"Natural News"- an "alternative" media outlet that alas promotes irresponsible reactive policies regarding "opioids", and censors people questioning such.
"Natural News", like countless other media outlets such as The New York Times has adopted the lets kill more people with adulterated, UN-standardized "opioids" so we can continue the drug war after Marijuana is legalized.
excerpt- "Natural News claims to be for medical freedom.
Yet it has debased itself by jumping on this 'how we continue the misery
of the drug war after Marijuana becomes legalized" mass media "'opioid'
epidemic" campaign bandwagon.
Centered around a new scare word "opioid", and a lying through their
teeth that they are working to thwart a problematic situation which they
actually make worse, by unjustifiably further curtailing people's
access to regulated pain meds, in order so we get a huge growth in
essentially unregulated, wildly unpredictable potency black market
opiates adulterated with far far more potent synthetic opiates (which
the previously obscure term "opioid" initially referred to). Countless
talking heads lied through their teeth tat too many prescriptions were
being written (too many, yet never questioning qualitative matters as to
why such prescriptions always insist upon taking such meds every single
day without break). Yet when doctors thus began placing such dirty
politics even moreso over the interests of patients, with prescriptions
going down, yet fatal overdoses going up, we get such illustrious mass
media organs misleading their readers with headlines reporting on such
as "Prescription Dip Seen as Advance in Opioid Battle"
All of this simple, destructive, one-mindedness, reeks of some sort of
organized campaign to lie to the general public for the sake of
promoting evil polices designed to maximize human misery."
I have a high interest - 26.99% Wells Fargo credit cad.
Wells Fargo issues me a 0% @12 months card.
Wells Fargo denies valid purchase charge on 0% card to steer such onto the 26.99% card.
Wells Fargo does so under the guise of "anti fraud".
Wells Fargo then processes identical amount bank acct. debit via the same source, Paypal, a mere 18 seconds later!
Wells Fargo continues to attempt to steer communications to phone calls rather than writing/text to minimize avoid a paper trail of their bank's practices.
BEWARE Wells Fargo/Paypal scams to steer charges from low to high interest credit card
I am issued a new credit card, with a $7,000 limit, with 0% interest for 12 months, activated on June 23, 2018
I enter this new credit card into my Paypal account, set it as the "preferred" method of payment, and begin making some small charges on this card via Paypal, that same day.
On Tuesday, June 26, 2018, I make an $835 charge directly to a merchant
in Tennessee, and within a few minutes receive a robo call from Wells
Fargo asking me to confirm or deny all of my charges up to that point. I
confirm all of the charges.
On Wednesday, June 28, 2018, at around 11am EST, I make a
$1999 charge via Paypal for a purchase made on Ebay.
Ebay shows the
purchase and payment is made.
I receive no call from Wells Fargo about
this charge.
On Thursday, June 29, 2018, I receive an email from
Wells Fargo informing me that my checking account now has a negative
balance. I telephone Wells Fargo.
I am told that Wells Fargo
denied my $1999 credit card charge via Paypal.
And that Wells Fargo and
Paypal processed an unauthorized debit via Paypal for that amount from
my Wells Fargo checking account, draining its $78 balance, and applying
the balance - $1921 - back to my credit card.
But not to the credit
card that I made the charge to, which was the just issued one with the
0% for 12 months, but rather my older credit card with the 26.99%
interest.
This was done all "automatically" with no communication to me
from either Wells Fargo nor Paypal until afterwards.
The only
communication I received from Paypal was the standard email informing me
of the purchase-payment, indicating that it had been made by a debit on
my checking account, with no mention of any attempt to be instead
processed by the credit card which I had authorized within the past few
days. Paypal had additional credit cards on file with my account with
them, yet made no apparent attempt to charge any of them, instead just
going into my checking account without authorization. A review of my Paypal log reveals a mere 18 seconds between the authorized charge to my new credit card that was improperly denied by Wells Fargo, and the subsequent unauthorized debit to my bank account, at 7:36:32 and 7:36:50 PST, nearly 12 hours after I placed the order.
If a credit
card charge from a source is deemed "fraudulent", then how is an
identical amount bank account debit charge moments later from the same source somehow
valid?
Within this Thursday, June 29, 2018 phone call with Wells
Fargo, their agent admits to having information that Wells Fargo failed
to contact me regarding this $1999 purchase, in contrast to their
contacting me the previous day for the $835 purchase. If Wells Fargo had only been first made aware of the charge at the time indicated by the Paypal log, and if there had been a valid concern of fraud -- doubtful as it was coming through an established Paypal account, via the same home computer used for the earlier such charges, and well within the credit limit -- why was I not given a robo call chance to either confirm or deny the charge? And again, if truly a concern about fraud, then how is an attempted bank account debit from the same source for the same amount likewise something that should just be quickly processed without a robo call to me asking me to either confirm or deny that debit?
