Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘new york times’

VILE: New York Times Claims U.S. Military ‘Celebrates White Supremacy’ on Memorial Day


Reported by   | May 25, 2020

To commemorate Memorial Day, the New York Times published an op/ed claiming that the U.S. military celebrates white supremacy. The op/ed was signed by the entire editorial board of the Times, showing how this view is ubiquitous among everyone on the fake news rag. They argue that the U.S. military celebrates white supremacy because they have not sufficiently pissed on the graves of ancestors deemed to be racist by Cultural Marxists.

The editorial board claims that “innocent intentions cannot obscure the truth that secessionists embarked on the Civil War to guarantee the rights of some human beings to own others, or the fact that the Confederate banner represents the same white supremacist values as — and is often displayed in tandem with — the Nazi swastika.”

They are pushing for the U.S. military to rename their bases that are named after Confederate generals, as the leftists march to degrade American culture in their relentless push to transform the nation.

“This same toxic legacy clings to the 10 United States military installations across the South that were named for Confederate Army officers during the first half of the 20th century,” the Times editorial board wrote.

“Apologists often describe the names as a necessary gesture of reconciliation in the wake of the Civil War. In truth, the namings reflect a federal embrace of white supremacy that found its most poisonous expression in military installations where black servicemen were deliberately placed under the command of white Southerners — who were said to better “understand” Negroes — and confined to substandard housing, segregated transportation systems and even “colored only” seating in movie houses,” they added.

The cultural genocide is not just extended to Confederate ancestors, but also to the Founding Fathers as well. The Times has pushed revisionist anti-American history through the 1619 Project, which has stated blatantly false claims about America seceding from the British to protect the institute of slavery.

Big League Politics has reported about how the Left is coming after all symbols honoring American heritage and the founding-era revolutionaries who put their lives on the line to establish liberty:

After a San Francisco school board voted to paint over a mural depicting the life of George Washington, over 500 academics signed an open letter urging the board to reverse course.

This decision was made after accusations of the mural traumatizing students and glorifying “slavery, genocide, colonization, manifest destiny, white supremacy, oppression.” USA Today reported that hundreds of educators are protesting this decision, calling it a “gross violation of logic” as the mural actually represents “a significant monument of anti-racism.”

The mural was created by Russian-American painter Victor Arnautoff in 1936, according to a report from the Richmond District Blog. Some of the mural’s images were attacked during the civil rights movement over its portrayal of slavery and Native Americans…

Rachael Z. DeLue, an Art History and American Studies professor at Princeton University, told USA Today that the mural shouldn’t be removed:

“If we cover it up and we whitewash it, not only are we doing a disservice to history, but we’re also doing a disservice to those who suffered at the hands of European-descended Americans: slaves and Native Americans who were traumatized and killed.”

DeLue added, “It’s also the case that this isn’t simply of the past. The legacies of slavery and federal policy about Native Americans live on in the present.”

Paul Von Blum, a senior lecturer in African American studies and communications studies at University of California, Los Angeles, suggested that students become more mentally tough.

“I know it causes students to cringe, but that’s the function of art,” Von Blum said to USA Today. “And art should never be censored.”

The New York Times openly hates America and wants the nation to be destroyed and its people to be subjugated. The fake news is the enemy of the people.

A NEW LOW: NY Times Article Blames Coronavirus Outbreak on ‘Evangelicals’ and Religious Americans


Posted by Hannity Staff – 15 hours ago March 30, 2020

A sickening new article published by the New York Times Friday viciously claims the “road to Coronavirus hell” was “paved by Evangelicals” and other religious Americans; directly blaming hundreds of deaths and thousands of infections on people of faith.

“Donald Trump rose to power with the determined assistance of a movement that denies science, bashes government and prioritized loyalty over professional expertise. In the current crisis, we are all reaping what that movement has sown,” writes Katherine Stewart.
“By all accounts, President Trump’s tendency to trust his gut over the experts on issues like vaccines and climate change does not come from any deep-seated religious conviction. But he is perfectly in tune with the religious nationalists who form the core of his base. In his daily briefings from the White House, Mr. Trump actively disdains and contradicts the messages coming from his own experts and touts as yet unproven cures,” adds the author.
“When a strong centralized response is needed from the federal government, it doesn’t help to have an administration that has never believed in a federal government serving the public good. Ordinarily, the consequences of this kind of behavior don’t show up for some time. In the case of a pandemic, the consequences are too obvious to ignore,” Stewart concludes.

Read the full story at the New York Times BELOW

Written By

URL of the original posting site: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/27/opinion/coronavirus-trump-evangelicals.html?auth=link-dismiss-google1tap

Ms. Stewart is the author of “The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism.”


At least since the 19th century, when the proslavery theologian Robert Lewis Dabney attacked the physical sciences as “theories of unbelief,” hostility to science has characterized the more extreme forms of religious nationalism in the United States. Today, the hard core of climate deniers is concentrated among people who identify as religiously conservative Republicans. And some leaders of the Christian nationalist movement, like those allied with the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, which has denounced environmental science as a “Cult of the Green Dragon,” cast environmentalism as an alternative — and false — theology.

This denial of science and critical thinking among religious ultraconservatives now haunts the American response to the coronavirus crisis. On March 15, Guillermo Maldonado, who calls himself an “apostle” and hosted Mr. Trump earlier this year at a campaign event at his Miami megachurch, urged his congregants to show up for worship services in person. “Do you believe God would bring his people to his house to be contagious with the virus? Of course not,” he said.

Rodney Howard-Browne of The River at Tampa Bay Church in Florida mocked people concerned about the disease as “pansies” and insisted he would only shutter the doors to his packed church “when the rapture is taking place.” In a sermon that was live-streamed on Facebook, Tony Spell, a pastor in Louisiana, said, “We’re also going to pass out anointed handkerchiefs to people who may have a fear, who may have a sickness and we believe that when those anointed handkerchiefs go, that healing virtue is going to go on them as well.”

By all accounts, President Trump’s tendency to trust his gut over the experts on issues like vaccines and climate change does not come from any deep-seated religious conviction. But he is perfectly in tune with the religious nationalists who form the core of his base. In his daily briefings from the White House, Mr. Trump actively disdains and contradicts the messages coming from his own experts and touts as yet unproven cures.

Not every pastor is behaving recklessly, of course, and not every churchgoer in these uncertain times is showing up for services out of disregard for the scientific evidence. Far from it. Yet none of the benign uses of religion in this time of crisis have anything to do with Mr. Trump’s expressed hope that the country would be “opened up and just raring to go by Easter.” He could, of course, have said, “by mid-April.” But Mr. Trump did not invoke Easter by accident, and many of his evangelical allies were pleased by his vision of “packed churches all over our country.”

Religious nationalism has brought to American politics the conviction that our political differences are a battle between absolute evil and absolute good. When you’re engaged in a struggle between the “party of life” and the “party of death,” as some religious nationalists now frame our political divisions, you don’t need to worry about crafting careful policy based on expert opinion and analysis. Only a heroic leader, free from the scruples of political correctness, can save the righteous from the damned. Fealty to the cause is everything; fidelity to the facts means nothing. Perhaps this is why many Christian nationalist leaders greeted the news of the coronavirus as an insult to their chosen leader.

In an interview on March 13 on “Fox & Friends,” Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of Liberty University, called the response to Coronavirus “hype” and “overreacting.” “You know, impeachment didn’t work, and the Mueller report didn’t work, and Article 25 didn’t work, and so maybe now this is their next, ah, their next attempt to get Trump,” he said.

When Rev. Spell in Louisiana defied an order from Gov. John Bel Edwards and hosted in-person services for over 1,000 congregants, he asserted the ban was “politically motivated.” Figures like the anti-L.G.B.T. activist Steve Hotze added to the chorus, denouncing the concern as — you guessed it — “fake news.”

One of the first casualties of fact-free hyper-partisanship is competence in government. The incompetence of the Trump administration in grappling with this crisis is by now well known, at least among those who receive actual news. February 2020 will go down in history as the month in which the United States, in painful contrast with countries like South Korea and Germany, failed to develop the mass testing capability that might have saved many lives. Less well known is the contribution of the Christian nationalist movement in ensuring that our government is in the hands of people who appear to be incapable of running it well.

Consider the case of Alex Azar, who as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services has had a prominent role in mismanaging the crisis. It seems likely at this point that Mr. Azar’s signature achievement will have been to rebrand his department as the “Department of Life.” Or maybe he will be remembered for establishing a division of Conscience and Religious Freedom, designed to permit health care providers to deny legal and often medically indicated health care services to certain patients as a matter of religious conscience.

Exclusive — Fake News Echo Chamber: New York Times Prints Lies by Adam Schiff Witness Made in Secret Testimony


Authored by Matthew Boyle | Washington, D.C.

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/24/exclusive-fake-news-echo-chamber-new-york-times-prints-lies-by-adam-schiff-witness-made-in-secret-testimony/

The New York Times building is seen on September 6, 2018 in New York. – A furious Donald Trump called September 5, 2018 for the unmasking of an anonymous senior official who wrote in the New York Times that top members of his administration were undermining the president to curb …ANGELA WEISS/AFP/Getty 

The New York Times on Wednesday published what would have been a major story on White House National Security Council (NSC) aide Kash Patel—if only it had been true.

The story, which relies on leaks from Democrats conducting the “impeachment inquiry” into President Donald Trump of testimony by one witness who had no firsthand knowledge of the allegations she was making, claims Patel had provided President Trump with documents on Ukraine and met with the president about them.

Citing as its sources “people briefed on the matter,” the Times’ Julian Barnes, Adam Goldman, and Nicholas Fandos wrote that Patel was referred to by President Trump as “one of his top Ukraine policy specialists” and that President Trump “wanted to discuss related documents with him.” The Times reporters claimed that Patel’s NSC and White House colleagues “grew alarmed” over all this.

Later in the Times piece, it became clear where exactly this allegation came from—Fiona Hill, a former Trump administration Russia hand, whom the Democrats have been relying on for testimony in the impeachment inquiry. Hill testified earlier this month in the secret room in the basement of the Capitol building from which Democrats have been running their private impeachment proceedings.

Barnes, Goldman, and Fandos wrote:

Fiona Hill, the National Security Council’s former senior director for Eurasian and Russian affairs, testified to House investigators last week that she believed Mr. Patel was improperly becoming involved in Ukraine policy and was sending information to Mr. Trump, some of the people said. Ms. Hill grew alarmed earlier this year when an aide from the White House executive secretary’s office told her that Mr. Trump wanted to talk to Mr. Patel and identified him as the National Security Council’s ‘Ukraine director,’ a position held by one of Ms. Hill’s deputies. The aide said Mr. Trump wanted to meet with Mr. Patel about documents he had received on Ukraine. Ms. Hill responded by asking who Mr. Patel was. While the aide from the executive secretary’s office did not state explicitly that Mr. Patel sent the Ukraine documents to Mr. Trump, Ms. Hill understood that to be the implication, according to a person familiar with her testimony.

