Breaking: This Explains Everything! NY Times Commits Sedition to Protect…

18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

ELDER PATRIOT – If you expect this to be another story about the NY Times pursing an ideological political war against Donald Trump’s agenda you’ll be disappointed.  In the big picture, the Times couldn’t care a wit about ideology if there’s something bigger on their plate…like money.

People are motivated almost exclusively by money.  Why else would so many people peel themselves out of bed before sunrise to go to jobs they don’t particularly like.

If you want to know why people do the things they do follow the money.  The New York Times is no different.

That the New York Times no longer reports the news without first running it through their political filter now appears to be a smokescreen to obscure its motivation to protect international, specifically Mexican drug cartels.

Keep in mind that the NY Times was on the verge of bankruptcy when Mexican billionaire bailed it out.

That is likely what drove the Times’ motivation to cross the line and enter into a criminal conspiracy with former F.B.I. Director James Comey.  The goal was to take down the duly elected President of the United States so they decided to defend the disgraced ex-F.B.I. director’s perjury last Thursday:  (If you already know that Comey committed perjury then skip this part and read ahead.)

CORNYN: As a general matter, if an FBI agent has reason to believe that a crime has been committed, do they have a duty to report it?

COMEY: That’s a good question. I don’t know that there’s a legal duty to report it. They certainly have a cultural, ethical duty to report it.

CORNYN: You’re unsure whether they would have a legal duty?

COMEY: It’s a good question. I’ve not thought about it (ph) before. I don’t know where the legal — there’s a statute that prohibits misprision of a felony — knowing of a felony and taking steps to conceal it — but this is a different question.

And so, look, let me be clear, I would expect any FBI agent who has reason — information about a crime being committed to report it.

Remember, this took place last Thursday, June 8th.  Senator Cornyn’s questions were focused specifically on Comey’s January 27th private meeting with President Trump.

Now let’s go back to May 15th – almost four months after meeting his private with President Trump and only 24 days before changing his story last Thursday – when Comey was questioned by Senator Mazie Hirono:

HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?

COMEY: In theory yes.

HIRONO: Has it happened?

COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that — without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don’t see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason that would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my experience.

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/kwEENd6kTvI” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

This was Comey’s opportunity to state his concerns about the president, if he really had any concerns.  Not only didn’t he do that he emphatically denied such a thing ever happened, “Not in my experience.  Because it would be a big deal.” 

So, almost four months after he now claims to have been so concerned about his meeting that he wrote a memo about it he denied anything like that had ever happened. 

But, it wasn’t until after he had been fired, that he came forward with a series of memos that he claimed he had written after each meeting with the president but that no one has ever seen.

Enter the NY Times, the other half of the seditious conspirators.

Comey had perjured himself and the Times refused to acknowledge that fact.

On May 16th the NY Times reported on the memo that Comey claims he wrote immediately following his January 27th meeting with President Trump despite the fact that they had never seen it.  It was, purportedly read to them over the phone by a friend of Comey.  Really, how long has the Times been in the business of relying on unsubstantiated claims by unnamed and unknown to them sources to accuse a sitting president of breaking the law? 

When the NY Times was challenged on its reporting of the timeline of Comey’s testimony, and their role in leaking the unsubstantiated memo – so much for requiring two sources before putting it out there as the truth – the Times doubled down on the story and attacked the alternative media instead.

Friday’s headline in the Times put their political bias – and their collusion with Comey – out there for everyone to see:

“A Pro-Trump Conspiracy Theorist, a False Tweet and a Runaway Story”

The story is devoid of any facts – read it for yourself – but it is full of defamatory descriptors for every media outlet and personality that doesn’t agree with the Times reporting.

The importance of the media in protecting our democracy was recognized by our Founding Fathers and memorialized in the First Amendment to the Constitution. 

When the media goes rogue and insists on reporting lies – not just expressing a difference of political opinion – with the intention of bringing a sitting president down they have stepped over the line into sedition.

So why would the Times perpetuate a lie to protect Jim Comey?

Maybe it is because the Times was protecting its owner Carlos Slim and the billions of dollars he’s made through his association with Mexico’s ruthless drug cartels.

