New York Times Reveals Trump, Breitbart Right On Gang Crime, Grenade Attacks in Sweden


The New York Times has broken ranks with the the establishment media, publishing an effective mea culpa over the mainstream denial of migrant-related gang crime in Sweden.

The paper — which previously mocked President Trump for highlighting Sweden’s migrant crime problems — published over 1,500 words on the subject in its Sunday edition this weekend, stating:

Weapons from a faraway, long-ago war are flowing into immigrant neighborhoods here, puncturing Swedes’ sense of confidence and security. The country’s murder rate remains low, by American standards, and violent crime is stable or dropping in many places. But gang-related assaults and shootings are becoming more frequent, and the number of neighborhoods categorized by the police as “marred by crime, social unrest and insecurity” is rising. Crime and immigration are certain to be key issues in September’s general election, alongside the traditional debates over education and health care.

Sweden’s immigration problems have been reported on by Breitbart London since 2015, when the site dispatched reporters to the country to describe the worsening conditions in many migrant-dominated suburbs.

Additionally, Breitbart London interviewed Sweden Democrats leader Jimmie Akesson, the only politician in the country willing to speak openly about the problems. The establishment media dismissed Akesson and his Sweden Democrats as “neo Nazi”, but the party currently commands third place, with 17.3 per cent in the polls ahead of September’s elections.

In February last year, President Trump attempted to highlight the situation in Sweden, telling a campaign rally: “…look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this?”

Immediately, the establishment media kicked in to deny Sweden’s mass migration problems. The Washington Post said he left Europeans “baffled”, while Politico spun the lines of pro mass migration campaigners to deny the situation. CNN went even further, lampooning the soon-to-be President’s warnings with the opening line: “Has someone stolen our meatballs?”

Now the New York Times has admitted parts of Sweden are being turned into war zones, with the use of grenades and military weapons from 1990s Yugoslavia. They quote kebab shop owner and asylum seeker Paul Borisho who — like many Europeans — expressed fear and concern over the trajectory of the continent: “Now, when I think of the future, I am afraid… I am afraid for Europe.”

Coming from anyone but an asylum seeker or kebab shop owner, such sentiments would normally be ridiculed or maligned as “xenophobic”. But even some of Sweden’s immigrants are distraught over the lack of action in the greater interest of “diversity” and “multiculturalism”.

In my book No Go Zones, I recall the words of locals:

One cab driver by the name of Jamal told me he was offered free government housing in Rinkeby, but he refused on the basis of safety. A former police officer confided that she felt safer in Sudan than in some of Sweden’s suburbs. And beat cops to the tune of 80 percent claim they are considering a career change due to the increasingly dangerous nature of their jobs.

The NYT also quotes a friend of the recently deceased immigrant Daniel Zuniga, murdered in a hand grenade attack in a Stockholm suburb. His friend Hugo Garrido told the paper: “Crime is increasing and increasing, and they aren’t doing anything about it… It’s denial. Swedes are very good people and they want to change the world. They want the rest of the world to be like Sweden. And the reality is that it’s completely different.”

His daughter, Natalia, said she would give anything to drink one more cup of coffee with him. Wanna, a tiny woman with hair nearly down to her waist, stood at the foot of the coffin, her face stretched into a mask of grief. After that she collected herself.

“He reiterated that if he died, I must return to Thailand,” she said of her husband. “He didn’t want me to live here after he died. He told me to sell the house and just leave.”

How the New York Times Spins the Memo to Divide America

by JOEL B. POLLAK4 Feb 2018

An article in the news section of the Sunday New York Times describing President Donald Trump’s reaction to the release of the House Intelligence Committee memo is a perfect example of how the “paper of record” is spinning the news to attack Trump — and divide the country.

The article, “Trump’s Unparalleled War on a Pillar of Society: Law Enforcement” shows why Trump supporters, and conservatives in general, dislike and distrust the media.

