This is what you will hear from all liberal corporate outlets for the next year: no, this time we mean it! This time Trump *really will be* fascist!
These are the people imprisoning non-violent Jan 6 protesters, prosecuting Trump to win an election, censoring the internet:
Look at this hive mind of corporate media outlets: they all think alike, say the same things, work for the same agenda, all have the same mindset and worldview, only hire those who see the world like them.
All from the last 3 days: like trained seals dancing to the same music:
The funniest thing is that while the largest corporate outlets constantly warn Trump is the next Hitler, that he'll be worse than Hitler, the "media critics" liberals most love -- @jayrosen_nyu, @Sulliview, @mmfa -- endlessly complain the media isn't sufficiently anti-Trump.🤷♂️
@jayrosen_nyu @Sulliview @mmfa Just saw this from @ByronYork - he has other examples.
This is one major reason so many Brooklyn-based liberal digital outlets have failed. Who needs constant anti-Trump content when NYT, WashPost, CNN and the Atlantic all speak from the same script?
Nothing Israel is doing should be a surprise. Netanyahu was very candid and explicit from the start about what Israel planned to do to Gaza.
Western liberals who cheered it are now getting a bit queasy for their legacies, but this is what they vowed to support until the end:
So many media and political liberals who declared support for Israel's war are, as usual, now offering sniveling, impotent, self-protective statements of "concern" while still funding and arming Israel.
I far prefer the Israel supporters who are honest about what they support.
All over the world, what Israel is doing in Gaza is seen as one person's fault: Joe Biden. Only he had -- and has -- the power to stop or limit it.
But from both conviction and political calculation, he did what he's done his whole life: proclaim limitless support for Israel.
Many of Israel's "Palestinian prisoners" are people never convicted in court. They're imprisoned as part of Israel's military tribunals with a near-100% conviction rate, or just administratively detained.
And: they live in the West Bank, which Israel *illegally occupies*:
I've seen some objecting to the release of some "prisoners"because they attacked *not civilians,* but Israeli soldiers or police.
Is it prohibited - morally or legally - for people to attack foreign *soldiers or police* who are part of an illegal occupying force on their land?
In 1984, a studio film called "Red Dawn," starring Patrick Swayze, depicted heroic Americans doing everything possible to defend the US by trying to kill as many occupying Russian soldiers as possible: exactly what Ukraine was venerated for doing.
For months, many conservatives were demanding release of the manifesto of the Nashville shooter (we hired counsel to force this as well).
I don't believe they wanted to read it because they supported her grievances, but rather to understand what radicalized her to violence.
There are an endless number of things we consider bad, but also study to understand its causes: crime, terrorism, dictators, wars, extremism, diseases, serial killers.
That only Al Qaeda or 9/11 supporters want to read the Bin Laden letter is anti-intellectual idiocy.
There's no way to understand World War II or the rise of Nazism without understanding German grievances over the Treaty of Versailles imposed on Germany after WW1.
That those studying bin Laden's grievances are pro-Al-Qaeda is as dumb as claiming only Nazis would study this.
We'll also cover X's newly announced policy, unveiled just now by Elon Musk, that several phrases frequently used by some pro-Palestinian activists and journalists regarding Israel will be strictly banned.
It comes as Musk was widely accused of endorsing an anti-Semitic tweet.
The @ADL congratulates Musk on the new policy banning various phrases used about Israel:
It's amazing how this attack on Israel caused many Americans with an intense affinity for it to instantly revert back to the most childish and repressive post-9/11 behaviors.
The Guardian removed the bin Laden letter because people were realizing the same things Ron Paul said:
Ron Paul took this message into the deepest red districts in Iowa and South Carolina:
Neocons are using your money to fight foreign wars not in your interests. These wars *increase* the risk of anti-American terror attacks, etc.
And he came in second in 2008 and 2012.
Ron Paul's point: don't listen to the lies from the US Govt and US media about why there's anti-American hatred leading to 9/11: "They hate us for our freedoms."
Listen to them, he said, about why they hate us.
The @guardian removed that latter so people couldn't hear it.
Here's the NYT detailing the huge gap between Israel's claims about the hospital and what the evidence shows.👇
Please stop absurdly claiming the NYT is anti-Israel. They have editorialized in favor of Israel for decades, and almost all its op-ed columnists are 100% pro-Israel.
Journalists covering or commenting on a war have only one job: sort truth from lies.
It's not to cheer one side. It's not to promote or conceal news based on who it helps.
All governments lie. They especially lie in wars. Journalism is about identifying official lies.