Filed under: Liberalism, Media Bias, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear | Tags: New York Times, Seattle PI
With Obama poised to take the oath of office and Democrats about to unleash untold damage on our great republic, many conservatives simply aren’t feeling the hope™ vibe so rampant among America’s socialists, communists, and other Obama supporters whom I affectionately refer to as “suckers”.
But despair not! All is not doomed. There is a silvery ray of sunshine lining the dark clouds ahead.
Rejoice! my fellow conservatives… the mainstream press is dying.
All around the mainstream media, ad revenues are down, jobs are being slashed, and publishers are scrambling for ways to make ends meet as readers abandon ship. First came news, a few weeks back, that the execrable New York Times, drowning in red ink, would be mortgaging its posh Manhattan headquarters to pay the bills. Then, last week, it was announced the equally repugnant, albeit markedly smaller, Seattle Post Intelligencer would be put on the block, and if no buyer comes forward within 60 days, will print no more. Now we learn the hopelessly biased Minneapolis Star Tribune has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
They all deserve it. It is not without good reason that the American people regularly rank the press down with lawyers, politicians, and organized labor as the most distrusted, least admired institutions.
Now, let’s kick them while they’re down. This blog has already sworn off linking to the New York Times and other worst offenders. It’s really rather easy to do without the liberal media. Any story they cover is almost always covered more accurately and more fairly by other publications and blogs.
But, if by chance you still subscribe to one of these fish-wraps, what better time to cancel your subscription? Perhaps we can usher them into more fitting careers in, say… waste management or sewage treatment!
Filed under: Election 2008, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Media Bias, News, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear, Politics, Terrorism, Uncategorized | Tags: John McCain, Media Bias, New York Times, Obama
Once again The New York Times proves they are not in the news business, but rather the propaganda business. The erstwhile “paper of record”, now known more for the wanton publication of national security secrets than objective reporting, has rejected John McCain’s response to Barack Obama’s Op-Ed which America’s answer to Pravda ran last week.
It’s no wonder then, that an increasing number of Americans believe the mainstream media are trying to influence the election in Obama’s favor. Forty-nine percent believe journalists are trying to throw the election to Obama — and this is before news of the NYT’s shenanigans — while only 14 percent of the most deranged leftists thought the media would try to help McCain, and only one in four voters thought the media would play fair.
In defense of his decision, the NYT’s Op-Ed Editor, former Special Assistant and Senior Speechwriter to Bill Clinton, David Shipley, wrote:
Thank you for sending me Senator McCain’s essay.
I’d be very eager to publish the Senator on the Op-Ed page.
However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.
…It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate.
But setting “timetables” and announcing “troop levels” are two of the major disagreements McCain, and the military leaders in Iraq, have with Obama’s Iraq policy du jour. In other words, Shipley wants McCain to endorse Obama’s current plan.
Thankfully, McCain told The Times to go to hell, although, to our disappointment, not in so many words.
So, since the Rag of Record, The Obama Times, The Old Grey Leftist, won’t publish it, we are proud to. Here is John McCain’s Op-Ed in full:
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
If you haven’t already, you can cancel your subscription to The New York Times here, or by calling 1-800-NYTIMES.
Filed under: Media Bias, News, Politics, Pop Culture | Tags: Debunking Liberal Lies, New York Times
I only wish it were possible to NOT buy even more copies of the NYT. Even so, it warms the cockles of my “cold” conservative heart to watch that lying socialist propaganda rag continuing its journey down the toilet.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, History, Media Bias, News, Politics | Tags: Communism, EU, NATO, New York Times, Russia, Soviet Union, Ukraine, War, WW2
Russia’s lawmakers have passed a resolution stating that the 1930’s famine that killed millions of peasants in Soviet Ukraine should not be considered genocide. Even Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the 89 year old renowned author dismissed Ukrainian claims that the famine was genocide as a myth. Historians agree that the 1932-1933 famine was instituted by Soviet authorities under Joseph Stalin.
Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko is leading an effort to gain international recognition of the famine as an act of genocide.
That the Great Famine was engineered to force peasants to give up their plots of land and establish collective farms is a matter of history. The number of peasants deliberately starved to death is estimated to be around 10 million, but the actual number is unknown. Grain was removed by the authorities from the villages, and the animals, and any food, and the peasants and their children were forced to remain. Ukrainians call it Holodomor, or death by hunger.
Many argue that the famine was meant to target private landowners as a social class in order to pay for the rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union. Others suggest that the famine was simply meant to eliminate Ukrainians as an ethnic group, as if one were better than the other.
President Vladimir Putin’s government has angrily clashed with nations formerly of the Soviet bloc about efforts to reinterpret 20th century events. Moscow accuses those nations of seeking to rewrite history and cast Russia as the villain.
Americans in 1933 were assured by New York Times correspondent Walter Duranty that “any report of famine” was “exaggeration or malignant propaganda”. Duranty received the Pulitzer Prize for his reporting, though the British chargé d’affaires in Moscow reported in his dispatach that “According to Mr Duranty the population of the North Caucasus and the Lower Volga had decreased in the past year by three million and the population of the Ukraine by four to five million”. Robert Conquest says that “the influence of his false reporting was enormous and long-lasting”.
Also in the news is President Bush’s visit to the Ukraine to stress America’s support for its leaders hopes to join NATO. President and Mrs. Bush visited a memorial honoring famine victims along with President and Mrs. Yushchenko.
Of course the demand for the recognition of the Great Famine as an act of genocide is connected to Ukraine’s desire for NATO membership, and Russia’s angry denials are a sign of their displeasure at the actions of its former state.