Written by veteran reporters Sharon LaFraniere, Katie Benner, and Peter Baker, with contributions from Maggie Haberman and Adam Goldman, the article is a group effort that reflects the outlook of the Times as a whole.

And It performs two dirty tricks. The first: the article casts Trump’s dispute with senior members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a fight with “law enforcement” as a whole, i.e. the FBI rank-and-file or even the neighborhood cop.

Note that this runs against a consistent theme of President Trump’s presidency, which has emphasized support for law enforcement — a clear break with the Obama administration, which often supported the Black Lives Matter movement and its criticisms of police. Trump has also offered unprecedented support for the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

To call his criticism of the FBI a “war” on law enforcement is just wrong.

The second trick: the article disdains evidence that the FBI and the Justice Department abused their power for political reasons. It notes that “Mr. Trump’s advisers” believe the memo “raised serious and legitimate questions about the way the F.B.I. used information gathered by a former spy paid by Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and the Democrats to help justify a warrant for surveillance on a former Trump campaign adviser tied to Russia.”

But the article never takes that belief seriously as a matter of public concern. To the team at the New York Times, it is just a political perspective.

What must be explained is not the FBI’s agenda, but rather Trump’s behavior, which is interpreted in the light of past interest in “secret document[s]” like Obama’s birth certificate. No past examples of FBI abuses — such as the surveillance of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., under COINTELPRO — are examined.

The article cites a number of “experts,” some of whom are almost predictable, like Trump-hating former George W. Bush official Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law professor. But to those outside the Times‘ liberal bubble, there is no way to dress up what is a blatant partisan attack masquerading as journalism.

Ironically, the self-assured, conclusory tone of the article suggests that the team who worked on it may have no idea just how partisan they have become.


Flashback: MSM said Trump was lying about surveillance claims

 | – FEBRUARY 2, 2018

The Nunes memo has discredited mainstream reporters who laughed at the president’s assertion that Trump Tower and his campaign were wiretapped.


In particular, CNN and the New York Times claimed the president was “lying” about his campaign being targeted for dragnet surveillance.

“Turns out, he was lying,” wrote CNN’s Chris Cillizza in Sept. 2017. “That’s the conclusion the Justice Department reached Friday night in a court filing; ‘Both FBI and NSD (National Security Division) confirm that they have no records related to wiretaps as described by the March 4, 2017 tweets,’ the filing read.”

You mean the same FBI that left out the Clinton campaign’s role in the Peegate dossier that was used to obtain a warrant to wiretap Trump advisor Carter Page?

According to the Nunes memo released on Friday:

The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.

Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.

And why would Cillizza expect the FBI to confirm the existence of a classified FISA warrant?

Then there’s this little gem from NY Times correspondent Matthew Rosenberg, who famously walked back the article he
co-wrote the Jan. 20 piece declaring “wiretapped data used in inquiry of Trump aides” because the headline bolstered Trump’s assertion:

From the NY Times’ online version of the article (the headline of which avoided the word ‘wiretapped’ unlike the print version):

The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.

It appears that what was provided to the White House fueled the investigation into intelligence abuses, as documented by the memo Infowars highlighted on Jan. 23, which of course served as a roadmap for the Nunes memo.


Trump’s agenda continues moving forward, to the chagrin of the deep state

 | – DECEMBER 19, 2017

A op-ed columnist for The New York Times praised the numerous organizations coordinating the nationwide “resistance” to President Trump, arguing Trump has “done more to spur progressive political organizing than Bernie Sanders, George Soros and Saul Alinsky combined.”

Michelle Goldberg, a leftist columnist for The New York Times, gleefully recounted a series of “victories” earned by the nationwide resistance to President Trump, beginning with the citizens “coordinated by groups like Indivisible, MoveOn and the Working Families Party” who “flooded congressional town halls to demand that their representatives save the Affordable Care Act.”

Despite repeated efforts by conservative Republicans in both houses of Congress, measures repealing Obamacare repeatedly failed in the Senate in the face of unanimous opposition by Democrats along with a handful of Republicans.

