In July 2018, the editorial board of the New York Times abandoned all journalistic objectivity with an editorial calling on the Democrat Party to go to war against President Trump, using mafia “Godfather” tactics.
But the plain truth is that, unless you are a “useless idiot” who swears by and only reads that piece of rag like an attorney I know, the New York Times (NYT) had abandoned objectivity long before July 2018. See:
- NYT calls on Google to hide Hillary Clinton’s failing health
- Project Veritas undercover exposé: NYT editor admits he is anti-Trump and a violent Antifa
- Former editor says New York Times has lost its credibility because of anti-Trump bias
- Rep. Devin Nunes: NYT reporters are paid to write fake news by Democrat Super PACs
We should, therefore, take a recent NYT editorial and its recommendation for what it is — yet another big dose of biased, leftist toxin.
On July 7, 2019, NYT published the editorial, “A New Approach on Housing Affordability,” penned by its editorial board, which “represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher.”
The editorial begins by stating the problem, that of the high and rising cost of rental housing in the United States, and bemoans how millions cannot afford to live in the neighborhoods that they want.
The editorial then commends Democratic presidential candidates (Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren) who are addressing this problem with these policy proposals:
- Increase federal subsidies for renters, at a cost of $93 billion (Kamala Harris) to $134 billion a year (Cory Booker) and more (Julian Castro).
- Increase federal subsidies for the construction of affordable housing (Booker and Castro).
- Increase housing construction by having the federal government put pressure on local governments to allow more “development” (Elizabeth Warren).
The NYT editorial opines that while increasing housing construction (“more market-rate development”) is a worthy goal, that isn’t enough — “Market-rate development, however, is not a sufficient solution.“
The problems are two:
- “Wealthy residents” are the most resistant to “development”. In fact, “the states most resistant to allowing housing construction are the strongholds of the Democratic Party, in the Northeast and along the Pacific Coast, and the most resistant voters are the wealthy residents of those states who provide so much of the funding for Democratic presidential campaigns.”
- Even if the federal government increases rent and housing subsidies, “poor children” would still not be “raised in economically diverse neighborhoods” with better schools, but instead would live “in neighborhoods with high levels of poverty.”
The New York Times’ proposal is to revive and expand a policy of the Obama administration, wherein “poor” renters were given large vouchers to move to areas with more expensive housing and better schools, by having the “irristible force” of the federal government require “affluent communities to accept affordable housing projects.”
In other words, if the NYT has its way, the federal government will compel local governments to construct Section 8 apartments and high-risers (“affordable housing”) in middle-class and “affluent” communities of single-family homes. Those “affordable” apartments and high-risers will be inhabited by the “poor” — among whom are gangbangers, illegal aliens and “refugees”.
This is socialism and the UN Agenda 21 on steroids.
- NYT reporter Stephanie Saul broke into GOP staffer’s apartment
- “Is Ebola pandemic a false flag?” — on fake CNN/NYT reporting from Liberia