Entries in New York Times (8)


Democrat Cory Booker demands an end to the Jewish State

Calling for the end to the border wall and other fortifications that protect Israel against terrorists is like calling for a second Holocaust.  It is not enough that Cory Booker’s international allies have driven Jews out of every country they control, now he wants to tear down Israel’s protective barrier and allow them to march in to commence a pogrom of terror, torture, rape, and murder.

And to make matters worse, thanks to the Philadelphia Inquirer, now we know that Booker’s fellow Democrat – Bob Menendez – is allowing his campaign to be run by a lobbyist for the foreign government of Qatar, one of the worse anti-Jewish culprits in the world and a government criticized by the United Nations and Amnesty International for its relaxed attitudes towards modern slavery – human trafficking and the exploitation of children.

So why are wannabe Democrat politicians like Mikie Sherrill, Tom Malinowski, and Andy Kim hanging out with Booker and Menendez?  Andy follows Menendez around so closely that if the Senator stopped suddenly, he would find Andy’s head lodged firmly up his bunghole.  Tom and Mikie are that way with Booker too.  So what’s up with the hero worship of these cretins?

Over the last couple days, both the New York Times and its little sister, the Newark Star Ledger, have been openly advocating on behalf of congressional candidate Mikie Sherrill.  They are shilling for her, spinning for her, claiming that if she were to attend a rally of the Ku Klux Klan, she (and only she, mind you) would be doing so strictly as an observer.  One could not conclude that she was in simpatico with the Klan, even if she asked for their votes – so the New York Times and Newark Star Ledger argue – unless she actually put a torch to the cross and set it on fire.  That’s what these newspapers are arguing.  As their special pet, they claim that Mikie Sherrill should be treated like a journalist looking for copy instead of a politician looking for votes.

So if a Republican attended a far-right rally, the newspapers claim the right to link him to the far-right and then to call for his resignation.  But when a Democrat (especially their special pet, Mikie Sherrill) attended a far-left rally, and asked for their votes, the newspapers claim it is a “lie” to say that she supports them and they support her.  Of course, the old double-standard at work again.

If anyone tries to tell you that the New York Times isn’t biased, remind them of this one important FACT:  The last time the New York Times endorsed a Republican for President was in 1956.  Anyone who voted in that election would be at least 83 years old today.  Any American under 83 has never seen a New York Times endorsement of a Republican.  That’s pretty damned biased.

Like Andy Kim and Tom Malinowski, Mikie Sherrill is a former Obama administration bureaucrat who responded to the election of a new American President by becoming part of a “resistance” movement.  So much for democracy, the rule of law, the Republic… and so much for humility. 

This is a generation raised on make-believe.  So instead of grappling with reality, they made pretend they were living in France, circa 1940, during its occupation by the Wehrmacht – and that they are the brave boys and girls of the French Resistance. 

Mikie Sherrill, who never ceases to remind us that she flew a helicopter for the Navy, seems to want to forget how she got this far… She knew that Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen, a Veteran of the Vietnam War, was getting up there in age and that his health was in decline.  She also knew that he was one of the most bi-partisan members of Congress… known for his mild, gentlemanly demeanor, respected by both parties, willing to work with all sides to find solutions.

But Mikie Sherrill didn’t care.  She set her Antifa hoodlums on this elderly Vietnam Veteran.

They screamed and shouted down old Congressman Frelinghuysen – spat insults at him, called him vicious names, trashed his name and all the good works that he stood for.  Just as Rodney Frelinghuysen was about to secure mass transit service for Sussex County… Mikie Sherrill’s loudmouths tortured the old fellow, drove up his blood pressure, rattled his nerves, to the point that he quietly exited the stage.

Good job, jackasses.

You lost New Jersey one of its most powerful advocates in Congress – no, not with press releases, but in his quiet way, he knew how to get things done in Congress. He secured the post of Chairman of the Appropriations Committee in 2017.  In this powerful position, Rodney Frelinghuysen would have been able to accomplish so much for our state.  Now that’s all gone.  You killed the guy who was in the best position to serve our state and don’t think for one moment that some wet-behind-the-ears freshman is going to make a patch on Rodney’s arse.