The closer than expected special election in Georgia’s 6th Congressional district to succeed Tom Price, who had resigned to become Secretary of Health and Human Services, was fueled by “the energy of the district’s previously apolitical suburban women” galvanized by their “disgust for Trump.”

Despite raising more than $23 million, Democrat Jon Ossoff was defeated by Republican Karen Handel in a loss deemed“demoralizing” by The New York Times, with Democrats “left to wonder if the intense anti-Trump passion visible in protests, marches, money and new volunteers isn’t just some theatrical, symbolic, abstract thing.”

According to Goldberg, the intense anti-Trump passion is not theatrical or abstract, as “Democrats have triumphed all over the country, as Trump’s approval rating keeps sinking.”

The so-called “progressive” (read Socialist) Working Families Party “endorsed 1,036 candidates in 2017” while “almost two-thirds of them won.”

“Inasmuch as Trump is able to force his agenda on an unwilling nation, it’s because of a breakdown in democracy that renders many members of Congress heedless of their own constituents,” she declared.

Goldberg’s suggestion does not hold weight when matched against a breakdown of the 2016 election result by Congressional district. If each Congressional district was represented by a person from the same party as the presidential candidate who won the district, Republicans would hold a majority of seats with 230, while Democrats would still be in the minority with 205 seats.

Despite the efforts of leftist organizations, their allies in the mainstream media, and the deep state to stop Trump’s agenda, he has continued to make progress, much to their chagrin.

“But while Trump has given his followers the liberal tears they crave, that victory contains the seeds of its own reversal. Trump has done more to spur progressive political organizing than Bernie Sanders, George Soros and Saul Alinsky combined,” Goldberg concluded. “The president once warned that if he fell, he’d take the entire Republican Party down with him. Thanks to the Resistance, he might still have the chance.”

CNN appeared to think Trump’s Diet Coke habit was more serious than NYC terrorist attack

It’s not uncommon to see MSM in the spotlight over its controversial reports, but news outlets really outdid themselves when they chose to jump on the bandwagon of a sourceless New York Times article which claimed Donald Trump drinks 12 Diet Cokes a day.

To understand exactly what occurred in the world of MSM on Monday, you first have to go back to a New York Times (NYT) reportfrom Saturday, titled ‘Inside Trump’s Hour-by-Hour Battle for Self-Preservation.’ It’s a dramatic headline to say the least, which the outlet backs up by claiming to have interviewed “60 advisers, associates, friends, and members of Congress.”

In the report, the outlet – a well-known foe of President Trump – allegedly details the leader’s day-to-day life in the White House. Citing estimates from “people close to him,” the newspaper stated that Trump “spends at least four hours a day, and sometimes as much as twice that, in front of a television… marinating in the no-holds-barred wars of cable news and eager to fire back.”

That claim was enough to get the attention of Trump, who tweeted that it was a “false story” and “bad reporting.” But mainstream media seemed to care less about the TV claim and more about a singular sentence which stated – without naming a source – that Trump drinks a dozen Diet Cokes a day.


“Watching cable, he shares thoughts with anyone in the room, even the household staff he summons via a button for lunch or for one of the dozen Diet Cokes he consumes each day,” the NYT article states. That was all mainstream media outlets needed to make a story.

Quick! Call the experts! 

The mainstream media landscape – both in the US and abroad – was dominated with Diet Coke headlines on Monday, two days after the New York Times published its article. A Washington Post opinion piece didn’t stop at Diet Cokes. It went on to shame the president for reportedly… wait for it… eating McDonald’s on the campaign trail. Granted, the claims are that he often ate two Big Macs, two Filet-O-Fish sandwiches, and a chocolate shake in one sitting – but should that really matter, amid North Korean nuclear threats and turmoil in the Middle East?

In an effort to justify the hysteria, many outlets called in experts to provide comment about the ill effects that 12 daily Diet Cokes can have on a person. “That amount of anything is potentially harmful for anybody,” dietician Aisling Pigott, a spokesperson for the British Dietetic Association, told International Business Times UK. “Twelve cans is equal to 500mg of caffeine a day, a large amount of artificial sweeteners and lots of gas.”

