Saturday, May 27, 2017

New York Times

by -

The New York Times decided to publish a hit piece on Donald Trump, but at least one of the women interviewed for the article was completely misquoted.

It is no surprise that Donald Trump has taken a lashing in the media, but it is the constant misquoting that is changing the narrative on Trump. Fortunately, he fights back hard.

Normally it is Trump that is misquoted, but now the media is even misquoting people who know Donald to make sure the spin stays negative.

Here is an interview on Fox News with Rowanne Brewer Lane as she exposed the New York Times‘ bias against Donald Trump and how she was unfairly portrayed.

The way that Donald Trump has been treated in the national media is a disgrace and it makes it so hard for Americans to make an informed decision when they vote.

Do you think that the media has treated Donald Trump unfairly? Let us know in the comments.

by -

In public, Ted Cruz seems to be a big fan of Donald Trump. But in private, he’s singing a different tune.

At a closed-door fundraising event in New York City, Cruz had plenty to say both about Trump and about another one of his opponents, Dr. Ben Carson. Unfortunately for the Texas Senator, Cruz’s comments were caught on tape by an attendee and leaked to The New York Times.

“Both of them I like and respect,” said Mr. Cruz, about Trump and Carson. “I don’t believe either one of them is going to be our president.”

Which isn’t an unexpected statement, since obviously, Cruz is running against Carson and Trump–and no matter how nice he may be in public, he’s running to beat them.

But then Cruz went beyond mere election platitudes–when he quickly listed exactly why he though both Trump and Carson were uniquely unqualified to be President.

Cruz explained: “You look at Paris, you look at San Bernardino, it’s given a seriousness to this race, that people are looking for: Who is prepared to be a commander in chief? Who understands the threats we face?”

He added, “Who am I comfortable having their finger on the button? Now that’s a question of strength, but it’s also a question of judgment. And I think that is a question that is a challenging question for both of them.”

Cruz also hinted at why he’s playing nice with both candidates right now: it’s not because he actually likes them but, rather, because he’s planning on snatching up their adoring supporters when their campaigns fall apart.

“So my approach, much to the frustration of the media, has been to bear hug both of them, and smother them with love,” Cruz explained.

He added, “I believe gravity will bring both of those campaigns down” and “the lion’s share of their supporters come to us.”

After The New York Times released the controversial audio recording, Cruz was asked about his remarks after a speech in Washington. Cruz simply replied that he was “not going to comment on what I may or may not have said at a private fund-raiser.”

by -

The New York Times’ Bestseller List is synonymous with the top selling books in America–but, now, there’s one top-selling author whose book purposely won’t be on the list: Ted Cruz.

Cruz’s new memoir, “A Time for Truth,” was released on June 30 and sold 11,854 copies in its first week–which should place it at #3 on the Times’ list, since it has sold more than all but two of the other entries on the list.

But, curiously, Cruz’s name wasn’t included on the list–even though fellow Republican presidential candidates, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, made the cut, despite selling fewer books. When his publisher, HarperCollins, wrote a letter to ask why Cruz hadn’t been included, the New York Times came back with a long explanation–that, curiously, said just about nothing.

“We have uniform standards that we apply to our best seller list, which includes an analysis of book sales that goes beyond simply the number of books sold,” Eileen Murphy, spokesperson for The New York Times, explained. “This book didn’t meet that standard this week.”

Fair enough. But, when asked what those exact standards were, that Ted Cruz violated (but other presidential candidates didn’t?), Murphy had

“Our goal is that the list reflect authentic best sellers, so we look at and analyze not just numbers, but patterns of sales for every book.”

Huh? It’s a best-selling list. If Cruz sold more copies than almost every other book in America, why wouldn’t he be included?

The New York Times has no answer–which makes it all the more clear that the mainstream media, including the newspaper that used to bill itself as including “all the news that’s fit to print,” would rather keep conservatives down than report the news as it appears.

by -

Earlier this week the New York Times published a portrait of Pope Benedict XVI made completely out of condoms.

The decision to publish Niki Johnsons “artwork” called “Eggs Benedict” stands in sharp contrast to the Mohammad cartoons that ran in the French magazine Charlie Hebdo – an act of Free Speech and Free Press that two Muslim terrorists used as an excuse to storm the magazine’s Paris headquarters and kill 10 of its employees.

In making their “editorial decision” the New York Times didn’t pause to consider if the image would be offensive to Catholics or Christians at large… or that its’ publication might provoke violence because that’s not what Christians do.

Radical Muslims on the other hand promise – and deliver – lethal violence against those who “offend the prophet” by first drawing and then publishing the result in their daily pages. That’s probably why the NYT did not republish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons because they were deemed “too offensive” to print.

NYT’s act of journalistic self-censorship proves that America’s self-appointed cultural elites know they can sell newspapers by insulting Christianity and defaming its’ leaders without fear of reprisal because doing so does not violate Sharia Law.

According to Johnson, her portrait was “not hate-based”. Rather, it was meant to “critique” Pope Benedict’s views on sex and contraception while “raising awareness about public health.”