What got us to thinking about this was candidate Mikie Sherrill’s recent cable advertisement in which she poses in front of a helicopter that wasn’t in Vietnam and talks about how she wants to be a “bi-partisan” force for good.  That’s bullshit.  You just killed off the most effective “bi-partisan” force for good in the state. 

Meanwhile, her fellow “resistance” movement people target a mixed-race couple having breakfast at a café in Philadelphia because they happen to hold free-market ideas on economics and somebody recognized them.  Enlightened members of the “resistance” smashed up a United States Marine Corps recruiting office and attacked police for the same reasons they went after Vietnam Vet Rodney Frelinghuysen… and the same reason they scream “abolish ICE” and protest enforcing the law.   They’re on planet make-believe… and Mikie Sherrill is there with them.  In full embrace.  She owns it.


Reason magazine demolishes “Russian troll hysteria”

The conventional story is that Russian trolls infiltrated the 2016 election with fake social media ads. But according to details from a February 2018 indictment of those trolls, it's unclear how much of an effect they actually had.

Federal prosecutors have filed charges against 13 Russians who allegedly sought to "sow discord in the U.S. political system" through social media posts, ads, and videos falsely presented as the work of Americans. After the indictment was unveiled in February, The New York Times reported that Donald Trump's "admirers and detractors" both agree with him that "the Russians intended to sow chaos" and "have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams." But Reason Senior Editor Jacob Sullum says a close look at the indictment tells a different story.

Here are "5 Reasons Not to Feed the Russian Troll Hysteria:"

1) Russian trolling was a drop in the bucket. According to the indictment, Russian trolls associated with the so-called Internet Research Agency (IRA) in Saint Petersburg spent "thousands of U.S. dollars every month" on social media ads, which is a minuscule fraction of online ad revenue. Facebook alone reported advertising revenue of $9.16 billion in the second quarter of 2017. The Russians are said to be responsible for producing 43 hours of YouTube videos, but that doesn't seem like very much when you consider that 400 hours of content are uploaded to the site every minute.

2) Russian trolls were not very sophisticated. Russian trolls supposedly had the Machiavellian know-how to infiltrate the American political system, but their social media posts don't look very sophisticated. The posts often featured broken English and puzzling topic choices. A post promoting a "buff" Bernie Sanders coloring book, for instance, noted that "the coloring is something that suits for all people." Another post showed Jesus and Satan in an arm wrestling match under this caption: "SATAN: IF I WIN CLINTON WINS! JESUS: NOT IF I CAN HELP IT!" The post generated very few clicks and shares.

3) Russian troll rallies apparently did not attract many participants. The indictment makes much of pro-Trump and anti-Clinton rallies instigated by Russian trolls, but it does not say how many people participated. The New York Times reported that a Russian-organized rally in Texas opposing Shariah law attracted a dozen people. An anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim rally in Idaho drew four people. Attendance at other rallies was similarly sparse.

4) Russian trolling probably didn't change anyone's mind. Broken English aside, the social media posts were not qualitatively different from content created by American activists, and they seemed to be aimed mainly at reinforcing pre-existing beliefs and divisions. The Russians might have gotten a few Trump supporters to show up at anti-Clinton rallies, but that does not mean they had an impact on the election.

5) Russian troll hysteria depicts free speech as a kind of violence. The Justice Department describes the messages posted by Russians pretending to be Americans as "information warfare." But while the posts may have been sophomoric, inaccurate, and illogical, that does not distinguish them from most of what passes for online political discussion among actual Americans. The integrity of civic discourse does not depend on verifying the citizenship of people who participate in it. It depends on the ability to weigh what they say, checking it against our own values and information from other sources. If voters cannot do that, maybe democracy is doomed. But if so, it's not the Russians' fault.