As the Times notes, if true, this would mean there were multiple backchannels for Trump on Ukraine matters—the other being through his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Giuliani’s associates—and it would make it appear as though Trump was up to something by circumventing established channels for such policy, even though the president as the nation’s chief executive officer is well within his rights to do that.

But the problem with the Times story, and its sources that appear to be leaks from Democrats of Hill’s testimony, is that the entire premise is untrue, sources familiar with Patel’s meetings with the president told Breitbart News. Since the Times published its story, Breitbart News has spoken with a dozen sources including current White House officials, then-current-now-former White House officials, congressional officials familiar with the investigation and the meetings Patel had with President Trump, and others in the know about what actually happened and discovered that Patel’s meetings with President Trump had “absolutely nothing,” in the words of one source, to do with Ukraine whatsoever.

One now-former White House official confirmed that President Trump did in fact meet with Patel on a number of occasions, though it’s unclear if these were one-on-one meetings or there were others present.

A source close to House GOP leadership told Breitbart News that Patel’s meetings with the president were focused on domestic national security matters, and that Ukraine did not come up at all.

That source said of the Times story:

This story is complete nonsense. The meeting was arranged at the suggestion of multiple GOP congressmen and senators to discuss domestic national security issues that Kash has specific knowledge and unique expertise in. This meeting had absolutely nothing to do with Ukraine.

A second well-placed source familiar with Patel’s interactions with the president told Breitbart News that the Times story that relies on Hill’s testimony—leaked by Democrats—is “100 percent false.”

“The New York Times story is 100 percent false,” this source familiar with Patel’s interactions with Trump told Breitbart News. “Kash did not discuss Ukraine with Trump in any meeting, nor did he discuss any Ukraine-related documents with him. The Democrats involved in the impeachment interviews were obviously tipped off that Fiona Hill would invent some story like this if asked about Kash, and that’s why they brought up his name to her, then they leaked the exchange to their lackeys at the Times.”

Hill, Breitbart News has learned, was asked a number questions about Patel by the Democrats during her testimony, and a source in the room said her “responses appeared scripted,” suggesting that there was some coordination between Hill or her lawyers and the Democrats on Capitol Hill before her appearance.

Then, as has happened with so much more that has gone on in the secretive U.S. Capitol basement room in which House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) is running the impeachment proceedings away from public view, this information was leaked to the Times and weaponized against the president and his administration—the actual truth and facts be damned.

This episode paints a broader and darker picture of what exactly Schiff and his team are doing in the secretive room and raises bigger questions about why Schiff is not holding these hearings in public.

The system Democrats have set up basically goes as such: They bring witnesses in for testimony and depositions and transcribed interviews for hours on end to a private room known as a Secure Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF)–behind closed doors and away from the press and public.

They allow no lawyers for the administration inside to challenge anything, present facts in defense of the president, or hear what’s happening down there. Then, Schiff and his team control the information gathered and collected down there—not allowing the minority sufficient access to it.

After that, Schiff, his team, and other Democrats leak the most damaging information to the media—usually out of context, and without the full story—in order to create a public narrative that the president is in serious trouble.

Then it takes a couple days at least for Republicans to get the full truth out about each of these instances to turn around the narrative and expose each “fact” the Democrats are putting forward as flawed. This latest example saw the Times story on Hill’s testimony as the official public record on this matter, until now, for about a full day.

Technically speaking, Hill did make these claims that the Times reported in her testimony—but the veracity of them was never checked by the Democrats who gathered said testimony then leaked it to the New York Times for publication.

The Times also did not check their veracity, even though the first source who spoke to Breitbart News, the one close to House GOP leadership who confirmed Hill’s claims were false, noted that Hill’s inaccurate claims were reproduced uncritically by the Times based upon Democrat leaks. And the Times, this source said, as an institution was aware of the fact that Hill’s claims were false because a separate White House correspondent at the Times was aware of Patel’s meetings with the president at the time of said meetings well before Hill’s testimony happened and well before Democrats even launched an impeachment inquiry—and that this Times reporter was aware that the content had nothing to do with Ukraine.

“What’s particularly shameful is that at least one New York Times White House reporter was told about this meeting in advance off the record, and knew what this meeting was about—and that it was not about Ukraine—but they printed this fake story anyway,” the source close to House GOP leadership told Breitbart News.

Part of the reason the media and the Democrats wanted to smear Patel and attempt to tie him into the impeachment madness, the second source who was familiar with Patel’s conversations with the president said, is because Patel was critical of exposing the failures of the narrative surrounding the previous attempts by the so-called “deep state” to entangle Trump in a scandal on the Russia narrative.

“The story is a lazy hit piece based entirely on rumors and purported second-hand and third-hand information,” that source told Breitbart News. “Both the Times and the Democrats have a vendetta against Kash because he helped blow up their three-year investment in the Russia hoax.”

In fact, this is evident by the fact that the Times story actually opens with a recounting of Patel’s history as an aide on the House Intelligence Committee when Republicans were in the majority and his role in exposing what has become known as “Spygate.”

Barnes, Goldman, and Fandos wrote to open their article, before they even got into the substance of the new but false allegations that Hill leveled against Patel over meetings with the president:

When Kashyap Patel was an aide to the House Intelligence Committee in the first years of the Trump administration, he played a key role in helping Republicans try to undermine the Russia investigation, writing a memo that accused law enforcement officials of abusing their power. The memo, which consumed Washington for weeks, was widely dismissed as a biased argument of cherry-picked facts. But it galvanized President Trump’s allies and made Mr. Patel a hero among them. After Republicans ceded control of Congress this year, he landed on Mr. Trump’s National Security Council staff.

Later in the story, the Times reporters further explain Patel’s role in exposing the Russia scandal as a hoax designed to harm the president.

“Mr. Patel was previously best known as a lead author of the politically charged memo released early last year accusing the F.B.I. and Justice Department leaders of abusing their power in the early stages of the Russia investigation,” Barnes, Goldman, and Fandos wrote. “Mr. Patel worked at the time as an investigator for the House Intelligence Committee under Representative Devin Nunes of California, who ran the panel when Republicans had control of the chamber. Mr. Patel’s efforts to discredit the Russia investigation made him a minor celebrity in conservative circles but a divisive figure on Capitol Hill.”

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Sloppy Fake News

The New York Times is the Democrat party propaganda of record with news fit to damage Trump and the Republicans and are smearing Justice Kavanaugh again.
New York Times Smears KavanaughPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.
The Democrat’s lie that they aren’t for gun bans and confiscation was blown out of the water by Robert Francis O’Rourke (Beto) during the debate. Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.

See more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

An adult children’s Book for all ages APOCALI NOW! brilliantly lampoons the left order  HERE

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great El Rushbo, and has had his toons tweeted by President Trump.

Ann Coulter Alert: Why the New York Times Is Unreformable and Must Die


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Aug 21, 2019 4:00 PM

Why the New York Times Is Unreformable and Must Die Source: AP Photo/Mark Lennihan

Even before The New York Times launched its “All Slavery, All the Time” project, no one could accuse that paper of skimping on its race coverage, particularly stories about black males killed by white(ish) police officers.

Here’s one you haven’t heard about. I happened upon it by sheer accident.

Antwon Rose II was a 17-year-old boy shot by an East Pittsburgh police officer in June 2018 after he bolted from a jitney car that had been stopped by the officer. The Times published about a half-dozen stories on Antwon Rose — or as the Times calls him, “Antwon, who was unarmed.”

After the officer was acquitted on all charges in March of this year, the Times ran an article by Adeel Hassan on the verdict.

Here’s what you would learn from the Times:

— Antwon was unarmed.

— Antwon “was in his high school’s honors program.”

— Antwon “played basketball and the saxophone.”

— Antwon “volunteered for a local charity.”

— In 2016, Antwon wrote a poem titled, “I Am Not What You Think!” which included these lines:

I see mothers bury their sons

I want my Mom to never feel that pain.

— A policeman stopped the gold Chevy Cruze Antwon “was riding in” because it “matched the description” of a car “involved” in a drive-by shooting minutes earlier.

— The jury consisted of nine whites and three African Americans.

If you read the Times piece, all you would know is that an honor student who loved his mom…was KILLED for the crime of riding in a car similar to one that had just been used in a crime.

Wow. Just wow.

Here are some of the facts the Times left out:

— The gold Chevy Cruze Antwon fled did not merely “match the description of” a car used in a drive-by shooting: It was the car used in the drive-by shooting, as proved by surveillance video posted online days after the shooting and shown to the jury.

— The video shows 13 shots being fired from the back seat of that exact car, with — according to the prosecutor — Antwon riding in the front seat.

— The backseat passenger, Zaijuan Hester, later pleaded guilty to the drive-by shooting.

— One of the victims of the drive-by shooting told police it was Antwon who shot him. “The beef was between me and him,” William Ross told a Pennsylvania State Police officer. “That car came by, he shot me, I ran to the store.”

— The jitney driver told police that, right before the shooting started, he heard the backseat passenger ask, “Is that him?”

— The gun used in the drive-by was recovered in the back seat of the car.

— A stolen gun was found under Antwon’s seat, an empty magazine in Antwon’s pants pocket, and there was gunpowder residue on Antwon’s hands.

— The car stopped by the officer was riddled with bullet holes.

— The jury that unanimously acquitted the officer was led by an African American foreman, who stoutly defended the verdict.

None of that made it into the Times story on the trial’s conclusion.

I’m glad that Antwon did charity work, but isn’t it rather more important that he had participated in a drive-by shooting of two other black guys 13 minutes before being stopped by a police officer?

That’s not conjecture or speculation. Hassan wasn’t writing about the case the day after the shooting. These are facts that were presented in court and copiously reported by the local media — even in the British press.

Normal Person to The New York Times: Why did you say the car “matched the description” of the car used in a drive-by shooting — but not say that it WAS the car used in the drive-by shooting?

NYT: I’m sorry, who are you and do you have a press pass?

Normal Person: You didn’t mention that a stolen gun was found under Antwon’s seat and a matching cartridge in Antwon’s pocket???

NYT: We only have so much space and I needed room for Antwon’s poem.

Normal Person: You didn’t have space to say that gun residue was found on Antwon’s hands?

NYT: I could have run more of the poem. It was a good poem.

Normal Person: Or that one of the victims of the drive-by said Antwon was the one who shot him?

NYT: The officer didn’t know that.

Normal Person: Did the officer know about Antwon’s A.P. classes? It goes to the likelihood of his behavior being perceived as threatening. The officer could certainly see that the car’s back window had been shot out.

NYT: You’re a white supremacist and white nationalist and, yes, I know they’re different, but you’re both.

