What’s new about Sulzberger and the New York Times committing treason? After all, Clinton did it

Once again treason is in the air as the fifth estate (or should that be fifth column?) led by the Treason Times under the tutelage of the worm-like ‘Pinch’ Sulzberger and the terrorists’ fellow-travelling Bill Keller do what they can to aid and abet America’s barbaric enemies in their endeavours to murder as many US citizens as possible, particularly if they are troops.

Pinch Sulzberger For ‘Pinch’ Sulzberger treason is second nature. In the ‘70s this traitor published articles by Wilfred Burchett even after being told that the Australian ‘journalist’ was a KGB agent who had participated in the torture of POWs in North Korean camps.

Too many people make the mistake that the treason so easily committed by these al-Qaeda collaborators is driven by an irrational hatred of President Bush. This is a very naïve view. It is not Bush they hate but the patriotic America he represents. After all, the Times covered for the despicable Duranty, painted Stalin as a misunderstood philanthropist, the murderous Ho Chi Min as an agrarian humanitarian, Castro as a freedom-loving liberal, Chavez as a misunderstood reformer, etc. The only people it doe not praise are American patriots.

So let us not forget the fundamental fact that these men — excuses for men if the truth be told — are Democrats who have an appalling record of supporting totalitarian thugs, so long as they called themselves socialists.

New York Times Bill Keller: This cowardly traitor published directions of how to find Cheney and Rumsfeld’s vacation homes and evade their security cameras. Is this an invitation for some wacko to assassinate them?

Although the mass of ordinary Dems are as patriotic as any Republican the Party’s Leninist core, of which the unspeakable Sulzberger and Keller are enthusiastic members, despise their fellow Americans and detest their country with a pathological passion that would baffle any competent psychiatrist.

This is why Clinton’s treasonous dealings with the Beijing regime met with their approval. The one question the phony “paper of record” never asked is what Beijing got out of its dirty dealings with the Clinton administration. This is the President of the United States that gave Beijing a free reign and a virtual guarantee that its activities would not be interrupted during, what he quaintly called, his “watch”. This allowed Beijing to clear out America’s military and high-tech secrets while the The Treason Times told us what a terrific President Clinton was.

But questions regarding Clinton, particularly on this matter, only lead to more questions. How could Beijing be certain that a fraudster like Clinton, even as president of the United States, could make good on any promises he might make? One, I think, should start with his governorship of Arkansas. There seems little doubt that Clinton ran it as his personal fiefdom, replacing or shoving aside those who could prove troublesome.

I guess that kind of behaviour is to be expected in politics, but not to the corrupt and ruthless extent that the Clintons practised it. His (perhaps I should say their) approach to power and people is truly medieval, minus the noblesse oblige. Given this fact, and the support of a corrupt media, it is not surprising that reports made out to Chinese intelligence suggested that Clinton would be favourably disposed to dealing with Chinese representatives — for a price.

It has been put to me that intelligence assessments stressing Clinton’s venality were supported by his unprecedented action, shortly after entering (or is it soiling?) the Oval Office, in asking all US attorneys general to resign. This outrageous dictatorial move gave the Clinton administration control over the prosecutorial machinery of the federal government in every judicial district in the US. No need to tell you who was impressed by this breathtakingly brazen move.

Clinton even tried to appoint the openly corrupt Webster Hubbel to the post of Attorney General. Imagine where that move would have led if it had succeeded? But what struck a particular chord was the way the American media acquiesced to the Clintons’ Machiavellian manoeuvres. The Beijing regime does not underestimate the power of the Western media, especially in America. That, with the exception of a few lone voices, it willingly collaborated with the Clintons — just as much of it collaborates with terrorists — gave further assurance to Beijing that Clinton could safely deliver.

But what of the CIA and the FBI? I have no wish to be patronising, but the naiveté of the American public is almost touching. It didn’t even notice that William Sessions, FBI Director, a man noted for his integrity and opposition to political interference in the Bureau’s affairs, was removed from office as soon as Clinton moved into the Oval office, leaving no doubt that Clinton deliberately acted to chain the CIA and the National Security Agency as well as the FBI.