You can subscribe to Reason magazine’s  YouTube channel: http://youtube.com/reasontv

Or visit them on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magazine/

Or follow them on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reason



Democrats, their Media, and how they got us Vietnam

The Establishment media talks endlessly about being the sole source of “real” news. These massive corporations – with financial holdings and economic interests that go well beyond “media” – are really just part of the larger entertainment industry. 

Of course, this is just a sales pitch to buy their products.  Establishment media claims it is the best or the only source of reliable news.  And it claims that all “alternative” sources (non-corporate/ non-Establishment/ or in New Jersey, non-subsidized) are so-called “FAKE” news.  That too is a form of advertising – a negative attack on a competing product – not unlike the advertising campaign used to promote this product…

The truth is that Establishment media long ago lost its credibility with the American public.  It happened when it got involved in politics and allowed the desire for a particular electoral outcome to trump its integrity.  It happened in 1964, when Establishment media traded intellectual curiosity (going where the facts took you) for partisanship (presenting the “facts” to achieve a desired end).  You can see the effects today, as in this exchange between two reporters…

The one seems ready to swoon, almost sexually aroused by the pronouncements of the other.  And to what end?  Rasmussen recently released polling numbers indicating that 54 percent of American voters buy Trump’s story on illegal immigration and the treatment of children at the border, while just 35 percent have swallowed the Establishment media’s version.  This is what happens when you sell bullshit for so long.  People turn you off.


The 1964 presidential campaign between Democrat incumbent Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) and Republican Barry Goldwater was as contentious as the Clinton-Trump race of 2016.  The Establishment media and entertainment industry overwhelmingly supported LBJ against Goldwater, a populist right winger.

The Establishment pulled out all the stops, even lining up more than a thousand psychiatrists to publicly question the Republican’s sanity…


So much for Establishment media and “fact-checking”.   

Long after the election was decided and the Republican safely defeated, the American Psychiatric Society ruled that what had been done to Barry Goldwater was “unethical” and to prevent it from happening again, passed Section 7 in its Principles of Medical Ethics.  Informally called “The Goldwater Rule”, it states that it is “unethical” for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures they have not examined in person and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public. 

What the Establishment media perpetrated was so egregious that the Courts allowed Goldwater to sue Fact magazine.  Editor Ralph Ginzburg was sued for libel and Goldwater collected $75,000 (approximately $592,000 today) in damages.Now that is “FAKE NEWS”! 

Of course, all the major newspapers – led by the New York Times– endorsed LBJ.   

Hey, how old are you if you were a voter the last time the New York Times endorsed a Republican for President? 

Answer:  At least 82 years old! 

Yep, the New York Times has not endorsed a Republican for President since 1956!  How is that for fair and non-partisan?

In its 1964 endorsement of LBJ, the New York Times raised some themes that we recognize today:

“In fact, of the Goldwater-Miller campaign, the less said the better.”

“…if the wrong choice is made, the nation will face foreign disaster and domestic chaos.  The choice is not what it usually is in American Presidential elections: a choice between two variations of the middle.  This time the choice is such that if President Johnson and his administration are defeated, and Senator Goldwater and his adherents are elected, the country will be facing an upheaval of major proportions in both foreign and domestic policy.”

“Defeat of the Goldwater-Miller ticket will help restore control of the Republican party to the ranks of reason and moderation and thereby strengthen a two-party system that has been seriously endangered by their nomination.  But more important than this consideration is the fact that a Goldwater-Miller victory would divide the United States from its allies, would hearten and solidify its enemies, would represent a triumph for the radical right, a defeat of liberalism, a retrogression from the domestic policies that during the past generation have brought this country to its present state of prosperity.  We hope and believe that the American electorate will give the Johnson-Humphrey ticket a resounding victory.”

In aid of achieving this “resounding victory”, the Establishment media went all out… to the point that they willingly shilled for LBJ when he sold the Congress and the American public on the need to provide him with war-powers to pursue a broader conflict in Vietnam.  

Later this summer, will fall the 54th anniversary of the Gulf of Tonkin incident – which directly led to America’s war with North Vietnam.  In fact, today we know that the incident was almost entirely fabricated.  That there was, in fact, no “incident.” 