There’s no reason to think this isn’t standard operating procedure at the Times. The editors can’t say, OK, OK, that one got past us! 

The Times has told wild lies about the racist shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri (false), the racist arrest of Freddie Gray in Baltimore (false), the racist shooting of Trayvon Martin in Florida (false), the racist gang-rape of a black stripper by a Duke lacrosse team (false) and so on.

Antwon Rose’s shooting wasn’t even a flood-the-zone, hair-on-fire story. But the Times lied about it, too.

This is a newspaper that cannot be trusted on anything touching on race. They’re liars and ideologues, not reporters and editors.

Ann Coulter’s Latest Book Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind is available on Amazon

NY Times publishes clearly anti-Semitic cartoon, deletes only after intense criticism


Posted by    Saturday, April 27, 2019 at 6:00pm

“This isn’t a dog whistle. This is a dog.”

https://twitter.com/Harry1T6/status/1122140959968350209?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

The left’s alarming and increasingly blatant Anti-Semitism has reached new lows.  The New York Times International edition published an absolutely appalling cartoon depicting Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is featured as a dachshund, leading a presumably “blind” President Trump. It is so horrifically offensive that the New York Times has since deleted the image online and issued an Editor’s Note explaining that publishing it was an “error in judgment” because the cartoon is “offensive” for containing “anti-Semitic tropes.”  I’m not sure how effective such a note can possibly be since we have all just had (re)confirmed our worst fears about that publication.

The Jerusalem Post reports:

The New York Times International Edition ran a cartoon of an apparently blind US President Donald Trump wearing a yarmulke being led by a dog with a Star of David for a collar and with a face of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on April 25.

The cartoon was part of its Opinion section and appeared next to a column by Thomas Friedman about immigration.

The cartoon was condemned by numerous people over the weekend. It appeared on the April 25 edition but in Israel was available with the end of the Passover holiday, coinciding with the holiday and Shabbat, two days when many observant Jews were not active online.

The much deserved condemnation came from across the political and religious spectrum.

The New York Times issued the following tweet depicting the upcoming “Editor’s Note.”

Here is a screencap of the note itself via the above tweet.

https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1122143162506596354

It’s rather underwhelming and not going over well.

Seth Frantzman, writing at the Jerusalem Post, has a scathing response to the NYT’s Editor’s Note.  He begins by explaining that like most of us, when he first saw the cartoon and that it was in the NYT, he didn’t think it was real.

At a time of rising antisemitism, when we have become increasingly exposed to the notion of dog whistles and tropes that are antisemitic, when there is a lively and active debate about this issue in the US, The New York Times International Edition did the equivalent of saying “hold my beer.”

. . . . I didn’t believe the cartoon was real when I first saw it. Many of my colleagues didn’t believe it either. I spent all day Saturday trying to track down a hard copy. I phoned friends, I got a PDF of the edition, and even then I didn’t believe it.

I had to see for myself. So I drove to a 24-hour supermarket. There on the newsstand was the April 25 edition. I flipped gingerly through, fearing to see Page 16.

And then I found it. It stared back at me: That horrid image of a blind US President Donald Trump with a yarmulke being led by a dog with the face of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Worse, the dog was wearing a Star of David as a collar.

This is what The New York Times thinks of us Israelis. Even if they subsequently said it was an error, they thought it was okay to print a cartoon showing the US president being blindly led by the “Jewish dog”?

And not only that, those who watched as it went to print thought it was fine to put a Jewish skullcap on the US president. Dual loyalty? No need to even wrestle with that question.

It used to be that we were told that Trump was fostering “Trump antisemitism” and driving a new wave of antisemitism in the US. But the cartoon depicts him as a Jew. Well, which is it? Is he fostering antisemitism, or is he now a closet Jew being led by Israel, depicted as a Jewish dog? We used to say that images “conjured up memories” of 1930s antisemitism. This didn’t conjure it up; this showed us exactly what it looked like.

Frantzman then tackles the pathetic, reductive Editor’s Note.

. . . . The New York Times acknowledged this in a kind of pathetic way. They admitted that the cartoon “included anti-Semitic tropes.” It then noted, “The image was offensive and it was an error of judgement to publish it.”

That’s not enough. An error of judgment would imply that it was just a kind of mistake. “Tropes” would imply that to some people it is anti-Semitic, but that it’s not clear as day.

But this is clear as day.

This isn’t like some story of unclear antisemitism. This isn’t a dog whistle. This is a dog. This is anti-Semitic on numerous levels. It’s time to say no more. It’s time to say “They shall not pass.”

This should be a defining moment. It is a defining moment because one of America’s most prestigious newspapers did this, not some small town newspaper somewhere.

Over at the Spectator, Dominic Green provides his own scathing commentary before offering his take on what the NYT should say instead of resting on “tropes” and an “error of judgment.”

What the Times should have said was:

‘We ran a blatantly anti-Semitic cartoon. At a time when anti-Jewish violence and incitement is at levels not seen since 1945, we chose to place gutter racism on our pages. We did this because plenty of our editors share the prejudice of this cartoon; if in doubt, look at our unsigned editorials.

‘We’re so soaked in this that none of us thought that it might be an error to publish a cartoon with clear precursors in fascist, communist, Arab nationalist and Islamist propaganda. Rather than explain this away in the passive tense, we’re going to  name the editors who signed off on this cartoon, and fire them.’

Of course, the Times will do none of this.

That sounds about right, but as Green notes, it will never happen.  Because it’s all true

New York Times Published Trump Assassination Fantasy Before Mail Bomb Scare


Reported by Justin Caruso | October 25, 2018

(INSET: Author Zoe Sharp) The New York Times building on 8th Avenue is seen August 21, 2018 in New York City. (Photo by Daniel SLIM / AFP) (Photo credit should read DANIEL SLIM/AFP/Getty Images)/DANIEL SLIM/AFP/Getty; Twitter/@authorzoesharp; New York Times

The New York Times published a fictional story Tuesday that fantasized about President Trump’s assassination at the hands of the Secret Service and a Russian operative — one day before the nation was gripped by news of apparent mail bombs sent to prominent Democratic figures.

In an article published in the New York Times‘ Book Review, five writers conjured up fantasy scenarios about President Trump’s future with the Russia investigation.

One writer, Zoe Sharp (pictured), took liberal fantasizing to the next level and wrote a story that ends with President Trump being assassinated by a Russian agent. The Times’ editors illustrate the piece, titled “How It Ends,” with a Russian flag sticking out of a pistol barrel.

In the story, the Russian attempts to shoot the president, but his gun misfires. A Secret Service agent then offers his own pistol to the Russian:

The Russian waited until they were a few steps past before he drew the gun. He sighted on the center of the president’s back, and squeezed the trigger.

The Makarov misfired.

The Secret Service agent at the president’s shoulder heard the click, spun into a crouch. He registered the scene instantly, drawing his own weapon with razor-edge reflexes.

The Russian tasted failure. He closed his eyes and waited to pay the cost.

It did not come.

He opened his eyes. The Secret Service agent stood before him, presenting his Glock, butt first.

“Here,” the agent said politely. “Use mine. …” [emphasis added]

This assassination fantasy was published just one day before the media exploded with criticism for President Trump’s rhetoric after a series of apparent mail bombs sent to many Democrat political figures Wednesday, including one sent to CNN’s New York office.

Media and entertainment figures fantasizing about the assassination of President Trump has become disturbingly common.

Last year, actor Johnny Depp joked, “When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?” He later apologized. Rapper Rick Ross released a song in 2016 with the lyric, “Assassinate Trump like I’m Zimmerman.”

A Julius Caesar play in Central Park featured the assassination of a faux Donald Trump-figure. And pop star Madonna said at the Women’s March that she had fantasized about “blowing up” the White House.

“Yes, I’m angry. Yes, I’m outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House, but I know that this won’t change anything,” she said.

And the left’s violent fantasies are not limited to Trump–anyone they disagree with can be targeted.

Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who was at the GOP baseball practice when it was targeted by left-wing mass shooter James Hodgkinson, said that Hodgkinson was screaming, “This is for health care!”

“He also had a list of conservative legislators–Republicans–in his pocket, that he was going to kill,” Paul also said.

Corporate media’s role in this downward slide cannot be ignored, either.

MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace has repeatedly fantasized about violence toward people she disagrees with, previously talking on air about Sarah Sanders getting choked and Trump getting punched in the face.

Further, CNN has excused and whitewashed the violence of Antifa, time and time and time again.

Finally, as Breitbart News has meticulously chronicled, there are several hundred incidents of Trump supporting Americans being targeted for violence, harassment, and intimidation by the left.

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


Top Hat

The Democrats are Mocking the very reason people support Trump while remaining clueless to their own ridiculousness.

Trump Hardhat leader

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

More A.F. Branco Cartoons at The Daily Torch.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News” and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

The Failing New York Times

The New York Times hired and Sarah Jeong knowing of her anti-white racist tirades on twitter against white people.

Jeong New York Times Racist

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

A.F.Branco’s New Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

Watch: One Of CNN’s Zombies Said, ‘Calling For The Extinction Of White People Is Not Racist’


Reported by By: K. Walker | ClashDaily Associate Editor

URL of the original positing site: https://clashdaily.com/2018/08/watch-one-of-cnns-zombies-said-calling-for-the-extinction-of-white-people-is-not-racist/

The left’s attempts to redefine racism doesn’t actually change the meaning of racism.

Don Lemon had a panel of guests on his show to discuss the controversial and overtly racist tweets by the newly-minted editor at the New York Times, Sarah Jeong.

One commentator, far-leftist Symone Sanders, excused the racism by saying that it wasn’t actually racism.

SANDERS: No, I don’t think that Sarah’s tweets are racist. First of all, I think it’s important to note that these tweets were dug up by a right-wing — it’s not even conservative — right-wingers, people that identify with the white supremacist ideology, and they were taken out of context.

When asked if it mattered who dug them up, Sanders said that it’s important to remember that the tweets were ‘selective’ and that there was no ‘context’ for the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of tweets. The sheer volume is staggering.

Yet, Sanders defended her with the leftist trope that you can’t be racist against white people.

SANDERS: Would I have written anything like that? Absolutely not, but it’s not racist for this reason — one, Don, racism, being racist is not just prejudice, it’s prejudice plus power. So, one could argue that some of her tweets, even within context, note that she has a prejudice perhaps against white men, but that, in fact, does not make her racist. I don’t think she’s a racist; I absolutely think we are conflating two conversations.

So, prejudice is different from racism.

Who knows.

Here I was — a visible minority woman — thinking that racism was simply bias against a particular race. If you think that it isn’t racist to tweet #CancelWhitePeople and ‘Dumb*ss f***ing white people’ put into the context of hundreds of other anti-white tweets, you’ve really got to look in the mirror and examine yourself for bigotry.

