The Rhodes To HuffPost

 

 

.

by Jon Sutz

Contents

(1) Summary

(2) Background of the Iran deal

(3) The Ben Rhodes expose’

(4) About the Huffington Post

(5) HuffPost’s crucial role in helping to “sell” the Iran deal

(5.1) Lies

(5.2) Deception

(5.3) Bias

(5.4) Anti-Semitic Bias & Incitement

Questions for HuffPost’s corporate parent, Verizon Communications

Update: This report received high praise from Ruthie Blum, a senior editor at the Jerusalem Post, and a contributing writer for The Algemeiner, America’s largest Jewish news site. Excerpt:

“The Rhodes To HuffPost,” whose release on Sunday came three days after the one-year anniversary of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), details a series of egregious violations of journalistic ethics on the part of the major media online outlet. In particular, it asserts, the HuffPost engaged in a concerted campaign to help US President Barack Obama get elected, and subsequently to assist him to push through the JCPOA by purposely deceiving the public about its true nature.”

– From New Report Launches Scathing Attack on HuffPost for ‘Antisemitic Incitement’ Aimed at Helping Obama ‘Sell Iran Deal’, The Algemeiner, July 18, 2016.

(1) Summary

The purpose of this report is to expose how the Huffington Post, the world’s most widely-read online “newspaper”:

(1) Engaged in a two-year, scorched-Earth campaign of lies, deception, bias and anti-Semitic incitement in order to help promote the Iranian nuclear deal.

(2) Ignored, then downplayed the discovery, in May 2016, that Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes created a “war room” inside the White House, consisting of federal officials and outside groups, that misled uninformed journalists, Congress and the American people on the Iran deal.

(3) Has provided no coverage of the rapidly-unfolding discoveries that pivotal claims concerning the origins, nature and specifics of the Iran deal are false or are collapsing, thus validating its critics’ worst fears.

HuffPost’s senior officials have repeatedly told the public for more than ten years that it is a completely nonpartisan, professional news organization. This report reveals the verifiable facts that lay waste to those claims.

Time-saving tip

If you are already familiar with the Iran deal, the Ben Rhodes scandal, and HuffPost’s “journalism” and close ties to the Obama administration, to save time you should skip ahead to Section 5.

Sadly, many Americans are unfamiliar with these topics.  Without this foundational knowledge, however, one cannot truly grasp the magnitude or implications of what HuffPost did, and failed to do, in terms of the Iran deal and related issues. It is for this reason that SaveTheWest prepared the citizens’ briefings in Sections 2, 3 and 4.

For journalists, researchers and concerned citizens, we have also prepared a comprehensive Resource & Evidence page, which examines each of the background topics in greater detail. Note that Section 1.10 contains a regularly-updated chronicle of items that reveal the latest news regarding the Iran deal, much of which document its steady unraveling.

(2) Background of the Iran deal

In the early 1980s, the U.S. and its Western allies:

• Cut off diplomatic relations with Iran

• Imposed trade sanctions, that have severely impacted its economy

• Froze hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Iranian cash and assets that had been stored in Western banks

The catalysts for these actions were Iran’s:

• Transformation in 1979 from a semi-free country into a repressive Islamist dictatorship

• Key role in the murder of 241 U.S. Marines in 1983, and more than 1,000 American soldiers since then

• Embarking on a global campaign of terrorism that continues to this day

Iran’s rulers have consistently claimed that their primary terrorist missions are to destroy Israel (“the little Satan”) and America (“the great Satan”). Every year through 2015, law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the U.S. and around the world list Iran as the world’s #1 largest state sponsor of terrorism.

In the 1990s and 2000s, Western intelligence agencies learned, in part from Iranian defectors, that it has been fervently working to develop nuclear bombs, and the missiles with which to deliver them.

U.S. policy throughout that period was to (a) continue crippling Iran’s economy with trade sanctions, and (b) use non-military means to curtail its ability to develop or acquire nuclear weapons. At the same time, Iran was well known to be providing weapons, funding and training to Islamist terrorists who targeted U.S. military personnel, resulting in an estimated 1,000 American soldiers killed. Iran even advertised a $1,000 bounty for each dead American soldier. And in 2011, after an eight year trial, a U.S. federal court ruled that Iran was partially liable for the 9/11 attacks, and imposed a $7 billion judgment, which it refused to pay (which caused an American skyscraper it owned to be seized and auctioned off).

