This article appears in the August 12, 2022 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Why the Times Cannot Tell Truth on New York’s Electoral Upheaval
[Print version of this article]
Schumer’s Complaint
Yesterday in the public square—
I saw a woman who wasn’t there;
It couldn’t have been Diane Sare!
She wasn’t there again today—
Damn, I wish she’d go away!
Aug. 4—True to its origins as the voice of the London-based House of Morgan, the New York Times once again has demonstrated its inability to plainly report factual truth. In its July 28 “Daily Briefing” report on the mid-term elections, this voice of Wall Street’s obeisance to London published a submission from reporter Jay Root, titled “For First Time Since 1946, New Yorkers Have Just 2 Choices for Governor.” The piece was basically a gathering of gossip bits swept into the dustpan, to give the impression that the Times was “clarifying” what is in reality a messy, evil maelstrom of manipulation that has made New York State a focus of the globalist financiers’ long-term attack on the U.S. electoral system.
On the surface, the issue of the fight setting off sparks in New York is the impact of deep changes that were made by the New York Assembly two years ago as to what qualifies a political party for ballot status. As Root buries at the close of his report:
at least seven small political parties … failed to get on the ballot this year after the onerous new ballot access law went into effect.
These “small” parties, including the Libertarians, Green Party and Serve America Movement, received up to a quarter million votes in recent elections, but were deemed “frivolous” by the desperate control freaks in the Democratic and Republican machines who, while sparring with each other, have no intention of allowing an increasingly angry electorate to have access to protest voting to upset their agendas. This concern emanates from the highest ranks of the financial establishment.
The Name the Times Will Not Say
Thus, there is not even a whisper in Root’s July 28 submission of the fact that, as part of his research, Root phoned officially accredited candidate Diane Sare’s Senate campaign, and was granted a more than one hour briefing by a campaign expert on the background of the atrocious changes made by the New York State Assembly in election law, which he was investigating. Despite this exchange, Root preserved a more than 40-year, stated New York Times policy never to print unbiased coverage of former U.S. Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche, nor of anyone associated with him. Root’s report fails even to mention that Diane Sare’s campaign was the one petition-gathering mobilization across New York state that successfully fulfilled the seemingly impossible standard of that onerous new law, gathering far more than the 45,000 valid nominating signatures from qualified voters required, in the mere five weeks the law allowed.
Whether Root himself—who according to the electoral expert who spoke with him, hails from Texas and grew up hearing stories about Lyndon Johnson stuffing ballot boxes—attempted to insert a reference to Sare’s campaign in his otherwise meandering report, is unknown. The fact stands, that any attempt to tell the truth is forbidden by the New York Times’ editorial board.
Lest EIR’s readers cynically dismiss the significance of such a violation of standards of Democracy and Free Speech, be advised: the New York Times’ subscription base has grown from 800,000 in 2014, when the paper first began going digital, to now more than 8 million. Said an official statement from its owner, A.G. Sulzberger—a descendant of the Confederacy-allied family selected by the J.P. Morgan interests in the 1890s to run the Times, which the Sulzberger-Ochs clan has done without interruption since—
The Times is the most influential and award-winning English-language news organization in the world.
—The Times
Take into account the role of the Times in protecting the career of such banker toadies as Sen. Charles Schumer; and its editors’ commitment to the Global NATO agenda that divides the planet into nations representing “democracy” and those that represent “autocracy,” a strategic doctrine that propels the world dangerously close to nuclear war.
It is critical that sensible forces not ignore the role of the long-term Establishment media-propaganda machine that shapes the “perceptions” of the American population. The New York Times is an essential headquarters of the Establishment system which decrees that no such thing as truth be allowed to exist; there is only “narrative” which dictates what the “informed person” is supposed to believe.
The Brzezinski-Kissinger Legacy
The Sare Campaign’s electoral expert is working up an in-depth dossier, documenting that efforts by the Establishment to restrict U.S. elections to a short list of “major candidates” began in the 1970s, spearheaded by the Trilateral Commission jointly run by Zbigniew Brzezinski—who largely controlled Jimmy Carter’s Democratic Party Administration—and Henry Kissinger, who ran the Republican side of the same operation. This infamous group operated along with the Aspen Institute to create the Taskforce on the 1980 Presidential Debates, in which a major goal was to streamline publicity in favor of “significant” candidates. The Taskforce targeted U.S. laws protecting “equal access” to media time that could be purchased by any certified candidates, and other regulations which protected a broad electoral system.
A 1979 Aspen Institute report, “With the Nation Watching,” stated:
The requirement … that all candidates for the presidency have ‘equal time’ … has served to reduce the opportunity of the public to see and hear the most significant candidates.
It was obvious at that time that the Aspen report was part of a large-scale freak-out in leading financial circles that erupted after Lyndon LaRouche was able to warn the nation in a national television broadcast on the eve of the Presidential election of 1976, that a vote for Carter-Brzezinski was a vote for nuclear war. And despite all the attacks on election law, despite a huge frameup operation launched against him by Wall Street forces through the Department of Justice between 1980 and 1994, LaRouche was able to mobilize sufficient public support to deliver 40 paid political broadcasts, each of 30 minutes’ duration, across major media.
It was during these years that Henry Kissinger famously uttered the public comment: “Lyndon LaRouche does not exist,” underlining the method he and his associates were determined to apply to the suppression of the electoral system.
At this moment, the Establishment is losing its capacity to impose the same declaration upon Diane Sare.
The realities generated by the Sare for Senate campaign, in the context of the global financial and military crisis now escalating, mean that the proverbial lid is about to blow off of old methods of controlling public perception. That is why we are drawing attention to Root’s scribbles. Participation in the Sare campaign gives citizens a chance to break this decades-long attack on the electoral system as a vehicle for effective government.
Ukraine Targets Schumer’s Opponent Sare, with Funds from Schumer
Former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter, hit New York Senator Chuck Schumer’s funding support for Ukraine’s Center for Countering Disinformation (CCD) extremely hard in a commentary published by Consortium News Aug. 3. Ritter featured the fact that LaRouche candidate Diane Sare, Schumer’s opponent in this November’s election in New York, is among those defamed as “information terrorists” and “war criminals” on the Kiev regime’s blacklist issued July 14.
Ritter—famed for finding and stating, despite the Bush ‘43’ Administration, that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction—is also named on the Ukrainian hit list. So is Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, the Senate opponent of Schumer’s shoveling of $40 billion to Ukraine for weapons and for agencies including its CCD.
Wrote Ritter:
Diane Sare was singled out by the Schumer-funded, State Department-supported [Ukrainian] Center for Countering Disinformation as an “information terrorist” who should be prosecuted as a “war criminal” because of her public stance challenging the narrative about the Ukraine conflict.
That’s right—Chuck Schumer helped create the organizational structures which have attacked the reputation of a challenger for his Senate seat, threatening her with political violence and more, for the “crime” of challenging Schumer on the issue of Ukraine ...
[What] Chuck Schumer has done in using U.S. taxpayer money to attack his political opponents is un-American. One can only hope that the New York voters see it the same way come November.
It also appears to be illegal. As such, I hope that both Rand Paul and Diane Sare pursue whatever legal recourse is available to them to expose and shut down a Schumer-supported law that allows U.S. taxpayer money to underwrite a campaign targeting U.S. citizens, including serving Senators and political challengers, with intimidation and more for the “crime” of exercising their First Amendment right of free speech.