Lemon asks if it isn’t racism, is it at least bigotry?

LEMON: Does it make her a bigot?

SANDERS: No, I don’t think it makes her a bigot either. Again, I think you have to look at the tweets within the context. Could she be prejudiced? Could she have some, not just implicit, but negative bias toward white men in America due to perhaps what she’s experienced throughout her life? Probably, absolutely. Does that mean though that she is in fact racist? No, because [racism] is prejudice plus power.

Uh… no, it isn’t.

There is no component of ‘power’ necessary in the definition of racism, no matter how much the identity politics crowd wants it to be inserted in there. Shockingly, Lemon actually calls out Sanders saying that it looks like she’s excusing horrible, and obviously bigoted behavior.

Watch:

Oh. My. Goodness.

Don Lemon just illustrated the principle that a stopped clock is right twice a day. Maybe he’s not even a stopped clock, but more like a malfunctioning slow clock that speeds up once a day to actually reveal the correct time.

Or something.

Hey, man — I give credit where it’s due.

Speaking of… here’s a sample of Sarah Jeong’s thoughts on why so many things suck.

Spoiler alert: it’s because of white men.

Watch a clip of Sarah Jeong’s lecture at Harvard University:

You can watch the whole thing and see if you need to contextualize what she has to say about men and ‘white people’:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUSctMLLNUE?feature=oembed]

So, I feel confident writing this as a visible minority woman — and one of Southeast Asian descent at that. (That’s the new way of saying ‘India’.)

If the definition of racism is power + privilege, then Symone Sanders is wrong, and by that very definition, the tweets are indeed racist.

The 2015 U.S. Census Bureau data has shown that Asians have a higher median household income than whites in America:

In addition, Jeong went to Harvard and now works at the New York Times as an editor — can you get more privileged?

Sarah Palin Suing New York Times For Defamation


Reported by Photo of Peter Hasson Peter Hasson | Associate Editor | 6:43 PM 06/27/2017

Sarah Palin speaks during the “Climate Hustle” panel discussion at the Rayburn House Office Building on April 14, 2016 in (Getty Images)

Sarah Palin is suing The New York Times for defamation, according to documents filed in federal court Tuesday that were obtained by The Daily Caller.

The lawsuit has to do with an editorial the NYT ran on June 14 that falsely smeared Palin as inciting the 2011 shooting of Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords by a mentally ill man. There is no evidence to support the NYT’s implication that Palin played a role in inciting the Giffords shooting. (RELATED: NYT Uses GOP Shooting To Falsely Attack Sarah Palin With Debunked Conspiracy Theory)

“Mrs. Palin brings this action to hold The Times accountable for defaming her by publishing a statement about her that it knew to be false: that Mrs. Palin was responsible for inciting a mass shooting at a political event in January 2011,” Palin’s suit states.

“Specifically, on June 14, 2017, The Times Editorial Board, which represents the ‘voice’ of The Times, falsely stated as a matter of fact to millions of people that Mrs. Palin incited Jared Loughner’s January 8, 2011, shooting rampage at a political event in Tucson, Arizona, during which he shot nineteen people, severely wounding United States Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and killing six, including Chief U.S. District Court Judge John Roll and a nine-year-old girl.”

The lawsuit states that the paper “published and promoted its Editorial Board’s column despite knowing that the linchpin of its ‘sickening pattern’ of politically-incited shootings was the false assertion that Mrs. Palin incited Loughner to murder six people, among them a child and federal judge, and seriously wound numerous others.” (RELATED: NYT Has Been Pushing Palin-Giffords Falsehood For Years)

It goes on to state: “As the public backlash over The Times’ malicious column mounted, it responded by making edits and ‘corrections’ to its fabricated story, along with half-hearted Twitter apologies–none of which sufficiently corrected the falsehoods that the paper published. In fact, none mentioned Mrs. Palin or acknowledged that Mrs. Palin did not incite a deranged man to commit murder.”

Palin claims the editorial “exceeded the bounds of legality, decency and civility by publishing the false and defamatory column.” She is seeking a minimum of $75,000 in damages.

The full lawsuit can be seen below.

Sarah Palin sues the New York Times for defamation by Peter Hasson on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/352404642/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-2v1DI4q3KKKQmWeBQP19&show_recommendations=true

In the NYT’s editorial, which has since been updated, the editors claimed there was a “clear” link to incitement between Jared Loughner’s attempted assassination of Giffords, and a map Palin had created that placed crosshairs over districts that Republicans needed to flip in the 2012 election. No such link exists.

CNN’s Jake Tapper pointed out in response to the NYT editorial that “even way back in Jan 2011 we knew that Loughlin’s obsession began 3 years before the Palin map.” Tapper made that same exact point back in 2011 when he worked for ABC.

After harsh criticism in the media, the NYT finally added a correction that read: “An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.”

The NYT editorial followed the attempted mass assassination of Republican lawmakers by a left-wing Bernie Sanders supporter, who espoused anti-Republican rhetoric on his Facebook page and belonged to several anti-GOP groups on Facebook, including one titled, “Terminate The Republican Party.”

The Daily Caller is awaiting comment from the NYT.

This article has been updated with additional information.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


Members Only

The leftist media (mainstream media), CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and New York Times are a part of the Russian collusion delusion club.

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.

More A.F. Branco Cartoons at Net Right Daily.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Media Cheerlead Obama Across Finish Line With ‘Glorious’ Jobs Picture… There’s 1 HUGE Problem


waving flagAuthored by Joe Saunders December 2, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://www.westernjournalism.com/thepoint/2016/12/02/media-cheerlead-obama-across-finish-line-with-glorious-jobs-picture-theres-1-huge-problem/

Advertisement – story continues below

Comrade Stalin has done it again! Those slobbering wet kisses from the media just won’t go away until Barack Obama does.

In a fit of journalistic cheerleading that should turn even liberal stomachs, a New York Times article about the latest jobs report is hailing the American economy as a blessed miracle of modern efficiency that a triumphant Obama is handing off to lucky President-elect Donald Trump.

But a reader who makes it through the first gushing paragraphs will realize why Obama’s party is no longer in power.

Under the blatantly pro-administration headline “President Obama Is Handing a Strong Economy to His Successor,” The Times trumpets Obama’s economic stewardship in language befitting the Soviet Union’s old Five-Year Plan pronouncements:

  • Private sector jobs are up! The unemployment rate is down! Those “utterly terrifying” days of the George W. Bush administration are buried deep beneath the god-like accomplishments of America’s first black president!Leftist Propagandist

Comrade Stalin has done it again!

Advertisement – story continues below

Jason Furman, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, was particularly cloying in contrasting the economy of today with the one the country faced in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

“It was an utterly terrifying time, the likes of which none of us had ever seen in our lifetimes,” Furman told The Times, in hyperventilating prose. “The economy was following the same trajectory that it did at the beginning of the Great Depression.”

Now, Furman told The Times, “the economy today is healthy and it’s improving.”Leftist Propagandist

If all that’s true, of course, it raises the question of just why American voters rejected the president’s chosen successor in favor of a candidate and party that have made no secret of their loathing for Obama’s progressive policies and crony capitalism.

It takes a full seven paragraphs into the article before The Times suddenly changes its tune and gets down to the grim, black-and-white reality of the not-so-rosy employment picture.

For all the improvements, tens of millions of Americans understandably feel that the recovery has passed them by. Those without skills are relegated to low-paying positions without steady schedules, security and benefits. Breadwinners who once held well­-compensated manufacturing jobs are angry about being forced to settle for lower­-wage service jobs — or no jobs at all.

Profound anxiety, particularly among the white working class, about the ability to reach or comfortably remain in the middle class is one of the factors that helped propel Mr. Trump to the White House.

And right on cue in the concerted effort to portray Obama as a wise and wonderful parent handing the keys to a robust economy to a reckless teenage Trump, Politico declares in its own slavishly propagandistic piece, Trump inherits Obama boom.”

shove

Image added by WhatDidYouSay.org

culture-of-decietIt might come as a shock to people who sit on the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, but when five of the nation’s 10 wealthiest counties are in a collar around the nation’s capital, there might be a problem with the concentration of wealth and the men and women who are actually benefiting from the Obama Era government.

Americans outside the Beltway and its environs know that Obama’s Potemkin economy was never as good as his sycophantic media pretended, and the juggled statistics might have indicated. The official unemployment rate might indeed be low, but as Business Insider Points out, the labor force participation rate — that is, the percentage of those capable of working who are actually looking for a job — is at its lowest level since the 1970s.

Meanwhile, outside the sunny world of Beltway-area economists, the actual real-world situation isn’t nearly as sunny as The New York Times would have the country believe.

As Business Insider reports:

The big disappointment in the jobs report was wage growth. Average hourly earnings fell 0.1% from October. This was unexpected, given that the tight labor market — characterized by a record number of job openings and fewer job seekers — put some upward pressure on wages in recent months.

In other words, the unemployment rate endlessly touted by the Obama-glorifying media in the past seven-plus years is a cruel joke. It leaves out otherwise healthy individuals who have given up hope of finding work, it counts individuals who have even minimal – not-enough-to-buy-gas-with jobs – as “employed.”

In a controversial column in February 2015, Jim Clifton, president and CEO of the Gallup polling organization, blew the whistle on the whole sham:

There’s no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.

if-his-mouth-is-open-he-must-be-lying

Image added by WhatDidYouSay.org

And it’s a lie that has consequences, because the great American dream is to have a good job, and in recent years, America has failed to deliver that dream more than it has at any time in recent memory. A good job is an individual’s primary identity, their very self-worth, their dignity — it establishes the relationship they have with their friends, community and country. When we fail to deliver a good job that fits a citizen’s talents, training and experience, we are failing the great American dream.

leading-propaganda-generatorNone of that is going to make it into the mainstream media’s coverage of economic figures from the government for another two months, of course. The final days of the Obama administration are likely to be hailed as the twilight of a golden era in American prosperity. If The Times’ dishonest coverage is any indication of what’s to come from the rest of the mainstream media – and it usually is – the country can expect to hear nothing but solid economic news until at least Jan. 20 or so.

But come Jan. 21, and the first full day of the Donald Trump administration, don’t be surprised if the media suddenly report America heading back into a full-scale depression. And there will be no gushing paragraphs then.

Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagHillary’s Economic Adviser

NY Times Attacks Trump but Ignores Bill Clinton’s indiscretions.

NY Times Attacks Trump / Political cartoon A.F. Branco ©2016.

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

A.F. Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

DEAR HILLARY: Trump Just Called Bill A RAPIST … How Will You REBUT That?


waving flagPublished on May 19, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/05/dear-hillary-trump-just-called-bill-rapist-will-rebut/

Donald Trump just slammed Bill Clinton — is Hillary going to come to his rescue? How do you you think she is going to try and rebut this?