During an interview at the end of May Ted Cruz was asked by Brandon Darby what more could be done to stop the flow of drugs from Mexico into the United States that is destroying the lives of millions of Americans?  Cruz’s answer was informative:

“What can we do about it? One of the things I think we should explore very seriously is something along the lines of what we did in Colombia: Plan Colombia. Where President George W. Bush worked with President Uribe to target the cartels and take them out. It was treated less as a law enforcement matter than as a military matter. Where our military went into Colombia and helped destroy the cartels.”

Of course this required an invitation from the Columbian government.  Such an invitation is not likely to be forthcoming from Mexico’s President Enrique Pena Nieto who was put into the presidency by cartel money.  This was reported more than ten months before President Trump gave his oath of office.

Remember back to the NY Times disgraceful condemnation of President Trump’s phone call with Nieto?  At that time, the Times reported that the call centered on who would pay for the border wall that Trump sees as a key to stopping the cross-border trafficking of drugs and weapons into the United States.  But Trump had more to say to Nieto on that call than only to argue over whom should pay for the wall.

A week later Breitbart provided an important detail that the Times deliberately omitted:

“According to an excerpt of the transcript of the call with Peña Nieto provided to CNN, Trump said, “You have some pretty tough hombres in Mexico that you may need help with. We are willing to help with that big-league, but they have be knocked out and you have not done a good job knocking them out.””

Essentially Trump had offered Nieto an option, clean up your cartels or pay for the wall, the United States will no longer be paying to fund the demise of millions of its citizens at the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

The cartels had become so ingrained in laundering money through the Mexican government and were so ruthless in protecting that that Nieto didn’t dare agree to work with Trump.

So what does this have to do with the NY Times?  The Times’ owner is Carlos Slim, once the richest man in the world, who is said to have made billions of dollars working with the cartels.

Many suspect Slim is the frontman for former President Carlos Salinas de Gortari.  One Mexican researcher said even former presidents are scared of talking about him.

Slim’s involvement with Mexico’s drug cartels was confirmed by a DEA agent who has intimate knowledge of Slim and also by Wikileaks in a series of emails dated April 2011:

The first email came from Anya Alfano of the global intelligence agency Strategic Forecasting, Inc.  Alfano was responsible for addressing Dell’s concerns about Slim’s ties to the cartels. 

Alfano sent this email to Fred Burton, Statfor’s head of intelligence:

“Do we have any information about where Carlos Slim fits into the cartel dynamics that we’ve seen in Mexico?…Should clients have any concerns about dealing with him professionally?

Burton forwards the question to DEA Special Agent William F. Dionne:

“Billy, is the MX billionaire Carlos Slim linked to the narcos?”

Dionne’s answer is enlightening:

“Regarding your question, the MX telecommunication billionaire is.”

As to Slim’s relationship with Carlos Salinas de Gortari, most of Slim’s fortune is attributed to the former Mexican president.  A few months after Salinas’ term ended in 1994 he fled the country.

Salinas had basically given Telmex – the Mexican telephone company that had a monopoly on landlines – to Slim for $400 million in 1989 forever buying Slim’s loyalty.  Telmex was valued at $12 billion at the time.  Slim paid 3 cents on the dollar.

It has been reported that Slim has served as the main frontman for Salinas, laundering the huge fortune that he stole from the people of Mexico.

Diego Enrique Osorno interviewed over 100 people for his book Slim: The World’s Richest Mexican.  Virtually everyone refused to speak on the record.  This included two former presidents.

It’s highly unlikely that Slim cares a wit about Comey’s testimony except for if the Times reporting can help orchestrate bringing down the cartel’s outspoken enemy, Donald Trump. 

At the very least, Trump’s agenda is being stalled and the wall, that would block a large portion of the cartels’ cross-border importation of drugs, is not being built. 

Carlos Slim is using his control of the NY Times to protect the drug cartels’ annual $29 billion in sales that comes from U.S. sales.

It’s time to open our eyes and understand that the term “globalist” describes the new age corporate-government mafia that own the newspapers and the television networks that try to convince you that what you see isn’t so.  It’s becoming frighteningly obvious that many of the world’s governments are now aligned with, or under the control of, this same Globalist mafia.

Their problem with Trump is that he is the outspoken existential threat to them.  Our problem is that Trump is the one man preventing the Globalist mafia from seizing total control of our world.