All errors should be reported to

Monday, October 12, 2020

Columnist should take on the Russian collusion hoax

The media is aghast that Fake Conservative Bret Stephens of the New York Times took on his newspaper's debunked 1619 Project, which tried to hijack American history by making it all about slavery. The project landed a Pulitzer for Nikole Hannah-Jones.

Stephens has a Pulitzer of his own. He pointed out factual errors in her copy.

However, other critics pointed out errors a year ago that the Times dragged its feet for months before correcting. Indeed, the New York Post ran an editorial on March 14, "New York Times corrects The 1619 Project — but it’s still a giant lie."

But Stephens is a columnist for the paper who is criticizing the paper. The newspaper's union blasted him on Twitter for the intramural upbraiding.

It was a gauche move.

But I can see why he wanted to cast shade on Hannah-Jones's improbable history.

Critics say the Times is trying to hijack history by pretending the nation was founded when slaves arrived in 1619 and not in 1776 when the colonies broke from England. This has been a staple of black history classes all along because the purpose of black history is to promote division among Americans. If you change the date to 1619, you de-legitimize the Declaration of Independence, and subsequently the Constitution. This is the what critical race theory is all about.

Treating the Constitution as a slave document allows you to ignore the God-given rights it protects. This allows a fascist socialist regime to silence critics -- hate speech -- and disarm the populace.

But as terrible as 1619 is, it is nothing compared to Obama using the FBI to spy on political opponents, including President Donald John Trump.

Americans are outraged. Conservatives want justice. The New York Times was part and parcel to Obama's alibi, the Russian Collusion Hoax. Watergate lied. The cover-up is not worse than the crime. The cover-up gets you a Pulitzer.

Stephens should take the Times on instead of wasting his time over this. Sure taking on Hannah-Jones may cost him his job. I don't know. I do know he is now unpopular at the Times, and the staff will eventually get him canned. 

But if he is going to go, why not go out in style and take down the Russian Collusion Hoax on his way out? Why not stand against an injustice in our times, not one that was corrected more than a century and a half ago?

The piece on 1619 was a Times columnist gazing at his newspaper's navel. He wrote, "For obvious reasons, I've thought long and hard about the ethics of writing this essay. On the one hand, outside of exceptional circumstances, it’s bad practice to openly criticize the work of one’s colleagues. We bat for the same team and owe one another collegial respect.

"On the other, the 1619 Project has become, partly by its design and partly because of avoidable mistakes, a focal point of the kind of intense national debate that columnists are supposed to cover, and that is being widely written about outside The Times. To avoid writing about it on account of the first scruple is to be derelict in our responsibility toward the second."

Oh, he should give it a rest.

The Times published his piece, did it not? So what if the newspaper guild is unhappy.

Taking on the Russian Collusion Hoax, however, would be useful because it would show that someone at the Times believes in holding a president accountable who is not a Republican. And it might encourage other journalists to speak up and denounce Obama for his abuse of power.


  1. The biggest flaw in the "1619 Project" is that at the time of the American Revolution no one in England was threatening to cancel slavery in the American Colonies. The first anti-slavery group organized in England was a Quaker group in 1879, which was after our revolution had been won. Why would we be revolting against something (British anti-slavery) which did not yet exist?

    1. Actually the Anti-slavery movement in Britain existed before 1787 when William Wilberforce entered the picture. With Wilberforce leading the parliamentary opposition to slavery, the slave trade ended in British territories in 1807 and slavery itself was largely abolished in the British Empire in 1833.

    2. And the British did more than that.

      The Royal Navy was authorized to interdict slave trading anywhere in the world that they found it - which they did very effectively. The Royal Navy was still detaining slave-trading ships (and liberating the enslaved) along the east coast of Africa as late as the 1880s.

      One knock-on problem in North America was that this enforcement meant that it was no longer possible to acquire and bring in new slaves. That caused the extant slave population in the southern states to be turned into a hereditary slave class.

    3. Let us not forget the Noble (see how I did that?) Arabs, who have been knee-deep in the slave trade since the time of Moses. So why did THE REVERENDS Jesse Jackson, Joseph Lowry, Hosea Williams, et al team up with the Arabs in the 70s? Why did The Black Jesus team up with Iran just a few years ago? As R. Emmett Tyrrell said, they were all engaged in one of the great liberation movements in modern times - the liberation of dollars from Western banks.