Donald Trump hit Bill Clinton with his hardest charge yet on Wednesday evening during a sit-down interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News.

Trump brought up a rape accusation against the former Democratic president when talking about Clinton’s past behavior with women with the Fox News host. The two were discussing a recent New York Times article that was supposed to expose Trump’s own treatment of women and how several of the sources had come out and said the newspaper twisted their words.

Trump labeled the story a ‘con job’ and called it a ‘disaster’ for the newspaper.

Hannity then asked why the Times hadn’t dug into Bill Clinton’s past.

 rapist

‘Are they going to interview Juanita Broaddrick? Are they going to interview Paula Jones? Are they going to interview Kathleen Willey?’ Hannity asked, ticking off the names of women who have accused Bill Clinton of inappropriate behavior through the years.

‘In one case, it’s about exposure. In another case, it’s about groping and fondling and touching against a woman’s will,’ Hannity continued.

‘And rape,’ Trump inserted.

‘And rape,’ the television host repeated.

Read more: Daily Mail

Here on her website, Hillary claims to be a champion of women:

Hillary Clinton believes that issues that affect women’s lives are not just “women’s issues”—they are family issues, they are economic issues, and they are crucial to our future competitiveness.  She has been a champion for women and girls her entire career:

After graduating from law school, Hillary worked at the Children’s Defense Fund, where she helped expand access to education for children with disabilities.

As First Lady of Arkansas, she helped start the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.

As First Lady of the United States, Hillary led the U.S delegation to the U.N Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, where she proclaimed that “women’s rights are human rights.” She also advocated for the Family and Medical Leave Act, and successfully worked to expand Head Start.

As Senator from New York, she championed the Paycheck Fairness Act to close the pay gap between women and men once and for all. She cosponsored the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to help achieve equal pay and close the wage gap. Hillary also fought for legislation to guarantee paid sick leave and she called for expanding paid parental leave for all federal employees. Additionally, Clinton co-sponsored the Family And Medical Leave Expansion Act twice and in 2007 she announced a paid family leave plan.

As Secretary of State, Hillary made women’s rights a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. She created the now-permanent position of ambassador-at-large for global women’s issues. She also advanced women’s economic empowerment and spearheaded public-private partnerships to improve the status of women and girls across the world. (Source)Leftist Propagandist

But here’s what she did to the women that Bill had affairs with, claimed he molested and or raped:

Hillary Clinton is not only an “enabler,” she is a “terrorist” who “terrorizes” her husband’s alleged lovers and women who accuse him of sexual assault, says former Dallas lawyer Dolly Kyle, who says she had a long-running affair with Bill Clinton.

In an interview, Kyle claimed that “Billy” Clinton, as she called him, once boasted to her that he had had sex with about 2,000 women.  She described Clinton as a “sex addict” who has some “sick, sick need” to “control women.”

“Aaron, Hillary is an enabler is about the nicest thing you can say about her,” stated Kyle when asked about a statement last Friday from Donald Trump, who slammed Hillary Clinton as an “unbelievably nasty, mean enabler” who “destroyed” the lives of her husband’s mistresses and alleged victims.

Continued Kyle: “The fact of the matter is Hillary is a terrorist. I invite you to look up the definition of terrorism. It is the use of violence, threats, or intimidation to achieve a political aim. … That’s what terrorism is. It changes people’s lives by changing their decisions about what they would otherwise do. And these women who might otherwise speak up are so afraid that they won’t say anything.”Alibi

Read more: Breitbart

According to this video, Bill Clinton raped more women than Bill Cosby:

bill raped

Bill is now being accused of ‘manspreading’ to assert his masculinity:

He is vying to become second fiddle to his wife as she runs for president.

But former President Bill Clinton has been identified as a ‘manspreading’ culprit.

To manspread is to spreads one’s legs to assert one’s masculinity.

The male habit has been lambasted – there are even signs on the New York City subway system telling men not to take up too much space.

However, it seems Clinton quite enjoys a good manspread.

Screen Shot 2016-05-19 at 9.58.30 AM

Read more: Daily MailVote In One and you get them all

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

ONE DAY AFTER BRUSSELS BOMBINGS: The New York Times Issued this Warning and it’s Not What You Think


waving flagPosted on March 23, 2016

Nytimes_hqThis is so far beyond ridiculous and disrespectful to the victims of the bombings.

It’s been only a day since the bombings in Brussels, and the New York Times has issued a warning. No – it isn’t a warning of ISIS carrying out more attacks. It was a warning to reject the rhetoric of Donald Trump. As the Washington Examiner reported:

The New York Times editorial board responded to a wave of terror attacks that washed over Brussels early Tuesday morning by begging its readers to reject the rhetoric of billionaire businessman Donald Trump.

The appropriate response to the attacks, which have so far claimed the lives of 34 people, is “courage and steadfastness in the face of a threat that will take many years to eliminate,” the board wrote.

“It emphatically does not mean hysterical fearmongering of the sort promptly voiced by politicians like Donald Trump,” they added.Leading Propaganda Generator

Call it “hysterical fearmongering” all you want – but he’s the only candidate who’s actually offered solutions in response to the attacks. Isn’t it liberals who mock conservatives for praying after tragedies instead of taking action to prevent them?

Alinsky affect Die true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Take Out Your Red Pens


waving flagBy Jonah Goldberg — December 13, 2015

Ann Coulter Letter: “How to Write a New York Times Op-Ed in Three Easy Steps”


waving flagAnn Coulter  | 

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2015/09/02/how-to-write-a-new-york-times-op-ed-in-three-easy-steps/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

How to Write a New York Times Op-Ed in Three Easy Steps

Today we’ll talk about how to write a New York Times op-ed in 45 minutes or less. We all like labor-saving tips!The main point to keep in mind is that your op-ed is not intended to elucidate, educate or amuse. These are status pieces meant to strike a pose, signaling that you are a good person.After reading your op-ed, readers should feel the warm sensation of being superior to other people — those who don’t agree with you. The idea is to be in fashion. It’s all about attitude, heavy on eye-rolling.

 

(1) Psychoanalyze conservatives as paranoid and insecure.

Liberals — who, to a man, have been in psychoanalysis — enjoy putting people they disagree with on the operating table and performing a vivisection, as if conservatives are some lower life form. 

Thus, for example, an op-ed in this week’s Times by Arthur Goldwag was titled “Putting Donald Trump on the Couch.”

This should not be confused with Justin A. Frank’s 2004 book, “Bush on the Couch,” offering a detailed diagnosis of Bush’s alleged mental disorders.

Nor should it be confused with a column that went up on Daily Kos the day after I wrote this column, psychoanalyzing me. (I’m just glad I snubbed the guy in high school.)

Goldwag explained: “Mr. Trump’s angry certainty …”

Let’s pause right here. I am obsessed with Donald Trump. I wish I could cancel my book tour and just lie in bed watching his speeches all day long. I’m like a lovesick teenager studying Justin Bieber videos. And I’ve never seen Trump look angry.

(Goldwag continued) ” … that immigrants and other losers are destroying the country while the cultural elites that look down on him stand by and do nothing resonates strongly with the less-educated, lower-income whites who appear to be his base.”

Yes, Trump’s base are “less-educated.” This is as opposed to Democratic voters, who couldn’t figure out how to fill in a Florida ballot in 2000.

True, writing like this will expose your own gigantic paranoia at being excluded from historic WASP America. If you start obsessing over the Augusta National Golf Club (as the Times did for one solid decade), people will naturally begin to suspect that you’re resentful toward traditional American culture.

But I am not giving lessons in self-esteem here. I’m trying to help you dash off an op-ed in record time. Psychoanalysis has been liberals’ go-to move forever.

Following the 1964 presidential election, the American Psychiatric Association was forced to issue “the Goldwater rule,” prohibiting shrinks from psychoanalyzing people they’d never met, after a few thousand of them had issued their professional opinion that Barry Goldwater was nuts. (A “frightened person,” “paranoid,” “grossly psychotic” and a “megalomaniac.”)

Some Times writer probably produced an op-ed calling Calvin Coolidge “paranoid.”

It’s not very interesting, but, again, the sole purpose of your op-ed is to assure the status-anxious that they are better than other people.

(2) The perfect hack phrase is to say conservatives are “frightened of the country changing around them.”

Examples:

– “The Tea Party, to be most benign about it, is primarily white, it is witnessing a country changing around it. It feels angry, feels — the diversity.” — Katrina Vanden Heuvel, MSNBC, May 24, 2012

(You want angry? Go to an Al Sharpton rally.)

– “Old white guys (are) caught in a demographic vice, right? (They) are frankly a little nervous, right? The country is changing around them. … The country is becoming more brown, and more — younger. And the values are changing. Gay rights, women are working. I mean all of these things are happening and they are not quite sure what to do.” — Jamal Simmons, MSNBC, June 15, 2013

– “I don’t think these are organized hate groups. These are, by and large, more or less everyday citizens who are very fearful of the way the world is changing around them.” — Mark Potok, (spokesman for the country’s leading hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center) in “Changing World Draws Racist Backlash,” The Philadelphia Tribune, June 28, 2010

I thought it was a nice gesture that Mark admitted that conservatives are not “organized hate groups.” We owe you one, Mark! You’re a super guy.

(3) Call conservatives “aggrieved” as often as possible.

Yes, this from the party of reparations, #BlackLivesMatter, comparable worth, “Lean In,” the DREAM Act and so on. If the Democratic Party were a reality TV show, it would be called “America’s Got Grievances!”

Examples:

– “‘We don’t have victories anymore,’ Mr. Trump told those deeply aggrieved Americans in June.” — Arthur Goldwag, op-ed: “Putting Donald Trump on the Couch,” The New York Times, Sept. 1, 2015

– “Mr. Bush has to win over a fair chunk of the aggrieved, frightened Trump voters.” — New York Times editorial, Aug. 26, 2015

– “You have this aggrieved conservative industry that makes their money by being aggrieved.” — John Feehery, Republican spokesman for former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, quoted in New York Times, Jan. 15, 2015

You’re doing this not just for the $75 you’ll make for writing a Times op-ed. Dreadful hacks meet a need.

A lot of people are followers by nature. They just want to be told: Here are the politicians you admire, and here are the ones you disdain; here are the people you worship, and here are the ones you disparage; here are the TV shows you like, and here are the ones you despise.

Times writers are like personal shoppers for people too lazy to form their own opinions. Just don’t imagine that this is good writing, comedy or art. But it’s not bad for something you can dash off in about 45 minutes!

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagThe Hillary Times

New York Times Stealth-Edits Clinton Email Story at Her Command


waving flagby John Hayward24 Jul 2015

On Thursday evening, the New York Times broke a bombshell story that could spell doom for Hillary Clinton’s already-faltering campaign.  The headline read, “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email.”

The article began as follows: “Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.”

But suddenly, without notice to readers or attribution, the headline was changed to, “Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account.”

