Which Would Be The Better Economist Cover?
The Pro-Clinton, Anti-Putin propaganda machine of the western media continues to pump out demonization drudgery to ensure when war is unleashed, a sheep-like America will line up behing their ‘chosen’ leader to cheer on the nukes (and to distract attention from the demise of US hegemony and the loss of the American Dream).
In 2014, Newsweek celebrated its return to print with this little beauty…
Which is ironic, considering just three months before that we got…
And since then Russia’s stock market has dramatically outperformed that of the US.
And then just two weeks ago, Time magazine – whose parent company is a top donor to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign – paints Clinton and the DNC’s leadership as the victims of media bias comes in the form of a cover piece entitled “How Russia Wants to Undermine the U.S. Election.”
Amid reports of electoral fraud perpetrated by the Democratic Party, which places Clinton as the top beneficiary, the story suggests the Obama administration, along with U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, have “seen mounting evidence of an active Russian influence operation targeting the 2016 presidential election.” The article does not acknowledge the DNC’s own meddling and manipulation.
Admitting “the Russians” would have a hard time “[swaying] the actual vote count, because our election infrastructure is decentralized and voting machines are not accessible from the Internet,” Time’s Massimo Calabresi argues they may still “sow disruption and instability up to, and on, Election Day.”
Basing an entire report on testimonials given to Time by “a dozen senior U.S. officials” who were left unnamed, the piece mostly dwells in metaphysical “mumbo-jumbo,” claiming the dangerous Russians could “[undermine] faith in the result [of the elections] and in democracy itself.” [emphasis added]
Still, Calabresi adds that U.S. officials do not have evidence to support their allegations regarding Russia’s role in “rigging the election.”
Which brings us to this week’s ‘sane, sober, centrist’ Economist cover…
Which for all its warmongering undertones makes us wonder, why the following is not on the cover of the Rothschild-owned publication?
As we concluded previously, President Obama once mocked 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney for claiming Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat facing America. At the time, Obama hit the candidate by saying:
“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”
Well President Obama, how about that? Ronald Reagan called and asked you to bring that wall down and wipe that smirk off your face. You’re now a cold war instigator, and your mouthpieces can’t wait for Mrs. Clinton to win. After all, her campaign has already promised to go full force against Syria, prompting the beginning of a conflicting period that could put the United States and Russia on a warpath.
Unless solid proof linking these hacks to Russian intelligence is produced, former National Security Administration (NSA) contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden once tweeted, it’s hard to believe Russia is behind all this. After all, if the Kremlin were behind it, the NSA would know. And if the NSA knows, why won’t it show us proof?
The article, "Which Would Be The Better Economist Cover?", was syndicated from and first appeared at: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/tXodlDiLsmM/which-would-be-better-economist-cover.
You may find more great articles by Tyler Durden on http://www.zerohedge.com/fullrss2.xml/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/draghi/CBO%20August%201.png/%2A%7CFORWARD%7C%2A.