But the media was on a “mission” to elect a Democrat President and elect him they did.  Lyndon Baines Johnson won with 43 million votes and 486 electoral votes.  He won 44 of the 50 states and control of both Houses of Congress.

But the lie that helped him win continued to haunt America. 58,000 dead American soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen later – after a decade believing what the Establishment media had been too partisan to question – the facts began to emerge.

Only a fool would trust the Establishment media on any issue in which they have a partisan interest.  It is the same as in 1964, when they lied… and we died.


NY Times writer leads PAC that attacks suburban Republicans

A group from Amherst, Massachusetts, the only town in America that flies the UN flag in front of its town hall, is coming to New Jersey's 3rd District, home of one of America's largest military bases and a large population of serving and retired military personnel.

The group, Swing Left, was founded by a New York Times travel writer from Amherst, Massachusetts, a solidly Left-Democrat area.  He told the New Yorkermagazine that where he lived there was "no immediate opportunities to flip or meaningfully defend a congressional district." 

“No Republican ran for office around here—they didn’t even bother—and a lot of progressives live in districts like that,” he said. So he went home and perused CNN’s Web site to find the closest district where the margin of victory was close. It was New York’s 19th Congressional District...  “I was getting ready to post on Facebook, to say that I would commit my time and energy to flipping N.Y. 19 in 2018,” he said. “But then I wondered, Why did I just have to do that? Why doesn’t a tool for finding your nearest swing district already exist?”


So bubbleland comes to suburbia.  Not to live here, of course, but to choose our elected officials, so that they can inflict on suburbia the kind of fashion statements that bubbleland demands.

We asked some Swinging Lefties why they didn't just move to places they consider uncool and boring -- like most of New Jersey -- there was a uniform gasp, followed by "no way!"  Perish the thought!

Swing Left isn't looking to become your neighbor.  They just want to choose your Member of Congress.

And it's not just the 3rd District they're coming for.  Democrat Andy Kim may be their latest love interest, but they are also playing for Democrat incumbent Josh Gottheimer -- and for the eventual Democrat nominees in the 2nd, 7th, and 11th districts.

The presence of the U.N. flag in front of the Amherst town hall is important, because the U.N. has a very particular record regarding Israel:

"As of 2013, Israel had been condemned in 45 resolutions by United Nations Human Rights Council. Since its creation in 2006—the Council had resolved almost more resolutions condemning Israel than on the rest of the world combined. The 45 resolutions comprised almost half (45.9%) of all country-specific resolutions passed by the Council, not counting those under Agenda Item 10 (countries requiring technical assistance)."

Some call this anti-Semitic. 

The flag has stirred up a lot of controversy.

They say timing is everything. But for indoctrinated college students, timing, along with respect, apparently doesn’t matter much as long as their narrative is heard.

On the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, unidentified students at Amherst College in Massachusetts hung a banner outside a campus dining hall shaming the U.S. for its “war on terror.”

Here’s the banner in question:

The banner reads, “There is no place large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. In honor of those killed and displaced by America’s so-called ‘war on terror.’”


Selling out: Media's decline from Al Doblin to Jonathan Salant

New Jersey's establishment media -- its editors and reporters -- are in a freefall and have lost their sense of decency.  Job security is such that they have all become free agents, writing articles to please prospective employers. 

So we have Star-Ledger Editor Tom Moran performing a masochistic panegyric to please Democrat machine boss George Norcross.  Over at the Bergen Record, that newspaper's editor was turning out pro-Democrat columns non-stop while engaging in backdoor negotiations with Senate President Steve Sweeney's office.  A few years ago, boss Norcross tried to buy the Philadelphia Inquirer, now his machine is getting all the talent on the cheap.

The NJGOP's answer to this was predictably self-defeating.  It's idea of a GOP counterbalance to the growing Democrat hegemony over media was to bring back Bridgegate mastermind David "Wally Edge" Wildstein, possibly the only person more hated in New Jersey than his old boss, Chris Christie.  To fund Wildstein's operation they found former Jamestown alumnus Ken Kurson.  It was Kurson who ran such memorable efforts as incumbent Marcia Karrow's loss to Mike Doherty in 2009 and incumbent Jeff Parrott's loss to Parker Space in 2010.  But losing has never been a bar to advancement in the NJGOP.  In fact, it generally is an asset.