It’s so very, very, very good to be Democrat royalty.  You never get asked tough questions about issues that make your big supporters squirm, like Planned Parenthood’s baby parts-harvesting operation.  You’re completely insulated from everything other members of your Party do and say, while every Republican is instantly joined at the hip with the most controversial members of theirs.  Your court media will leap into action at the snap of your fingers, suppressing or blunting stories and headlines that are incredibly damaging to your campaign.cartoon-media-blinders-500

The opening paragraph of the story was stealth-edited to an even more absurd degree, to distance Clinton herself from the story.  It now reads as if she was a bystander to the potentially illegal activity: “Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.” [emphasis added]

The Times even altered the URL of the web page to cover its tracks, evidently having learned that one of the favorite tactics of media watchdogs is to check the URL – which usually defaults to the initial headline – against what the story currently says.

As of Friday morning, there was nothing in the article to indicate it had been changed, or why.  This isn’t a correction or an update – it’s chicanery.Party of Deciet and lies

And there’s no mystery about why, as reporter Michael Schmidt explained to Politico: “It was a response to complaints we received from the Clinton camp that we thought were reasonable, and we made them.”

As for the story itself, interested readers might want to check it out before Hillary Clinton demands more stealth edits from her good friends in the editorial room.  At the moment, it explains that the unnamed inspectors general sent a memo to Patrick F. Kennedy, under secretary of state for management, saying that hundreds of the emails sent through Clinton’s secret, possibly illegal mail server were “potentially classified.”

Clinton has always maintained no formally classified information was sent through the insecure server, although a great deal of unquestionably sensitive material was.  Students of the email scandal have wondered how anyone could effectively serve as Secretary of State without sending or receiving any classified information, although Hillary Clinton’s disastrous performance in the office might actually make her claims of never handling secret documents more plausible.

One of the details that needs clearing up is whether material pumped through Clinton’s basement server was classified at the time.  At least two dozen of the emails she decided to hand over to Congress, rather than pronouncing them “personal” and defying subpoenas to destroy them, were redacted because they have been retroactively classified by the State Department.  It would have been nice to have a Secretary of State who knew better than to send information so sensitive it would be retroactively classified through a hacker-vulnerable mail account she wasn’t supposed to be using in the first place, but here we are.

However, the Times adds: “In a second memo to Mr. Kennedy, sent on July 17, the inspectors general said that at least one email made public by the State Department contained classified information. The inspectors general did not identify the email or reveal its substance.”

The article goes on to discuss the State Department’s generally slipshod handling of sensitive material and its foot-dragging response to Freedom of Information Act requests and congressional subpoenas it has been ignoring, in some cases for years.

Amusingly, the Times reports that “some State Department officials said they believe that many senior officials did not initially take the [House Select Committee on Benghazi] seriously, which slowed document production and created an appearance of stonewalling.”

A branch of Barack Obama’s corrupt, hyper-partisan Administration didn’t think it had to bother with a lawful investigation conducted by the Republican House majority?  Who could have seen that coming?Leftist Giant called Tyranny

On the subject of corruption, don’t hold your breath waiting for Obama’s Justice Department to investigate Hillary Clinton’s email abuses.  They’re too busy launching investigations into the people who would dare expose Planned Parenthood’s possible violation of the law to harvest baby organs for sale, in pursuit of the cash needed to buy expensive sports cars.  This story isn’t likely to go any further than the inspectors general making their recommendation, which is enormously embarrassing for Clinton, and will get people talking about a subject she’s been hoping her loyal friends, financial supporters, and former employees in the press could bury while she lays low during the Trump Moment.

It’s a measure of just how embarrassing it is that she was able to pick up the phone, or maybe fire off an email from one of those portable devices she claims she hates carrying, and get the story stealth-edited in a matter of minutes.

freedom combo 2

Mark Steyn: The Confederate flag is a Democratic problem


waving flagPosted by    Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 8:30am | 6/25/2015 – 8:30am

“The Democratic party has never come to terms with the evil of its past”

Confederate Flag racist mark stein sean hannity republican the confederate flag is a democrat problem

History has a way of bastardizing politically expedient talking points. For example, the Republican party’s long-standing though not widely reported history of standing athwart the institution of slavery. As it turns out in 1987, then Governor Clinton boasted that the blue star on the Arkansas State flag was an homage to the Confederacy. Oops. Guess the New York Times forgot about that.inconvenient truth

Mark Steyn joined Sean Hannity Wednesday to discuss the Confederate flag issue. “The idea that Republicans can have the Confederate flag hung around their necks is ridiculous, it’s a Democrat flag. The states that seceded during the Civil War were all Democrat states. That’s their flag.  The slave states were democrat states, the racist states until the 1960s were Democrat states. The Democratic party was the largest and most powerful institution supporting slavery in the English speaking world, and it is the only one that has survived to the twenty-first century.”

flag

“It’s their flag,” Steyn continued. “Hillary Clinton had it campaign bumper stickers when she ran for president in 2008. You mentioned Robert C. Byrd, Bill Clinton was doing Klu Klux Klan jokes at Robert C. Byrd’s funeral!”f698a-cinjy1luyaaut8v 25683-cino0cauyaaqhcc-jpg-large

Despite their racist past, the Democratic party has thrived for over 150 years, there’s simply nothing like it in the planet, Steyn noted. “People talk about apartheid Africa, the national party came to power in 1948 and they were gone 45 years later, that’s how long they lasted and they’re nothing now.”

“The Democratic party has never come to terms with the evil of its past,” said Steyn.

While I refuse to argue the Confederate flag should be a state symbol (it should not), the fact that Democrats chose to exploit mental illness and tragedy to pretend the entire South (which happens to be solidly Republican) is racist, is perfectly illustrative of egregious historical ignorance. Epidemic of racism

Thank GOD I’m not a Democrat. How embarrassing that must be.confused

freedom combo 2

Clinton Defender Howard Dean Loses Morning Joe


waving flagPosted by Aleister    Friday, April 24, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/04/clinton-defender-howard-dean-loses-morning-joe/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LegalInsurrection+%28Le%C2%B7gal+In%C2%B7sur%C2%B7rec%C2%B7tion%29

Howard Dean MSNBC

Wow. First David Brock and now Howard Dean. Is there something in the water at MSNBC?

Dean is the former chair of the DNC, a role now filled by our favorite Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz. As a long time party loyalist, Dean appeared on Morning Joe yesterday and attempted to downplay new scandalous revelations regarding the Clintons.

Hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough could barely contain their skepticism.

David Rutz of the Washington Free Beacon:

Mika Tires of Howard Dean’s ‘Jihad’ for Clintons: ‘The Facts Are The Facts’

The New York Times reported Thursday that the Clinton Global Initiative accepted millions of dollars from a Russian oil company when the State Department, then headed by Hillary Clinton, was approving a deal that would give Russians control of the company Uranium One and bring Vladimir Putin “closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.” The charges are part of Peter Schweizer’s book Clinton Cash.

Dean, rather than directly address the Clintons’ latest problem, went after Schweizer for taking money from “billionaires” who “support Ted Cruz,” essentially arguing that anything his book revealed should be dismissed because of his conservative political leanings.

Yet, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough pointed out outlets such as the New York Times and others were doing legitimate reporting off the accusations in Schweizer’s work.

“So forget the author at this point,” Brzezinski said. “If the facts are true, we need to pursue that. You can go on your little jihad against the author, but it’s not going to change the facts. The facts are the facts.”Liberalism a mental disorder 2

Watch the exchange:

v04

Dean also recently lashed out at a New York Times reporter on this subject, calling the Times sloppy.

Evan McMurry of Mediaite:

NY Times Reporter Snaps at Howard Dean for Calling Paper ‘Sloppy’

New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters wasn’t taking guff from former DNC chair Howard Dean on Morning Joe Thursday morning.

Dean was there to defend Hillary Clinton against charges leveled in a new book and reported out by the Times that the Clinton Global Initiative took undisclosed funds from a Russian oil company as that company was securing State Department approval for deals in the U.S. The article is part of access deals secured by the Times and others to Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash. Clinton surrogates have spent the past few days criticizing Schweizer as a conservative ideologue funded by right-wing Clinton opponents.

“In general New York Times has been sloppy,” Dean said. “Particularly their political writers. I use the Times as an example in journalism classes, because by the fifth paragraph in any political story…they’re substituting their judgment for news.”

Pass the popcorn, please.

OARLogo Picture6

For Krugman – Up Is Down – Right Is Wrong


by: the The Common ConstitutionalistCommon Constitutionalist / November 8, 2014

URL of Original Posting Site; http://commonconstitutionalist.com/political-stuff/for-krugman-up-is-down-right-is-wrong/

This is the world, according to Paul Krugman, as he shares with us his genius in his latest New York Times column, “Triumph of the Wrong“.

Anyone who knows of Krugman can guess from the title and its proximity to the elections that he is referring to the Republican drubbing of the Democrats last Tuesday. Oh – and that he’s not fond of the result.

He begins his learned piece with this gem: “… of another Republican Party sweep, politics determines who has the power, not who has the truth. Still, it’s not often that a party that is so wrong about so much does as well as Republicans did on Tuesday.”

I actually agree with this statement, save for replacing the “Republicans” with “Obama and his policies”.

He continues by saying: “So now is a good time to remember just how wrong the new rulers of Congress have been about, well, everything.”

He cites the “financial crisis of 200Keynesian-Economics8, brought on by runaway financial institutions” as being caused by the “sacred pursuit of profit”. Krugman claims that the Republicans “invented an imaginary history in which the government was somehow responsible.”

Well Paul, I hate to wrench open your myopic view of history, but it was entirely the fault of government, beginning with Carter administration. You may read all about it here.

Krugman is a big government spending Keynesian(a), and thus he pooh-poohs conservatives “predictions that deficit spending would lead to soaring interest rates, that easy money would lead to runaway inflation and debase the dollar.”

Look how long it took for the housing/banking sector to completely melt down – but meltdown it did. If we continue down the easy Fed money and artificially low interest rate path, everything you claim hasn’t happened, will happen. It has to, providing nothing changes.

Krugman then segues from the financial to the lefts capstone of stupidity – Climate Change. He says that, “these days the [Republican] party is dominated by climate denialists, and to some extent by conspiracy theorists who insist that the whole issue is a hoax concocted by a cabal of left-wing scientists.”

Personally, I know not a single “climate denialist”. Of course the climate changes, as it has for millennia. We on the right are just not as arrogant as you to think man can affect it. And that’s exactly what it is – arrogance.Leftist Religion of Nature Worship

He closes with a question that has haunted and will continue to haunt the modern day left. “But if Republicans have been so completely wrong about everything, why did voters give them such a big victory?”

His answer: The Republicans sabotaged our great president and the Democrats- blocking the path to prosperity for political gain.