One method was to have Clinton supporters placed in sensitive positions so that they could delay, if not derail, any budding investigations into Clinton’s China operations. These leftwing moles are still present and diligently working to subvert the Bush administration and sabotage war against terrorism.

With these bodies effectively neutered Chinese intelligence had a field day. Now being ineffective does not mean being uninformed. These agencies new very well what Chinese intelligence were up to but were largely powerless to do anything. After all, what could they do when the commander in chief, the president himself, had, by his own actions, made it clear that investigations into China’s spying activities were not to be seriously pursued.

Just to make sure that nothing embarrassing emerged, Clinton appointed Janet Reno to head the Justice Department with the intention of sabotaging any investigations into Chinese intelligence operations. Reno’s role as the last of Clinton’s gatekeepers, so to speak, more than satisfied Beijing’s expectations by thoroughly corrupting the Justice Department and blocking FBI requests. Also imagine the glee in certain quarters when Gorelick’s ‘wall’ effectively eliminated cooperation between intelligence agencies and the FBI and so made 911 a pushover for al-Qaeda, an unpalatable fact that the Jersey Harpies never refer to.

Beijing was so satisfied with Clinton’s actions that it felt sufficiently confident to ‘request’ that Clinton see to it that John Huang be given top security clearance and placed in a favourable position, favourable to Chinese intelligence, that is. Thus we find Huang being given a position in the Commerce Department at the insistence of Clinton.

Hence Huang was able to use his security clearance to directly obtain information from the CIA. I have been able to discover that CIA officials had little doubt about Huang’s true activities but were held in check by Clinton, despite their complaints. Does any reader honestly believe that Clinton is so innocent that he had no idea why Beijing wanted a security clearance for Huang?

Although Chinese intelligence expected eventual but low-level exposure — thanks to the media — it had reckoned that should that event occur the damage to US security would already be done. It was right. Clinton, not China, emptied the candy store with devastating results for American security. The strategic consequences of which are still being felt.

The curious thing is that Clinton, like the leftist toads that inhabit the Treason Times doesn’t even think he committed treason. To this debauched — and possibly psychopathic — man he was merely engaged in political deal-making. In his corrupt mind it really was no big deal.

But I fear the situation is even worse in the media. Their hatred of America and what it stands for is so deeply rooted that the only thing that could satisfy these nihilists is the country’s total destruction.

Note: The New York Times cooperates closely with the Washington-based Marxist-Leninist Institute for Policy Studies. During the Cold War this viciously anti-American organisation openly collaborated with the KGB, even inviting its officers to direct some of its seminars.

This link goes with the last paragraph.

http://www.brookesnews.com/060307treasondemsnyt.html

Anyone who read the transcript of Sulzberger at a university not long ago, would realize he is a doctrinaire Marxist, a subversive, and a traitor to this country. I will leave the mentally unbalanced part for another day.

He has - and will - skate free. I do not understand it. I do not understand why people fawn over him instead of spit.

Yet, I believe the truly evil one is the spouse. She is pure Marxist - from the get go. I have always suspicioned that she was the puppet master. His usefulness is pretty much used up = and now she plans for raw power with herself openly at the helm.

Through methods that would make the worst operative of the KGB envious, she keeps people in line. She is determined to rule - not govern - this country.

<< She is determined to rule - not govern - this country. >>

Having failed the DC Bar and never having held a real job nor, as an Arkansas "lawyer," even successfully litagated a single case, Missus Cli'ton was a pathetic Peter Principle Poster Person incompetent as even the seat warmer behind the desk in the Rose "law" Firm office at which the Tysons and any others wishing to do business in the state of Arkansas left the brown paper sacks with the money way back when.

It got steadily worse and during her co-serial rapist's incidental "presidency," she was already in so far over her head that she was too damned stupid to even suspect it was so while splashing about in the relative shallows of her Billion-Dollar blowing "health-care" debacle.

And has wallowed ever further out of her depth ever since.

Missus Cli'ton will rule nothing.

Ever.

And even were she to pursue the office once so awefully incidently bequatted and bemanured by her erstwhile spouse, it should be remembered that the occupant of that office administers the feral gummint and, even if he is -- as some Republicans have been known from time to time to have been "on the job," -- and as Cli'ton most certainly never was -- neither "rules" nor "governs."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.