“What I want to do is really destigmatize the condom, normalize it,” she told the newspaper. “I’ve watched kids and parents talk about condoms. It opens a door to talking about what those things are and what they do.”

Forget for a moment that “watching kids and parent talk about condoms” is what kids and parents are supposed to do in the privacy of their homes, at a time of their choosing and in a way that is sensitive to the innocence of youth.

Johnson on the other hand is impatient for the conversation to begin. Johnson believes it is her job to come between parent and child… to shake things up like a bull in a china shop… force a conversation on difficult issues like abortion and contraception… and insult Catholics worldwide if necessary to do it.

The Times’ decision to run an image of “Eggs Benedict” comes just five months after the paper announced that it would not show Charlie Hebdo’s infamously provocative artwork.

The newspaper’s executive editor, Dean Baquet, said in public statement at the time that the French satirical magazine’s cartoons were simply too offensive for publication.

“Was it hard to deny our readers these images? Absolutely. But we still have standards, and they involve not running offensive material,” Baquet told the Washington Examiner in January.”

“And they don’t meet our standards. They are provocative on purpose. They show religious figures in sexual positions. We do not show those.”

Without speaking to the accuracy of Baquet’s descriptions of the drawings, are we to believe that the Mohammed cartoons are provocative on purpose but that the “Egg Benedict” image of the Pope made out of condoms that they rushed into print is provocative by accident?

Does this line of reasoning justify the attack on Charlie Hebdo’s Paris offices that left 10 journalists dead – a just outcome for a magazine that repeatedly mocked Islam and Muhammad on purpose?

Pounding his chest in self-righteousness, Baquet points out in a statement to Politico:

“[L]et’s not forget the Muslim family in Brooklyn who read us and is offended by any depiction of what he sees as his prophet…” “I don’t give a damn about the head of [the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] but I do care about that family and it is arrogant to ignore them.”

Times’ associate managing editor for standards Phil Corbett goes further telling The Washington Examiner in defense of the newspaper’s decision to publish Johnson’s “artwork” that:

“There’s no simple, unwavering formula we can apply in’ situations like this. We really don’t want to gratuitously offend anyone’s deeply held beliefs. That said, it’s probably impossible to avoid ever offending anyone…”

“We have to make these judgments all the time. Reasonable people might disagree about any one of them,” he said.”

That said, Corbett went on – using the pages of his newspaper as a cudgel – to “gratuitously offend” 1.2 billion Catholics who don’t express their outrage by killing people with whom they disagree.

by -

The New York Times–one of the most storied news sources in the world, the newspaper that once bragged it contained “all the news that’s fit to print”–is now actively calling for “a new black radicalism.”

And yes, “black radicalism” is exactly what it sounds like.

In the wake of the Charleston church shooting–where Dylann Roof, a young white supremacist, killed nine African-American churchgoers–New York Times writer, Chris Lebron, decided that enough is enough.

He decided that, if Americans are going to stop white-on-black violence, white people are going to have to pay. He doesn’t rule out increased violence to get his point across.

It’s not just a ludicrous idea–advocating that one race rise up and “radically” go after another is actively dangerous. Especially when it’s printed and publicized by one of the largest newspapers in the country.

Lebron defines this so-called “black radicalism” as “…not merely rationally persuading white Americans, but to intentionally unsettle and dislodge them from the comforts of white privilege.”

And when he says he plans to accomplish that radically–well, he means radically.

He doesn’t mean sit-ins or peaceful protests, like America had in the 1960s.

In fact, he argues that “blacks should not desire [Martin Luther King, Jr.’s] second coming… It seems to me that the days of sitting at the lunch counter and enduring inhumane abuses must be left to history.”

Instead of the kind of peaceful protest that attracted people of all races, made King a national legend, and helped pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Lebron urges something “more appropriately radical for our present moment.”

He doesn’t explicitly say what that “appropriately radical” response is. But when he asks himself whether this black radicalism can be widespread violence, he admits, “Yes, it can be.”

In Lebron’s eyes, because one white person–like Dylann Roof–was a white supremacist, the entire black community needs to rise up and break down societal convention.

No matter that African-Americans are more likely to kill African-Americans than they are to be killed by whites. And no matter that–because of the Left’s policies that have gutted black families, encouraged single-parent households, and discouraged work–African-Americans are economically falling farther and farther behind other races, even as racism continues to disappear.

Obviously, this is problematic. There’s no excuse for white supremacy–and there’s no excuse for shooting up a room of anyone, least of all Christians in a house of worship.

But, on the flip side of the coin, there’s similarly no excuse for “black radicalism” either.

America still has a long way to go to fix its societal problems, but exchanging violence against one race for violence against another? That wouldn’t do anything but lead to bloodshed, and widen the rift between whites and blacks. That seems like an obvious point–unless you’re Chris Lebron and The New York Times.


Republican Representative Jason Chaffetz (Utah), chairman of the US House Oversight Committee, claimed on Sunday, that he has planned a private talk with James...