NY Times Bias Basis

Patriots! Shortly after the House Select Committee released a new 800-page report on June 28, 2016, the New York Times released an incredible statement (ON THE SAME DAY) with the headline reading “House Benghazi Report Finds No New Evidence of Wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton”. Wow. They read that report fast. Those 800 pages must be written very cleverly that they are so easily understood in their entirety. Or… maybe they already made up their mind before it came out. Maybe this article was already ready to print. Why would I say such a thing? Why would I assume that the NY Times is biased?

Well it is simple. Trey Gowdy was the leader of the House Committee that prepared the report and he has stated several places where Hillary Clinton was implicated in not just her negligence but also her willful wrongdoing. Over 600 prior requests for added security at the Benghazi compound were not just ignored but also denied by Hillary and her team. In addition, although they showed that the State Department knew that the attack was a planned and sustained attack, they colluded to falsely purport that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to a Youtube video. Having worked closely with Psychological Operations in the past, I know that it is illegal to “Psyop” US citizens. These are just a couple examples where Crooked Hillary was implicated. There were many more places as well in that 800-page report.

But why would the New York Times want to purport an ABSOLUTE AND TOTAL LIE? What would be their motivation for protecting namely Hillary Clinton? I mean, they specifically NAMED HILLARY CLINTON in the headline. They could have just said that the “Report Finds No New Evidence of Wrongdoing”, but they didn’t. They mentioned her right at the very top. Why, I ask again, would they do that? What is in it for them to lie to the American People? Do they just like lying to people? Or are they lying specifically to protect Hillary Clinton? Obviously they are protecting Hillary. Why? Do they have some stake in her innocence? Yes. Her innocence is particularly prudent to her candidacy for President.

Wait? Why should the NY Times care who is President of the United States? What’s in it for them? Nothing. Oh wait… unless it is important to their key stakeholders or stockholders that Hillary be President. Well who owns a lot of NY Times stock that would stand to benefit from Hillary’s innocence, or for that matter, Presidency? It’s not like there is some big, bad, rich Mexican who controls the paper and wants to make sure Trump is not elected… Oh wait. Who’s Carlos Slim Helú?

Carlos Slim Helú is one of the largest stockholders of the New York Times. So what? I’ll tell you “so what.” Carlos “not-so” Slim happens to be a very rich Billionaire (richer than Facebook’s Zuckerberg) who controls over 200 companies in Mexico. What does that have to do with the price of tea in Mexico? Duh! Trump, the other guy running for President wants to Build a WALL. So you see, Carlos has a HUGE stake in Hillary being innocent and therefore viable for the Presidency in order to prevent that WALL from being built that might infringe upon his Billions at stake in Mexico. And because Carlos is one of the New York Times biggest owners, the New York Times has a huge motivation to purport Hillary’s innocence in spite of the TRUTH of the matter. There is absolutely NO WAY JOSE (I mean Carlos) that the New York Times is unbiased in this situation.

Patriots! If you want to know the truth, read the New York Times and realize that it is completely a lie. Then read something that tells you the opposite. Hillary Clinton is crooked and guilty as hell. The New York Times is biased as hell. Vote for Trump so Mexico can BUILD A WALL so we can MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.