Posts Tagged ‘NY TIMES’

NY Times Upset Over Democrat Panic

October 22, 2014

A recent NY Times editorial expressed dismay over the “panicky Democratic flight away from President Obama”, complaining that “nervous members of his own party have done a poor job of defending his policies over the nearly six years of his presidency” which allowed “a Republican narrative of failure to take hold”. That’s a lot of blind rationalization to swallow.

It is certainly not credible that a Republican “narrative” beat the media’s (especially the Times’) constant and unconditional positive spin on Obama. Who can really believe that Democrats (Pelosi, Reid, Chris Matthews, Barbara Boxer, etc.) didn’t defend his policies? That’s pretty much all they did while refusing to entertain or acknowledge any criticism. Only the Democrat panic part rings true.

The Times’ editorial board reached backward for successes but failed to see the failure those so-called “successes” have become. Pointing to the 2009 stimulus bill as a reason for economic recovery ignores the fact that our economy is still doing poorly and has not recovered. Boasting the creation of “2.5 million jobs” ignores that 75% of jobs created this year are part-time and that 9.5 million people have left the workforce under Obama’s poor economy.

Pointing to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) as another “success” is laughable considering that it is a main factor responsible for all those part-time jobs and the exodus from the workforce. Rate increases, reduced coverage, policy cancelations, and uncertainty plague the nation (with more to come) in order to provide health insurance for approximately 10% of the population – and only 10% of those have actually obtained insurance so far. That’s one sad “success” story.

The NY Times’ editorial board makes no mention of foreign policy, Obama’s most glaring failure, or the continuing indecision he displays. Instead, they travel back to the good old days when blind faith in Obama ruled the day, all Democrats were in lock-step, and Obama’s word was sacred. Times have changed, but it seems that the Times hasn’t.

It’s time to vote for another “change”.

David J. Hentosh

See No Evil

August 25, 2014

ISIS is a large, well-financed, blood-thirsty army storming unimpeded through Iraq murdering all who do not agree to their repressive demands. They have ravaged Syria, beheaded an American (with two more US captives being threatened), demanded (and received) ransoms from European countries, are in the process of taking over Iraq, and have informed us that they are intent on coming to the U.S. to kill as many as possible, having our open southern border available for easy entry.

Here’s what the Daily Kos, which sees no evil, thinks of ISIS: “You know how much threat ISIS represents to the United States? None…ISIS is a ragtag organization on the far side of the world…ISIS could no more threaten the United States than Lindsey Graham could punch God in the nose…You know what ISIS is? A bunch of politicians…They are not a threat…”

Michael J. Boyle of the NY Times tells us the beheading of American journalist James Foley has “led to a disturbing return of the moralistic language once used to describe Al Qaeda in the panicked days after the 9/11 attacks.” Boyle worries that condemning ISIS as evil “conveys a moral clarity and separates ourselves and our tactics from the enemy and theirs”. Boyle should be thankful we have the moral clarity to separate ourselves from the tactics of ISIS. Moral clarity helped make this country great.

The attack on 9/11 by a small band of terrorists was certainly evil and it wreaked havoc on our entire economy and changed our way of life. The NY Times refuses to accept it as evil and The Daily Kos would have us believe that a much larger, better financed, and highly motivated terrorist army such as ISIS poses no threat. Far-left heads are buried in moral equivalent sand.

Perhaps an even larger threat to our country comes from those believing in the idealistic and foolish notion of moral equivalency. Allowing it to become government policy is as dangerous as it gets and proudly proclaiming it is just stupid.

David J. Hentosh

Operation Hillary

January 6, 2014

The campaign to elect Hillary president in 2016 has begun. Just like a military operation, it was kicked off by a general, Wesley Clark, with an offer of free bumper stickers. Coinciding with this offer, the central command for Operation Hillary, the NY Times, began printing propaganda in an effort to clear the mud surrounding Hillary.

Much like the Russian newspaper Pravda in the days of the cold war, the NY Times ignored reality and printed its official Operation Hillary view of the Benghazi fiasco, citing an internal “investigation”: “The attack was led…by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam”.

It is incredible that the totally debunked idea of a spontaneous, video-inspired uprising is being resurrected by the NY Times. Not only have “some members of Congress” found the video blame to be false, Libyan President Mohammed Magarief and the Obama administration have both acknowledged that it was a planned terrorist attack backed by al Qaida at Benghazi. It was just reported this past week that the U.S. government is searching for an al Qaeda terrorist wanted for his role in the attack.

Nevertheless, the NY Times finds itself in the awkward position of having to explain away Hillary’s State Department attempt to blame the attack on the video. Since that attempt is well-documented, the only thing the NY Times can do is pretend it was true. It will now stick by its story and repeat it until it sticks in its readers’ heads.

The Ready for Hillary super PAC rented an email list from Hillary’s failed 2008 campaign in order to contact past supporters and get them on board. Though Hillary has not yet declared herself to be a candidate, her campaign has certainly started with her approval but first, her sullied past needs to be cleaned. The NY Times is on the job.

Here comes the next “let’s make history” presidential campaign.

David J. Hentosh

Castro Speaks – Friedman Agrees

January 29, 2012

An endorsement for a presidential candidate from Fidel Castro is not something to be proud of unless one is ideologically blind to the reality of Castro’s murderous and dictatorial reign. Thus, we find NY Times’ Thomas Friedman quoting Castro in order to validate his own distaste of GOP presidential candidates.

Friedman cited Castro’s claim that: “The selection of a Republican candidate for president of that globalized and encompassing empire is – I say this seriously – the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been heard.”  Perhaps for a partisan ideologue such as Friedman, this is a slap in the face for those candidates. In reality, it should be treated as an asset that an enemy of the US who trampled human rights for decades does not agree with GOP principles.

What, then, does that say about those who love Castro? Not much, except that they will use anyone and anything to assist in bashing the country that protects the freedom to do so. They do not, of course, have the courage to go to Cuba and speak out against Castro’s human rights violations; therefore, they ignore them and, instead, treat Castro as a gallant hero of the people.

It is disgraceful; yet, it goes on and on, fueled by a self-righteous indignation toward anyone who does not drink the Kool-Aid of an ideology based on dependence of government to provide the needs of all. Those needs, of course, are to be determined by the chosen few who know best. Thus, Castro is revered as one who attained that goal.

It is pathetic.

David J. Hentosh