Wow!

The facts are, and facts can be scary things to the left, but the facts are that there has never been a single time in history, in any country, including ours, where government spending has led to prosperity, and there never will.

But we will never convince Krugman of this. His warped ideology trumps all.DO NOT JACKASS

(a)Keynesian economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

Keynesian economics (/ˈknziən/ KAYN-zee-ən; or Keynesianism) is the view that in the short run, especially during recessions, economic output is strongly influenced by aggregate demand (total spending in the economy). In the Keynesian view, aggregate demand does not necessarily equal the productive capacity of the economy; instead, it is influenced by a host of factors and sometimes behaves erratically, affecting production, employment, and inflation.[1]

The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented by the British economist John Maynard Keynes in his book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936, during the Great Depression. Keynes contrasted his approach to the aggregate supply-focused ‘classical‘ economics that preceded his book. The interpretations of Keynes that followed are contentious and several schools of economic thought claim his legacy.

Keynesian economists often argue that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes which require active policy responses by the public sector, in particular, monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government, in order to stabilize output over the business cycle.[2] Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy – predominantly private sector, but with a role for government intervention during recessions.

Keynesian economics served as the standard economic model in the developed nations during the later part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973), though it lost some influence following the oil shock and resulting stagflation of the 1970s.[3] The advent of the global financial crisis in 2008 has caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought.[4]

 

NYT: Oh, There Actually Were WMDs, By the Way


Obamacare

By Tad CronnOctober 15, 2014

Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2014/10/nyt-oh-actually-wmds-way/

ISIS found and used Iraq WMDs

Saddam Hussein Chemical Weapons

Without so much as an oops or “sorry for not doing our jobs for 10 years,” the New York Times announced that not only were there weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq by our troops during President Bush’s Administration, but our troopswere wounded by them on at least six occasions.

 

WMDs, of course, are the bugbear of the Left whenever they start talking about Bush and the war in Iraq. The story for a decade has gone that Bush lied about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction just so he could start a war.

For that same decade, conservatives often pointed out that intelligence agencies around the world had the same information the Bush Administration relied on. Even the United Nations weapons inspectors believed the Bush Administration’s numbers, and they should have been in the best position to know.

The truly stalwart refused to accept the media’s judgment and did their own investigating, finding signs of large caches of weapons in obscure military records procured through FOIA requests, or reports buried in U.N. archives about dismantled Iraqi warheads turning up in European scrap yards, their locations given away by lingering radioactive signatures.

But of course that was all conspiracy talk, as far as the Left was concerned, and since the Left controls most of the media, that became the knee-jerk reaction of America. There were no WMDs, that’s it, put your fingers in your ears, la la la la.

The New York Times for years has been at the forefront of the crowd shouting down conservatives, labeling them wingnuts and tinfoil hat wearers. Even conservatives started to believe the smears.

Now, all of a sudden, the Times has done extensive interviews and poring through reports, and it has broken the story: There were WMDs, but the public (conservatives don’t count) didn’t know about it till now. In all, the NYT reports, troops found at least 5,000 warheads, shells and bombs containing poison chemicals. But don’t worry, the NYT assures readers, the WMDs still didn’t justify war with Iraq because most of the shells were old and not part of an active WMD program. So Dubya is still evil, and the Iraq war was still about oil that we never saw in our gas tanks. In fact, the NYT provides a speculative reason for why the Pentagon didn’t announce the WMDs that were found: Many were built by the United States or with U.S. technology before the Gulf War — which in theory would make them the fault of the first President Bush. The NYT conveniently forgets the entire Clinton Administration, during which the WMDs were not destroyed. And because Bill Clinton is a close friend of the Bush’s, it’s equally probably that any coverup was undertaken to protect ol’ Bill as well. The curious thing about the NYT story, though, is its timing. Why has it come out now?

  • Could it have something to do with ISIS recently finding a cache of those WMDs the Left, including the current White House occupant, assured us didn’t exist?

  • And could it have anything to do with the WMDs found in an old Iraqi factory — which the White House guaranteed us had no viable chemical weapons — being used by ISIS against Iraqis and Kurds, as reported by the Guardian?

  • Could it possibly have anything to do with ISIS essentially being created by Obama’s foreign policies and support for Muslims?

  • Might there be a connection to the ongoing failure of Obama’s aerial assault plan to actually stop ISIS?

  • Could there be a connection to a recent ISIS training video that clearly shows U.S. arms and tents being used by the terrorists?

Don’t look at the Obama Administration’s incompetence, look at this stuff from the Bush Era and believe that the Obama Administration is trying really, really, really hard. Really.isis found wmds

About the Author; Tad Cronn

Tad Cronn is a member of an endangered species, the California conservative. Once abundant, California conservatives have seen their habitat increasingly overrun and heavily regulated by Los Angeles liberals and other non-native rodent species. This makes surviving conservatives such as Tad very grumpy and prone to sarcasm. Feed him at your own risk.

Article collective closing

NY Times Reporter Facing Jail Sentence Warns of Obama’s Tyranny (and We Should Listen)


Complete Message

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/08/18/ny-times-reporter-facing-jail-sentence-warns-of-obamas-tyranny-and-we-should-listen/

August 18, 2014 By

ZRisenObama
Imperial President ObamaIt remains astonishing to many that the mainstream media continues to work to shield President Obama and his administration from a healthy level of scrutiny. While it has historically served as the main function of America’s free press to hold public officials to account for their policies and governance, the mainstream media has turned further and further to the left in recent decades and the liberal bias has reached a fever pitch during the presidency of Barack Obama. 
 
That may be changing slightly, however, as even the most liberal bastions of bias are timidly speaking out against the Obama Administration’s bullying of the press.
 
Though the Obama Administration has, from the earliest moments in power, served as a hostile enemy to conservative alternative media outlets and mainstream news outlet Fox News, even the most-liberal organizations have begun to speak out against the administration that bullies reporters and various journalists for simply trying to do their job.
 
For example, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist for the New York Times, James Obama as King GeorgeRisen, has recently spoken  out and labeled President Obama the “greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation.”
 
Risen is currently facing the possibility of a jail sentence for refusing to reveal a confidential source and testify against a former CIA agent who the government alleges leaked government secrets.
 
Indeed, in Obama’s America, it is not enough to penalize those that tell secrets, but instead, they seek to punish those who hear them.
 
Risen revealed the details of a botched intelligence operation that ended up divulging nuclear secrets to Iran. The Justice Department has been after him for years and he may be in prison as early as the fall.
 
Speaking in an interview with his colleague, Maureen Dowd, Risen was calm when he discussed his case, but noted that he was furious about the hypocrisy of the Obama Administration with regards to press freedoms.
 
Both Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have blasted Ferguson police for their willingness to detain journalists who were reporting on the riots in the St. Louis suburb. 
Speaking from his lavish vacation on Martha’s Vineyard, Obama denounced the police tactics used on the reporters and said, “Here in the United States of America, police should not be bullying or arresting journalists who are just trying to do their jobs.” 
16Still, that is precisely what is being done to Risen on a federal level. 
“It’s hypocritical,” Risen said. “A lot of people still think this is some kind of game or signal or spin. They don’t want to believe that Obama wants to crack down on the press and whistleblowers. But he does. He’s the greatest enemy to press freedom in a generation.” 
This administration has maintained a relationship with the press that can only be summarized as overbearing and hostile. Even Bob Woodward, one half of the famous reporting duo who took down President Nixon, has revealed that he’s been bullied and threatened by the Obama Administration for having not painted them in a flattering light on some issues.
 
Others have been routinely restricted access as punishment for having commented on aspects of the president’s policies that have gone over poorly. Photographers have been similarly abused and kept from important press events. Instead, this administration has sought to more and more take their own pictures and issue packets of officially-approved photos to media outlets in lieu of legitimate reporting and photography.
 
Risen is no amateur; he is a highly respected member of the media and one who has been quite lenient with this administration in his reporting. As Risen warns of the dangers of the tyrant who resides in the White House, all Americans, especially those interested in a free press, ought to pay close attention to his warnings.  
Article collective closing

Ann Coulter Letter


http://www.humanevents.com/2014/05/14/death-penalty-opponents-have-i-got-a-deal-for-you/

Death penalty opponents, have I got a deal for you!

Ann Coulter

Death penalty opponents, have I got a deal for you!As described in last week’s column, the New York Times and other sanctimonious news outlets censored details about the crime that put Clayton Lockett on death row, the better to generate revulsion at his deserved execution. You might say they buried the facts alive.

For example, the Times neglected to mention anything about the raping that preceded the murdering, which seems odd for a newspaper so consumed with the “War on Women.” (At least Lockett never refused to pay for a woman’s birth control pills!)

The Times also dropped the part about Lockett’s dangerous behavior while incarcerated, such as ordering hits on the witnesses against him, his threats to kill prison guards, and the bounty of homemade weapons seized from him in prison — saw blades, sharpened wires, shivs and shanks. (Old Times motto: “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” New Times motto: “Nobody Likes a Rat.”)

The newspaper also failed to report that Lockett had ended up in an adult prison by the age of 16 and then was convicted of four more felonies before committing the torture-murder of Stephanie Neiman that sent him to death row.

No, that information might distract from the Times’ florid descriptions of Lockett’s execution.

Bless their hearts, they gave it their all, but even the Times could not make Lockett’s “botched” execution sound particularly grisly. Here is the paper’s full, terrifying description:

“According to an eyewitness account by a reporter for The Tulsa World, Mr. Lockett tried to raise himself up, mumbled the word ‘man,’ and was in obvious pain. Officials hastily closed the blinds on the chamber and told reporters that the execution had been stopped because of a ‘vein failure.’ But at 7:06, the inmate was pronounced dead of a heart attack.”

HE RAISED HIMSELF UP? WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY ARE WE???

Actually, I’m not that horrified. It sounds as if he suffered a bit, which is nice, and he’s dead, which was the objective of the whole enterprise.

You want horrifying? Imagine a 2-inch baby being chopped up with scissors. That can’t feel great.

Maybe they — and MSNBC’s similarly high-minded Rachel Maddow — should comfort themselves by thinking of Lockett’s execution as a very, very, very late-term abortion. You know, the kind that liberal darling Wendy Davis filibustered for 11 hours to keep legal.

Since Rachel and the Times are such big fans of partial-birth abortion, would they mind if we took a gigantic pair of scissors, jammed them in the back of Clayton Lockett’s head and let his brain slide out? Let’s get Kermit Gosnell working again!

Or how about giving the citizens of Oklahoma the right to choose an acid bath for condemned murderers? We’ll submerge people like Lockett in a tub filled with burning fluid until he’s mostly disintegrated and can be flushed down the toilet. (If it’s low-flow, flush twice.)

Or maybe an industrial vacuum designed to tear Lockett’s body apart.