In 2012, however, during the second presidential debate, President Obama promised that if re-elected, he would only accept a deal with Iran that requires the complete dismantling of its nuclear program:

Bob Schieffer (moderator): “As you know, there are reports that Iran and the United States a part of an international group, have agreed in principle to talks about Iran’s nuclear program. What is the deal, if there are such talks? What is the deal that you would accept, Mr. President?

Obama: “[O]ur goal is to get Iran to recognize it needs to give up its nuclear program and abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place. [T]he deal we’ll accept is they end their nuclear program. It’s very straightforward.”

Soon after Obama was re-elected, Iran’s propaganda machinery began claiming that a “moderate” – Hassan Rouhani – was running for president in 2013, sought to repair relations with the West, primarily the U.S.

Iran experts and dissenters, however, claimed that Rouhani was no moderate. After a long history of public statements threatening the U.S. and Israel, in May 2013, only one month before the election, Iranian news sources reported that Rouhani said at a campaign rally:

“Saying ‘Death to America’ is easy. We need to express ‘Death to America’ with action. Saying it is easy.”

After Rouhani won the election, the Obama administration announced that it began discussions with the Iranian regime, to strike a deal that would bring an end to its nuclear program.

Critics, however, said America was entering into these discussions from a position of weakness, as Iran had not changed any of its behavior – and there was no indication that it would, in the future. Further, they warned, Iran had a long history of breaking almost every agreement it made with the international community.

For the next two years, a battle of claims and counter-claims was waged in Washington, Vienna and elsewhere over the framework deal that was struck, during the spring of 2015. A wide variety of critics, including SaveTheWest.com’s founder and president, Kenneth Abramowitz, argued during the debate that contrary to the claims of those supporting the deal:

• It would not end Iran’s nuclear program, but merely delay it by some small period of time.

• Throughout the talks over the deal, Iran’s rulers were leading public chants of “Death to America!”

• It would do nothing to stop Iran’s support for terrorism around the world. To the contrary, as the U.S. was going to lift sanctions on Iran and release $100 billion in frozen cash to it, Iran’s rulers would likely escalate their support for terrorist groups.
• The inspection and verification processes were woefully lacking, and in many cases, would be unenforceable.

See a sampling of these criticisms of the deal, before it was enacted, here:

Articles and reports in opposition to the Iran deal, through September 2015

The Obama administration disputed all these claims and, in conjunction with various outside groups, was able to convince a significant swath of journalists, elected officials and the American public that the deal would work as intended. It was on this basis that the administration secured barely enough votes in the Senate to stop all opposition. The deal was implemented in mid-September 2015.

Over the next eight months, numerous reports emerged that proved the critics correct. See a sampling of these report here:

Articles that document the unraveling of the Iran deal (September 2015 onward)

In May 2016, however, a seismic event occurred that revealed how badly the American people were betrayed in regards to the Iran deal, and by whom.

(3) The Ben Rhodes expose’

On the morning of May 6, 2016, the Washington Free Beacon published an initial analysis of an upcoming 10,000 word New York Times Magazine interview with White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes. Through this analysis, and other articles that quickly emerged, we learned that Rhodes openly admitted that he and others in the White House perpetrated the following acts over at least a three-year period, to “sell” the Iran nuclear deal:

(1) They repeatedly lied to and deceived the American people, about the cause, sequence* and content of discussions with Iran’s rulers about their nuclear program and related issues. [*After the Rhodes scandal broke, the administration removed the portion of a 2013 State Dept. video that confirmed Obama lied during the presidential debate, when he denied that any discussions had begun with Iran at that point; details here.]

(2) They created an elaborate propaganda “war room” within the White House, staffed by them and officials from the Departments of State, Defense and Treasury. They also operated in conjunction with an array of outside NGOs, think tanks and “experts,” all of whom were paid by left-leaning foundations, or subsidized by the federal government, to help “sell” the Iran deal.