Yep, Kurson has been accused of sexual harassment by writer and cancer-survivor Deborah Copaken.  This comes at a time when Kurson's old firm is trying to convince the women of New Jersey that the NJGOP's choice for U.S. Senate -- Bob Hugin -- is a new kind of man, when it comes to women (whatever that is supposed to mean).  You can read about what Kurson gets up to here:  


It was Wildstein who outted Al Doblin as the ethical-free-zone he is.  Doblin plainly hated the kind of attention he's bestowed on others his entire working life.  In a series of whines, he complained to Wildstein: 

“I am the editorial page editor.  If someone makes me an offer, I have the right to consider it,” Doblin explained.

Doblin called a request for information regarding his employment search “truly horrific.”

“This is unfair.  Truly unfair,” he said. 

But Doblin is not the worst of the bunch.  That "honor" must surely go to Jonathan "short-ass" Salant, a reporter worthy of his own Duranty Prize for consistent blindness to all but the party-line.  In case you've forgotten Walter "the hand" Duranty.  He's the assbandit who denied that Stalin was starving to death millions of human beings in the Ukraine and elsewhere in what was once called the "Soviet Union".  He even won a Pulitzer Prize for it. 

Duranty wrote for the New York Times, which later was forced to admit that his articles denying the famine constituted "some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper."  There have been calls to revoke his Pulitzer, but you know how tough it is to get elitist filth to admit they made a mistake.  So Duranty's award -- for 1930's era Fake News -- still stands.  And so much for journalism.

Salant's latest dry-humping of the news came a few weeks back, when he attempted to write an update of the various congressional races in New Jersey.  

He started off by being childishly giddy about Republican Leonard Lance's district having gone for Hillary Clinton in 2016, while failing to mention that Democrat Josh Gottheimer's had done the same for Trump that year. 

Salant never fails to describe a Republican donor negatively, offering bits of color, always dark.  On the other hand, old short-ass describes such creatures as George Soros in this light:  "Malinowski (received a donation of) $5,400 from investor George Soros, a major Democratic donor."

Investor?  A major Democratic donor??  How about convicted financial scammer who liberal economists have criticized for his callous manipulations of currency?  

Perhaps Salant is displaying his talents for the consideration of one of the many Soros media organs?  That seems to be the way these days. 

In writing about the fifth district, Jonathan Salant somehow missed the fact that a third Republican, Jason Sarnosky, had dropped out of the race weeks before.  He wrote about him as if he were still campaigning.  

He went on to cover the race in southern New Jersey's first district.  And once again, Salant behaved like he was on a job interview.  He never once mentioned the machine that bears the Congressman's name and wrote as if it didn't exist. 

Not to place Donald Norcross in the context of the machine of which he is a part is misleading and unethical.  It promotes bad government by purposefully covering up the truth and it gives aid and comfort to one of the most authoritarian political machines in America.  Don't want to see it, Jonathan?  Well just try being an ordinary citizen when the machine decides it wants to use eminent domain to take your property in order to give it to one of their corporate friends.  That's what you are shilling for. 

The southern region of New Jersey is an example of a dominant-party system or one-party dominant system of government.  According to South African political scientist Raymond Suttner, such a system occurs when there is "a category of parties/political organizations that have successively won election victories and whose future defeat cannot be envisaged or is unlikely for the foreseeable future".  It is a de facto one-party system, often devolving into a de jure one-party system, a semi-democracy. Usually, the dominant party has a tendency towards "suppressing freedom of expression and manipulating the press in favor of the ruling party." 

Well, short-ass, that is who you are shilling for.  That is who you are now.  All those romantic post-Watergate notions about doing right... well you're over that, right?  Expensive restaurants and sexy vacations got the better of you, didn't they?