She has
no information as to why that latter charge would be denied. It was
within my credit limit. And the method of payment had already been
established. It was a Paypal account of mine in use since 2011, and
with the earlier Wells Fargo credit card since 2016. I had already used
the new, 0% credit card though that Paypal account for a few days, and
had verified the charges to Wells Fargo when they phoned me on June 26,
2018 to verify the $835 charge, along with the earlier charges on that
new card.
I ask her why then did not Wells Fargo simply follow
through with a 2nd such phone verification call at some point following
my $1999 charge. She tells me that was because it was not necessary, as
I had already, on the previous day, verified the earlier charges when
Wells Fargo phoned me. So, why, then did Wells Fargo fail to honor that
subsequent charge, given that the venue was already established? She
says she did not know, and puts me on hold to speak with a supervisor. A
few minutes later she returns with the answer: that that charge was
denied because I had failed to telephone Wells Fargo to verify that
charge.
So Wells Fargo had changed their policy between June 27 and June 28, 2018 and had failed to inform me of that beforehand?
She tells me that Wells Fargo will correct the errors.
I subsequently check my Wells Fargo on line access over the next few days.
Wells Fargo fails to do so. The unauthorized $20 transaction fee
remains, as does the mis-posting of the charge to the high interest
card, rather than the 0% card that I made the charge on.
Subsequently, I use the Wells Fargo text message system.. I send then
text messages from me to Wells Fargo via their system are met with
automated boiler plate responses that continually direct me to telephone
them, and Wells Fargo fails to respond in writing to any of my case
specifics.
===
Subject: Re: Other questions or requests (KMM66478484V89348L0KM)
Thank you for contacting Wells Fargo. My name is Celeste, and it is my
pleasure to assist you today.
I understand your concerns regarding an unauthorized transaction that
posted to the credit card account.. I am grateful that you brought this
matter to our attention.
Mr. Willinger, because of the nature of the situation and the feedback
you provided, I have forwarded your concerns to our Executive Office to
help ensure that this matter is properly addressed. Your case reference
number is 229075207. A representative from the Executive Office will
contact you within two business days at phone number 914-241-3006.
If you prefer to speak with a representative from our Executive Office
immediately, or if at any time you would like information regarding your
case, you can reach the Executive Office directly at 1-877-224-5356.
Their hours of operation are Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m., Pacific Time. Please provide the case number above when you
call.
I appreciate your patience and apologize for any inconvenience you may
have experienced. We look forward to speaking with you soon.
On behalf of Wells Fargo, thank you for your business. We are happy to
have you as our customer and appreciate the opportunity to assist you
today.
Sincerely,
Celeste M.
Wells Fargo
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
-----------------
Wells
Fargo failed to honor a valid credit card charge, fails to call me for
any confirmation despite doing so a day earlier, then accepts in invalid
request from paypal to go to my bank account, causing it to go below
zero, then transfers charge to my other card.
Wells Fargo needs
to correct this. Otherwise wells fargo has here used its "fraud"
program to place charge upon the credit card that i did not authorize
for this purchase.
I phoned wells fargo yesterday and was told
this would be corrected. But when I check my accounts today I see that
wells fargo has not.
Please correct this. Or I will have to contact the attorney general.
What has transpired is wells fargo fraudulently abusing their anti fraud system in order to game the interest rate.
---
I again text them requesting that all communications
be in writing. I receive an automated text reply again lacking any
specifics, though making no mention of further communication via phone.
The next day, Wells Fargo has still not corrected the problem, and
again attempts to contact me by telephone, contrary to my request.
Wells Fargo's failure to communicate in writingonly compounds the
reality of their attempting to get away with unethical, probably illegal
banking practices in order to collect unjustified fees and card
interest income. That Wells Fargo deliberately steered the $1999 charge
from the 0% card that I had specified, to the 26.99% card, is further
indicated by the arbitrary, unjustified nature of their denying that
initial charge and that they broke from the pattern of the previous day,
when they robo called me about the $835 charge, but failed to do so
with the $1999 charge.
No showing of any "fraud" with the $1999 charge to the new0% interest credit card.
No attempt by either Wells Fargo nor Paypal to contact me to either verify or deny that charge.
Just a quick processing of an unwarranted denial of a legitimate charge through an already established venue, and an unauthorized debit to my bank account.
Not done for the sake of combating fraud.
But rather, for facilitating such, through the steering of a purchase charge from a credit card with 0% interest to another with 26.9% interest, for a purchase I had held off until obtaining the )% interest card.
Thus, I will not be liable for any of the added fees and interest payments resulting from Wells Fargo fraudulent practices.
Therefore, I shall not accept the $20 "overdraft protection" fee, let alone any interest payments for a period of 12 months
related to the $1999 charge that Wells Fargo so steered for the sake of such unwarranted fees and excess interest.
Any such funds that I may be forced to pay, nor related balance transfer fees, shall ultimately be made liable upon Wells Fargo, as so should be the case with the countless other customers so victimized by this sort of scam, with the monetary amounts compounded at the 26.99% rate they charge
on such credit card accounts. Plus, of course any fines imposed by the
government, let alone long overdue criminal prosecutions against the higher ups within the Wells Fargo corporate system responsible.
