist tweeted.

Shortly before inauguration day, an outburst of articles about the “human” parts of the new leaders also surfaced.

Some were focused on fashion, with some media platforms such as Vogue and CBS rewarding Harris with cover pages and feature stories about her converse shoes, despite finding harsh criticism for the Trump administration and former First Lady Melania Trump’s fashion choices for the last four years.

The media’s admiration for the incoming Democrat administration extends beyond praising and celebrating the mundane but somehow feature-worthy parts of Biden and Harris. Some of these hard-hitting pieces of journalism include showing love to their spouses, families, and even their pets.

Most people know her as Jill Biden. But to some she is Dr. B, the compassionate and challenging educator who went the extra mile,” one Washington Post headline read on Monday. 

In addition to the fascination over Harris’s shoes, CBS Sunday Morning also devoted a segment to her husband Douglas Emhoff and their marriage.

All of a sudden, the same corporate media who refused to ask Biden and Harris questions on the campaign trail, debate stage, or at their speeches, all while lying about the Trump administration and claiming to provide objective coverage of current events, have completely shifted their tone to warmly embrace the Biden administration.

Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.




Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement />

Most Popular

Copyright © 2020 The Savage Diary