Multiverse Confirmed by the New York Times

Barney Brenner
|
Posted: Nov 06, 2017 12:01 AM
Multiverse Confirmed by the New York Times

Ronald Reagan famously said that "The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." In fact, the gulf is so wide between what lefties believe and what the conservative camp knows to be true, that our minds must occupy alternate universes.

But it goes even beyond that. The various fictions subscribed to by those on the Left constitute no less than a multiverse of delusion. And the New York Times on Saturday, November 4th, outdid itself on this with one stellar example after another. They repeatedly doubled down with articles on subjects where the least bit of objective research would reveal the astonishing level of deception which they and much of the major media purveys.

At the top of the electronic fold was the headline, “U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump Officials.” Never mind that they neglected to mention that the report also contradicted a growing chorus of scientists, including Dr. Richard Lindzen, perhaps the foremost atmospheric physicist on Earth and a leading critic of what is more accurately called anthropogenic global warming. The article is a masterpiece of hyperbole with statements such as the claim that we’re in “the warmest period in the history of civilization.” But when the Times gets a two-fer by bashing Trump as well as pushing the lucrative climate change agenda, hey, what the heck.

The second shining example is the subsequent story in the Saturday Times’ email edition. It’s about – wait for it –the Donald Trump campaign’s collusion with the Russians. It’s still the reason that we’re not hailing her highness, Hillary. The Dems remain so traumatized that their tarnished Golden Girl didn’t provide them with eight more years at the helm that they can't let go of the meme that there’s no other reason for the loss.

The mechanics of how just the right states were affected or how those voters were persuaded to make the wrong ballot mark will be left forever unexplained. It just has to be that Little Miss Reset was robbed. Also overlooked is the fact that by definition, any tampering with the election would have had to have taken place under Obama’s watch.

Then there’s a headline which, at first glance, conservatives would likely be ready to agree with: “An Injustice in the Bergdahl Sentence.” Until further perusal makes you realize that, true to form, it means the opposite of what you think. The complaint isn’t that the sentence is too lenient and that he doesn't have to spend years behind bars for an infraction that in another time might have merited a firing squad. Rather they carp that he didn’t get an honorable discharge, and is thus deprived of the benefits that the Times, in an unconscionable disregard for the severity of his actions, believes he still deserves. They go on to ask, if he gets “a dishonorable discharge at 31 years old, how could he mend his wounds, attempt to pay his moral and civic debts, and contribute to the nation?”

Please, spare us another of his “contributions.” This one caused an enormous waste and diversion of resources to search for him, likely resulted in deaths of honorable U.S. servicemen, and his eventual release was used as an excuse to swap him for five Taliban commanders who would return to the battlefield against us.

We’ll stop with just one more item from this amazing edition. In what may be a clear-cut case of Stockholm Syndrome, Bret Stephens penned a story defending the Christopher Steele “dossier.” With a subhead reading "the suggestion that the Steele dossier has been discredited is discreditable to the point of being dishonest," you have to wonder what’s in the water at the New York Times building. Noticeably absent from the piece is the most salacious and indefensible aspect of it, which doesn’t need to be reiterated but which was the major reason for its notoriety.

These types of stories make the New York Times worse than Pravda (Russian for “Truth”) ever was because in the former Soviet Union, at least the majority of the population knew they were being propagandized. In this country, too big a portion of the gullible public swallows these deceptions in their entirety.

Alternate universes indeed.