(3) They created a propaganda “echo chamber” consisting of what Rhodes described as gullible, ignorant journalists, and an array of paid “experts,” who supported the statements coming out of the “war room.” According to Rhodes:

“The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.” […]

“We created an echo chamber… they were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.[…] We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked.”

.
Rhodes declared the end of American self-government and transparency

Rhodes justified creating this “war room” on the grounds that in his view, America’s founding principles of open, transparent, accountable self-government, are over:

“I’d prefer a sober, reasoned public debate, after which members of Congress reflect and take a vote. But that’s impossible.”

This isn’t the first time a top administration operative has made such a statement. In 2014, the “architect” of another major Obama administration initiative — the Affordable Care Act (“ObamaCare”) — claimed that because of “the stupidity of the American voter,” the government had to lie about, and conceal the reality of the legislation, “or the bill dies.” [1].

.
The crucial importance of online media to Rhodes’s “war room”

Rhodes and his underlings explained to the New York Times that online media was crucial to their efforts to “sell” the Iran deal. According to the Times (emphasis added):

Rhodes’s messaging campaign was so effective not simply because it was a perfectly planned and executed example of digital strategy, but also because he was personally involved in guiding the deal itself. […]

And according to Rhodes’s digital media director:

“[W]e developed a plan that was like: The Iran deal is literally going to be the tip of everything that we stand up online,” Somanader says. “And we’re going to map it onto what we know about the different audiences we’re dealing with: the public, pundits, experts, the right wing, Congress.” By applying 21st-century data and networking tools to the white-glove world of foreign affairs, the White House was able to track what United States senators and the people who worked for them, and influenced them, were seeing online — and make sure that no potential negative comment passed without a tweet.

Again, quoting the Times, and Rhodes’s assistant, a few major external players — left unnamed — were vital in this effort:

[R]hodes has become adept at ventriloquizing many people at once. Ned Price, Rhodes’s assistant, gave me a primer on how it’s done. The easiest way for the White House to shape the news, he explained, is from the briefing podiums, each of which has its own dedicated press corps. “But then there are sort of these force multipliers,” he said, adding, “We have our compadres, I will reach out to a couple people, and you know I wouldn’t want to name them — ”

Although according to the Times, neither Rhodes nor anyone in his “war room” would name those “compadres.”

The evidence acquired by SaveTheWest.com, however, strongly suggests that one of them was Arianna Huffington, editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post.

(4) About the Huffington Post

The Huffington Post, or ‘HuffPost,’ claims it has nearly 130 million readers per month, making it “the largest news site in the U.S.” One traffic analysis site claims that with its fifteen international editions, HuffPost is now the #1 most-popular political website in the world.

HuffPost has built one of the largest news organizations in America, with hundreds of journalists, researchers and editors operating in New York, Washington, DC and elsewhere. It is owned by AOL, which in turn is owned by Verizon.

Over the past ten years, HuffPost’s senior executives have repeatedly claimed that it is a nonpartisan, professional news organization:

“The Huffington Post has in place rigorous editorial policies and standards… to ensure that we maintain the highest level of journalistic integrity.”

“Too many reporters have forgotten that the highest calling of journalists is to ferret out the truth, consequences be damned.”

“There is an objective reality, and it is the media’s job to present it unequivocally.”

See the sources for these and similar quotes at:

HuffPost’s repeated public claims of nonpartisan journalistic principles

.
The long, symbiotic relationship between HuffPost and the Obama administration

HuffPost’s cozy relationship with the Obama administration apparently began even before he won the White House, but rapidly matured once he was inaugurated:

• 

  During the 2008 campaign, Hillary Clinton accused HuffPost of being a “conveyor belt” of pro-Obama propaganda. Sen. John McCain and his campaign accused HuffPost of publishing vicious lies about him, his political statements, and his wife, Cindy (whom HuffPost called “a dick” on its “Dickipedia” site).

• Arianna Huffington strenuously denied these and other accusations of HuffPost bias, even though its CEO held a fundraiser for Obama, and reportedly sought to mend ties with his campaign after publishing a true, but unflattering item about him. Two weeks after the 2008 election, however, Huffington publicly admitted, “I only text (message) three people – my two teenage children and Barack Obama.” (Days later, she also announced that HuffPost had secured a much-needed $15 million in investment capital.)

• Soon after, Huffington was quoted in a Time magazine interview as saying she “is offended and bewildered by the suggestion that other news outlets think she’s getting a free ride. She sees herself as the future of journalism, not the end of it.”

• In February 2009, President Obama held his first news conference, to discuss the economy. Obama faced a room full of reporters, but took questions only from four – including HuffPost “journalist” Sam Stein, the first time an Internet news site was called upon in a presidential press conference. (However, instead of asking a question relating to the economy, Stein asked whether Obama was going to prosecute former President Bush or anyone in his administration for “war crimes.”)

• 

  In June 2009, the Obama administration was caught pre-coordinating a question to be asked by HuffPost journalist Nico Pitney, at what was promoted as an impromptu Q&A event regarding the Iran situation. After initially denying the accusation, Pitney admitted the behind-the-scenes coordination. (Note: Pitney was involved in publishing the vicious smears against Sen. McCain, above.)

• Since 2009, HuffPost has enabled top administration officials to blog at the site, including President Obama, Vice-President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, Senior Presidential Adviser Valerie Jarrett, former Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius, and many others.

These facts, alone, do not prove that HuffPost was one of the unnamed, inner-circle “compadres” of Rhodes’s “war room.” However, taken in the context of what this report documents that HuffPost did, and failed to do, in its quest to help promote the Iran deal, this speculation becomes far more substantive.

(5) HuffPost’s crucial role in helping to “sell” the Iran deal

Given its unrivaled reach and influence, its human and financial resources, and its oft-stated nonpartisan journalistic principles, HuffPost was well-positioned to provide the American people with accurate, timely reporting on the debate over the Iran deal.

Instead, from the beginning of the debate in early 2013, through its climax in September 2015:

• 

  HuffPost embarked on what amounted to a “propaganda jihad” of lies, deception, bias and anti-Semitic incitement to help “sell” the deal.

• HuffPost engaged in a scorched-Earth campaign of vicious, libelous attacks – presented as “news” stories – against anyone who dared to offer substantive criticism or opposition to the Iran deal. Special vitriol was directed at Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Jews in general (see Section 5.4 for details).

• HuffPost helped to legitimize the false narratives that had been conjured within Rhodes’s “war room,” then spread them throughout the world.

• HuffPost initially ignored the discovery, in May 2016, that Rhodes openly admitted what he and his “war room,” in coordination with outside groups, had done. It then only briefly published a “news” analysis of it, that discussed journalistic squabbling – but provided no substantive reporting on the revelations themselves, or their implications for the American people, and the world.

• HuffPost has ignored news stories and analyses that showed the Iran deal was unraveling, and its critics’ worst fears were coming true. Specifically, that Iran has been violating the terms of the deal at will, is pouring money into terrorist groups that are threatening to destroy Israel, and is threatening to walk away from the deal entirely.

• Instead of providing accurate, timely coverage of these vital issues concerning the Iran deal, HuffPost published on its front page and World page a continuing array of celebrity gossip, Iranian PR, freakish tabloid items, and Arianna Huffington’s pontifications, as “news.”

The following are summaries of the facts that SaveTheWest has amassed to validate each of these allegations. At the end of each summary is a link to a dedicated page that contains detailed documentation on that area of interest.

.

(5.1) Lies

HuffPost consistently published top-of-the-front page splash “news” stories that were based on what it knew or should have known were incendiary lies. Often, these lies were based on the accusation that those who criticized or opposed the Iran deal were doing so only because they wanted the U.S. to go to war with Iran.

The Ploughshares Fund, a charitable organization that Ben Rhodes admitted (in the Times interview) worked with his “war room,” recently admitted that it had conjured up this narrative in 2011-2012, even before the formal discussions over the Iran deal began:

“On a messaging note, it would be best to describe them as ‘pro-war,’ and leave it to them to back off that characterization of their position.”

Excerpt from: The Secret History of the Iran-Deal ‘Echo Chamber’, by Eli Lake, Bloomberg News, May 24, 2016.

HuffPost regularly put this lie-filled narrative before its global audience of 130 million monthly readers, in the form of top-of-the-front-page splash headlines. The following slide show presents a chronological sampling of these inflammatory headlines, starting in mid-2013:

Other examples of the lies that HuffPost published as “news” regarding the Iran deal include:

• Rouhani the “moderate”: In June 2013, HuffPost published a splash headline that falsely claimed that Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, is a “moderate.” At the time, he was a well-documented anti-American and anti-Semitic extremist. In the three years since he was elected, Rouhani’s extremism has become more pronounced, ranging from Iran’s violations of international accords, to its dramatically increased rate of executing gays, to its funding of terror groups. HuffPost has ignored all of these stories, and instead has published only favorable depictions of Rouhani, and Iran’s other rulers. (Details here)

• Sen. Schumer is “disingenuous”: In April 2015, HuffPost published a front-page story that falsely claimed that Sen. Charles Schumer was “disingenuous” when he claimed that, contrary to what the Senate was promised, the deal did not provide for “anytime, anywhere” inspections of Iran’s most suspicious weapons facilities. In fact, Schumer’s allegations had been proven true weeks earlier, by Ben Rhodes and Secretary of State Kerry — on video. (Details here)

• Iran’s “hardliners” are just like those in West (especially Jews): In October 2013, one year after Obama declared that only Iran’s complete dismantling of its nuclear program would prevent the U.S. and its allies from taking stronger actions, HuffPost published a front-page “news” analysis article that claimed “Iran’s hardliners are just like their Western counterparts.” Its “journalist” smeared Western leaders, with special focus on Israel and Jews, as insisting that Iran give up its nuclear program – but made no mention of the fact that it was Obama, not them, who set that standard. (Details here)

See the complete documentation at:

HuffPost’s use of lies to help “sell” the Iran deal

.

(5.2) Deception

HuffPost gave top, sustained coverage to news stories about, and editorials by “experts” whom it (a) depicted as being nonpartisan, and (b) enabled to viciously attacked critics of the Iran deal.

HuffPost did this even though it knew or should have known that these “experts” were neither nonpartisan, nor credible. Examples of these supposed “experts” include:

• A proven front group for Iran’s rulers: More than a year before HuffPost started touting this group as nonpartisan “experts,” it was determined in a U.S. federal court to be a front group for Iran’s rulers. Further, the group had been informally and formally lobbying Congress to support the deal, and at its climax, openly solicited funds to continue its lobbying. HuffPost reported none of these facts to its readers. (Details here)

• A convicted, discredited pedophile: More than a year before HuffPost started touting this “expert” as a weapons inspector (which he once was), he finished serving time in prison after multiple arrests over a nine-year period for soliciting sex from underage girls. He later testified that he’d done it only hoping he’d get caught — yet he ran from the police after the last incident. HuffPost, however, mentioned none of this to its readers. Instead, it positioned his editorials at or near the top of its front page, one of which claimed “the myth of an Iranian nuclear threat has been debunked.” (Details here)

See the complete documentation at:

HuffPost’s use of deception to help “sell” the Iran deal

.

(5.3) Bias/Omissions

Despite HuffPost’s repeated claims of being a “nonpartisan” news organization, throughout the debate over the Iran deal, it employed a consistent, unspoken bias:

• It gave top, sustained positioning to anything it could find (or create) that supported the Iran deal, and/or attack its critics or opponents, even when it knew or should have known they were false or grossly decontextualized.

• It ignored anything that exposed its claims or articles to be false, or validated the concerns of critics of the Iran deal.

Examples include:

• HuffPost ignored Vice President Biden’s videotaped admission, shortly before the climax of the debate over the Iran deal, that critics’ concerns were “totally legitimate.” Instead, in the days following this revelation, HuffPost featured on is its front page stories that focused on penis sizes, sex toys, and gossip about the Kardashians. (Details here)

• HuffPost ignored numerous reports that Iran had repeatedly violated the terms of the “interim agreement,” and previous deals. Instead, it featured a “news” story entitled, “I Live With My Ex-Wife And Her New Wife — And Our Kids Are Better For It,” and more Kardashian gossip, on its front page. (Details here)

• HuffPost gave voice to some U.S. rabbis who supported the deal – but ignored twice as many who opposed it. Specifically, HuffPost published on its front page a news story about 340 U.S. rabbis who signed a letter urging Congress to support the Iran deal. One week later, however, nearly 800 U.S. rabbis signed a letter urging Congress to reject it – but HuffPost completely ignored them. (Details here)

.
HuffPost ignored, then downplayed and quickly removed the Ben Rhodes expose’ – in contrast to its “headline jihads”

The climax of this bias occurred was when HuffPost featured no substantive reporting about the Ben Rhodes expose’ in the first three days after the first reports about it emerged. The only “news” item it published concerning this scandal was this article, on the fourth day, positioned mid-way down the front page, which ignored the substance of this official betrayal, and its implications for U.S., Israeli and global security. Instead, it focused primarily on journalistic squabbling. HuffPost then removed the article less than 18 hours later. (Details here)

This rapid deletion stands in sharp contrast to how HuffPost routinely leaves “news” articles about the latest doings regarding the Kardashians on its front page for two, three or even four days in a row.

This contrast comes into clearer focus when one considers the top-of-the-front page “headline jihads” that HuffPost regularly embarks upon, regarding issues it believes should be exposed before its global audience – sometimes on a day-after-day basis:

.

Instead of anything substantive about the Ben Rhodes expose, as shown in this slide show, in the following days and weeks HuffPost featured on its front page a veritable freak show of “news” stories about sex, human degradation, more Kardashian gossip, and numerous public statements by Arianna Huffington:

.

See the complete documentation at:

HuffPost’s use of bias/omissions to help “sell” the Iran deal

.

(5.4) Anti-Semitic bias and incitement

While HuffPost consistently published incendiary lies about critics of the Iran deal, it went on a special, extra-vitriolic “jihad” of lies against three of its most prominent Jewish critics: Benjamin Netanyahu, Sen. Charles Schumer, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). One former White House official recently testified before Congress that the Obama administration had initiated a “venomous whisper campaign” against Netanyahu specifically, to both (a) discredit his opposition to the deal, and (b) subvert his chance to be re-elected as Israel’s Prime Minister.

HuffPost also published editorials and “news” stories that continued its long-standing pattern of inciting hate against Israel and Jews, using classic anti-Semitic libels and stereotypes, while whitewashing and even legitimizing Islamist terrorists, who’ve sworn to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. Examples include:

• Falsely claiming that Netanyahu blindsided Obama in re his speech to Congress: In the lead-up to Mr. Netanyahu’s speech to Congress in March 2015, HuffPost published an incendiary splash headline that perpetuated the lie that he had insulted the Obama administration, and upset White House protocol, by accepting Congress’s invitation to speak, before Obama had been notified. It also inserted a false quote from him into its headline: “No disrespect, Barry.” HuffPost did this despite the fact that one month earlier, the New York Times admitted that the Obama had been notified in advance, and that its original story (sourced from the White House) was incorrect. (Details here)

• Falsely claiming that Netanyahu said nothing of value to Congress – while consistently quoting Iran’s rulers verbatim: After Netanyahu’s speech, HuffPost used a Yiddish slur to claim, in a “news” story headline, that he said nothing of importance to Congress about the Iran deal (details here). Yet at the same time, and for years prior, it quoted Iran’s rulers accurately, whitewashed their overt threats against Israel, and engaged in de facto PR for the terror state. (Details here and here)

• 

  Selectively publishing editorials that advanced anti-Semitic libels: In early 2015, HuffPost gave prominent space on its front page to a variety of anti-Semitic editorials, against both Mr. Netanyahu and Israel, and in support of the Iran deal (details here). Yet when Elie Wiesel, the revered Holocaust survivor and world-renowned human rights activist authored an open letter to Obama and Congress, urging them to oppose the Iran deal, and took out full-page ads to promote it in the New York Times and the Washington Post, HuffPost completely ignored him. (Details here)