Nutritionist Dr. Joanna McMillan went so far as to tell that the Diet Cokes could be affecting the president’s brain. “If [Trump’s] eating a rubbish diet with these drinks, considering he is slightly overweight, looking at his diet overall then his brain function is affected,” she said.

‘What happens to your body if you drink 12 cans of Diet Coke a day, like Donald Trump?’ reads a Monday headline from British newspaper Metro. It of course provided the answer by way of David Katz, a nutrition expert at the Yale School of Medicine. “Twelve cans a day, diet or regular, it’s potentially going to do damage to your skeleton, and eventually that can be a serious problem,” he said.

CNN called in numerous experts, one of whom explained the dangers of 12 Diet Cokes using a physical display of, well, 12 Diet Cokes. Another expert told the outlet that Diet Coke can fill a person with bubbles, cause bloating, and damage tooth enamel.

Diet Coke v terrorist attack

CNN really excelled itself when it came to devoting on-air time to the Diet Coke saga, deciding to give it significant attention on Monday. Some would say its dedication to the story was a bit over-the-top, but what happened next was even more shocking.

When news broke of a suspected terrorist attack near Times Square in New York, CNN made the decision to continue shaming Trump about his beverage choice, rather than interrupt its segment for the breaking news.

The timeline of events is easily understood when you watch this video of the Diet Coke segment, which begins at 8:39am EST. Twenty seconds into the broadcast, the anchor tells her guest – CNN contributor and Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio – that the network has breaking news so she may have to cut away from him. However, the clip continues until 8:47am, with no mention of the terrorist attack taking place at all during that time. At 8:45am, a blurb can be seen on the ticker at the bottom of the screen.


Bigot: ‘one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance,’ according to Webster

 | – DECEMBER 4, 2017

The New York Times printed three op-eds by three different writers describing President Trump as a bigot.

In a naked display of hypocrisy, all three attack pieces, published on Sunday, accused Trump of being a racist bigot.

Liberal writer Charles Blow wrote about Breitbart News Chief Steve Bannon’s influence on Trump’s worldview.

“It is always worth remembering that Bannon, who departed the White House in mid-August and returned to his right-wing website Breitbart the same day, last year proudly told Mother Jones: ‘We’re the platform for the alt-right.’ Alt-right is just a new name for Nazis and racists.”

Blow added, with no evidence, that Trump’s hostility to the fake news media is an attempt “to grease the skids toward more oligarchy, more authoritarianism, more fascism.”

Another liberal writer at the Times, Roger Cohen, called Trump’s efforts on international politics as “the last stand of the white man, whose century this will not be.

Nothing bigoted about that statement.

“In every Western democracy, Trump has helped unleash that which is most foul in human nature,” Cohen wrote, adding that Trump’s politics “do little or nothing for his white blue-collar constituency.”

The third op-ed, written by freelance writer Kashana Cauley and titled ‘Trump’s Racist Tweets. My Growing Patriotism’, says that Trump’s feud with the NFL and kneeling players “make it clear what he thinks about black Americans: Our role is to sit down and shut up, to remain deferential and grateful to him…”

The actual bigoted tendencies of the mainstream media have been incessant since Trump’s 2016 election victory, suggesting – in the most bigoted way – Trump is inherently racist.

In October for example, during the national controversy over Confederate statues, CNN reporter April Ryan absurdly asked White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders if “slavery was wrong.”

Sanders called the question “digusting and absurd,” adding that she’s “not going to re-litigate the Civil War.”

Ryan gloated on Twitter that she did ask the question but only got back “crickets,” as if that question was hard-hitting journalism.


And last month, the Times ran an overtly racist op-ed called ‘Can My Children Be Friends With White People?’ written by Ekow Yankah, who concluded that, no, his children in fact cannot be friends with white people.


What would happen if the shoe was on the other foot?