Events have consequences. People have long memories.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, News, Politics | Tags: Afghanistan, Debunking Liberal Lies, Iraq, Liberal lies and corruption, Media Bias, New York Times, Veterans
The news out of Iraq has been very good indeed — both military and civilian deaths have been drastically reduced, Iraqis are making significant political progress both at the local and national levels — a peaceful, stable Iraq seems more and more realistic all the time. Just the kind of news everyone should welcome.
Not the New York Times.
In fact, so distraught has the Grey Lady been over all the good news from Iraq, and the complete absense of any bad news for them to distort, exaggerate, and misrepresent, that they resorted to the only option left in their playbook — they decided to fabricate bad news instead.
So, last Sunday, the loathsome propagandists ran a huge front-page story (above the fold of course) smearing Iraq veterans as war-traumatized killers, coming home to spawn a nationwide epidemic of murder.
Town by town across the country, headlines have been telling similar stories. Lakewood, Wash.: “Family Blames Iraq After Son Kills Wife.” Pierre, S.D.: “Soldier Charged With Murder Testifies About Postwar Stress.” Colorado Springs: “Iraq War Vets Suspected in Two Slayings, Crime Ring.”
Individually, these are stories of local crimes, gut-wrenching postscripts to the war for the military men, their victims and their communities. Taken together, they paint the patchwork picture of a quiet phenomenon, tracing a cross-country trail of death and heartbreak.
The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war.
What the scum, and yes, these “journalists” and editors really are treasonous scum, at the NYT refuse to tell their readers, as any responsible journalists would do, was that despite their best efforts to show otherwise, according to the Times’ own figures, the rate of murders committed by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans is far, FAR LESS than that of the general population! WAAAAY less.
John Hinderaker at Powerline does the number-crunching to put the blatant lie to the Times’ smear:
Do the math: the 121 alleged instances of homicide identified by the Times, out of a population of 700,000, works out to a rate of 17 per 100,000–quite a bit lower than the overall national rate of around 27.
But wait! The national rate of 27 homicides per 100,000 is an annual rate, whereas the Times’ 121 alleged crimes were committed over a period of six years. Which means that, as far as the Times’ research shows, the rate of homicides committed by military personnel who have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan is only a fraction of the homicide rate for other Americans aged 18 to 24. Somehow, the Times managed to publish nine pages of anecdotes about the violence wreaked by returning servicemen without ever mentioning this salient fact.
The figures prove not only are our veterans NOT the war-crazed, cold-blooded murderers the Times makes them out to be — but the veterans of the US military are the very safest, most honorable company you could ever possibly hope to keep!
I don’t care how you feel about the war — this kind of intentional, dishonest, smear should be unacceptable to all Americans. I am still livid 5 days after the story broke! And the NYT has been originating and propagating such lies and heinous distortions since the war began. They have leaked national secrets that have made us all less safe, and printed information they knew would put Americans in danger.
I will not link to any story in the NYT, especially not this one. They are not honest purveyors of news, they are activists with an agenda, willing to betray the truth and their country for their political purposes.
I want to do everything in my power to drive these reprehensible hacks, whom I truly believe to be treasonous, out of business. Not only are they lying to the American people about our military men and women, they are lying to the world. They have done great harm to our nation, our people and our men and women in uniform while they are fighting on the battlefield.
If you still subscribe to the Times, I hope you will cancel your subscription here, or by calling 1-800-NYTIMES. If you are not a subscriber, I hope you will join me in refusing to visit or generate traffic to their site.
If you are as outraged as me, I hope you will even consider contacting businesses like Starbucks and other restaurants, Doctors’ offices, hotels, stores and other businesses that purchase bulk quantities of, or subscribe to the NYT and telling them you would appreciate it if they would give their business to a more honest, less controversial publication.
Many of these companies, like Starbucks, choose to carry the Times over other, more reputable papers. You might remind them it makes good business sense to switch to a paper that doesn’t offend so many of their customers.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Iraq, Media Bias, News, Politics | Tags: Democrat Corruption, Iraq, liberalism, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, Mainstream Media, New York Times, Support the Troops!, Terrorism, War on Terror
No, don’t bother. That question has already been answered by the radical, subversive, treasonous New York Times.
No longer content with simply divulging national security secrets and publishing enemy propaganda, the Times has taken upon itself the role of Offensive Operations Research Management—A terrorist think-tank if you will. Ever seeking to plumb new depths, the Times has published an article online, entitled, “If You Were a Terrorist, How Would You Attack?” Unbelievable!
“Hearing about these rules got me thinking about what I would do to maximize terror if I were a terrorist,” writes Steven Levitt as he waxes philosophic how best to inflict maximum pain and damage on the United States and the American people.
Apparently the Times feels the terrorists are not having enough success, for after he proposes his own ideas he closes by recruiting readers to take up the cause, “I’m sure many readers have far better ideas. I would love to hear them.”
Well, let me take a stab at answering the Times’ question… If I were a terrorist, I would bombard the useful idiots in the mainstream media with propaganda, staged video and photographs, fabricated stories of massacres and other fictional attrocities. (Why bother fighting the American military? I know full well I’d be obliterated if I did.) And I’d attack civilians for the benefit of the cameras—all with the hope that the media would be stupid enough, and despicable enough to publish and broadcast my lies, propaganda and photo-op-attacks, and use them to turn public opinion against those who are fighting me.
Oh wait! They’re already doing that! …God help us all!
If, by chance, you still subscribe to the Times (or as I like to call it, “the Mouth of Sauron”), and you’d like to cancel your subscription, you can do so by calling 1-800-NYTIMES or by visiting homedelivery.nytimes.com. If you patronize Starbucks, or any other business that offers the Times, ( i.e. hotels or doctors’ offices) you might consider suggesting that they drop the Times, and offer more responsible papers (the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times or even Weekly World News for crying out loud) instead.