Wells Fargo already has an awful reputation for abusing its customers, as anyone can find via a web engine search, leading to among other things some $1 billion in fines recently.
Some elected officials have asked why Wells Fargo's charter has not been revoked, Elizabeth Warren,has stated that their CEO needs to be fired, and even Wall Street has expressed amazement at Wells Fargo's sheer level and magnitude of abusing its customers.
Yet Wells Fargo's Board of Directors and CEO continue to collect massive salaries without any penalties for presiding over such banking practices.
Update: July 7, 2018
Today I receive an email from Wells Fargo concerning a stop payment order that I supposedly made, regarding the 26.99% interest credit card. Of course this message asks me to phone them.
---
Regarding: Account Number
XXXXXXXXX5617
Date Requested
07/06/2018
CO ID
PAYPALSI77
Company Name
PAYPAL
Individual Name
DOUGLAS WILLINGER
Stop Payment Option Selected
STOP DEBITS BY ACH COMPANY ID
This letter confirms the stop payment order you recently placed. Please review the stop option noted above carefully to ensure accuracy and completeness. If the information is inaccurate or incomplete, please immediately call the customer service phone number on your bank statement.
What does the stop option mean?
A stop payment option at the Company ID level: If this option is selected, any automatic payment sent to your account with the Company ID noted above will be automatically returned as stop payment, regardless of the dollar amount or payee information.
A stop payment option at the Company ID and Individual ID level: If this option is selected, any automatic payment sent to your account with the Company ID and Individual ID will be automatically returned as stop payment, regardless of the dollar amount. Please note that the Company ID must match exactly as noted above in order to successfully stop the transaction.
This stop option will remain on your account until requested to be deleted. To remove the stop option, please contact the customer service phone number listed on your bank statement.
We appreciate your business and thank you for banking with Wells Fargo.
---
When I attempt to send them a reply, asking them in writing to indicate
where, when and how I made such an order, their web site message system
makes that impossible by failing to activate the "send" button. Only
after the 3rd attempt or so does it work.
Note that I an supposed to telephone Wells Fargo to remove a stop option that I did not place.
Wells Fargo is again insisting upon resorting to telephone calls, rather than place anything substantive in writing.
Their apparent fear at placing matters specifically into writing with their clients speaks volumes of their conscious-nous that they know they are doing wrong.
Updates July 10 & 14, 2018
I finally get the 1st Wells Fargo response that includes references to this case's specifics:
Subject: (KMM66617089V5695L0KM) From:Customer Service 07/10/2018 10:54 AM Contact Us
Dear Douglas Willinger:
Thank you for contacting Wells Fargo. My name is Joshua, and I am an Email Care Specialist which your email was forwarded to for review. It is my genuine pleasure to be of assistance for you at this time.
I received your follow-up email about the unauthorized transactions that have been initiated between your Wells Fargo checking and credit card accounts as well as your email regarding a stop payment that was recently placed on your account.
Before we proceed any further, I first wanted to let you know that I have provided a sufficient amount of information in this email to ensure that I have properly addressed your concerns. For this reason, the email may appear to be a bit lengthy.
Additionally, please be aware that we have received one or more emails by you regarding the same issue. As a result, I will be closing out any additional email(s) that have been sent and I will be addressing all of your concerns through this reply.
While reviewing your emails, I have acknowledged that there was an initial transaction for $1,999.99 from PayPal that was supposed to go through your Credit Card account number ending in 4672 with the 0% Annual Percentage Rate promotion, which appears to have actually gone through your Credit Card account number ending in 0759 with 26% interest. I realize that as a result of this issue, a transfer was made from your Credit Card account number ending in 0759 after an additional PayPal transaction for $1,999.99 was charged to your checking account number ending in 5617.
Mr. Willinger, I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience and frustrations that you have experienced. I certainly understand how upsetting it can be to see that your initial and valid transaction had gone through the wrong account, especially if it led to improper debits being taken out. I would hate to see this become an even bigger issue for you moving forward.
Please allow me to elaborate on the matter in hopes that it may provide you with a better understanding on what had happened, and what we are to do in order to rectify the issue. First and foremost, I reviewed your Credit Card account number ending in 4672 and I have found that this is actually the account in which the PayPal transaction for $1,999.99 had initially gone through from 06/27/2018. Please keep in mind that this is the account that currently has a promotion for a 0% Annual Percentage Rate on purchases made.
At this time, I have found that the transaction from the card has been marked as a fraudulent transaction and is currently being reviewed by our Fraud Specialists.
Furthermore, while reviewing your checking account number ending in 5617, I can confirm that an additional PayPal transaction for $1,999.99 posted to your account on 06/27/2018, causing an overdrawn balance of $1,921.71.