Which reminds me: Would the Times ever give as detailed a description of an abortion as it does for the execution of a remorseless killer? The odds are pretty high that the baby isn’t even a rapist/murderer.

Opposition to the death penalty has nothing to do with compassion. Liberals weeping for murderers have zero compassion for an innocent baby trying to escape an abortionist’s cranioclast. Their dead earnestness about monsters like Clayton Lockett is solely designed to demonstrate how virtuous they are.

It will come as a surprise to the sort of person who works at the Times, but there are lots of people who don’t go through life trying to prove they’re better than everyone else. They don’t think to themselves: Listen to NPR? Check. Got the kids into a fancy preschool? Check. Now, what’s that little extra for experts? … Defend depraved murderers! Check!

Manifestly, these death penalty hysterics do not care about the victims of crime. But they don’t really care about the killers, either. Their only objective is to increase their self-esteem.

This is why liberal arguments against the death penalty are always circular. It’s not about logic; it’s about their conception of themselves.

U.S. pharmaceutical companies won’t sell lethal injection drugs to the states because they don’t want to be sued and harassed by anti-death penalty activists. European pharmaceutical companies refuse to sell the drugs to the U.S. because they’re so deeply committed to human rights — as we saw around the middle of the last century.

Then they all turn around and complain when crummy substitutes fail to produce nice, peaceful exits for heinous murderers. (You know — like they gave their victims.)

It’s exactly like the left’s complaint that the death penalty “costs too much.”

Q: Why is it so expensive?

A: Because we sue, drag the cases out forever with endless appeals and require states to spend millions of dollars on legal costs.

How about we cut the Euros and lefty activists out of the execution process altogether with a voluntary firing squad? It’s quick, it’s effective and the whole community gets to participate!

The state could run ads in newspapers giving detailed accounts of the condemned man’s crime — all that stuff the New York Times frantically hides from its readers — and then ask: “Would you be interested in being assigned to his firing squad?”

The Supreme Court has defined “cruel and unusual punishment” as something that offends society’s “evolving sense of decency.” When we see how many people volunteer for the firing squad, we’ll at least have a back-of-the-envelope estimate on whether society’s “evolving sense of decency” is more offended by the death of Clayton Lockett or that of Stephanie Neiman.

I know I’d volunteer. Having read the truth about what psychopaths like Clayton Lockett have done, I’d pay for the opportunity, especially if they promise my gun won’t have a blank.

Ann Coulter is author of the new book, Never Trust a Liberal Over Three – Especially a Republican (Regnery 2013).

WE MUST NEVER FORGETVOTE 02

These Maps Destroy Any Objections to Keystone XL Pipeline


http://freebeacon.com/blog/these-maps-destroy-any-objections-to-keystone-xl-pipeline/

An activist dressed as a polar bear participates in a protest vigil in Lafayette Park across from the White House

On Friday, President Barack Obama extended the decision on Canada’s Keystone XL pipeline until after the 2014 midterm elections. Announced on a Friday afternoon (the Good Friday holiday, no less) the story was barely covered by mainstream media outlets already heading out of town for their extended Easter weekend.

In a call with reporters on Friday, a Senior State Department official speaking on background said the administration “felt that it is important to have additional information and a better understanding of what that route might be, because it could have implications for the environmental, cultural and socioeconomic impacts that are being evaluated by the agencies.”

This explanation is spurious, at best. The U.S. portion of Keystone will consist of 1,078 miles of 30″ pipeline. Sounds like a major environmental issue, right? Not when compared to the already existing 2.3 million miles of pipeline already in the U.S. pumping petroleum, gas, and chemical products every day.

via ProPublica

To hear Obama warn against Keystone, you’d think this 1,000 miles of new pipe would be the deal-breaker in his campaign promise to slow the rise of the ocean’s tides. It defies any sense of logic or reason to suggest that 1,000 miles of new pipeline, installed with 2014 technology, would somehow endanger humanity when we already have 2,300 times that much already working without catastrophe.

kestonexl

So what is at play in this decision?

The answer could be found in the New York Times just two months ago:

A billionaire retired investor is forging plans to spend as much as $100 million during the 2014 election, seeking to pressure federal and state officials to enact climate change measures through a hard-edge campaign of attack ads against governors and lawmakers.Tyranney Alert

How would a billionaire environmentalist effect the President’s unpopular decision to delay the Keystone decision? Politico connected some of the dots:

He spent millions on the 2013 Massachusetts Senate and Virginia governor’s races, helping Democrats Ed Markey and Terry McAuliffe prevail, and has become one of the most outspoken opponents of the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline. The group has also showed signs it’s willing to go after Democrats who support Keystone, possibly including vulnerable Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu.

Bottom line: There’s money in them thar anti-Keystone hills!

Most observers believe Obama will eventually make the obvious decision to allow Keystone. Big Labor supports it as well as a majority of U.S. senators, including many from his own party.

That’s what makes the delay so transparently cynical: As long as the Keystone question is open, the big money from deep-pocketed donors who have an obsession with global warming will continue to gush into the Democrat’s coffers.

New York Times Surrenders to Shariah Savagery in Promoting Jews as a “Cancer”


I am an Evangelical Spirit Filled Christian. This article may sound like it is written by a Catholic apologist, but that is not the truth. This lady is well know and respected in conservative circles and is adamant about her research and drive to get the truth out about Islam, Sharia and the slow, but steady, push to take over as much of America as possible.If you have been paying attention, you have witnessed, as I have, that it appears the Obama Whitehouse is trying to establish Islam as the State Religion. Please read the following with your spirit, not through any prejudice.

Jerry Broussard

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

 http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/new-york-times-surrenders-shariah-savagery-promoting-jews-cancer/#ixzz2mLqwpWNp

On the first night of Chanukah, the New York Times indulged in its grotesque penchant for  its special brand of subtle, sophisticated Jew-hatred, on the front page – of course.

Not only did the New York Times publish a nipple on the front page (a first)  next to a tattooed Jewish star, but the article is all about  the cancerous Jews. Front page stuff, don’t you know? All the Jews that are fit  to libel in print:

While poor countries struggle to provide even basic cancer care to  women, wealthier societies like Israel and the United States are  increasingly using sophisticated technologies to identify those at greatest  risk  in an effort to thwart the disease before it gets started.

NYT-340x170Front page. It’s really vile – disgusting. A tattooed  (tattoos are a violation of Jewish law) Jewish star above a nipple as the image  for the “Jews’ genetic predisposition to cancer.” Jews = cancer. Jews were  tattooed and naked when they were killed in concentration camps. The Times must  be taking its talking points from Iran.

I would love to see the New York Times dare to run a front-page article on  cancerous Muslims, illustrated with a half-naked Muslima’s nipple on Ramadan.  Yeah, right. They like their building too much.

But this is par for the course for the Times. When the jihad terror group  Hamas several weeks ago appointed a woman as its spokesperson, its front to the  world, the real story was the New  York Times headline: “Conservative Hamas Appoints First Spokeswoman.”   Anyone can see past this ruse: pimping a woman to do your savage messaging.  Hamas was obviously moved by how eager Obama was to buy the Iranian “moderate”  Rouhani ruse. But the New York Times’ use of the word “conservative” to  describe  Hamas is what is most revealing.

Hamas is a designated terrorist group by the United States government. Hamas  is a devout Muslim group that exists solely to annihilate the Jewish people.  The  New York Times and other mainstream organizations refuse to speak to the  Islamic  motive behind Hamas’ savagery and its vicious acts of mass murder, but  they  freely call it “conservative” to smear and libel true  conservatives.

Conservative what, exactly? Muslims? No, they are devout and deeply religious  Muslims. The New York Times never ever speaks to that.

And in October, the Daily  Caller reported that “earlier this month, the New York Times announced that it had hired Egyptian novelist Alaa  Al-Aswany to write a monthly column for the paper. But according to Egypt  scholar Eric Trager of the Washington Institute for Near East  Policy, Al-Aswany buys into the conspiratorial notion that a cabal of Jews  controls American leaders.”

Like Islamic supremacists across the world, the New York Times is throwing  off what little mask there is left to reveal its true agenda of hate.

Al-Aswany insists that he is simply anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic, but that  is dishonest. Anti-Zionism is merely a marketing tool for  annihilationists. Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.

And in March 2012, a virulently anti-Catholic ad ran in the New York Times. That ad inspired  me to create the same ad but for one thing: a different religion. The craven  quislings at the New York Times rejected our ad.

Bob Christie, senior vice president of corporate communications for the New  York Times, called me to advise me that they would be accepting my ad, but  considering the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, it would not be a good  time to run it, as they did not want to enflame an already hot situation. They  will be reconsidering it for publication in “a few months.”

So I said to Mr. Christie, “Isn’t this the very point of the ad? If you  feared the Catholics were going to attack the New York Times building, would  you  have run that ad?”

Mr. Christie said, “I’m not here to discuss the anti-Catholic ad.”

I said, “But I am, it’s the exact same ad.”

He said, “No, it’s not.”

I said, “I can’t believe you’re bowing to this Islamic barbarity and  thuggery. I can’t believe this is the narrative. You’re not accepting my ad.  You’re rejecting my ad. You can’t even say it.”

We used the same language as the anti-Catholic ad. The only difference was  that ours was true and what we describe is true. The anti-Catholic ad was  written by fallacious feminazis.

It was most disingenuous for the New York Times to refuse to run our  counter-jihad ad based on their “concern for U.S. troops in Afghanistan.”  Liars.  Who has done more to jeopardize our troops and American  citizens than the  pro-jihadist New York Times? They are notorious for  their treasonous reportage.

The New York Times leaked FISA and admitted that they released this information knowing  that it would damage national security. Porter  Goss told  the Senate at that time that the New York Times leaks had damaged our intelligence gathering capability, and in so  doing, our national security.

The New York Times exposed a “highly classified Pentagon order” authorizing Special  Operations forces to hunt al-Qaida leaders in mountains of Pakistan. The New  York Times exposed SWIFT (which put military and civilians at great risk of  jihad). SWIFT was a legal secret program that gave the government access to a  massive database of international financial transactions, using “broad  subpoenas  to collect the financial records from an international system.”

But it has no reservations about submitting to the bloody demands of Shariah  and spreading Jew-hatred on its front page. The New York  Times has surrendered to savagery

 About Pamela Geller

Pamela Geller is the founder, editor and  publisher of Atlas Shrugs.com  and President of the American  Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and Stop  Islamization of America (SIOA). She is the author of The  Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America,  (foreword by Ambassador John Bolton), (Simon & Schuster). Stop  the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. She is  also a regular columnist for World Net Daily, the American Thinker, and other  publications.  Follow her on Facebook & Twitter

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/new-york-times-surrenders-shariah-savagery-promoting-jews-cancer/#P8KTlMAsBmfXOkmv.99

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: