Five kinds of evidence: reasons to NOT vote
columnist: Multimediamonitor

Topic: Media
Evidence Republican elite are victims of fraud by New York Times - but its not too late

---

As reasons for its choice of John McCain, the NYT Editorial Board in its Editorial of 25 January wrote: "The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq." See the true reasons it chose John McCain.

---

by Multimediamonitor
(libertarian)
Friday, February 8, 2008

Accusing the Editorial Board of the New York Times of fraud may seem risky. It may sue me. I have been threatened with law suits before by one of Rupert Murdoch's propagandists. However that is no reason to conceal evidence of a fraud evidently intended to increase John McCain's prospects by reducing Ron Paul's prospects of winning Republican nomination, particularly as the fraud looks like raising millions of dollars for the Democrat campaign. To see how first read this and this.

The following evidence answers 'Yes' to Gary Trieste's unanswered legal question. It proves "on the balance of probabilities" that the Editorial Board knowingly gave false reasons for its choice of John McCain. Among the clearly foreseeable victims of the fraud are all those who donate to the Democrat Party's 'Help Beat John McCain' fund.

In contrast to its honest assessment that "remaining [Democrat] long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism.", the Editorial Board never even mentioned the name of Ron Paul as a Republican candidate. In fact Ron Paul's popularity was already so evident online and in published fundraising results that even some of the MSM reported it prominently [I'm not sure about the New York Times].

This omission of any reference to Ron Paul despite these evident achievements can be seen only as cheating its own readers to whom it owed a duty of care. In pretending to perform that duty, the fraud is particularly evident in its reasons about ending the occupation of Iraq. At very least, the statement "The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq." is a half-truth misrepresenting to its readers that no [leading] Republican candidate had a plan for getting American troops out of Iraq.

Ron Paul had by then presented in public debate, a clear plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. There can be little doubt that his campaign's lead in Republican fundraising was largely due to public support for that plan. Members of the Editorial Board could hardly be unaware of these facts and were aware that Ron Paul's clear break with that "unpopular legacy of President Bush" was shared by no other Republican candidates.

So what are Republicans and Ron Paul supporters to do now? Can we even get this message to the Republican Party elite, who are even now working hard to complete their part of the MSM fraud? If so will the Republican Party elite admit their unwitting role? I am presumptuous enough to presume they, Christian or not, will refuse to even consider the evidence of their folly.

For what its worth, I say part of the answer is for anti-war Republicans and Ron Paul supporters to be there when Ron Paul publicly exposes for the MSM reporters and their controllers, the folly of the Republican Party elite. Not their folly as victims of the fraud, but their folly in refusing to admit they are being used by the MSM controllers.

A detail I leave to my readers is how to get Ron Paul to publicly expose the folly of the Republican Party elite. As a gentleman he will prefer to do it privately with John McCain before doing so himself to a public audience. My proposal is that he does the private thing before reliable witnesses and with minimum notice [apart from that by any readers of this!] before the public event.

UPDATE

Thanks for the supportive comments. As the headline says, its not too late. The Editorial Board answers to Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the Chairman & Publisher of the New York Times. Hopefully he's not aware of the fraud and will act to protect his reputation. The fact that he's published his email address is encouraging. You'll find it at the bottom of the page here.

If a few of us write polite letters asking him to look at the evidence, who knows? But be patient. If like Ron Paul, Arthur Sulzberger Jr is a gentleman, he will want to deal with it first in private.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
23 thumbs so far

©2008 Multimediamonitor, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Friday, February 8, 2008
Last modified: Monday, February 11, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of Multimediamonitor only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Multimediamonitor is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by Multimediamonitor of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.