Because you did not authorized this transaction, and to help resolve this issue for you as soon as possible, I personally opened a claim with our Claims Department.
Your claim will be assigned to a Claim Specialist for additional research. Our Claim Specialists are experts at researching and resolving disputed transactions. If written confirmation is required, a form will be sent to you. Your claim will be resolved or your account will be temporarily adjusted within 10 business days.
Once the claim is resolved, a credit for the transaction will be provided and any fees associated with the transaction will be reimbursed, unless the claim is denied.
Your claim reference number is 1807060027802. Please reference this claim number when contacting us regarding your claim.
Once the claim has been filed, Online Customer Service does not have access to the claim information and will not be able to provide you with any updates. However, if at any time you would like information regarding the status of your claim, or if you would no longer like to pursue the claim, you can call a Claim Specialist at 1-877-548-9230. They are available to assist you Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Eastern Time.
This also confirms that a stop payment order has been completed on the preauthorized payment to PayPal. We will make every attempt to stop future items matching this exact merchant name and company ID; however, we cannot guarantee the stop payment if the merchant presents the item using a different merchant name or company ID number. The stop payment will remain in effect until you remove it. Your reference number for the stop payment is A818769444. Please use this reference number if you wish to remove the stop payment. Please be aware that placing a stop payment order does not release you from any contractual arrangements. You should contact the issuing company to end any payment agreements. The notice that you received about a stop payment being placed on your account was a system generated notice that was a direct result of stop payment number A818769444 being placed.
In regards to the transfer for $1,921.71 that was transferred from your Credit Card account number ending in 0759, this was an overdraft protection advance to offset the overdrawn balance in your checking account.
The overdraft protection feature, a service which can prevent checking overdrafts and can save you money on returned check fees, was originally set up in your credit card account number ending in 0759 to provide overdraft protection for your checking account number ending in 5617. It was only until 06/28/2018 when I have found that this service was canceled as your credit card account number ending in 4672 was established to provide overdraft protection instead.
As a reminder, when there are insufficient funds in your checking account to cover a check or other debit transaction, we will automatically transfer either $25.00 or the exact amount of the overdraft, whichever is larger, to cover the amount of the overdraft. If the available funds in the overdraft protection account are less than $25.00, we will transfer whatever is available.
The transaction fees for overdraft protection advances are:
* $12.50 if the total of overdraft protection advances for the day is $0.00 - $50.00 * $20.00 if the total of overdraft protection advances for the day is greater than $50.00
Your account may also be subject to applicable interest charges for Cash Advances from the date the cash advance transaction posts to your account until the amount is paid in full. There is no grace period for cash advances. Please refer to your Customer Agreement and Disclosure Statement for more information regarding periodic interest charges and transaction interest charges.
However, as I have already mentioned above, because the PayPal transaction that was debited out of your checking account is unauthorized, any fees associated with the transaction will be reimbursed, which may also include the overdraft protection advance of $1,921.71.
Going back to the original PayPal transaction that was charged from your credit card account number ending in 4672, since this transaction is currently being reviewed by our Fraud Specialists, it may be necessary to please call our Fraud Prevention department anytime at 1-800-723-5533 for more information about the claim currently in place. If you are not in the U.S., you can call us collect at 1-925-825-7600.
If you have further questions or concerns, please call us anytime at 1-800-642-4720 for Credit Card inquiries, or 1-800-TO-WELLS (1-800-869-3557) for inquiries on your checking or savings account.
With that being said, I am truly sorry once more for the frustration and inconvenience this matter has caused you. It is my hope that the information provided is a bit more responsive to your concerns and clarifies the bank's actions regarding this matter. We also regret these circumstances have caused you to have a negative perception of our company, and we truly hope for a future opportunity to regain your faith and good regard.
On behalf of Wells Fargo, thank you for your business. Please be sure to have a very wonderful and safe rest of your day!
Sincerely, Joshua H. Wells Fargo
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -----------------
As of today, July 5, 2018, Wells Fargo has failed to correct the series of improper transactions with the effect of steering a charge I made on my 0% credit card, instead onto my card with the 26% interest. This is despite a 30 minute phone call with Wells Fargo on June 28, the same day I was notified of these improper Wells Fargo transactions, where I was told that the problem would be corrected.
In the time since, I have used this text messaging system to make inquiries about this matter. But instead of receiving any material responses from Wells Fargo, I only receive boiler plate messages attempting to steer these communications to phone calls.
That is unacceptable.
The communications regarding this matter must be made in writing/text, in order to keep a better record of this affair and about Wells Fargo banking practices. 4860aff9-8fe7-48f2-84ef-f6431368b482
---
Wells Fargo marks a valid, authorized credit card charge to my 0% card as "fraudulant", gives no reasonfor doing so, then processes an identical amount debit to my bank account from the same source 18 seconds later.
Wells Fargo
agreed Friday to pay $1 billion to settle with two U.S. regulators who
accused the nation’s third largest bank of abusing its customers.
The settlement comes two years after Wells Fargo was found to have
opened millions of accounts in customers’ names that they did not know
about or want.
The amount of the settlement is the largest imposed on a bank under the
Trump administration. It will be split between the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
“It’s a serious matter and I think the amount of the settlement reflects that,” CFPB interim director Mick Mulvaney
told ABC News. “While the CFPB will be working to try to reduce
unnecessary regulations on the industry that doesn’t mean that folks
will be free to abuse consumers.”
Angry shareholders slammed Wells Fargo on Tuesday for abusing customers and tarnishing its reputation.
"This company has harmed and wounded millions of its customers,"
activist shareholder Sister Nora Nash said at the bank's annual
shareholder meeting.
Demonstrators gathered outside the meeting in Des Moines, Iowa, to protest Wells Fargo's various scandals as well as its financing for fossil fuel projects and gun manufacturing.
Despite criticism of Wells Fargo (WFC),
the bank's directors were all re-elected on Tuesday by a wide majority.
None of the shareholder proposals pushing to rein in the bank received
enough support to pass.
While cleaning out my family's house garage, I found a copy of the November 19, 2012 Newsweek magazine, featuring an unusual juxtaposition of images.
The magazine's rear cover is turned back, thus showing me this photograph of this comedian, Rob Delaney, standing in front of and partially obscured by leaves.
I then look at this magazine issue's front cover and see an artist's rendition - painting - of then President Barack Obama, behind the title of an article "The Obama Conquest Lucky General or Master of the Game?" by Daniel Klaidman.
This is the cover.
It is one thing to see a magazine with a cover illustration of a U.S. President in a style reminiscent of illustrations of some other political figures, whether heads of state or military figures: standing in a uniform reflecting some sort of military-strategic genius.
But it is something even more-so to see such a magazine, featuring such an image on its cover, that also features an image of someone, particularly upon its rearmost internal page, in a style that the political figured shown on the front cover, would eventually have his official painting so rendered.
Did Obama, in seeing this magazine back in 2012, have it influence his decision of the style of his official portrait- painting, which would be unveiled in early 2018?
Squandering Billions To Undermine Peoples' Health and Violate Human Rights,
in order to Protect Tobacco Cigarettes, Synthetic Monopoly Medicine,
and prop up wasteful "treatment" and prison industries
In April, 1990, Donald Trump was widely quoted for his opposition to the drug war.
MIAMI
— Billionaire New York developer Donald Trump says that legalizing
drugs is the only way to win the war against what he considers one of
America`s most serious problems.
Trump blamed the country`s drug
problems on politicians who ``don`t have any guts`` and enforcement
efforts that are ``a joke.`` ``We`re losing badly the war on drugs,``
Trump told 700 people at a luncheon Friday. ``You have to legalize drugs
to win that war. You have to take the profit away from these drug
czars.``
MIAMI — Billionaire New York developer Donald Trump said the nation's drug enforcement effort is "a joke" and repeated his call for the legalization of drugs Friday during a luncheon held by the Miami Herald.
``We`re losing badly the war on drugs," Trump said. ``You have to legalize drugs to win that war. You have to take the profit away from these drug czars.``
Tax revenues from a legalized drug trade could be spent to educate the public on the dangers of drugs, Trump said during a speech at the newspaper's Company of the Year Awards luncheon.
Yet within his 2018 State of the Union Address as the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump stated:
“We must get much tougher on drug dealers and pushers if we are going to
succeed in stopping this scourge,”
Indeed. So who is going to go after the government and every official who has propped up this massive criminal drug market protectionist racket?
Trump's apparently sociopathic Attorney General Sessions fervently supports this criminal racket.
As have countless other political opportunists for over a century, starting with those corrupted figures initiating it, most notably this, within the U.S. Department of Agriculture and private groups as the American Medical Association and the American Pharmaceutical Association to protect markets for Tobacco Cigarettes, and Synthetic Monopoly Medicine?
SHOULD OLD POPE LEO DIE The Political Tendencies of his SuccessorThe
Cardinal who would probably win the prize- his Polish supporter –
affairs in France and Germany – Spurgeon’s Return – Lord Lorne’s
Appointment By the commercial cable from our own correspondent
Copyrighted 1892 by the New York Times
LONDON,
Jan. 23- This evil Winter of fogs, plagues and famine bids fair to be
long remembered. We are being passed from funeral to funeral about as it
were a time of war. While the effects of the general mourning and
idleness during the young Duke’s burial on Wednesday and the solemnly
ornate obsequies of the old Cardinal through the darkened noonday
streets on Thursday are still resting like a pall on Thursday are still
resting like a pall on the public spirits, Rome sends out tidings which
read like a summons to the deathbed of the Pope. At this hour it is
difficult to get at the exact truth in the conflicting dispatches
received, but it is at least not re-assuring to learn that the Italian
government has established a rigorous telegraphic censorship over all of
the messages about the Pope’s condition.
Republics never get to
realize by their own experiences that curious phase of Europe’s
condition, where all sorts of changes in the political, social, and
commercial life of nations are continually hanging contingent upon the
death of some very old man. Republics use up their public men more
rapidly, and those who survive are relegated to private life at an age
when in England they would have arrived at a reasonable expectation of
getting into the Ministry.
In Europe old men hang on till they
die. The new generations wait with more or less politeness and patience
for their departure and then rush in forcibly to drag everything forward
to date. Four years ago it was old William whose remarkable longevity
was keeping the whole Empire back in the reactionary shadows of
Metternich’s time. Since then it has been Mr. Gladstone’s amazing
strength and virility which have bodily held back the swelling tide of
Radicalism from bursting forth and overwhelmingly the old Liberal party
organization. Watching him has become such a hopelessly stale story,
however, that it needs only a hint to divert the general attention of
the Vatican, where untold things depend on the waning life of another
aged man.
The Papacy since 1870 has been in a position where
practically everything turns upon the personality of the Pontiff and his
choice of advisers. There can be no more mediocre Popes under whose
nominal guidance matters can go on in commonplace routine. Every
successor of Peter now must make a big mark in the history of the
Church, for good or bad. If he is not very strong, he will be found
lamentably weak. There is no longer any middle course.
Leo has
been one of the strong kind. His fourteen years of reign have been
devoted to building a new sort of Papacy beside rather than upon the
ruins of the old structure. Considering the great difficulties and
obstacles in the way of his task, proceeding even more from within then
without, the result is exceptionally successful. Perhaps the outcome of
his labors is best defined by saying that he has shown those
who thought the Papacy need no longer be taken into account in the
world’s affairs because Rome has been wrestled from it that they were
profoundly mistaken. The Vatican to-day wields far greater influence in Europe than it has done since the French Revolution.
But
it is a peculiarly personal influence. The next Pope will inherit only
the opportunities of securing it for himself and failing to improve
these will be vastly easier than success.
It seems to be taken for granted that Cardinal Raphael Monaco la Valetta will secure the succession.
He is the doyen of the Sacred College and Secretary of the Inquisition -
an amiable, unambitious priest of sixty-five, who has the very
slenderest notions of or interest in the general European situation. He
is extremely simple in his tastes, is not in the least stirred by all
the great outside social and political problems with which Leo has
striven to grapple with as a sacerdotal Tory. By temperament he always
belonged to the conservative wing of the college. He will assume the
tiara, if elected, as its representative and as opposed to the small
liberal group headed by Cardinal Parocchi. If he stood by himself there
would be no risk in predicting that his would be a reign under which the
papacy would lose more prestige than Leo had gained for it.
It
is very well understood, however, that Monaco is entirely under the
control of Ledochowski, that proud, imperious, and able Pole who made
Bismarck such worlds of trouble in the old Kulturkampf day and who has
been able to impose his will very often upon even the present Pope. This
powerful man was in a German prison when Pius IX created him a Cardinal
in 1875.
Next
year he was released and banished, and he has since lived in Rome,
devoting his great wealth and talents to building up a militant
Ultramontagne party about him. His
wrath at the treatment he received at the hands of Bismarck has colored
all his political views. He has hated both Germany and Italy and has
looked un ceasingly forward to the time when French bayonets should
restore the temporal power of the Vatican in the old Roman States.
If
we assume that this spirited and resolute prelate will shortly be
ruling the Church through its nominal head, it becomes a most anxious
question how he will accept the existing political conditions of Europe
which have so radically changed since 1875. The new rulers of the
Germans have been at pains to show their desire to abolish the last
traces of the Kulturkampf. When the pending Prussian Education bill is
passed, the German Catholics will be actually stronger than they were
before the May laws. During the last half year these dispatches have
frequently reflected the new interest which William and his immediate
entourage are displaying in the Polish question. Of course a good deal
of this has arisen naturally from the contemplation of the necessity of
sooner or later fighting Russia: but even more it represents the effort
to allure Ledochowski into friendship with Germany by an appeal to his
national sentiment. How far this has successor will be, as has been
said, a most anxious question.
In any event under this new
regime there would be an abrupt cessation of pastorals on Socialistic
and labor problems and of poems about St. Thomas Aquinas. We should
instead see the Vatican boldly embark upon the troubled waters of
European diplomacy, seeking alliances and taking desperate risks upon
the fortune in the next war. The outcome of this altered policy it
is wholly impossible to foretell, but at least it does not bid fair to
lie in the direction of an increased spirituality.
Today William
has been receiving the new King and Queen of Wurtemberg at Berlin with
ceremonial pomp equal to that bestowed upon the most important of
foreign monarchs. In this characteristically exuberant fashion he marks
the fact that the old King Charles hated Prussia, whereas the present
ruler admires it. With this demonstration particularism may be said to
have been buried in Germany. Wurtemberg’s soldiers are to abandon the
old double-breasted coat for the Prussian government, and in the coming
maneuvers the Bavarian and Wurtemberg corps are to work side by side for
the first time in the empire with Prussian troops. Even Posen is being
coaxed and conciliated into harmony with the rest of Prussia and
furtively excited by rumors of a restored Poland being set up on her
borders.
Poland itself is likely to furnish food for a sensation
before the year closes. Her patriots have been for months planning to
commemorate this hundredth anniversary of the great partition by wearing
mourning and abstaining from all festivities during twelve months. Gen.
Gourko, the brutal Satrap of Poland, got the leading Polish nobles
together at his New Year’s reception and brusquely advised them to give
up their intentions of not dancing this year, “it would be better,” he
said, “for you to dance of your own free will than that I should make
you dance.”
The Poles are however, obstinately wearing black and
avoiding social services, and as a consequence the stories of
persecution, arrests and a wholesale reign of terror which cross the
border are more distressing than ever.
Russia is at last
reluctantly recognizing her powerlessness this year to do anything but
fight the famine. Alll projected measures against the Jews and
foreigners and what little remains of the Liberator Czar’s reformed
institutions have been in definitely postponed, and by all officialdom
has been set at work to keep the demon of starvation at bay. No news
comes out save of hunger and pestilence punctuated with official piracy
and emphasized by grave popular turbulence.
In France,
accordingly, one hears very little now about Russian friendship, and
nobody feels impelled to sing a Russian hymn. Paris has suddenly
discovered that foreign politics are uninteresting and has concentrated
her attention upon an amusing blackguard Deputy named Laur, who serves
as the exiled Rochefort’s mouthpiece in the campaign of revolting
defamation against Minister Constans. The whole episode is distinctly of
an Elysee-Montmartre oder- that is to say, it couldn’t happen anywhere
else than in Paris. It is only there that one has journals daily
charging a Minister with unmentionable crimes and the Minister publicly
thumping the head of the Deputy while he reiterates these charges in the
Tribune. But perhaps even this is better business than subscribing to
Russian loans.
Poor little Portugal, after prolonged wriggles and
wry faces, has at last swallowed an ugly dose, and is openly discussing
the necessity of selling some of her colonies. The fateful proposition
has been made in the Cortes, and the newspapers are approving it. What
makes this final sacrifice of dignity still more terrible to national
contemplation is the abiding fear that it will be made in vain and that
no buyers will appear. Unhappily, it seems rather more probable that the
big States will now take what they want without mooting the question of
payment at all.
The epidemic called influenza shows no signs of
abating, either here or on the Continent, one day this week the London
Time’s advertising columns recording this unprecedented number of 157
deaths. Of these the age was given in over 100 cases and the average of
these was sixty-two years. Everywhere it is noted that the mortality
among aged people is phenomenal.
One other curious fact common to
England, France and Germany is the special severity of the epidemic at
the seaside. All the North Sea and Channel towns, from Konigsberg to
Havre, have suffered much more than the inland places. Portsmouth and
Brighton have led the English death rate lists. Outlying islands like
man and the Scillies have been literally ravaged by the disease.
Perhaps there is a hint in this for scientists.
Mr.
Spurgeon is recovering his health in the south so rapidly that he is
expected now soon to return. The thanks offering of his parishioners
will take the curios form of a thirty five hundred dollar hydraulic
elevator from the floor of his church up to the pulpit, which is now
being put in. No other gift would have been so accept able to the
pastor, for he is increasingly fat and short of breath, and the exertion
of climbing the pulpit stairs used often to induce faintness and
vertigo.
Not all of the pathos of the recent royal bereavement was concentrated on the person of the young Princess May.
Her
father must feel convinced at last that he was born to bad luck. He
poor man has been entangled in a fringe of bankruptcy for twenty years
and bullied by Parlia mentary reformers whenever royal grants came up,
and sarcastically alluded to in the flippant papers as the Duke of Tick.
Finally, when the gates of fortune opened and a golden vista dazzled
his vision, he could have had hardly time to borrow interest on his
debts before they were shut again with a slam. To make matters worse, he
was to receive the fat sinecure of Governor of Windsor Castle, but now,
so completely is his nose out of joint that the berth has been given to
the Marquis of Lorne, who is not in the least need of it.
This
probably marks Lord Lorne’s apogee in the official position. He is not
likely to get into the House of Commons and will carry no weight when he
succeeds his father in the Lords. His attempts to secure distinction as
an author have been sad failures. His last look on Viecount Palmerston
took him an unconscionable while to do, and then was so badly written
that the publishers had to have it done over again by a hack, although
Lord Lorne’s name alone appears.
The Spectator gives a long critical notice of the warm praise to the two latest volumes of Henry Adams “United States.”
H.F.
Contrast
that 1892 article with that in 1915 essentially announcing the February
11, 1915 election of the 26th Jesuit Order Superior General, Wlodimir
Ledochowski. The New York Times, February 14, 1915
Calls “Black Pope” Kaiser’s Tool Special cable to The New York Times[no author given]
PARIS,
Feb. 13 -- The Laterne, which is generally considered to represent the
views of the Socialist section of the Cabinet, alludes to the election
of a new General of the Jesuits, saying, “It is ridiculous to try as has
been attempted by certain Catholic newspapers to persuade the public
that the Jesuits are Francophile. Father Ledochowski’s election shows
clearly that their efforts, as they always have been, are in opposition
to French liberalism. We predict the ‘New Black Pope’s” policy in one
phrase: he will act according to the Kaisers [sic] orders.
History
since demonstrates this was a freudian slip of deliberate
disinformation over a very critical point- the view of the Kaiser, and
by extension the Kaiser Reich.
Origins: The New York Times was founded as the New-York Daily Times on September 18, 1851.[a] Founded by journalist and politician Henry Jarvis Raymond (1820–1869), and former banker George Jones, the Times was published by Raymond, Jones & Company (which raised about $70,000 initially).[25] Early investors in the company were Edwin B. Morgan,[26]Christopher Morgan,[27] and Edward B. Wesley.[28]
Sold for a penny (equivalent to 29 cents today), the inaugural edition
attempted to address various speculations on its purpose and positions
that preceded its release:[29]
We shall be Conservative, in all cases where we think Conservatism essential to the public good;—and we shall be Radical in everything which may seem to us to require radical treatment and radical reform. We do not believe that everything
in Society is either exactly right or exactly wrong;—what is good we
desire to preserve and improve;—what is evil, to exterminate, or reform.
The newspaper shortened its name to The New-York Times on September 14, 1857. It dropped the hyphen in the city name on December 1, 1896.[31] On April 21, 1861, The New York Times began publishing a Sunday edition to offer daily coverage of the Civil War. One of the earliest public controversies it was involved with was the Mortara Affair, the subject of twenty editorials it published alone.[32]
The main office of The New York Times was attacked during the New York Draft Riots. The riots, sparked by the beginning of drafting for the Union Army, beginning on July 13, 1863. On "Newspaper Row", across from City Hall, Henry Raymond stopped the rioters with Gatling guns
(early machine guns), one of which he manned himself. The mob diverted,
and attacked the headquarters of abolitionist publisher Horace Greeley's New York Tribune until forced to flee by the Brooklyn City Police, who had crossed the East River to help the Manhattan authorities.[33]
In 1869, Raymond died, and George Jones took over as publisher.[34]
In the 1880s, The New York Times transitioned gradually from editorially supporting Republican Party candidates to becoming more politically independent and analytical.[36] In 1884, the paper supported DemocratGrover Cleveland (former Mayor of Buffalo and Governor of New York State) in his first presidential campaign.[37] While this move cost The New York Times
a portion of its readership among its more progressive and Republican
readers (the revenue declined from $188,000 to $56,000 from 1883-1884), the paper eventually regained most of its lost ground within a few years.[38]
Ochs era: After George Jones died in 1891, Charles Ransom Miller and other New York Times editors raised $1million dollars to buy the Times printing it under the New York Times Publishing Company.[39][40] However, the newspaper was financially crippled by the Panic of 1893,[38]
and by 1896, the newspaper had a circulation of less than 9,000, and
was losing $1,000 a day. That year, controlling interest in it was
gained by Adolph Ochs, publisher of the Chattanooga Times for $75,000.[41]
Shortly after assuming control of the paper, Ochs coined the paper's
slogan, "All The News That's Fit To Print". The slogan has appeared in
the paper since September 1896,[42]
....
Ochs-Sulzberger family
In 1896, Adolph Ochs bought The New York Times, a money-losing
newspaper, and formed the New York Times Company. The Ochs-Sulzberger
family, one of the United States' newspaper dynasties, has owned The New York Times ever since.[37] The publisher went public on January 14, 1969, trading at $42 a share on the American Stock Exchange.[94] After this, the family continued to exert control through its ownership of the vast majority of Class B voting shares. Class A shareholders are permitted restrictive voting rights while Class B shareholders are allowed open voting rights.
The Ochs-Sulzberger family trust controls roughly 88 percent of the
company's class B shares. Any alteration to the dual-class structure
must be ratified by six of eight directors who sit on the board of the
Ochs-Sulzberger family trust. The Trust board members are Daniel H.
Cohen, James M. Cohen, Lynn G. Dolnick, Susan W. Dryfoos, Michael
Golden, Eric M. A. Lax, Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. and Cathy J.
Sulzberger.[95]
Turner Catledge, the top editor at The New York Times
from 1952 to 1968, wanted to hide the ownership influence. Arthur
Sulzberger routinely wrote memos to his editor, each containing
suggestions, instructions, complaints, and orders. When Catledge would
receive these memos he would erase the publisher's identity before
passing them to his subordinates. Catledge thought that if he removed
the publisher's name from the memos it would protect reporters from
feeling pressured by the owner.[96]