  2. Replies
    1. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....

  3. Am I the only person on Earth that remembers the nyt's covering up for soviet mass murders? I wasn't even alive, how is it I know all about it but nobody else does? You wouldn't quote Pravda as a "paper of record," would you? Why is the new york times different? PLEASE HELP me understand! I have wondered this me entire life both sides of the political spectrum quoting this communist rag makes me want to slap my forehead until I don't care about anything anymore. I ask the "ashiest classic liberals" the same question, why did you empower marxists for generations only to complain about them when they take control of the West? The very idea of a marxists running for public office was at one time inconceivable, now there isn't a democrat in office that can politically disavow marx except biden and he can only do so when put on the spot. Kindly, respectfully, with my utmost desire to know, why have marxists been empowered for so long even though they were marxists on their face? What and when did things change that it became okay to cover up genocide? The left used to remind us of the Catholic Church denying the Holocaust daily until the communist pope took over. None of it makes any sense, it looks like both sides were working toward the same goal in I were a Martian visiting Earth for the first time.

    1. My short answer is: there was (and is) a Fifth Column of Marxists that gradually infiltrated our governments from local to State to Federal.

      They also crept into our education system, so from Kindergarden to University our kids are brainwashed with Marxist dogma; the Ivy League kids particularly are preconditioned to enter government service as bona-fide Marxists, who know not to talk about it openly until they're entrenched.

      This wasn't unique to the Left; many Republicans are wolves in sheep's clothing. Most of the differences between R & D are cosmetic; actually there's a Uniparty, which has two heads. One head is an R, the other a D, but the monster feeds from both mouths, and from the same taxpayer-funded trough.

      McCarthy was right; but the situation was far more dire than even he believed it was.

      We are now paying the price for our inattention to what was happening in front of our faces, and the price will be high.

      May God save our Republic, and give President Trump strength to overcome the Reds!

  4. The biggest flaw in 1619 is that no one then came to these shores as a slave. Black and white alike came as indentured servants with a contract to be free after a specified period of time. The contract was honored until a formerly indentured African named Anthony Johnson sued to keep a fellow African indentured servant as a "slave for life". The Northhampton Court in Virginia ruled in Johnson's favor March 8, 1655 making Johnson, a black man, the first slave owner.

  5. I often see the British anti-slavery efforts brought up, but I can't remember the pre-civil war American efforts mentioned.

    "Long illegal, the infamous slave trade was declared by Congress in 1819 to be piracy, and as such, punishable by death. The Navy's African Slave Trade Patrol was established to search for and bring to justice the dealers in human misery. Never exceeding a few ships in number, the Patrol, which from time to time included USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Saratoga and USS Yorktown, relentlessly plied the waters off West Africa, South America, and the Cuban coast, a principle area for slave disembarkation. By the start of the Civil War more than 100 suspected slavers had been captured."

  6. Does the 1616 project mention any of this:

    "America withdrew from the transatlantic slave trade in 1808. With The Treaty of Ghent, ending the War of 1812, both the United States and Great Britain agreed to work towards ending the slave trade. The U.S. Navy's role in the struggle against slavery began in 1820 when warships deployed off West Africa to catch American slave ships. Enforcement of the slave trade ban was sporadic until the Navy deployed a permanent African Squadron in 1842. This deployment was due to the Webster-Ashburton Treaty, between the United States and Great Britain signed that August to suppress the slave trade. Despite the vigilance of American, as well as British and French, warships in African waters, the overseas slave trade increased in the 1850s, owing to the high demand for slaves in Latin America. The U.S. Navy's participation lasted until the start of the U.S. Civil War, April 1861."

  7. Stephens would never write a column debunking the Russian collusion scam because he is on the same page as everyone else at the NYT when it comes to Trump. As far as that crowd is concerned nothing is objectionable in any effort to damage the President.

    1. I too think he is a never trumper and He is with Lowry, Andrew McCarty and others now saying time to Move on from the Russia hoax.

  8. Also proving that our founding was in 1776 by way of the Declaration of Independence is that slavers in the Colonies understood that this document intentionally forecast and declared the abolition of slavery. These slavers left the Colonies with their slaves and re-established their plantations in the islands of the Caribbean. You know, places like Jamaica where Camala Harris’s direct ancestor owned—wait for it—slaves.

    1. I forgot to insert the qualifier *some* to indicate that “some slavers,” not all, recognized the Declaration as a threat to their practice of slavery.

  9. Say what we will, but the Washington Post was the least smelly turd in the manure pile, by returning their Janet Cooke '81 Pulitzer Prize...Poor Miss Cooke was decades ahead of the BLM movement. If her fabulist 'Jimmy, the 8 yr. old heroin addict' was exposed today, she could Joy Reid herself out of it by claiming her then typewriter, had been hacked and her story was submitted by persons, while she slept. Same with Jason Blair at the NY Times.
    Anyone wanting to be schooled on fake news up to today's reporting style (remember the NYT reporter who recently slept her way into De. House committee fake planted leaks), read up on Drew Pearson (not the Dallas Cowboys receiver). If memory serves, he or some NYT writer was on Joe Kennedy's payroll to regularly plant stories glorifying the Kennedy political family. "Forget it Don, it's D.C.-town." ZB

  10. "Oh, he should give it a rest."

    And there you have one of the reasons why yours is one of the only sites that is a daily MUST read.