• Ignoring Iran’s funding of Hamas’s preparations to attack Israel: In August 2015, just before the final climax of the debate over the Iran deal, HuffPost ignored substantive reports that Iran was funding Hamas’s preparations to instigate a new war against Israel. As shown in SaveTheWest’s recent documentary, when Hamas-led terrorists began engaging in near-daily attacks on Israeli Jews in the coming weeks, HuffPost all but ignored the victims — yet whitewashed and even legitimized the terrorists’ narrative. (Details here)

See the complete documentation at:

HuffPost’s use of anti-Semitic bias and incitement to help “sell” the Iran deal

.

Questions for HuffPost’s corporate parent, Verizon Communications

This report was published on Sunday, July 17, 2016. On July 18, 2016, SaveTheWest.com founder and president Kenneth S. Abramowitz (bio) will send the following letter to Verizon’s CEO, Lowell C. McAdam (bio):

Dear Mr. McAdam:

I am the founder and president of SaveTheWest.com, a website that is dedicated to raising awareness of the most acute threats to Western civilization, and how we can protect ourselves and our freedom.

We recently contacted you regarding two video documentaries we produced, that expose the anti-Semitic, anti-U.S. military, pro-terrorist bias and propaganda of Verizon’s flagship “news” operation, The Huffington Post:

“The Huffington Post’s Anti-Semitic Bias and Incitement During the Third Intifada” (savethewest.com/HuffPost3i/)

“HuffPost’s Dehumanization of Capt. Taylor Force” (savethewest.com/HuffPostvTaylor/)

We heard nothing back from you, or anyone at Verizon.

On July 17, 2016, we released our latest report:

“The Rhodes To HuffPost: The Huffington Post’s use of lies, deception, bias and anti-Semitic incitement to help “sell” the Iran deal (www.savethewest.com/TheRhodesToHuffPost/)

This report covers a three-year period, from early 2013 through mid-2016, and documents the various subversive acts and omissions that HuffPost engaged in, to help promote the Iran deal.

Verizon completed its purchase of AOL-HuffPost in late June 2015, and as such, we accept that you are not responsible for anything HuffPost did before then.

However, given the magnitude of all the documentation we’ve presented to you, we pose the following questions:

(1) Do you condone HuffPost’s acts and omissions to help “sell” the Iran deal?

(2) Why do you allow HuffPost to chronically betray of even the pretense of the “nonpartisan journalism” that its senior executives tell the public it practices? (tinyurl.com/gm8659j)

(3) Why do you allow HuffPost to engage in such incendiary bias and incitement against America, Israel, Jews and Western civilization?

(4) Why do you allow HuffPost to pathologically act in ways that violate Verizon’s stated Code of Conduct? (tinyurl.com/h2yrx3y)

I would appreciate a written reply to these questions within fourteen days of your receipt of this letter. I would also be pleased to meet with you during August to discuss this situation with you, in person.

Sincerely,

Kenneth S. Abramowitz

ken (at) savethewest.com

[Mailing address and phone number provided]

How you can make your voice known to Verizon about this report

If you’d like to express your views on the matters documented in this report to Verizon, see the contact information below. Please be polite and concise.

Verizon Communications, Inc.
1095 Avenue Of The Americas
New York, NY, 10036
212-395-1000

Lowell C. McAdam (bio)
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Verizon’s Office of Ethics and Business Conduct
844-894-8433
Contact page description: “This website may be used to… ask questions, express concerns or report suspected violations of Verizon’s Code of Conduct [or] corporate policies.”

[1] In 2014 we learned from Jonathan Gruber, a health economist from MIT, that he and the Obama administration engaged in a campaign of lies and deception about its healthcare reform proposal, because of what he described as “the stupidity of the American voter”:

“[I]f you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in, you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical to get for the thing to pass. Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”

See the videos that emerged of Gruber’s admissions here.

After these videos emerged, the administration steadfastly denied that Gruber was the architect of its healthcare plan. These denials were later proven false by extensive email records between Gruber and senior White House and Congressional officials.

.

.

.